A PAIRE OF SPECTACLES FOR SIR HVMFREY LINDE TO SEE HIS WAY WITHALL.

OR AN ANSWEARE TO HIS booke called, VIA TVTA, A safe way: wherein the booke is shewed to be a laby­rinthe of error and the author a blind guide. By I. R.

The children of Israel say the way of our Lord is not right. What are not my wayes right o house of Israel, and not rather your wayes crooked? Ezech. 18.29.

Catholicae fidei regula velut via est quae te ducat ad patriam. The rule of the Catholique faith is as it were the way which may lea­de thee to thy country.

Qui praetergreditur regulam fidei, non accedit in via sed recedit de via. He that goeth beside the rule of faith (which is the Catholique Church) doth not come in the way, but goeth out of the way.

Aug. tract. 98. in Io.

PERMISSV SVPERIORVM.

1631.

THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY TO SIR HVMPHREY Linde.

1. SIR some while since, you wrote a booke of the Visibility of your Church, calling it via tu­ta, a safe way; prouoked therevnto, as you say, by the challenge of a Iesuit: to which now after a long pause, you see­me to answeare, though it bee not (as you also say) your profession; thereby to vindicate the cause of your Mother, the Church of England; and maintaine your owne credit. And all this you pre­tend to doe out of our owne authors. It is true Sir Humphrey, that a Iesuit made [Page] you a challenge, as many haue done be­fore, and doe still to all Protestants, to shew where their Church was before Luther; and thereby haue putt them to much study and paine, to find her out. And some finding the taske soe hard, haue beene faine to turne about ano­ther way, and tell vs it is not needfull for the Church to be visible, which they proue,God's arrow against God's enemyes by Hen Smith. Cap. 5. Fulke Apoc. cap. 12. because in the dayes of Elias it perished, as they say; for he said he was left alone; and in the Apoca­lyps it is said, that the Woman shall fly into the desert. Which say they is all one, as that the Church must be inuisible. But you now, as it should seeme, taking your self to bee somewhat a better man then others that haue gone before you, will needs take vpon you to shew where your Church was before Luther. Wherein you are soe glorious and con­fident, that you stile your booke a safe way leadinge all Christians to the true, an­cient, and Catholique faith, now professed in the Church of England; and this you vn­dertake to performe by the testimo­nies and confessions euen of your best [Page] learned aduersaries.

2. Which booke of yours, though it hath beene long out, and gained you much fame among some of your owne sect, yet amonge Catholiques it hath seemed of soe small account as noe man hath all this while thought it worth the answearing, thinking it the best way of answeare for such toyes to let them dye as they springe: but since you not conceiuing this to bee the true reason of our silence, nor hauing re­guard to your owne credit which is les­se impaired by silence then writing, stand still printing and reprinting this your wise peece of worke, I haue thought good to giue it some answea­re. For though my intention at first, were only to satisfye a priuate freind, (which was somewhat stumbled with it) by gathering some few corruptiōs, whereby hee might guesse of the rest; Yet coming to reade your booke, and finding the very choyce hard in such aboundance of corruptions; and consi­dering that many conceiued highly thereof, the rather because it was not [Page] answeared, I resolued vpon a little mo­re full answeare, which might serue for satisfaction, not onely of that one freind, but of others also, who may ha­ue conceiued the like opinion of this your booke: the very title and first page especially mouing mee therevnto, in which are contained soe great promi­ses, or rather soe great braggs, that if Sir Humphrey, you make them good, wee may well change your name from Sir Humphrey to Sir Hercules; for it is more then an Herculian labour which you vndertake therein: if you doe not, I presume you wilbe content to change your surname of Lynde to another word, not farre different in sound, as beginning with the two first letters the same, and more sutable to your deeds: though (not to vndubbe you) howsoeuer the matter fall out, there will still be left for you a title of Sir. Which title should seeme a little by your phrase of speaking, to bee the thing that made you engage your selfe in this quarrell, as if by the honour of your Knighthoode you thought your [Page] selfe boūd therevnto: which if it were,Sir Fr. Ha­stings. Sir Edw. Hobby. Sir Edw. Cooke. you might haue remēbred, how ill so­me such Knight venturers as your self haue sped with their zeale. But seing, you will not be ware by other men's harmes, but be putting your fingar into the fire, you must take your chance as they did. And for triall of this quarrell you shall giue mee leaue to enter into the lists with you in the examination of the booke it self: heere only I shall a little examine what you say in your dedicatory Epistle.

3. In which, I reflect first, vpon the title, which is, to the religious and well affected Gentry of this Kingdome, what should be the cause, you should de­dicate this your worke to the Gentry particularly, the thing yt self pertay­ning alike to all sortes of men, who ha­ue soules to saue; vnlesse it were that by hauing specially to doe with Gētle­mē, you would faine seeme to haue so­mewhat of the Gentlemen. For which I blame you not, hauing need thereof: for setting your Knighthood a part, it may be your gentry may be questioned, yf it be true that I haue heard, of the [Page] honest Grocer your father, who dwelt next doore to the George in Kings streete: by which your birth as it were by a natural kinde of congruity, you may seeme rather ordained to haue to doe with a pestel and a morter, then a sworde, or pen. This I doe not say Sir Humphrey, that a man meanely borne, may not by his deserts come into a bet­ter ranke; for reason, authority, and example of all sorts teach the contra­ry; but because, as nobility of extrac­tion and vertue ioyned together, adde and receiue lustre reciprocally one frō the other; Soe meanesse of qualities or conditions, such as you shew in your writings, and as (God willing) I shall out of them manifestly proue, doth more shew it selfe, being ioyned with a meane birth and education, the one as it were bearing witnes of the other. Wherefore mee thinkes Sir, you being priuy to your owne wants of this kind, should haue forborne to proclayme them to the world by this manner of writing; which euery man presently seeth, cannot come from an ingenuous [Page] disposition, such as a Gentleman is pre­sumed to haue.

4. But now to come to your Epistle it self, you say you haue attempted to send forth this Essay of your poore en­deauours, to make the world see, it is noe difficult matter for a meane Lay man, to proue the ancient Visibility of the Protestant profession; prouoked thereto by a Iesuit's challenge, to shew out of good authors, that the Prote­stant's church was visible in all ages before Luther; and this you vndertake to doe, not onely out of the most or­thodox fathers, but alsoe out of the Ro­mish Bishops. Doctours, Cardinals &c. This essay of your labours Sir Hum­phrey, is poore indeede, not to stand complementinge with you, as I shall after shew: and for your proofes out of Fathers, and other writers in the Roma­ne Church, wee shall there also see what ones, they are; that is, either no­thing to the purpose, or out of Authors branded with the marks of heresy, or at least temerity and singularity. For the challenge it selfe, wherein consisteth [Page] the state of the question, I say heere, that you doe not sett it downe soe true­ly and fully, as you should. For you were to shew the Visibility of your Church, by naming some who in all ages did professe the Protestant faith, as it is now taught, and professed in En­gland, entirely beleiuing all that is heere beleiued, and beleeuinge no­thing els that is contrary vnto it. Which you might haue done, if it could be done, out of some good hi­stories, without standing vpon proo­fes of the particular points of doctri­ne, out of this or that author, for that was not to the present pur­pose.

5. Neither were it sufficient, as you say in your next paragraphe, seeing it is confessed on all sides, that the faith of Christ in the first age had visible Pro­fessours, therefore to proue that the Faith of the Church of England is that, which was deliuered to the Saints by Christ, and his Apostles, without farther recitall of succeeding witnesses: this I say were not suffi­cient. [Page] For the chalenge then which you were now to answeare, and con­trouersy which you were to handle, was not soe much of the truth of this or that particular point, or of the doctrine euen in generall, but of the Church it self, which was to deliuer the doctrine, and by which we were to come to the knowledge of the truth, who the men were, that were trusted to keepe the depositū which S. Paul gaue Timothy charge of, where the Church was, which the same S. Paul calleth the howse of God, the pillar and firma­ment of truth? Which was the seede of Christ, whereof I say prophecieth, and promiseth in the person of God the Father, to his Sonne, that hee would neuer take away the words of truth from their mouth? Hoc foedus meum cum eis dicit Dominus. Spiritus meus, Isai. 59.21. qui est in te, & verba mea, quae po­sui in ore tuo, non recedent de ore tuo, & de ore seminis tui, & de ore Seminis Seminis tui, dicit Dominus, amo­do & vsque in sempiternum. This is my couenant with them saith our Lord. [Page] My spiritt that is in thee, and my words that I haue put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth, and out of the mouth of thy seede, and out of the mouth of thy Seed's seede saith our Lord from this present and for euer. Who they bee, to whom our blessed Sauiour himself in person, and with his owne mouth promised, that he would send the Spirit of truth to remayne with them for euer? and that himself would be with them to the consum­mation of the world? Soe as this con­trouersy being of the Church it self, which was to be found out, by the visi­bility and succession thereof, not soe much by the doctrine, it could be no way sufficient to proue that the doctri­ne of the Protestant church, was taught anciently: though that can ne­uer bee proued. For as I say the que­stion is not of the doctrine, but of the persons: Wherein the Iesuit tooke the right way, like a wise man and a good scholar, to find out the Doctrine, which is a thing more spirituall and lesse subiect to the sense, by that which [Page] is corporall and more subiect to the view of all sorts of men. For this is the way that all Scholars, in the teaching of all Sciences take, to wit, to beginne with that which is knowne and eui­dent, and by it to come to the know­ledge of that which is hidden, accor­ding to Aristotel's Doctrine.

6. And this hath euer beene the way, which the holy fathers haue taken, ey­ther in prouing the Catholique faith, or disprouinge of heresies. Soe Tertullian, praescrip. cap. 32. & lib. 3. car. adu. Marcio. soe Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 1.2.3. & lib. 4. cap. 43.45.46. soe Cyprian, ep. 52. & 76. Op­tatus, lib. 2. aduer. Parm. and most of all that great Do­ctour S. Augustine psal. 2. part. Don. & ep. 165. & de vtil. cre­dend. cap. 7. in seuerall places; and particularly in his booke de vtilitate credenai: where writinge to his freind Honoratus, whom he laboureth to draw from the Manichaean heresy, and put­ting case that he did doubt what reli­gion to follow, he saith without doubt he were to beginne his enquiry from the Catholique Church. Proculdubio ab Ecclesia Catholica sumendum exordium. For saith hee, whereas there be among Christians many heresies, all which de­sire to seeme Catholiques, and call [Page] others Haeretiques, there is one Church, as all graunt, if you reguard the whole world refertior multitudine, vt autem qui nouerunt affirmant etiam veritate sincerior caeteris omnibus, sed de veritate alia quae­stio est. More full of people, and as they that know her for truth more sincere then any other: but of the truth, it is another question. Soe as heere Saint Augustine maketh the first question of the Church it self: Which he maketh to bee the first thing that a man that doubteth and seeketh to saue his soule must enquire after, leauing the truth of the doctrine to be disputed in the se­cond place.praescr. cap. 19. The like also hath Tertullian giuing withall a good reason thereof: for making this prescription or excep­tion against Haeretiques, that we are not to admitt them soe farre as to dis­pute with them of Scriptures, he sayth it is first to be disputed. Quibus competat fides ipsa &c. to whom faith it selfe belongeth, to the which the Scriptures pertaine. From whom, and by whom, and when, and to whom that discipline was deliuered, whe­reby [Page] men are made Christians. For where it shall appeare, that there is the truth of Christian discipline and faith there shalbe the truth of scri­ptures and expositions, and all Chri­stian traditions, soe Tertullian. In whose iudgement it is plaine, that we are first to seeke the persons that professe the faith, that is the Church: because there certainely is the truth to be found. Which is the course wee Catholiques take, and perswade other men to take, following the stepps of our Forefathers; to wit, to seeke out the Visible Church: whereas Haeretiques, as appeareth by Saint Augustine in the same booke, take the cleane contrary course iust as you doe heere Sir Humphrey.

7. This therefore being the thing which you, should haue done, and you being soe mistaken in it, what can be expected at your hands, but that by declining the question, in stee­de of vindicatinge your Mother's cau­se, and maintayning your owne credit, [Page] you betray the one, and ouerthrow the other; being not able to shew your pe­digree and Succession, and in steed of making men see it is noe difficult mat­ter to proue your visibility, to make them see it is not onely difficult, but al­so impossible. For though you pretend facility in words, yet in deeds you shew impossibility. That then which you say in your brauery, that you will meete the aduersary vpon his owne ground, and deale with him at his owne weapō euery man seeth how false and vaine a florish it is. For your aduersaryes ground that hee appointeth you, is to shew your Succession in all ages; and his weapon is a catalogue of Bishops and Pastours succeeding one another; Euangelists, and Doctours, the former to gouerne, the later to instruct, such as S. Paul, mentioneth Ephes. 4.11. And he gaue some Apostles, and some Prophets, and other some Euangelists, and other some Pastours and Doctours, to the consummation of the Saints, vnto the worke of the ministe­ry, vnto the edifying of the body of Christ, vntill wee meete all into the vnity of Faith. [Page] Bring such a Succession of Pastours, such a people, liuing in this or that Cit­ty or Countrey, professing the same faith and beleife which Protestants now doe; and you meete your aduersary vpon the same termes; for of this kind of weapon he hath offered you many, as Genebrard, Gualterus, Bellarmine, San­ders, and many others. Bring such a ca­talogue of your owne, like one of the­se, and then you discharge your creditt, which till then lieth engaged. And for this you should not haue needed to ta­ke all that paines, nor putt your selfe to those straites of prouing out of our owne Bishops, Cardinals, Doctours &c. that your Doctrine hath beene taught in former ages. For to be as liberal with you agayne; the Iesuit would haue gi­uen you the freedome to take all man­ner of Writers, whether Catholiques or Haeretiques, Pagans, Iewes, Turkes, or what profession els soeuer they we­re of, to see whether out of all toge­ther, you could patch vpp a Catalogue, or bring any the least mention of such a goodly people and commonwealth; [Page] as wee see suddainely started vpp in the world, vpon the reuolt of Luther. For we Catholiques haue a publique testimony of the Visibility of our Church, from all sorts of men, all sects and professions whatsoeuer, that being a condition and property, whe­reof the whole world cannot but take notice, and consequently all manner of men must necessarily wit­nesse.

8. And therefore Sir Humhrey while you thinke you haue hitt the bird in the eye, by prouing (though you should proue it as you neuer can) out of our Cardinals, Bishops, and Doc­tours, that your faith was taught in former ages, you are cleane mista­ken. For Visibility and antiquity are two different properties: antiquity properly belongeth to the doctrine and beleife of the Church; but Vi­sibility properly belongeth to the Church it self, as it is a Church, to wit, a community, commonwealth, or kingdome consisting of men liuing in a certaine forme of gouernment, and [Page] professing a certaine outward forme or face of Religion, by Sacrifice, Sa­craments, and other rites, tending to the worship of God and Sanctifi­cation of themselues, wherein all that are of that Community doe par­ticipate, and thereby are distingui­shed and differenced from all such as are not of the same Community and profession. Wherefore you being cha­lenged to shew such a community, and flying from that to proue the antiquity of your Doctrine, out of our Fathers and Schoolmen, what els doe you doe, but confesse your Church to want Visibility, and your selfe honesty, by endeauouring to deceiue men with a specious title of a safe way; intending indeed to lea­de them, from the true safe way of the Catholique Church, into such cer­taine by-ways and corners, as our B. Sauiour foretold vs of, when hee said, that False Prophets should come and tell vs, loe here is Christ, or the­re, doe not beleeue them. And by this [Page] you may perceiue, how vnfittly you ioyne, or rather confound antiquity and Visibility, by saying in the very be­ginninge of this your Epistle, the ancient visibility of the Protestant profession, and soe in many other places. For Visibility must as well be new, to follow your manner of speaking, as ancient: that is, it is a thing which hath beene without interruption, is, and euer must bee to the worlds end, in the true Church of God; and is noe more tyed to these primiti­ues or ancient tymes, then to these la­ter of ours, nor noe more to those ty­mes of ours then to those that shall co­me after vs againe. Or if it more belong to one tyme then another, it rather be­longeth more to succeeding tymes. For as it is cleare by the Prophecies going before our B. Sauiour's coming, and the accomplishment of the same, after his coming the Church was to beginne as all things els in this world, from a small beginning; and after, by tyme and continuance, receiue a grea­ter encrease; and by little and little co­me to spread ouer the whole world; at [Page] which tyme, it must needs be more vi­sible then in the beginninge. Soe that little Stone,Dan. 2.36. which the Prophett Daniel speaketh of in figure of the Kingdome of Christ, which is his Church, grew by little and little to be soe great a mountaine, as it filled the whole Earth: at which tyme certainely, it was more visible then at first, when it was but beginning. Soe the Church which began at Hierusalem, & from thence was spread by degrees to other Countries, and is to goe on increasing to the vtmost bounds of the Earth, to the very end of the World, must needes be more visible and appa­rant, as it goeth more dilating it self in space of place, and continuance of tyme.

9. But now you come vpon vs with a counter challenge, demanding by what authority of scriptures and an­cient Fathers, we haue imposed new articles of Christian beleife vppon Preists and people: for, as you say, truth denyes antiquity and vniuersality to the principal articles of the new Ro­man Creede: and you say our best lear­ned [Page] Romanists, professe that most of them were vnknowne to antiquity. Wherefore after a digressiō against im­plicite faith, and our altering and chan­ging the ten commandements (as you say very wisely) you wish, that they that vrge a catalogue of such Prote­stants, as haue in all ages professed your 39. articles, should produce one anciēt orthodox father in euery age, for the­se 1500. yeares, who hath held all our Trent articles de fide, and that then you will acknowledge our Professours visi­ble in all ages; our Cardinals, Bishops, & Schoolemen mistaken, & that they are to bee reformed by an Index expurgato­rius; you will acknowledge the nouelty of your Church, and submitt your selfe with an implicite faith to the Romane Church. Soe you: for your counterchal­lēge Sir Humphrey, had you marked the challenge well, you might haue spared it; for the Iesuit required you to perfor­me nothing, but that which many on the Catholique part haue performed ready to your hand, that is, that you should bring such a Catalogue of suc­cession, [Page] for proofe of the Visibility of your Church, as we did many of ours, as Sanders, Bellarmine, Gualterus, & others. You aske by what authority we impose new articles of beleife vpon men? this question is not to the purpose: but I an­sweare, by denying your suppositiō; for we doe not impose new articles vpon men, but defend the old, against new fāgled fellowes, neither is this the pro­per place for you to require, or for vs to bring proofes out of Fathers & Scrip­tures of particular points; whereof you cannot but know, that many great and learned men in the Catholick Church, haue written great volumes; which noe haeretique hath euer yet durst ven­ture to answeare, how then can you soe brasenly say, that our owne best learned confesse, that the articles of the Trent-Creede as you call them, are vnknowne to antiquity: what point is there defined in the Councel of Trent, which is not proued by way of autho­rity of scriptures & fathers by Iudocus Coccius, by way of reason and solution of arguments by Bell. by way of history by Baronius, to say nothing of others? [Page] some may perhaps say, that some points there defined were not before defined by any general Councel; but to bring any Catholique to say that they are new or that they were not ancient­ly nor commonly beleeued I dare say Sir Humphrey, is more then you can proue: but suppose any one may say, that there is noe proofe extant in any ancient author of this or that point, must it therefore follow that it is new? noe surely, for all things are not writ­ten, as S. Iohn verifyeth of our Sauiour's owne words and deeds: how much les­se then other things, which yet are ge­nerally taught and practized in the Ca­tholique Church: which very practize without farther proofe S. Augustine ma­keth to be an argument of antiquity?Aug cont. Don. lib. 4.24. but of this newnesse of faith, whereof you soe ignorantly complaine, and like­wise of implicite faith, I shall say more afterwards.

10. Now for our leauinge out the se­cond commandement wherewith you tax vs, and changing the fourth from sanctify the Sabboth to Sanctify the holy­dayes, [Page] it is pitty you are soe hard driuen, as when you are called vpon to proue your Succession and Visibility of your Church, to fall vpon vs for the com­mandements: a thing of soe different nature and soe triuiall. For first it is fal­se, that we leaue out that which you call the second commandment, Looke in our bibles and see whether you find it not there in all Editions, and transla­tions as well English as Latine, or any other language whatsoeuer. How then doe we leaue it out? you will say we leaue it out in our catechismes; true: but to leaue a thing out of a catechis­me, is not absolutely to leaue it out, as long as it is els where. But besids to an­sweare you another way, wee leaue out many other things, as that God is a iealous God, that hee reuengeth the Sinnes of the Father to the 3. and 4. generation and the like, though they goe intermingled with the commandements in the text: and this we doe without blame; becau­se they eyther pertaine not precisely to the commandement, or are suffi­ciently expressed in the very words of [Page] the commandement it self. Soe wee say of this, that it is either contayned in the first commandement being one­ly an explication of the same; or if it be a distinct precept as some Deuines say, then is it ceremoniall onely, and consequently abrogated with the whole Law.

11. Soe likewise for the other com­mandement of Sanctifying the Holy­dayes I answeare that in our bibles or text of scripture we keepe the word Sabboth, and in most and best cate­chismes also, as for example Cani­sius, Bellarmines large catechisme, and others but specially in that of the Coun­cel of Trent sett out by authority of Pius V. Which were answeare enough to shew we make noe such mystery of it, since sometymes we say Sabboth some­tymes Holydayes: as indeede we well may, the sense being the same: and we may better vse this liberty in catechis­mes, where we stand not soe much to cite the very words of scripture, as to declare the meaning of them; though in the text it selfe we keepe precisely to [Page] the very words. Where yet we explica­te it in the same sense, following the­rein the example of Scripture it self, which vseth those words indifferently as may appeare Leuit. cap. 23. Where other Holydayes beside the Saturday or Sabboth are called Sabbata 3. or 4. ty­mes in that one chapter: and in the be­ginning thereof those dayes which are called Sabbata, are called twice Feriae sanctae Holydayes. Soe as you Sir Humfrey in making such a deale of difference betweene Sabboth and Holyday shew your self to be but shallowly read in scripture. Besids I may answeare to this as to the former obiection, that this cō ­mandment was partly ceremonial, to wit, for as much as pertayneth to that particular day of saturday, and partly natural, to wit, soe farre as it obligeth to the obseruing of some daye or tyme holy indeterminately.

12. But if we be such great offenders for changing [...]e word Sabboth in some of our catechi [...]mes into Holyday, what are you for changing the very commā ­dement while you stand working vpon [Page] Saturday, and rest vpon Sunday, soe changing the Sabboth it self? but what stuffe is this for you to trouble your gentry Readers withall in the very be­ginning of your booke, and in your Epistle dedicatory forsooth, and not onely to touch vpon it heere, but to print the commandements faire in a leafe by themselues, with a marginal note of Ledaesma's catechisme of 2. or 3. editions, as if you would make your Reader stand at some goodly gaze? but by this a man may easily guesse what matter hee is like to find in the booke it selfe. I could haue noted a thing of the same kind of yours in this Epistle, in the first leafe where you say, truth is iustifyed of her Children, whereas the text of scripture is Wisedome is iustified &c: but that I did not count it worth speaking of.

13. Touching your great boast, that if we can shew one good author in euery age for this 1500. yeares, who hath held our Trent articles, as you call them, de fide, you will confesse our Doctours, Schoolmen, &c. to be mista­ken, [Page] and to neede an index expurgatorius; and that you will submitt your self to the Romane Church, acknowledging the nouelty of your owne church: For­asmuch as this your promise seemeth by the manner, to be but a proud vaunt to delude the simple reader, to make him more confident by your example in his false beleife, I shall not much re­guard it, or any thing els which you shall say in that kind: for your deeds giue mee assurance of deepe malice, and peruersnes soe grounded in your hart, as that they hinder you from be­holding the light of truth, for which cause I cannot but reckon you in the number of them, of whom S. Paul la­mentingly saith.2. Cor. 4.3. Quod si opertum est euangelium nostrum, in ijs qui pereunt est opertum, in quibus Deus huius saeculi excoeca­uit mentes infidelium, vt non fulgeat illis il­luminatio euangelij. If our Ghospel be couered or hidd, in them that perish it is hidd, in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of the vnfaith­full, that the light of the Ghospel may not shine vnto them. For otherwise [Page] how were it possible, that in such great aboundance of Catholique au­thors, now in this age prouing the ve­rity of the Catholique faith, some by way of controuersy, some by way of history, others by way of chronology, others by way of authority, others by way of schoole diuinity, you should come to aske for one in euery age? what is Gualterus his whole chronolo­gy, but to proue twelue verityes now adayes most controuerted by the te­stimonyes of Fathers and Doctours in euery age? Doth not Genebrard in his chronology, at the end of euery 100. yeares, note the antiquity of the Catholi­que beleife, in most of all these points ci­tinge the places where the Fathers and Doctours their testimonyes and proo­fes are to bee found?

14. But you say, they were not taught de fide as points of Faith; what is that to say? that they were neuer defined all in any general Councel, I grant you that; but what then? must they not therefore belong to Faith? how many points be there that were neuer soe de­fined? [Page] will it not serue your turne, that they were commonly beleeued with­out contradiction of any, as all these were? or if some one Doctour should bee singular in his opinion, yet soe as to be ready to submit his iudgment to the definition of the church, what would this hinder? nay would it not much hel­pe to proue the continual Visibility & supereminent authority of the Church, which is the question now betweene vs? but of this more afterwards. Now for our Doctours, whom you will con­fesse to be mistaken, in witnessing the antiquity of your doctrine, I wil say no­thing heere, but in dew place wil shew how notoriously you falsifye some, im­pertinently alleadge others, and eyther very maliciously or very ignorantly bring condemned knowne Haeretiques against vs, for authors of our owne.

15. In which reguard I cannot but admire to heare you soe hypocritically to conclude your Epistle, saying that though by the prouocation of a Iesuit, you haue putt your sickle into another man's haruest, yet you witnesse a true [Page] confession before God and Man, that you haue neither wilfully not witting­ly falsified any one author, eyther in citation, or translation in this treatise. What execrable periury this is I shall after demonstrate. Prius vos ostendens fa­bricatores mendacij. First shewing you to be framers of lyes, as I may say to you Sir Humphrey, with soe much more rea­son then Iob did to his freinds; by how much they did vrge him not with any false doctrines, but onely mis-applied truths. Whereas you offend in all kind of falshood. For euen where you happ to cite a place truely, for soe much as pertaineth to the words, you doe it soe cleane kam from the authors meaning, and discourse, that euery man may see how euidently false, and consequently how iniurious both to God and Man that profession of yours is, wherein you call them to witnesse your truth & ho­nesty in the citing of authors.

16. And therefore whereas you see­me to attribute the slipps, if there be any, to your owne weakenesse, which you are content ingenuously to confes­se, [Page] if they be shewed you moderately, plainely, and faithfully: I must deale freely with you Sir Humphrey, and tell you, that indeede I take your weaknesse or ignorance to be noe whit lesse, if not more, then you seeme to acknow­ledge, both by what I find in this trea­tise, & by what I heare from some that know you well, and verily thinke you scarse skill euen of ordinary Latin much lesse of such other Learning as is needfull for writing books of this na­ture. Wherevpon they conclude this booke to be none of yours, but some Ministers who hath borrowed your na­me and title to countenance his worke withall: and that you being somewhat greedy of glory were content to lend it, not considering that by soe doing (that is) by fathering such a booke, you are to vndergoe all the reprehension and shame which shall ensew vpon the discouery of the author's ignorance and weaknesse whosoeuer he be. But because this is but a probable coniectu­re I will not build vpon it, but taking you for author, seeing it beareth your [Page] name, I shall discouere not onely your great weaknes and ignorance which you acknowledge, but greater obstina­cy and malice, soe as thereby it may plainely appeare that your faults are not soe much to be termed slipps of ignorance or weaknes, as slowes of ma­lice of purpose to plunge your Reader, and make him sticke fast in some myre of mis-beleife and infidelity with your selfe.

17. Which obstinacy and malice to be the true cause of all your errours, whatsoeuer you may pretend to the contrary, doth yet farther appeare in that hauing receiued a foile or two, and together with them good admonitiōs,A plea for the reall praesence by I. O. A defence of the appen­dix by L.D. you neither take notice of the one in your writings, nor shew the fruit of the other in your manners. And therefore for the answeare (which hath beene hitherto differred because noe man of learning could thinke it worth his pai­nes to make you any, and should still haue beene differred were it not more for other men's sakes then your owne) you are to expect it as you desire, faith­full [Page] and plaine, and though it must of necessity bee a little round sometymes, yet I hope to any indifferent man it will also seeme moderate, that is much within the compasse of your deserts.

18. Now lastly whereas you craue a fauourable acceptance of these your beginnings promising vs some farther fruits of your labours: if you remember your self well these are not your first fruits: for you translated and published heeretofore with a preface of your owne a certaine treatise of one Iohn Bertram an ancient obscure author, whereby you haue giuen to the world sufficient triall as well of your talent in translating as of your ignorance and corruption, whereof you were most plainely conuinced in a particular trea­tise of that matter called A PLEA FOR THE REALL PRESENCE BY I. O. Whereto you neuer hauing replyed one word for clearing your self of soe foule a tax it is wonder you could thin­ke of publishing any farther fruits of your labours, and more wonder that you should desire any fauourable ac­ceptance [Page] of them. Wherefore it had beene then, and is still, fitter for you to lay aside any such thought, and rather thinke how you can acquit your self to the world of your accounts for these that are past, or rather how you shalbe able to acquit your self before the iudg­ment-seate of Almighty God, where you will find it another manner of matter then you count of to answeare for one soule, much more for soe many as you haue laboured to peruert: but be­cause you are not capable of any good aduice of this kind I forbeare to say more heere resting howsoeuer.

Your welwishing Freind.

THE PREFACE TO THE Protestant Reader.

Gentle and iudicious Reader.

THough in my precedent dedicatory or rather answeare to Sir Hum­phrey's dedicatory Epistle I haue had occasion to say what is wont to be deliuered by way of preface concer­ning the occasion, intention, scope, and manner of writing, yet because my cheife end next to the glo­ry of God is the good of thy soule I cannot omitt to addresse my self vnto thee in a word declaring on my part the good intention and purpose I haue in this writing, and on thine crauing the like acceptance, but especially that for thyne owne good thou wilt come to reade and peruse the same not with any preiudicate conceit either of one side or other but rather with an indifferency of mind ready to incline that way that the light of truth shall shew it self. Sir Humphrey I confesse hath some things, which at first sight may draw away an honest minded man who is not tho­roughly acquainted with the fashion of such men of the Ministery as he is ledd by. For besids a little lear­ning [Page] which in a secular man maketh a great shew, (as for the increase of his owne glory he toucheth once or twice in his dedicatory,) the very title of his booke being VIA TVTA, A SAFE WAY is a very pleasing thing to many in these dayes, wherein men for the most part rather desire to find security in their owne wayes, then forsaking them, to seeke it where indeede it is to be found. But the cheife thing is this that he vndertaketh to proue his intent out of our owne authors, calling also both God and Man to wit­nesse his sincerity in the citation and translation of such and such places as he bringeth.

Which though it may moue a man a little at the first yet is it not sufficient to praecipitate the discreete Rea­der's iudgment and carry it away wholy to the full beleife of what he saith without farther examination especially when he shall vnderstand that such specious titles and faire promises are the common baites of Hae­retiques.Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6. Of whom S. Hilarius saith that Ingerunt nobis primum nomina veritatis vt virus falsitatis introeat. They first set before vs the names of truth that the poyson of falshood may enter in with them. And S. Aug. soe well acquainted with their cun­ning practizes,Aug. contra ep fundam. cap. 11. saith: that the promise of truth which they are continually making is nothing but a vaile to couer their errors, or a goodly fai­re gate for errour to enter in stealingly into the minds of the vnskilfull. Which S. Paul himself also witnesseth saying that by sweete speeches and blessings they seduce the harts of innocent and harmelesse people. Now for the learning whereof he makes shew, whether it be his owne or noe I will [Page] not question, though I might, since some that know him doubt whether he euen vnderstand Latine: but presu­ming that he hath a little because he was once a Scholler of Westminster and after of Christ Church in Oxford being by his Father deputed and putt into the common rode of the Ministery though he be since stept out of it, I know not ho, w into the way of Knight­hood. I onely say this that it is farre short of what is requisite for writing of a booke of this kind as shall manifestly appeare: besids that though it were a thou­sand tymes more, I may say with the Wiseman. Non est Sapientia, non est prudentia, non est consi­lium contra Dominum. There is noe wisedome, noe prudence noe councel against our Lord. But of this I shall not heere say more, this being my in­tent onely in this place to aduise thee soe to come to the reading of this my answeare that thou suffer not thy self soe to bee wholy praeoccupated and ouerswayed from that indifferency which is most necessary for fra­ming a right iudgement of any matter in controuersy. With which preparation of minde if thou shalt come and with attention reade, but most of all craue the speciall assistance of Almighty God's grace, I hope thou shalt not haue cause to repent thee of thy paines: Whereto without longer delay I shall heere leaue thee.

Certaine points to bee considered for the better answearinge of Sir Humphrey's cheife arguments in this Booke.Chap. 1. CHAPTER I.

1. WHereas Sir Humphrey after his dedica­tory Epistle, before he come to the matter, setteth downe a part of Pius 4. his bull, which is of the forme of oath, and profession of faith, which according to the Councel of Trent such men are to make, as are to be pro­moted to any Ecclesiastical dignity or benefi­ce, which hath care of soules ioyned with it. I purpose likewise in this Chapter by occasion hereof, to sett downe some few heades, which may serue for a generall answeare to most of his arguments.

2. The first shalbe concerning this very Creede as he calleth it of the Councel of Trent, which therefore he is pleased according to the common fashion of his Ministers, by way of derision to deuide into 12. points, as it were in­to 12. articles, which he and they might with as much reason deuide into 24. but onely that [Page 2] by this fine conceite, they would faine make some silly people beleiue, that wee Catholiques leaue the old Creede of the Apostles, and coyne our selues a new one, according to the faith of the Councel of Trent, and this hee and his freinds doe often charge vs with. To which I say, that True it is wee confesse it, the points in this forme contained were defined and decla­red by that Councel, and drawne into forme of an oath and profession of faith, by Pope Pius 4. but that it is therefore a new Faith, or that there bee new articles of beleife wee deny. For proofe whereof I demaund of him or his fel­low Protestāts, who receiue the Nicene Creede, as it is sett downe in their booke of common prayer, what they thinke of that? whether that be any thing els but a profession of faith, sett downe by authority of the Church, gathered together in a generall Councell, approued by the See Apostolique, by way of a definition or explication of a point of faith then contro­uerted by Haeretiques, and discussed and de­clared in the Councel, and appointed to bee publiquely professed by all such as meant to bee counted Catholiques▪ Wherein I would far­ther know of him what other difference there is, but onely that the Creede of Nice was made, for declaration of the Catholique faith in the point of the Diuinity of our Sauiour; and this of the Councel of Trent, for declaration of all these points controuerted by the Haeretiques of these tymes. And yet in one thing more they [Page 3] agree, that is, that as the Arrians of those ty­mes cried out against that Creede, as being new, and hauing words not found in Scripture, for example Consubstantiation: Soe our Protestants cry out against the Trent profession of Faith, for the same reasons of nouelty, and words not found in scripture, as for example Tran­substantiation.

3. But to come neerer vnto them. They allow of the Nicene Creede; they will not then I sup­pose say, the Faith therein taught eyther now is, or then was new, though it were then first declared by authority of any Councel. Which if they doe not, as indeede they cannot; then say I in like sort, the profession of Faith sett downe by the Councel of Trent, and Pope Pius 4. is noe new Faith, but the old Faith of late particularly declared, and defined against the haeresies of these tymes. I could also in proofe of the same, vrge Sir Humphrey, with the 39. articles ap­pointed by the authority of the Church of En­gland, to bee vniformely taught by all Mini­sters, and which they are to sweare vnto. Which articles, though they be indeede new coyned, as the foundation of a new Church: Yet Sir Humphrey being his Mother's Cham­pion, will not I suppose yeild her or her doctri­ne to be new: as yet on the other side he can­not deny, but those articles receiued some kind of force, whereby Protestants were more bound to beleiue and teach them then before. From whence I might euidently inferre, that a [Page 4] new definition or declaration, doth not make the Doctrine new; but that ancient doctrine may be newly defined according as new springing heresies shall giue occasion.

4. Which being soe, it is plaine that all his insulting speeches against the Councel of Trent and Catholique church are but verie smoke, and may bee as easily blowne backe vpon Himselfe and his church: and that by them hee doth but furnish vs with weapons against himself, the­rein also bewraying his ignorance. For whose better instruction, if hee be not too wise to learne, hee is to know two things in this mat­ter. First, that we Catholiques doe not call all points of faith howsoeuer taught, declared or defined articles as hee seemeth to thinke, and the ground of this his errour may bee; in that those great maine points of his Churches doc­trine, called the 39. articles are called by that name of articles. But wee call that onely an article, V S. Tho. 2. 2. q. 1. ar. according to S. Thomas, which contai­neth some speciall reason of difficulty in it self; whereby it requireth a particular and distinct reuelacion, because it cannot bee inferred or deduced out of any other reuealed truth: as for example, the point of our Sauiour's resurrection, is cleane a different point from that point of his death and passion, and this againe from that other of his Natiuity, and soe of the rest, be­cause each of them requireth a distinct and se­uerall reuelacion from the other. For Christ might haue beene borne, and yet not dye vpon [Page 5] the crosse; and hee might haue died, and yet not risen the third day from death to life: but those other truthes defined by the Church, as the vnity of Christ's person against Nestorius, the distinction of his two natures against Sergius, Pir­rhus &c. are not to bee called articles, because they are sufficiently contained in others, and deduced out of them. Other Diuines giue other definitions of an article of faith, which may also well stand with this of S. Thomas, which I follow as the more common, but all agree in this, that though euery article bee a proposition of Faith, yet euerie proposition is not an article of Faith.

5. And heerevpon we teach, that for articles of faith, the Church can make none, as she can­not write a canonical booke of scripture, but that belongeth onely to the Prophets and Apo­stles, or rather hath beene fully and perfectly performed by them to whom those articles were immediately reuealed by God, whereof they deliuered part by writing and part by word of mouth to their posterity the Church. Soe as now there neede not any new and par­ticular reuelacions, but out of those already made to the Apostles and Prophets, which are all laid vpp in the treasury of the Church, as a pawne or depositum as S. Paul calleth it, other truths are drawne the holy Church and true spouse of Christ euer keeping this pretious treasure with continuall care and vigilancie, and dis­pensing the same faithfully to her Children, as [Page 6] neede requireth. Whensoeuer any haeretique or other enemy endeauoureth to corrupt or peruert, she calling her Pastors and Doctors toge­ther to examine the matter, being infallibly assisted by that Spirit of truth which our Sauiour promised to bee allwayes with his disciples, that is with his Church; she declareth what is true, and what false, as agreeing or disagreeing with or from that doctrine, which she hath receiued from her fathers, that is Prophets and Apostles vpon whom as vpon a spiritual foundation she is strongly built, according to that of S. Paul superedificaii supra fundamentum Apostolorum & Prophetarum. Ephes. 2 20. Built vpon the foundation of the Apo­stles and Prophets. The very words Fundamentum foundation also shewing, that her doctrine is not of her owne inuention or framing, but grounded on them from whom she receiued it, and that she hath not any which she recei­ueth not from them. For as in a howse or buil­ding there is not the least stone or peece of timber which resteth not vppon the founda­tion: Soe in the doctrine of the Catholique Church there is not the least point which is not groun­ded or contained in that which was deliuered by the Prophets and Apostles.

Commonit. aduer haer. cap. 27.Which truth Vincentius Lerinensis in like sort deduceth out of the word Depositum, vsed by S. Paul to Timothee. Quid est depositum saith hee? id est, quod tibi creditum est, non quod a te inuentum: quod accepisti, non quod excogitasti: rem non ingenij, sed doctrinae: non vsurpationis priuatae, sed publica [Page 7] traditionis: rem ad te perductam, non a te prolatam: in qua non auctor debes esse, sed custos: non institutor, sed Sectator: non ducens, sed sequens. What is a depositum, it is, that which thou art trusted with, not that which is found by thee: that which thou hast receiued: not that which thou hast sought out: a thing not of wit, that is, not of thine owne inuenting, but of learning, that is, which is learnt: not of priuate vsurpation, but publique tradition: a thing brought to thee, not brought forth, by thee; wherein thou art not to be the author, but the keeper; not the institutor but a scholler not leadinge but followinge.

Soe as by Timothee the whole Church being vnderstood as the same author saith, or especially the whole body of Pastors it followeth that the Church createth not anie new articles of faith, but teacheth onely that which she hath learned of the Prophets and Apostles.

6. From which followeth; that other thing, which I meāt to tell the Knight for his learning, which also I touched before in a word, to wit, that when points of doctrine before in contro­uersy and vndefined, come to bee defined by the Church, the doctrine is not therefore new, be­cause it is de fide, or matter of faith now, which it was not before, as he most falsely and fondly supposeth for an vndoubted truth; and vpon this his owne idle fancy, buildeth many goodly arguments, like soe many castles in the ayre. For out of this hee thinketh it to follow that we vary in our doctrine; that because forsooth the­re [Page 8] be many things now de fide, which were not before, and whereof Doctors did dispute, which seing we may not now doubt of, therefore the faith is in his iudgment altered. But this she­weth nothing but the poorenes of his iudgmēt. For by this he might proue, that the sunne as it riseth higher and higher, and by spreading his beames giueth light in some places att noone, where it did not in the morning, that therefore it is changed in it selfe: then which what can be more absurd?

7. And that it is the same of the Church and the Sunne, Cant. 6.9 appeareth by that place of the Can­ticles. Quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora con­surgens, pulchra vt Luna, electa vt sol, terribilis vt castrorum acies ordinata. Who is she that goeth forward as the morning rising, faire as the mo­one, chosen as the Sunne, terrible as an orde­red army of tents? Which words noe man euer doubted to be literally vnderstood of the Church. Euen then as the Sunne may goe spreading his beames more and more, with out increase or change of it owne light in it selfe, soe may the Church goe more and more spreading the be­ames of her diuine faith, with out increase or alteratiō of the faith in it self. And as the Sunne beame may shine in a valley or roome of a hou­se, where it did not shine before, soe may the Church spread the light of her faith, shewing such or such a point to be a diuine truth, which before was not soe knowne to bee: or which though it were a diuine truth in it self, yet it was [Page 9] not soe to vs.

8. For more declaracion whereof, I may yet bring another more scholerly example, which is of the principles of seuerall sciēces, which are to bee the premisses in demonstratiue arguments of those sciences: in which principles or premises, are contained diuers truthes, which may be drawne out of them by many seuerall conclu­sions, one following of another; these conclu­sions were truthes in themselues before, though they did not soe appeare vnto mee, till I saw the connexiō they had with the premisses; and how they were contained in them. And by the many seuerall conclusions which are soe drawne, the truth of those principles and premisses, doth more shew it self, but not receiue any increase or chāge in it self thereby. Euen soe we say in the prime principles of our Faith, reuealed immedia­tely to the Prophets and Apostles, and by them de­liuered vnto the Church, are contained all truths which any way belonge to our Faith ād whereby the Church, hath in succeeding ages destroyed se­uerall haeresies as they haue risen, without crea­ting or coyning new faith, or altering the old, but out of the old grounds and premisses drawing those conclusions, which destroy new haeresies, and shew them to be cōtrary to the ancient faith. And in that manner the Church, hath growen and increased in knowledge by degrees, and shall still goe growing and increasing to the end of the world,Greg. moral. lib. 9. cap 6. as sheweth S. Greg. his discourse vpon those worde of Iob. Qui facit Arcturum & [Page 10] Oriana & Hyadas &c. Where he saith thus. Vr­gente mundi fine superna scientia proficit & largius cum tēpore excrescit. As the world draweth to an end the heauenly knowledge profiteth, and with tyme increaseth: Wherein also she resem­bleth our B. Sauiour her cheife Lord and hea­uenly Spouse, who though in grace and know­legde he neuer receiued the least increase from the first instant of his Conception,Luc 2.52. yet the Scri­pture saith after proficiebat sapientia & aetate & gratia apud Deum & homines. To wit, because he shewed it more in his words and actions.

9. This is farther, confirmed by the manner and practize, which our Catholique Doctors and Fathers euer obserue, in and out of Councells in prouing or defining points of faith, to wit by hauing recourse to the authority of scripture, and tradition, beleife, and practize of the Church; in the searching whereof the holy Church ioyneth humane industry with God's holy grace and as­sistāce For when any question or doubt of faith ariseth, particular Doctors seuerally dispute and write thereof: then if farther neede require it, the holy Church gathereth together her Pastors and Doctors in a Councel, to examine and discusse the matter more fully; as in that first Councel of the Apostles, Act. 15.6. whereof the Scripture saith: Conuene­runtque Apostoli & seniores videre de verbo hoc. The Apostles ad Ancients assembled to consider of this word. The Pastors coming soe together, and ha­uing the presence of our Sauiour according to his promise, and his holy Spirit out of the Pro­phetical, [Page 11] and Apostolical Scriptures and Tradi­tiōs, ioyning therewith the authorityes and in­terpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors out of praecedent tymes, she doth infallibly resolue and determine the matter not as new but as ancient orthodox and deriued from her Forefathers: ma­king that which was euer in it self a diuine truth, soe to appeare vnto vs, that now we may not make farther question thereof.

10.Vinc. Lerin. cap. 27.28.29. & seq. And this being the common doctrine de­liuered by our Catholique Doctour I thinke it not amisse somewhat farther to confirme and authorize the same by an excellent discourse of that holy and ancient Father Vincentius Lerinen­sis, not reciting his very words, because it would bee too long, but onely the substance, which is this. Hauing proued by the word Depositum out of S. Paul, that a Pastour, Priest, Preacher, or Doctour there meant by Timothee, must onely deliuer the doctrine which is deposited with him or in his hands, not found out by him, which he hath receiued, not inuented; whereof hee is not to bee author or beginner, but the Keeper or Guar­dian; hee saith that if such a man haue abilityes for it hee may like another Beseleel adorne sett out and grace the pretious iewels of diuine faith by expounding more clearely that which befo­re was beleiued more 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 [Page 12] 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 [Page 13] 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 [...] [Page 16] 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 [Page 17] 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 cō ­sent of Doctors, Vinc. Lerin. cap. 4. for soe saith Vincentius Lerinensis [Page 18] 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 [Page 19] 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 [Page 20] 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 [Page 21] 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 [Page 22] 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 [Page 23] 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 is in the Bishop's power to grant leaue, if vpon conferen­ce with the Parish-Priest or Confessor of the par­ty that desireth leaue, hee find him to bee such an one, as may not incurre danger of faith, but be like to increase in vertue and deuotion by reading thereof. Which with any reasonable man may bee counted sufficient liberty. As for the Fathers it is most grossely false which the Knight after the ordinary ministerial tune stands canting, that wee blot out and raze them at our pleasure. For though for soe­much as concerneth the late Catholique au­thors of this last age, (for this our index of which is all the difficulty beginneth [Page 22] [...] [Page 23] [...] [Page 24] but from the yeare 1515.) whatsoeuer needeth correction is to be mended or blotted out, yet for others going before that tyme it is expressely said that nothing may bee changed, vnlesse some manifest error through the fraud of haere­tiques or carelesnesse of the Printer be crept in but that if any thing worth nothing occurre the new editions of the same author by some notes in the margent or at the later end the author's mind may be explained;De correct. lib. §. 3. & 4. or the hard place, by comparing other passages of the same author, be made more cleare. Now is heer any thing that derogateth from the dignity and authority of antiquity? What is it then that these men would haue? what is it they can carpe at? no­thing but that they themselues are stunge in that, heereby they are kept either from publi­shing their owne wicked works, or corrupting the Fathers at their pleasure: and to wipe away this blemish from themselues they would lay it vpon vs. And by this that is heere said of this matter may be answeared noe little part of Sir Humphrey's booke, whereof one whole chapter is of this matter, beside other bitter inuectiues vpon other occasions to fill his paper: though there also I shall haue occasion to say somewhat more heereof.

19. The last thing which heere I meane to speake of is a certaine distinction of ex­plicite and implicite faith wich the Knight and his Ministers cry out against and are pleased some­tymes to make themselues merry withall [Page 25] as if they would laugh it out: but it is too well and solidly grounded to be blowne away with the breath of any such Ministerial Knight as he is. I will therefore only declare it in a word that the Reader may see whether the distin­ction, or the Knight bee more worthy to be laughed at. The words explicite and implicite are drawne from the Latine and they signi­fie as much as foulded, and vnfoulded, or wrap­ped vpp and layd open. And explicite faith signi­fyeth a beleefe directly and expresly beleeuing a particular point of faith in it self not as it is inuolued or wrapped vpp in an other; impli­cite faith is the beleefe of any point of faith, not in it self but in some other general prin­ciple wherein it lyeth inuolued, or as it we­re wrapped vpp; as Catholiques beleeue in many thingh as the Church beleeueth though they doe not know what the Church holdeth particularly in this or that point. Now all Catholiques being bound to the beleefe of the Catholique faith wholy and entirely vnder paine of damnation, as saith Saint Athana­sius in his Crede; and all not being able to know what is taught in euery particular, there must be some meanes whereby to be­leiue all, and this by an implicite faith inclu­ding in it self a promptnes or readines of the vnderstanding and Will to obey and rely vpon the authority of the holy Church; wherein noe Catholique that beleeueth any one point [Page 26] can haue much difficulty, seeing the reason why he beleeueth that one point is the authority of God declared vnto vs by the mouth of the neuer erring Church.

20. Neither is this implicite faith for the ignorant alone as the Knight saith but it is for all both learned and vnlearned; for there is noe man soe learned but may be ignorant of some one point or other; or at least in mat­ters not yet defined, he must haue that in­differency and readines of Will and iudgment to beleeue as the Church shall teach. True it is the vnlearned know lesse of particular points though all be bound to the expresse or explicite knowledge of some articles as of the Apostles Creede, of the Commaundements of God and the Church, Sacrifice of the Masse, of some Sacrements, and euery one of soe much as perteyneth both to the common obligation of Christian Dewty and of his owne parti­cular state and vocation. For the rest it is not necessary for any one in particular to know all, but it sufficeth that he haue a minde soe praepared that when he shall vn­derstand more to be needfull he be ready to embrace it, Which a man would thinke we­re but reason. And for this disposition and praeparation of minde wherein the essence of implicite faith consisteth it is alike both in the learned and vnlearned. The want whereof in [Page 27] Protestants is the very reason why they haue noe true faith at all euen in the beleefe of those mysteries which they beleeue: for by this it plainely appeareth, that euen in those things which they beleeue they haue noe re­guard to any authority by which they are propounded vnto them, but onely because they thinke good themselues and although they should beleeue all things which Catho­liques beleeue but not for the reason which they beleeue but because they please themsel­ues yet were not this faith, and soe it is much better to beleeue a few things expresly with a resolution to beleeue whatsoeuer els shalbe propounded by the Catholique Church, then to beleeue a great many more with out this minde. For that former is diuine faith, this later onely humane selfe opinion and iudg­ment.

21. Neither is there any cause why this Knight should soe cry out against implicite faith obtruded (as he saith) vpon the igno­rant; for it is not obtruded vpon any man, but rather we desire with Saint Paul that all may bee replenished which the Knowledge of God and heauenly things: but euery bo­dy knoweth that all men are not of ca­pacity and vnderstanding alike. And for such as are not able to attaine higher, wee say it is sufficient for them to know somme few things, and for the rest [Page 28] to beleeue as others in the Catholique Church beleeue. Doth not S. Paul speake, Wisedome among the perfect that is, teach them the greater and higher mysteries of faith, and yet to others hee giues onely milke, 1. Cor. 2. that is, the more easy Mysteries of faith, not meate, for (saith he) You were not yet able. Were it not pretty if euery simple man should onely beleeue soe much as his owne vnderstanding reacheth vnto and for that which it cannot reach to deny it? were not this a notable point of pride? and yet this is that which the Knight would haue euery man to doe, and derideth vs Catholiques because we will not haue Men soe to doe but with humility to beleeue what they doe not vnderstand soe long as they haue sufficient ground to beleeue it, which neuer wanteth in the Catholique Church and out of it is euer wanting. By this any man may see whether this distinction of explicite and implicite faith doe not stand with very great reason and consequently whether the Knight who laugheth thereat doe not shew himself most worthy of laugh­ter?

22. Especially if wee adde withall that it is not soe much this implicite faith that hee speaketh against as diuine faith in generall: for: that he counteth implicite faith when a man is bound by a blind kind of Obedien­ce as he calleth it to submitt his iudgment to the Catholique Church: which is the true [Page 29] property of diuine faith: and that is it which he countes simplicity and calleth it implicite faith to beleiue that whereof we vnderstand not the reason but heerein he destroyeth the very nature of faith expressely contradicting S. Paul's defini­tion thereof, which is this:Hebr 11.1. Faith is the substance of things to bee hoped for an argument of things not ap­pearing: and S. Aug plainely saith: that is faith to beleeue that which thou dost not see and S. Greg. addeth:Greg. ho. 36. in Euang. that faith hath noe meritt where humane reason giueth experiēce. Soe as for a man to speake against this kind of implicite is plaine infidelity and therefore I shall say noe more of it but one­ly, supposing it as a most certaine and commonly receiued principle of the Fathers and point of absolutely necessary Christian humility for a man soe to submitt his iudgment in what hee vnderstandeth not, I shall conclude with a word of Vincent. Lerinensis wishing such men as haue suffered themselues out of praesumption to bee carried away with some nouell opinions out of the Catholique Church to returne therevnto by this humility of implicite faith in these words. Dediscant bene quod didicerunt non bene, cap. 25. & ex toto ecclesiae dogmate quod intellectu capi potest capiant; quod non potest credant. Let them vnlearne well that which they haue learnt not well, and out of the whole doctrine of the Church Lett them cōceiue what can bee conceiued; what cannot let them beleeue. Which authority alone is sufficient to warrant our distinction of explici­te and implicite faith against all Sir Humphrey's [Page 30] scornefull laughter.Chap. 2. And soe hauing noted thus much in this place by occasion of his praeambles I come now to the examination of his sections.

Whether the Church of Rome bee with out cause bitter against the reformed Churches, as the knight affirmeth. CHAPTER II.

1. THe Knight's first section is to proue, that the Church of Rome is without cause bitter against the reformed Churches: That she is bitter, he proueth, because wee stile him and his not onely by the common name of Haereti­ques, but also by other special reproachfull epithites pertayning to the seuerall Sects of Zuinglius, Luther, Caluin &c. Secondly be­cause we accurse and excommunicate them, and will not let them liue with vs, whereas wee admitt Iewes and Infidels. That all this is without cause he proueth, first by an authority of Theodoret, which speakes of a contention betweene two factions in the Church of Antioch, and the reason to allay it, because (saith Theo­doret) both parts make one and the same con­fession [Page 31] of their faith, for both maintaine the Creede of the Nicene Councel. Secondly by the authority of Bellarmine, whom hee maketh to say, that the Apostles neuer propounded as common articles of faith, other things then the articles of the Apostles Creede, the ten commandements, and some few of the Sacraments: because these things are simply necessary and profitable for all men, the rest are such as a man may bee saued without them. Thirdly he maketh it an vndeniable truth that the refor­med Church and the Romane are two Sisters; and that the Romane Church fayling, and beco­ming an Harlott: it was well done of his Church to seperate her self, least she might bee partaker of her plagues. And soe goeth on in­ueighing bitterly against the Romane Church to the very end of the Section, whereof this is the whole substance, which I haue brought into this methode the better to answeare it.

2. That wee Catholiques stile the Knight and his Reformers by the common name of Haeretiques wee deny not: that some par­ticular Catholique authors stile some of them that is the Zuinglians, Lutherans, and others by other reproachfull names wee also deny not. But why this Knight should com­plaine, as if he were iniured in all the se­uerall names, that are giuen to the seue­rall sects of Haeretiques, I see not; vn­lesse it soe bee that hee be of all their seuerall religions; which yet I see not [Page 32] how hee can bee they being soe many and soe contrary among themselues. But be he of one or other or more, and lett him but goe into Germany and professe himself a Caluinist, or a Zuinglian, hee shall finde soe good entertayn­ment and such gentle termes at the Lutheran's hands, as I dare boldly say, he will neuer com­plaine more of the bitternes of Catholiques against him and his Brethren.

For the word (Haeretique) which is the worst of all other, as contayning all in it self, he cannot but know that it hath euer gone with such, as haue held new particular doctri­nes, different from the common doctrine of the Catholique Church; and therefore the word according to the etymology is noe word of contumely, but a word signifying the nature of the thing; and it is onely growne by custo­me to bee contumelious: because the thing it self, to wit, haeresie, is the most detestable thing in the world. If then the thing ot crime of haeresie pertaine to à man, and that hee be noto­riously guilty thereof, I see not what great bitternes it is to giue him the name of Haereti­que. If I would I could vrge his bitternes much more in the same kind and in this very section; as for example, where hee calleth the Catholique Church an harlott the whore of Babylon, the Pope Anti-Christ, Catholiques Idolaters and a great deale more: But I lett all that passe, making onely this answeare that wee doe nothing in this matter of names which seemeth to him soe [Page 33] great a point of bitternes but what we can warrant by very good authority and example euen of scripture.Act. 13.11. 2. Cor. 11.15 S. Paul called that enemy of faith Elymas the Magician, Sonne of the Di­uell, Enemy of all iustice: and false Apostles in general, that is Haeretiques, he calleth the Mini­sters of Sathan. In an other place;Philip. 3.2. 1. Io. 2.18. Ep. Iud. he calleth Haeretiques by the name of Doggs. S. Iohn cal­leth them Antichrists. S. Iude is most vehemēt against them, giuing them many bitter epithe­tes and comparing them to Cain, to Balaam, to Core. Our Sauiour himself said of one of his Disciples, that hee was a Diuell,Ioan. 6. which hee meant of Iudas, who is ordinarily and worthily ranked among Haeretiques. Which considered; Sir Humphrey you should neuer haue stood complayning of the word: but freed your selfe of the matter, and all had beene well.

3. For that other point of bitternes, that wee accurse and excommunicate you, and spare Iewes and Infidells, accusing vs therein of great cruelty and bitternes; You should haue remembred S. Paul's authority and example. Doth not he excommunicate the incestuous Corinthian, and deliuer him to the Diuel, and yet spare Iewes and Infidels? He doth; and giues the reason why he spareth them, to wit, because he hath noe authority ouer them. Quid mihi de ijs qui foris sunt iudicare? 1. Cor. 5.12. what haue I to doe to iudge those that are without? that is, out of my iurisdiction? but because you Sir Humphrey shall not likewise say, that by priui­ledge [Page 34] of your haeresie you likewise exempt your selfe,1. Timoth. I. 20. you may remember how S. Paul in an other place, deliuereth Alexander and Hyme­craeus, Haeretiques, to Satan. Which yet you cannott call bitternesse, but iust seuerity; vn­lesse you will also take vpon you to condemne S. Paul of cruelty and bitternes, which I pre­sume you will not. If then you and your fel­low Ministers bee Haeretiques, as they were, why should you deny to vndergoe the same Doome? Cleare your self of the haeresie, but complaine not of the curse and excommuni­cation? it is and hath euer beene the iust cen­sure of the Church against Haeretiques, Schisma­tiques, and all enormous and contumacious sinners? wee must not alter Lawes for you Sir Hūphrey, though you alter faith at your pleasure.

4. Now then lett vs see whether there bee cause for the seuerity, which the Catholique Church doth vse, by calling our Reformers Hae­retiques, and denouncing them subiect to Ana­thema. Sir Humphrey's first reason to the cōtrary is, out of Theodoret's history; but that maketh nothing for him, but rather quite contrary; and withall giueth a tast in the very beginning, how truely ād conformably to their minds he allead­geth authors. Theodoret speaketh of a schisme, diuision, or dissension which long troubled the Church of Antioch, about their Bishop; some taking one to bee their lawfull Bishop, and com­municating onely with him; and such as held with him; Others in like sort with the other: [Page 35] Which contention dured not onely during one Bishop's life, but more each side choosing a new one, in place of their Bishop deceased; his words are these, speaking of some Bishops, who gathering together said that the Churches, were to be brought to concord. Nam consta­bat &c. For it was plaine, Lib. 3. cap. 4 that they were not o­nely impugned by the fauourers of contrary doctri­ne, but also that they were pulled insunder by mutual dissention among themselues. For at An­tioch the body of the Church which followed sound Doctrine, was diuided into two parts; for all, who standing for the excellent man Eustathius had separated themselues, did perpetually make their meeting a part: and they which stood for that ad­mirable man Meletius, separated from the Arian faction, did celebrate the holy Mysteries in Palaea: (Soe the place was called) and yet was the con­fession of faith of both one and other the same. For both companies did defend the doctrine of faith, caught in t [...]e Councel of Nice, the contention being onely of an other matter, and out of the loue which they did beare to their Bishops neither could the death of the one take away the discord. These and Theodorets owne words, which are inough to shew the case to be cleane different: the­re the contention was not for matter of faith or doctrine, heere it is; there the Catholiques of both sides though at variance among themselues for other matters, yet in reguard of faith they would haue nothing to doe with Arrians. Soe it is now with [Page 34] [...] [Page 35] [...] [Page 36] vs Catholiques, though there may be contentions for other matters as for Superiority, extent of iurisdiction, priuiledges, exemptions, or the like, yet all ioyntly detest all haereticall doctrine. There indeede both sides embraced the Nicene Creede, which was the onely point in con­trouersy at that tyme, which now our Refor­mers professe to beleeue: but they differ in the profession of faith of the Councel of Trent; whe­reof the reason is the same now, as it was then of the Creede of Nice. For that was against the haeresies of those tymes, and this against the haere­sies of these. If then the knight find Catholiques dis­agreeing among themselues about other mat­ters, yet agreeing in the profession of faith of the Councel of Trent; he may alleadge this au­thority of Theodoret, to allay the cōtention. But for the matter betweene him and vs, it is wholly impertinent, and out of season; and a wrong to Theodoret himself to haue his authority allead­ged, for perswading of concord with Haereti­ques, without their renouncing of their haeresies.

5. But a man may well haue patience to see this author's meaning abused, when hee shall see both Bellarmines meaning abused, and his words corrupted, as I shall now shew. His words out of himselfe are these.Lib. 4. de verb. Dei. cap. 11. It is to bee noted first, that in the Christian Doctrine, as well of faith as manners, there bee some things simply necessary to Saluation for all men; as the knowledge of the arti­cles of the Apostles Creede, the ten Commandments, and some Sacraments. Other things are not soe neces­sary, [Page 37] as that without the explicite knowledge, beleefe and profession of them, a man may not bee saued; soe hee haue a ready will to receiue and beleeue thē, when they shalbee laufully propounded vnto him by the Church. Thus Bellarmine in one place, and in another a little after againe hee saith. Note se­condly, that the Apostles did preach to all, those things which were necessary for all; but of other things, not all to all; but some to all, and some onely to Praelats, Bishops, and Priests. Soe Bellarmine. By which any man may see, how falsely and cun­ningly the knighs hath dealt in citing this autho­rity: For I would know of him, where Bellar­mine saith, that the Apostles neuer propounded as common articles of faith, other things then the arti­cles of the Apostles Creede, the ten commandments, and some few Sacraments? to begin first with the last word; where doth Bellarmine say some few Sacraments: he saith some Sacraments indeede; but (few) he saith not. Which though it bee not much yet I cannot thinke but Sir Hum­phrey had a meaning in it, to make Bellarmine symbolize, with him in his paucity of Sacra­ments. Secondly where, doth Bellarmine say, that the Apostles propounded the ten commandments and some Sacraments, as articles of faith? where finde you that Sir Humphrey? Doe not you make more articles of faith now then euer any man did before? The ten commandments are indeede to bee beleeued but yet are they not soe much mat­ter of beleefe, as practize; not soe much pertay­ning to faith, as to charity towards God and our [Page 38] Neighbour and this Bellarmine saw very well, when he said, that in the Christia doctrine, as wll of faith as maners, somethings were necessary to saluatiō for all men As the articles of the Apostle's Creede and the ten cōmandements and some Sacraments. For the Creede belongeth to faith, the commande­ments and Sacraments to manners. For Bellar­mine speaketh heere, not onely what is neces­sary for all men to beleeue, but what is ne­cessary for all men to doe, for obtayning of saluation; according to that commission of our Sauiour to his Apostles: Goe teach all na­tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost, teaching them to obserue whatsoeuer I haue commanded you.

6. I doe not say, that wee are not to belee­ue these things also; for we cannot practise them vnlesse we know them, and some we cannot know otherwise then by faith. The commādements indeede are principles of rea­son, drawne euen from the very light of nature though taught by diuine authority; but the Sacraments are taught onely by faith, yet soe as they are ordayned principally for practise, noe lesse then the Commaundements, and there­fore not articles of faith, but sufficiently con­tayned in the article of the Catholique Church, for without Sacraments there can bee noe Church. Thirdly where doth Bellarmine say, that the Apostles neuer propounded for common ar­ticles of faith other then the things mentioned? I doe not finde it, but rather the contrary: For be­sides [Page 39] these things which he saith were simply necessary for all, and without which men of discretion were not to bee admitted to Baptisme, he saith that For those other things, which were not simply necessary, that is, with­out the expresse knowledge whereof, they, that is, men of yeares, might be admitted to Ba­ptisme and saued the Apostles did preach many other things; some of them to all, to wit, those things which were profitable for all, and some againe onely to some, as to Praelats, Bishop's, and Priests. And heere alsoe Sir Humphrey yow cunningly ioyne these two things in one; things simply necessary, and profitable, as if both were meant onely of one kind of things: whereas the Cardinal doth distinguish the one from the other. Which though it bee but a lesse matter, yet it sheweth your corrupt min­de that can relate nothing sincerely. Fourthly whereas Bellarmine saith, that these things by you named are simply necessary, he saith with all that there bee other things not soe necessary, as that without the explicite knowledge and profession of them a man may not bee saued, soe hee haue a ready will to receiue and beleeue them, when they shalbe lawfully pro­pounded vnto him, by the Church; You were plea­sed to leaue out the word (explicite) in the former part of the sentence and with it alsoe to leaue out the whole later part; Bellarmine requiring an explicite faith of same things, and an implicite faith of other that is a readines of will to receiue & beleeue thē whē they shalbe propoū ­ded [Page 40] by the Church which kind of faith though you like not as being the thing that maketh a Catholique yet you should haue let it stād among Bellarmines words, you haue the liberty to con­fute him if you can, but not to put in or out what you list.

7. Besides these foure corruptions of Bellar­mine, by putting in some words of your owne, ād leauing out some of his, I might tax you with corrupting his meaning, for your owne purpo­se. For by saying that the explicite beleefe of these things is necessary for all, he doth not meane as you would haue him, that it was free for any man to choose, whether hee will beleiue any thing els of those which the Apostles preached: for that were most false. Neither is it his meaning, though he say those things be necessary, that therefore they alone are sufficient for all men, and that noe man is bound to know or beleeue explicitely also, any thing more. For without question those things which the Apostles taught to Praelats Bishops ād Priests, were to be beleeued by thē explicitely. Wherefore the beleife of the Apostles Creede, the ten comandments, and some few Sacraments, is not sufficiēt for your Ministers, who pretend to be Bishops and Priests; but they are bound to know and beleeue more. How then will you make the beleife of those necessary things sufficient, to make cōcord and vnity in faith, seing some men are bound to be­leeue, more euē explicitely and all men bound to beleeue whatsoeuer the Catholique Church shall propound implicitely and consequently not to [Page 41] deny any thing els soe propounded. For not o­nely the deniall of those but of whatsoeuer els preached by the Apostles or Church is enough to make a mā an Haeretiq. Thus therefore you haue egregiously abused both Bellarmines words and meaning, and consequently not proued your intent; that because you retaine the Apostles Creede, which you call the general cognizan­ce of our faith, therefore there is noe cause to ranke you with Haeretiques. For this Cogni­zance was not sufficient for an Arrian, with out the explication thereof in the Nicene Creede, as may bee gathered out of Theodoret before ci­ted: and soe may I now say it is not sufficient to distinguish a Catholique from a Lutheran, Cal­uinist, Protestant, or other Haeretique of these tymes, without the explication of the Trent profession of Faith. For this is now the touchstone to try who beleeueth the Apostles Creede in dee­de and who in words onely; And this your self must confesse, who terme some Sects Haeretiques, and vs Catholiques, Idolaters, nowithstanding we and they professe the Apostles Creede which you call the cognizance of our faith.

8. Now to that which you say, that the Ro­mane Church and yours are Sisters, and that the Romane, playing the harlott, yours went out of her. I answeare, that this is soe farre from clearing you from the note of haeresy, that it doth rather make you more guilty thereof. Your Church indeede cometh out of ours as all haeretical sects haue euer come out of the Catholi­que [Page 42] Church. For soe saith S. Iohn of Haeretiques, ex nobis prodierunt, sed non erant ex nobis; nam si fuissent ex nobis permansissent vtique nobiscum, sed vt manifesti sint quoniam non sunt omnes ex nobis. 1. Io. 2.19. They went out of vs, but they were not of vs: for if they had beene of vs, they would verily haue staid with vs: but that they may bee mani­fest that they are not all of vs: And among other marks of Haeretiques, S. Iude alsoe recko­neth this.Ep. Iud. 19. Hi sunt, qui segregant semetipsos, these are they that separate themselues. S. Paul saith to the Ephesians, that out of themselues some should rise speaking peruerse things, Actor. 20. that they might draw Disciples after them. S. Aug. explicateth that place of the Psalme 30 Qui videbant me foras fugerunt a me. Aug. in Ps. 30. They that saw mee fled forth from mee, to bee meant of Haeretiques: because when they saw what the Church was, they went. Forth and made haere­sies and schismes against it. and euery where vr­geth this, and nothing more then this, against the Donatists, who iustified themselues as you Sir Knight iustify your Church. Much more of this might bee said, but this may serue to shew you not to bee in your right witts, that bragg of that which you ought most to bee ashamed of, and account that to make for you which makes most against you.

9. For that which you talke of goeing out of Aegipt and Babylon, which you would haue men vnderstand the Catholique Church, as if you were commaunded to goe out from her, Doe but once shew vs that Aegypt and Baby­lon, [Page 43] which the Sripture speaketh of, were euer the true Church, and then you may seeme to haue said some what for your Churches depar­ture from the Romane: Which impudence it self cannot deny to haue beene once the true Church. You are bold indeede to say that Ba­bylon was a true Church, wherewith somety­mes the faithfull did communicate, but that after it was more depraued, the faithfull are commanded to goe out of it. But I may aske you where you reade this? what Father, what Doctour, what man euer tooke Babylon in scripture to be vsed for the name of the true Church? S. Peter in one of his Epistles speaketh of Rome by the name of Babylon: out of which a multitude of Fathers and Doctours proue that Saint Peter was at Rome, and now you forsooth bring some of them cited by our authors to that purpose, to proue that by Ba­bylon is vnderstood the true Church. Abusing all those Fathers most egregiously, among all whom neuer one meant any such matter: but onely by Babylon vnderstood the tempo­ral state and gouernment of the Citty of Rome, as it was subiect to those Pagan ty­rannizing Emperours, which persecuted the Church and people of God; wherein it did re­semble that other ancient and true Babylon, which detayned the Iewes, then the true Church and people of God in captiuity and oppression. Which also S. Peter's owne words [Page 44] doe sufficiently shew, distinguishing most plai­nely Babylon from the true Church. For he saith thus.1. Pet. 5.13. Ecclesia quae est in Babylone coëlecta. The Church which is in Babylon coelect saluteth you. Not that Babylon was a true Church as your words are Sir Humphrey.

10. Now whereas you say, that when she was depraued, the faithfull were willed to goe out of her, that is, out of her that was once the true Church. You are extreamely mistaken. For if you meane any true Babylon as that Citty of Chaldaea, or that other of Aegypt, or Babylon by similitude and like­nes, as was Rome in tyme of the Heathē Emperours and as many Interpreters thinke towards the end of the world in tyme of Antichrist the citty or temporal gouernment thereof shall againe become, (of which tyme that of the Apocalypse is meant, that the faithfull shall fly, for auoyding of the cruelty and tyranny of the persecu­tours, which shall then bee more cruel then euer,) or if by Babylon you meane the whole company of wicked men, from the beginning to the end of the world, as S. Aug. taketh it throughout his great worke de ciuit. Dei, and other Fathers and Doctours, and many interpreters vnderstand that place of the Apocalypse 18. If I say you meane it any of these wayes, as noe man of vnderstan­ding euer meant or vnderstood it otherwise, then was it neuer any true Church, and soe the Children and people of God might well bee willed to gett out of it, either locally by motion of the body, or spiritually by auoyding the mā ­ners [Page 45] of the people, not hauing any thing with them in their wicked wayes. But if you meane as you expresse your selfe, that by Babylon is vnder­stood the true Church, and that it may bee de­praued, that is, that the Church of Christ not­withstanding all his promises for the perpetuity thereof, as That hee would bee with it to the worlds end, That it was built vpō a rocke, That the Gates of hell should not preuaile against it, That he would send the Holy Ghost to bee with it for euer, notwithstanding that the Church is his kingdome, his inheritance, his mysticall body, his Spouse; that notwithstanding all this I say, it should faile, it shoull bee depraued, it should bee wiolated, I know not what to say but to stopp myne eares against that mouth of blas­phemy of yours and heerewith end this sectiō, the rest thereof being nothing but the bitter froth of a distempered stomacke, and vn­worthy of answeare.

Chap. 3.THE EXAMINATION OF Sir Humphrey's second and third Section. CHAPTER III.

1. IN the second Section Sir Humphrey la­boureth to proue the contention betwixt the Churches (as he calleth them) to proceede originally from vs, and this by the confessions of our owne. The third Section is to proue the corruptions both in faith and manners confessed by some of vs, and yet reforma­cion denied by the Pope. Both which are easily answeared. First by asking what all this is to his purpose, suppose it were true? Doth this shew his Church to haue beene alwayes visi­ble, or ours to haue beene at any tyme not visible. Hee was not to stand vpon matter of contention, who was cause or not cause the­reof, or who would haue mended, who not. For the errors in faith, which hee seemeth to tax [...]s with-all in his third section: if he can proue them, he saith somewhat indeede; though yet not soe fully to his purpose. For though hee proue vs to haue had some er­rours it doth not soe presently follow that [Page 47] they of his side haue had none; or that the­refore their Church hath beene euer visible there is a great deale more required to it then soe. And though he should proue some er­rors to haue beene taught by some particular men, or euen in some Country professing the Catholique faith, it doth not follow that the Catholique Church hath fayled in faith, or ceased to bee visible.

2. Secondly I answeare to his second Section, which is to proue that the conten­tion proceeded from vs, which hee vnder­taketh to proue by our owne confession: that in all this Section, he bringeth but fow­re authorities to wit. Cassander, a Canon of his English Church out of the praeface to Iewels works; Camden citing S. Bede, Plessy Morney citing Michael Caesenas. Of all which onely S. Bede is a Catholique, and euen ci­ted by the Protestant Camden, and onely for a story which he tels of one Redwalde king of the East Saxons, who being first conuerted to Christianity, and after seduced by his wife had in the same Church, two altars, one for Christ's religion, another for the Di­uels out of which this knight frameth to him­self a pretty fancy, being desirous heereby to make men beleiue, that the like happened in the Romane Church, and that some ado­red God onely, others fell to adore Saints and images, and the like. Which fond conceit what answeare can it deserue? [Page 48] For it is but the bare saying of one that doth not vnderstand what he saith. For otherwise how could he possibly say such a thing of him­self without saying when, where, or how that happed, to vs; or euer saying word in proofe that the case is the same. I might with as much reason out of this story of Redwalde say as much of Sir Humphrey Linde that hee and his Protestants haue built a new Church, a new faith, erected an altar against an altar, &c.

3. But as I was saying of his authors, they are not many as you see, much lesse haue they any part among Catholiques. For Cassander, Mi­chael de Caesenas, and Philip Morney, are in the Index of forbidden books. Camden and his English Canon writers are Protestants; but, which is more strange, not a man of these such as they are, that saith any thing of that which hee preten­deth in the title of his Chapter, but onely Cas­sander; who after the fashion of Haretiques, speaketh of the Pompe and pride of the Clergy, and that they will not hearken to the admoni­tions of some godly men aduising reformation: these godly men he meaneth, such as himself, that is Haeretiques or next doore to them, though Sir Humphrey please often to call him a Learned Romanist. Soe that all the cause that euen this man alleageth of the contention is, because the ecclesiastical persons will not yeild themselues to Hae­retiques, and lett them haue the ordering and disposing of all things at their pleasures; there­fore they breake away and fall into contention [Page 49] with the Church. What cause doe Clergy men giue of contention? in not submitting them­selues to their inferiours, and to men that haue noe authority ouer them: or euen if the counsel of these people were good as it is not and that Clergy men thinke not good to follow it, must they therefore presently fall to schisme and haeresy, tearing and renting the Church. By what Law are Clergy men bound to obey such fellowes? if in a ciuill commonwealth, some great man should dislike the gouernment, eyther because his enemyes haue the mana­ging of matters, or that he thimketh he could doe it better then they, and presuming to giue counsell to the Prince and his counsel, they shoull not follow it, and that therefore hee should goe from court make head and raise a rebellion in the common wealth; who should bee counted cause of this contention? the Prince and his Counsel or hee? if Sir Hum­phrey be iudge, he must say, the Prince and his Counsel, if he will make good his man Cas­sander's discourse.

4. As for Michael de Caesena whom the Knight also calleth a learned Friar, it is true he was a Friar and General of his Order, but for his learning I neuer heard any such commenda­tion of it: but we know why the Knight prayseth him: Well be it soe; but the man being excommunicated and deposed by the Pope, for his disobedience and rebellion, he said that particular man, which was Iohn 22. [Page 50] was an Apostata, and an Heretique: and there­fore noe true Pope. But that he made two such Churches, one of the wicked vnder the Pope, another of the good without any heade as Morney makes him make, and this Knight out of him, I find not in any, good author, but rather that hee allowed of the authority of the Romane Church; for he appealed from the Popes sentence to it; as may be seene in Coquus his answeare to Morney's mystery of iniquity pag. 205. to. 2. and in the table verbo Michael de Coesena. Neither was he euer taxed with any such haeresy.

5. His English Church-Canon commandeth nothing to be taught as matter of faith, but what is agreable to the Old and new testament, and is collected out of the ancient Fathers and Catholique Bishops but what is that to the pur­pose? how doth this proue vs to giue the cause of Contention? hee will say, this proueth his men to giue none. I answeare that if all the rest of their Canons and proceedings were answearable to the saying of this Canon, there would perhaps bee somewhat lesse to doe. Though it be not any way conformable to the Scripture and doctrine of fathers for lay autho­rity to make Canons for Clergy men: and the­refore the practise shewed in this Canon is con­trary to the words. And soe the 2. section is answeared.

6. The third section is of corruptions both [Page 51] in faith and manners which the Knight saith we confesse and yet deny to reforme. He proueth it out of the Councel of Pisa where Alexander the 5.Concil Pi­san. sess. 20. promised to attend to the reformacion of the Church and out of the Councel of Trent acknowledging many things amisse in matter of indulgences, Masse &c. To this I answeare that for matter of manners we willingly acknow­ledge reformacion to be needfull: and such it is that these two Councels speake of, and haue per­formed as is to beseene by their Decrees: though the former be not of any great authority.Concil. Tri­dent. sess. 22. Decret. de reformat. And for the later, it complaineth indeede with great reason of the auarice of such as had the ga­thering of moneys giuen in almes by occasion of indulgences. Whom the Knight calleth the Popes Collectors though the Councel speake not of the Pope. But he out of his loue to the Pope would faine bring him in vpon al such occa­sions. This is true: but false it is, which he saith: that the Councel complaineth of indul­gences an article of the Romane faith as his words are. For as it reformeth the cor­ruption of the officers, soe doth it establish the truth of the Doctrine, as appeareth by a par­ticular decree thereof which is also acknow­ledged and cited els where by this Knight him­self whereby hee is conuinced of wilfull cor­ruption. The same Councel likewise complaineth of many things crept in, in the celebration of Masse by the fault of the tymes, or carelesnesse and wickednesse of men which are farre from [Page 52] the dignity of soe great a sacrifice. The words of the Councel are right cited by him in Lati­ne in the margent, perhaps to saue his credit by sincerity soe much promised in his Epistle dedicatory but in the English, which goeth in the text he fouly corrupteth them they are thus in Latine. Cum multa irrepsisse videantur. Which in English is this. Seing many things seeme to haue crept in: which the Knight trans­lateth thus, there were many errors and cor­ruptions crept in to the Masse: which is a grosse error and corruption in the Knight the Councel speaking onely of abuses which were crept in not of errours in matter of faith. The Councel likewise seemeth to acknowledge the auarice of Priests making such bargaines for the saying of Masse as was not far from Simo­ny, or at least filthy lucre. It speaketh of the vse of musique where with some wantonesse was mixed as alsoe of certaine Masses or cand­les vsed in certaine number, that number pro­ceeding rather from superstition then true reli­gion this is true soe farre.

7. But that is not true, which the Knight saith, that we deny a reformation of these things for to what other end are they re­counted there, but to be reformed nay they are not named, but by way of forbidding them, and by way of commanding Bishops to refor­me such things euen as delegats of the see Apo­stolique, where there is neede. Which is soe apparent, that the Knight is faine to confesse [Page 53] it after in these words. Neither did these men seeke reformation in manners onely, but in the doctrine it selfe. Wherein together with the contradiction of his owne former lye he telleth a new one, to wit in saying that we seeke a reformation in the doctrine whereof he nameth some particular points as priuate Masse, Latine seruice &c. Which is most false for the doctrine, is the same still, and euer was, that though the fruite were greater when the people did communicate with the Priest sacramentally, yet the Masse in that case is neither vnlawfull, not is to be called priuate: both because the people communicate spiri­tually, and also because the Masse is offered by the Priest, as the publique Minister of the Church. It wisheth indeede, that the standers by did communicate not onely spiritually, but alsoe sacramentally: without euer mentioning the reformed or rather deformed Churches.

8. What error then doth the Councel hee­re acknowledge? Againe the knight saith that though the Councel doe not allow the celebra­ting of Masse in the vulgar tongue, yet it com­mandeth Pastors and others that haue care of soules, to explicate and expound to the people some of those things that are reade in the Masse: and asketh thus, how neere these men doe come to our doctrine, who doth not per­ceiue! I answeare that doe not I Sir Hum­phrey, nor I thinke any man els. That hath ordinary, common sense. You condemne all [Page 54] Masse. The Councel alloweth it: you condemne priuate Masse. The Councel approueth that which you call priuate Masse, but denieth that it is soe called Priuate as you would haue it. The Councel speaketh of Masse the true and pro­per Sacrifice of the new Law: you would make men beleeue it speaketh of your sacrilegious Supper. In our Masse and Communion as the Councel teacheth is offered and distributed the true, real and substantiall. Body and Bloude of CHRIST IESVS and what it saith hereof you most madly would make me beleeue were spoken of your empty and imaginary commu­nion. The Councel teacheth that the Masse is not generally to bee celebrated in the vulgar ton­gue: you would all publique prayer soe made: and therefore condemne the Catholique Church for celebrating in Latine which the Councel allo­weth. O madnes of a man then! to talke thus as if the Councel came neere to him when it saith yea to his nay, and nay to his yea.

9. But hauing thus substantially proued the Councel, to agree with him and finding other places of the same soe euidently against him hee will needs haue the Councel contradict it self and for that end bringeth certaine contradictions as he wisely taketh them to be: One is that the Pope in his Bull of profession of faith, saith, that the vse of Indulgences is most wholesome for the people. For which hee might haue cited also the Councel more thou once; and that yet the Councel cōfessed the scandal that came by them was very great, [Page 55] with out hope of reformacion: which is not cō ­tradiction betweene the Councel and Pope but a flatt corruption of the Knights: the Pope speaking of one thing, to wit, Indulgences in themselues: the Councel in this place speaking of the men, that had the promulgacion of them, and the ga­thering of the almes. For preuenting whose auarice & abuses, there had bene soe many reme­dies vsed formerly in other Councels, but to no­ne effect, that this Councel thought good, to take that office wholy out of such mens hands, and take another course with it. What seeming con­tradiction is heere? Another of his cōtradiction is, that the Councel approueth those Masses, whe­rein the people doe not communicate, and yet wisheth that the people were soe deuoute as to communicate sacramētally. Is not heere a stout cōtradiction: as also that the Councel approueth Masse in an vn knowne tōgue, and yet will haue the Priests, especially vpon Sundayes and Holi­dayes, to declare some of that which is read, or some mystery of the holy Masse? Doe not these two agree very well, I doe not see what the Man meaneth.

10. And to conclude this wise section, he talketh somewhat of reformacion hindered by some principall men as one Nicolas Scomberg a Dominican Cardinal. Citing fowre or fiue most haeretical books namely forbidden in the Romane Index (and among them the history of the Councel of Trent not named in the Index, because it came out since, but written by an [Page 56] Arche-haeretique and noe lesse detested by. Catho­liques then any of the rest.) Which I passe ouer as of noe account, nor alleadged to any pur­pose. As for reformacion who can say it is hin­dered, but onely by Haeretiques. For what els hath the Counce [...] of Trent done, but reformed all abuses of manners, where it is or can be receiued; and for errours of faith taught by Haeretiques, it hath vtterly condemned them, and banished them from the eares of al Ca­tholiques. What reformacion then hath it hin­dered, but the haeretical reformacion where­vnto Cardinal Scomberg said well, if you and your history of Trent say true, that it was noe way to yeild a iott to Haeretiques; for it is not indeede; for the practize of the Church hath euer beene to the contrary, shewing thereby that the way to ouercome haeresy is, wholy to resist it, and though that thing wich the Hae­retiques teach or would haue practized, were before indifferent, yet for their vrging the same vpon their haeretical grounds it hath beene absolutely forbidden least wee might seeme to haue yeilded to them, and soe con­firme them or drawe Others to beleeue them or their doctrine who to reprehend and con­tradict the Catholique Church many tymes make things of indifferency to bee of necessity that they forsooth may seeme the onely Wisemen in the world: and the Church of God subiect to errours. Which I could proue by many examples, if neede were. And heerewith I [Page 57] make an end of this chapter, wherein I haue disproued the Knight, and conuinced him of manifest falshood in both the things by him pretended, shewing in the one that the Councel acknowledged not any corruption in matters of faith, but onely by Haeretiques: and in the other, that for corruption of manners which it ac­knowledged it hath vsed all possible meanes to redresse them.

Of Sir Humphrey's 4. Section; whereof the title is this. That many learned Romanist, conuicted by the euidence of truth, either in part, or in whole haue renounced Popery before their death. CHAPTER IIII.

1. I Could heere before I goe farther, aske what this maketh for the Visibility of the Knight his Church. For suppose it were true, and that we did yeild him his saying, that many haue fallen from the Catholique faith to be Protestants as it is cleare, that many haue; for otherwise there had neuer beene any Protestants in the world, Doth this make his Church visible in former tymes? or doth this proue Succession of Pastours [Page 58] in his Church, Chap. 4. without which noe Church can bee Visible? Yt is cleare it doth not. But because this is a generall fault throughout his whole booke, I will not stand noting it in euery Sec­tion apart, but this generall note may serue for all. To beginne heere with the title of this Sec­tion, if by Popery, he vnderstand, as I suppose he doth, that Faith, which we Catholiques pro­fesse vnder the Pope, as our supreme Pastour then it is foolishly said of him, that some haue re­nounced the same in part. For noe man can re­nounce the Catholique Faith in part, it being in­diuisible, but hee that ceaseth to beleeue one point ceaseth to beleeue any one as he should; that is, by way of true Diuine Faith.

2. Now to proue what he pretends hee hath about againe with his reformacion; and tel­leth vs, that were it not for endangering of the Romish religion, we would come neerer them in all the fundamentall points, which their Church teacheth. For example, he saith, the Councel of Basil did allow the Bohemians the vse of the cupp; Aeneas Syluius afterward Pope Pius 2. saith of the Marriage of Priests, that as vpon weighty reasons it was taken away, soe vpon weighty consideracions, it were wished to be restored. For priuate Masse as he calleth it, he saith that Doctour Harding saith the faithfull complaine. The translation of scriptures was as he telleth vs out of Causabon to Peron, and Causabon out of those of Doway importunitate Haereticorum. Besides he saith, out [Page 59] of my Lord Cook's reports, that for the first eleuen yeares of Q. Elizabeth all Catholiques did frequent their Church; and which is mo­re he will needs haue Bishop Gardener, Bel­larmine, and Albertus Pighius dye Protestants. He hath two more both Bishops to wit Paulus and Iohn Vergerius brothers, which he will needs haue dye of his religion, of whom be­cause I haue not heard much; nor doth hee cite any author but Sleidan and Osiander most notorious fellowes, both for lying and hae­resy, in whom I list not soe much as to looke what they say of these two, I giue him leaue to take them and make the best hee can of them:Sur. com­ment. rerum in orb. gest. anno. 1567. onely for that Paul Vergerius I finde in Surius, that when hee came to dye hee did cast forth an horrible stench and roared most fearefully like an oxe, besides other things soe strange and fearefull that one Venerandus Gablerus a famous Physician, and then an ear­nest Protestant who was with him at his death being strucken into horrour and ama­zement there vpon returned to the Catholique Church againe. But because this knight stan­deth soe in neede of people, as it seemeth, to make vpp number, and soe would faine borrow some of ours there be Apostataes enough and too many of seuerall sorts, and in seuerall countries, which would make a iolly shew, and make his booke swell handsomely, I wil giue him leaue to take them all.

[Page 60]3. And for the rest I answeare thus first no­ting his fundamental points what they are, to wit, the Cupp; the Marriage of Priest; priuate Masse as hee calleth it; and the translation of Scriptures into the vulgar tongue: Which for all that if the Knight had wel considered, he might haue found not to bee soe fundamental, being matters more of practize then beleife. Se­condly, it seemeth that, for a man to incline in iudgment à little towards the Protestant's side, in any one of those points, is enough to make him of Sir Humphrey's Church, though in all others he bee of a quite contrary opinion, as we shall see. The Counsel of Basil, is the first that cometh neere his Church in matter of the Cupp, allowing the vse thereof to the Bohe­mians, vpon this condition as the knight himself saith out of Genebrarde, that they should not finde fault with the cōtrary vse, nor seuer them­selues from the Catholique Church. How neere then doth the Councel come to you Sir Hum­phrey. You condemne the vse of one kinde, the Councel will not haue it condemned; is this neere? the Councel will not haue you seuer your self from the Catholique Church; you doe: is not this also neere? but besides these two conditions the Councel requireth a third, to wit that they shall beleeue that there is noe more receiued vnder both kinds, then vnder one. You teach the quite contrary: how neere then are you. Now ouer and aboue al this, you know the Councel of Basil is of litle or noe [Page 61] with Catholiques, as being reproued by the See Apostolique.

4. Your second point is, of the Marri­age of Priests, which I see not why you should make soe fundamentall, vnlesse it bee to gaine the good will of the Ministery with whom I confesse it is of great account. You proue it by a saying of Aeneas Syluius, whom being à Pope, you would be gladd if Iou could make come neere you. But he co­meth as neere as the Councel of Basil. For first his authority as you cite it in this place is, but a saying of his related by Platina, with­out citing any worke where out it is taken: but you repeating the same againe with some little addition in your eleuenth section note in the margent his bookes de gestis Concilij Ba­sileensis, which you cannot but know to haue beene reuoked and condemned by himself, in bulla retractationis: and there excused by him, in that hee writ it in tyme of that Councel, being then a young man, neyther Priest nor Diuine, but onely a Grammarian and Poet, and coming then newly from those studies; and therefore he will haue those works coun­ted not Pius his works but the works of Aeneas Syluius, as hee saith expressely in the same Bull. Verendum saith hee,Pius 2. in Bull. re­tracta [...] 4. Concil. ne talia nostris aliquando successoribus obijciantur, & quae fue­runt Aeneae dicantur Pij. It is to be feared least sometymes heereafter such things may bee obiected to our Successours and those things [Page 62] which were Aeneas his be said to bee Pius his. Which therefore he reuoketh wishing others not to rely vpon or giue creditt vnto them in those things quae supremam Sedis Apo­stolicae authoritatem quouis pacto elidunt, aut ali­quid astruunt quod sacrosancta Romana non am­plectitur ecclesia. Which any way dash against the supreame authority of the See Apostoli­que or affirme any thing which the holy Ro­mane Church doth not embrace. Which yet your conscience can serue you to conceale, taking the obiection which he foresaw but leauing the answeare which he made; that thereby you might better deceiue men, with making them beleeue, as if there had beene a Pope a Protestant: this is good Dealing Sir Humphrey, and like you.

5. Doctour Harding cometh next whom in like sort you abuse, notably citing his words by halfes, and making him to say, the faith­full haue since the primitiue Church much complayned of priuate Masse, as you call it, whereas he saith onely, that the godly and faithfull people haue complained of the cold­nes of Catholiques, in that they doe not com­municate soe feruently and frequently as they did in the primitiue Church; not of the Priests saying Masse, when there bee none to com­municate. This is therefore also Sir Humphrey-like to say one thing for another. Now for the translation of Scriptures, you triumph, as if tho­se of Doway confessed that they did it impor­tunitate [Page 63] Haereticorum; and for this you are faine to be beholding to Casaubon's epistle to Peron, which you cite; whereas you might haue looked your self in the booke better then Casaubon, who was a French man, and is supposed not to vnderstand English soe well as you; but it may bee you looked in the booke, and finding Casaubon tell an vntruth; you would tell it after him though you knew it to be such, because you thought it made a­gainst vs, and for the disgrace when you should be charged with it, you meant it should light vpon your author but there is shame enough in store for you both. You should haue cited the place, where these of Doway say soe, for I finde it not, those of Rhemes in­deede, who were the same authors say quite contrary in their preface, to wit,Rhem. test. Praef. initio. that they doe not translate the scriptures for any of those reasons, which Haeretiques vrge; but for the more speedy abolishing of haereticall transla­tions and they there, shew that there haue beene some vulgar translations of scriptures long before Luther's tyme, and that the rea­ding of them was neither generally forbidden, nor generally permitted in former tymes, noe more then they are now: how neere then doe they come?

6. As for that which you tell vs out of my L. Cook's report's, that our Catho­liques did frequent your Churches till the ele­uenth yeare of Q. Elizabeth. I answeare [Page 64] that for my Lo: Cooke, I haue not to meddle with him,Answ. to. Cook. reports cap. 16. neyther neede I; hee was soe soundly answeared by a Catholique Diuine and soe expo­sed to the scorne of the world for his notorious falshoods, and euen in this particular among others that he neuer had the hart or face to make answeare for himselfe. And yet now you are not ashamed to take vpp his false ta­les, and tell them againe afresh. Now after this for a leafe together you talke your ordinary fustion; that many Catholiques hold this, and that, and tother point of your doctrine, though they dare not communicate openly with you. For why I pray should they not dare heere in England, where they are compelled thereunto? But I lett this passe as being all your owne dis­course: except onely one thing out of C [...]sterus, who saith that a Priest doth sinne more grie­uously in marrying a wife, then keeping a Concubine. Which you seeme to take for a great errour. To which I say that in your Mi­nisters who are meere lay men, and may marry as freely as any body els, it is a greater sinne to haue a concubine, then to marry; nay to marry is noe sinne. But in Priests, who cannot marry, it is a greater sinne to marry, for it is noe mar­riage and in this Sir I would know of you whether it would not bee a greater sinne, for a man to marry another mans wife, her husband being aliue, then to liue loosely with her at his pleasure? nay whether it be not worse for him to liue loosely with her, with promise to marry [Page 65] her when her husband dyeth then without such a promise? sure it is. For a promise in such a case, according to the Canons is an im­pediment that they can neuer marry together. Likewise is it not a greater sinne for a man to marrie with à neere kinswoman within the degrees forbidden: in which case it is noe Mar­riage, then to liue loosely with her? Sure it is, and yet this is it which you condemne in Coste­rus, but it makes noe matter what you say.

7. And soe I come to Bishop Gardiner, who you tell vs dyed a Protestant because when he came to dye he sett the Merits of Christ in the gap to stand betweene Gods iudgment and his sinnes. I answeare Sir Humphrey that if you can bring a Catholique that doth not doe soe, we will yeild Bishop Gardiner to haue died a Protestant. And soe of Bellarmine whom you make men beleeue to haue died a Protestant, be­cause hee craued pardon at the hands of God, not as a valewer of meritts, but as a giuer of mercy. For by this rule Bellarmine should not onely haue died but also liued a Protestant; for as often as hee said Masse, which was euery day throughout the yeare, that hee was able, for 40. yeares together at least before his death, he said those words and soe doth euery Catholi­que Priest as oft as he saith Masse for they are in the Canon of the Masse, Cap Signi­fi [...]sti. which is neuer chan­ged, but is alwaies the same though the epistles Ghospells and prayers change, according to the seueral tymes and feasts. What a madnes then [Page 66] is it heere hence to make Bellarmine a Protestant? but it is like the rest of your inferences.

8. But you haue another thing out of Bellar­mine, which is that he saith it is most safe to put trust in the onely mercy and goodnes of God. It is true Bellarmine saieth soe, but yet you leaue out the former part of the sentence, which was to be the reason and rule of the later part; which is this, by reason of the vncertainty of our owne iustice, and perill of vaine glory, it is most safe &c. Wherein I would faine see what there is to make Bellarmine a Protestant? For hee doth not deny that there is any confidence to be placed in our good works proceeding from God's grace, as you Protestants doe for he had proued in the same Chapter out of Scriptures and Fathers, that there might; but there hee saith withall that because we know not whether we haue such good works or noe, or though perhaps we know we haue, yet for feare of vaine glory, it is the better way to turne away our eyes from them, and looke onely vpon God's mercy: Which he pro­ueth by many prayers which the Church vseth in that manner and among others this very prayer whereby you gather him to be a Pro­testant: which as he vsed in his sicknes, soe he taught in health how it was to bee vsed without daunger of Protestantisme or any other such error but what? Doth this take away all merit of God works, or all confidence in them? nothing lesse good Sir knight as any [Page 67] man may see without farther declaration. Well but though you cannot make Bishop Gardner or Bellarmine-Protestants, Lib. 2. de iustif cap. 1. yet you will make Pighius a Caluinist, in the point of Iustifi­cation? But Bellarmine euen there where you cite him cleareth Pighius, though not from all errour, yet from that imputation of Calui­nisme in two respects: the one in that his opi­nion is not wholy the same with Caluin, for he acknowledgeth inhaerent iustification, which Caluin denieth; though in this he erre, that he thinketh that inhaerent iustifying forme to bee im­perfect and insufficient of it selfe to make men the adoptiue Children of God without, the imputatiue iustice of Christ. Which alsoe is not soe much Caluinisme as Lutheranisme. But bee it what it will Bellarmine excuseth Pighius in another respect, to wit, because he did not obstina­tely defend the errour as Caluin or Luther doth, which is the maine difference. For it is not the errour, but the obstinacy that maketh an Haeretique. And soe you see Sir Knight you haue not one true word in all this section: But lett vs now see your next.

[...]
[...]

Chap. 5.The Knight's 5. Section. Wherein hee vndertaketh to shew, how worldly policy and profitt hindereth the reformation of such things as are vnexcusable in themselues. CHAPTER V.

1. OF this Section there is not much to bee said. For there is nothing in it but a little of the knights owne rauing. For he telleth vs that now he seeth Trentals, Mas­ses, Diriges, Requiem, prayers for the dead, Indulgences, Purgatory, &c. made articles of faith, he despayreth of reformation. To which I neede make noe other answeare, but that it is a good signe that hee findes at last the strength of the Church soe built vpon a Rocke, as noe tempests or winds can shake it; but rather that by stormes and tempests it groweth stronger; the practize of the Catho­lique Church being strengthned against all Haeretiques, by the greatest authority on earth, to wit, a general Councel confirmed by the See [Page 69] Apostolique. Againe he despaires, when he seeth Maldonats saying (as he telleth vs) practized by the Church of Rome, against his Church and Do­ctrine, to wit, hee, that is, Maldonate, interpre­ting a place of S. Iohn, alloweth S. Augustin's explication as most probable, though hee ra­ther approue another of his owne, because it more crosseth the sense of the Caluinists. This is it that driueth him in to dispaire. Alas poore Sir Humphrey: is all your brauery come to this: what your hart faile you soe in the beginning? But it is noe wonder; such a cause may well make you despaire. And by your despaire you shew your Doctrine to be false; for true doctrine looseth nothing by being impugned, but rather gaineth, as experience sheweth in the Catholique faith; of which is verified the saying of the Prophest. Psal. 11.7. Elo­quia Domini Eloquia casta: argentū igne examinatum probatum terrae purgatū septuplum. Words of our Lord be chast Words, siluer examined by fire, tried of the earth, purged Seuen fold. Fire tries but consumes not gold, but drosse it shewed to be drosse by consuming it. For Maldonat; hee approueth and commendeth S. Augustin's explicacion, but addeth another of his owne, not contra­ry, nor disagreeing, though different from it. He preferreth it, because it is more against an Haeretique soe it is like S. Aug. himself would also haue done, if he had beene aliue in these tymes: For it is well knowne how in expoun­ding of Scriptures, he still had reguard to the [Page 70] confutation of these haeresies which then raig­ned and in one place hee aduiseth,Tract. 2. in ep. 1. Io. that those passages of Scripture be most carefully obser­ued and remembred which make most against Haeretiques.

2. After this the Knight hath a great deale of foolish stuffe which needes noe answeare, being but a bare recitall of things: as for exam­ple our wresting the Scriptures; his agreement of doctrine with the Fathers; nothing to the purpose in this place: and then he crieth out against our altering the Commandements; which is before answeared: Communion in both kinds: prayer to Saints: and in an vn­knowne tongue: Which shalbee afterwards answeared. Onely in this place, I note in a word this wise question of his. What reason (saith hee) can bee alleadged why an ignorant man should pray without vnderstanding? To which I answeare with a contrary demaund, to wit, How an ignorant man, that is, one that wanteth knowledge or vnderstanding, shall pray with vnderstanding? and soe I leaue him.

Of the 6. Section the title whereof is this.Chap. 6. The common pretence of our aduer­saries refusing Reformation because we cannot assigne the praecise tyme, when errors came in, refuted. CHAPTER VI.

1. HEere the Knight is vpp againe with his reformacion, and complayneth that we will not admitt thereof, nor acknowledge our doctrine erronious, vnlesse he can assigne the tyme, and person, when and by whom the er­rour came in. Which he seemeth to acknow­ledge he cannot doe; for he neuer goeth about it; but onely laboureth to disproue our excep­tion against him; by saying, that a man that is sicke of a consumption, ought not to refuse the helpe of the Physician, vpon pretence that he can not tell the tyme and occasion when his body began first to be distempered: and out of S. Aug. he saith that when a man is fallen into a pitt, and calleth to a passenger for helpe,Ep. 19. the passenger must not refuse to helpe him out, vpon pretence that he seeth not how he should come to fall in. Hee proueth it also as he thin­keth [Page 72] out of scripture, because in the parable of the cockle, it is said that the enemy sowed it when men were a sleepe: out of which he infer­reth that they could not see or know him. Therefore he saith that this defection of the Romane Church is a secret Apostasy;Matth. 13. and there­in he maketh the difference betweene hae­resy and Apostasy; that haeresy is preached openly, soe as the tyme and person may bee named, but not soe this our secret apostacy; haeresy worketh in the day, apostasy in the night. And then he reckoneth vpp some points, as worshipping of images, Prayer for the dead, the primacy of S. Peter, and some others which he saith were not soe meant a [...] first, as they are now practtized and beleeued in the Romane Church. This is his iolly discour­se, framed in his owne braine panne, and su­rely grounded as you shall finde vpon exami­nation thereof, which now I come vnto.

2. Hee compareth the creeping in of errour to the growing of a sicknes in a man's body, and presuming that because he sayth it we must therefore take those things which hee would haue vs for errour; he would presently haue vs also fall to correct them without stan­ding to examine farther, noe more then a Phy­sician should, that cometh to a sicke man. But his comparison faileth exceedingly. For though there bee some little likenes betweene the creeping in of errours, and growing of a Disease in a man's body, because both begin [Page 73] little and stelingly and increase by degrees; Yet to our purpose none at all. For the question is not, whether we should fall to cure the disea­se without examining the cause, (though by your good leaue Sir Knight, good Physicians vse to enquire of the causes, effects, and other circumstāces of the sicknes, which they come to cure) but whether this that you say is a disease or sicknes be soe or noe. 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 [Page 74] 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 [Page 75] 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 [Page 76] 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, [Page 77] 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 ser­uāts 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 [Page 78] 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 euasiō, 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 amēd; 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 whō alsoe you may find other good solutions of this place, which I suppose [Page 79] 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 accoūt 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 forbiddē, 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 amōg the doctrines of Diuels. For S. Paule's authority it hath beene answeared more oftē then the knight hath fingars and toe's; and euery child may see the difference betweene [Page 80] 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 eue [...] as much more besides as any haeretique can say of that matter: but it booteth not; that worke of his de rerum inu [...]n [...]o [...] 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 [Page 81] 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 [Page 82] to the diuersity and necessity of tyme. With all therefore that euer he can doe, he can not refute that argumēt 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 them and their doctrine.

11. But because it is ordinary with these men to charge vs with this same secret apostacy and defection, though they cannot tell when nor how it hath come, I shall heere put this Knight in mind of two conuincing arguments to the cōtrary, brought by the Catholique Diuine that answeared that part of my Lo:Answ. to Cooks re­ports. ep. dedicat n. 22. &c. Cooke's reports before cited by this knight, to conuince the folly and vanity of a certaine similitude of a wedge of gold, that was dissolued and min­gled with other mettals brasse tinne &c brought by Sir Edward to proue the dissolution of the Romane Church by errors and innouatiōs, iust as this knight talketh. One of the argu­ments is theological; the other moral. The first, that if the Church of Rome was the true mother Church, which both my Lord Cooke, our Knight, and all the rest of them confesse, then were all the predictions & promises of the Prophets for the greatnes, eminency, honour, certainty, and flourishing perpetuity of the said Church fulfil­led in her; and Christ's peculiar promises in like manner: that hee would bee to the worlds end with her that hell gates should neuer preuaile [Page 83] against her &c. Were also performed in her, for soe many hundred yeares, as they con­fesse her to haue continued in her purity; Whereof ensueth that either God is not able to performe his promise, or els it cannot be conceiued without impiety, that this flo­rishing kingdome and Queene of the world should bee soe dissolued and mingled with brasse, tinne, copper, should bee soe corrup­ted with errors and innouations, as to fall away by Apostacy; this is the theological argu­mēt, which may bee read there more at large.

12. The moral is, that Christ hauing purchased his Church at soe deare a rate as was the shed­ding of his bloud, and hauing sett ouer it soe many Pastors and Doctors to keepe continuall watch, how is it possible that it should fall away and decay, without any one of all these watchmens once opening his mouth, to resist or testify this chaunge. To any wise man this may truely seeme as it is a thing wholy impos­sible. Of this also hee may see a large & excel­lent discourse in the same place.

13. But not to detaine my selfe longer in it, I will heere onely represent a consideration of Tertullian's supposing that this soe impossible a thing should happen. Goe too, saith hee, be it soe; let all haue erred,praescr. cap. 28. let the Apostle bee deceiued in his testimony which he gaue of the faith of some Churches; bee it soe that the holy Ghost hath not regarded any, (Church) soe as to leade it into truth, though [Page 84] sent by Christ for this end, and desired of the Father to be the teacher of truth; be it soe that the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, hath neglected his charge, suffering the Churches to vnderstand otherwise, to beleeue otherwise then hee (that is Christ) preached by his Apo­stles; What, is it likely, that soe many and soe great should erre all in one beleefe? among many seuerall euēts there is not one issue. Mar­ke heere, one Steward of God's houshold, one Vicar of Christ to whose office it belongeth, to see that particular churches doe not teach nor beleeue otherwise then they were taught by the preaching of the Apostles. The error of doctrine of the Churches must haue beene seuerall, but that which is found one and the same among or with many, is not error but a thing deliuered, therefore may any man dare to say, that they who deliuered it did erre? Hitherto are Tertullian's very words. In which besids that euery sentence is a weighty argu­ment of moral impossibility of the Churches er­ring, which yet for disputacion sake he letteth passe for possible, he hath that strong conclu­ding impossibility, that soe many seueral Chur­ches in euery country, soe many seueral men should all agree in the same error, out of which Vnity, he gathereth it to be a truth, noe error. Therefore lett this Knight, and all his babling Ministers if they doe not meane to bee coun­ted wholy out of their wits for euermore hold their peaces, without accusing the Catholique [Page 85] Church which containeth in it self soe many Churches, soe many kingdomes,Chap. 7. soe many mil­lions of people all agreeing in the same faith, of error and apostacy.

Of the 7. Section the title whereof is thus. The pedigree of the Romish faith, drawne downe from the ancient Haeretiques: and the Protestant faith deriued from Christ and his Apostles. CHAPTER VII.

1. IN this Section Sir Humphrey you vnder­take a great taske, which if you performe according as you promise, eris mihi magnus Apollo If you doe not, then a man may say to you with out offence, magnus es ardelis. You vndertake to deriue vs by Succession in person and doctrine from ancient Heretiques, and your self from the Apostles. Which how truely you haue performed. I am in this chapter to exami­ne. You beginne with Latine Seruice and Prayer in a strange tongue, which you say out of one Wolphius a Lutheran Heretique, came into the Church by Pope Vitalian about the yeare 666. whereof you make a mystery noting thus in the margent numerus bestiae Apoc. 13. The number of the beast. From him you skippe to the Here­tiques Osseni, who taught as you say out of [Page 86] Epiphanius, that there was noe neede to make a prayer in a knowne tongue. From them you goe yet higher to the Apostle's tyme, wherein you say out of S. Ambrose, that there were certaine Iewes among the Grecians, as namely the Corinthians, who did celebrate the diuine Seruice and the Sacrament sometymes in the Syriake, and most commonly in the Hebrew tongue, which the common people vnderstood not. And you say that against that the Apostle S. Paul wrote that 14. chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians, from whom therefore you say your Protestant doctrine is deri­ued as ours is from haeretiques.

2. For answeare of this, and what els you are to say of your Succession it is to bee noted, that it is one thing to proue a thing to haue beene anciently taught, another to haue beene suc­cessiuely taught. For this later, besids antiquity which it includeth, it importeth Continuance, and perpetuity without interruption. Soe that though it should bee true, which you say out of Wolphius, Epiphanius, and S. Ambrose, yet were not that enough. For there bee some hundreds of yeares betweene Pope Vitalian and the Osseni, and more from S. Paul's tyme to this of ours, from which notwitstanding, you draw your doctrine without any body betweene, now for the space of 1500. yeares. Besids when we speake of Succession in person in these matters, it is vnderstood principally of persons in autho­rity one succeding the other in place and office. For we see in kingdomes and cōmonwealthes, [Page 87] the Succession is to bee considereth most in re­guard of the Gouerners and rulers, and in the Church the reason is more special, because the Rulers thereof are Doctours by office. As for Succession in doctrine to speake properly and clea­rely the Succession is not to be considered in the doctrine it selfe, for that must be alwaies the same; but it is to bee considered in the Men. Soe that they succeede one another, not onely in place and office, but also in the same Doctrine; that is holding the same Doctrine which their Predecessors haue held, as they hold the same place.

3. This premised, which cannot be denied, I thinke noe man wilbe able in all that the Knight saith in this Section, to finde soe much as a shaddow of Succession either in person or Doctrine, either against vs or for himself. Whe­refore I shall endeauour onely to discouer his falshood and corruptions, in charging vs with ancient haeresies. For Latine seruice then, that it should be first brought in by Vitalian, it is a most strange absurdity for this knight to auerre such a knowne falshood, vpon noe other au­thority then Volphiu's, a professed haeretique; and who can haue noe other ground, but be­cause that Pope liued about the yeare 666. which number is the name of the beast in the Apocalypse, though if he, that is, Wolphius would make a mystery of the yeare wherein S. Vitalian liued, I see not why he should take the 666. which was the eleuenth of his [Page 88] Popedome, rather then the yeare 655. or 669. which were the first and last yeares thereof. which being soe ridiculously false, I will for­beare to bring proofes against it, least I may gi­ue occasion to any man to thinke that there is any the least likelyhood in it. For during those 600. and odd yeares, what other Liturgies were there in the Latine Church but Latine, of which the very name of Latine Church giueth sufficient testimony: if not Latine, lett this Knight or his freind Wolphius say what Language was in vse before.

4. As for the Osseni whom our Knight would place vpwards towards the Apostles, yet after their tyme, for he goeth ascendeing vpwards as he saith, he is notably mistaken in the tyme. For Epiphanius maketh them one of the seauen Sects, which were among the Iewes before Christ's coming. For thus hee saith. Post relatas Samaritarum & superius Graecorum indicatas Sectas septem fuerunt haereses apud Iudaeos ante Christi in carne aduentum? In principio cap. 14. Hauing related and pointed out the Sects of the Samaritans and Graecians there were seauen heresies among the Iewes before the coming of Christ in flesh. And then reckoning and treating of the heresies in order in the 19. chap. he cometh to this of the Osseni the very title being this. Contra Ossenos Sextam Iudaism [...] haeresim. Against the Osseni the sixt he­resy of Iudaisme. Besides for the matter I onely say, that reading that 19. heresy of Epiphanius, which hee citeth, the title whereof is Of the Os­seni, [Page 89] twice ouer, and the second tyme yet more attentiuely then the first, I could not find any such word as the Knight citeth out of him, to wit, that there was no neede to make a prayer in a knowne tongue. Indeede it was one of Elxais heresies (who liued long after in Traian's ty­me, and whom S. Epiphanius ioyneth with the Osseni) that men must not pray towards the East as then was the generall custome of the Church. Which error, is not to bee compared with the least of a hundred which our Hereti­ques now adayes maintaine, and yet they for­sooth make noe matter of, because they are not fundamentall.

5. For the place of S. Ambrose, if a Catholique should vrge him or his Ministers with an au­thority out of that worke, they would make answeare it were not S. Ambrose his, and they would fill their margents with citations taken out of our authors. Which exception though I might in like sort make, yet I doe not; because the author is ancient, though not knowne, nor his doctrine in all things soe currant. But for this place, the Knight hath soe mangled & glos­sed it, yet putting all in a different letter, as if they were the author's words, that when I came to reade the author, and see him soe chā ­ged, I beganne to thinke whether that were the place. But finding that there could be noe other, and that it is like in some words, I con­cluded that this must be it. The author then commenting vpon the 14. Chap. of the 1. to [Page 90] the Corinthians where S. Paul speaketh of some that did vse the guift of tongues for ostentation: saith thus. Hi ex Hebraeis erant qui aliquando Syra lingua, plaerumque Hebraea in tractatibus aut oblationibus vtebantur ad com­mendationem: gloriabantur enim se dici Hebraeos propter meritum Abrahae. These were of the Hebrews who sometymes vsed the Syriack but most part the Hebrew in their treatises, that is, (speaches or exhortations) or Oblations, for ostentation. For they did boast that they were cal­led Hebrews, for the merit of Abraham. These are the words of the author truely reported, and truely translated. Whereas the knight put this praeface, that there were certaine Iewes among the Graecians, as namely the Co­rinthians, which words are not in this au­thor. Then he goeth on thus: (who did ce­lebrate the diuine Seruice and Sacraments &c. Whereas in the author there is neither the word (celebrate), nor the word (diuine Ser­uice) much lesse the word (Sacraments); all that hath any shew of a thing like is, that word (oblationibus); which signifieth offering, whereof some may be made by Lay men and women, as the Puritane Ministers finde full oft to their profit, without any celebration or Sacraments, the word (tractatibus) signifieth speaches or exhortations by word or writing, and soe S. Aug. calleth the expositors of Scrip­tures tractatores. de doct. Chr. Vinc. Lirin. aedu haere. cap. 27. Lastly whereas the author de­clared the end for which they vsed those ton­gues, [Page 91] to wit for ostentation bragging that they were Hebrewes, for the meritt of Abra­ham, this knight leaueth all that out, and putteth in these words of his owne which the common people vnderstood not, as if they were the author's words. Now though this autho­rity doe not import much either one way or other, yet a man may by it see the honesty and fidelity of this knight, who in all this sentence which he maketh 9. lines in his booke, he hath not one word right cited, but onely these (Sometymes in the Syriacke and most commonly in the Hebrew tongue) which being taken alone what sense can they haue, and yet how many lines a man is faine to write to lay open his naughty dealinge?

6. Another point of our doctrine, to wit, transubstantiation hee draweth from the Haere­tiques Heliesaitae, which fained a twofold Christ one in heauen another in earth, out of Theodoret. And from one Marcus an Haeretique who by his inuocation ouer the Sacramental cupp, as the knight saith, caused the wine to appeare like bloud, out of S. Irenaeus. And lastly from the Capharnaits in Christ's tyme, out of his owne braine, and soe cōcludeth our Succession in doctrine and person to bee drawne from Idolaters, Haeretiques, and Capharnaits. Of the first of these three Theodoret saith, that those haeretiques made two Christs one below, ano­ther aboue; of whom they say that he had dwelt in many before, and at last came downe [Page 92] hither; or as others declare it; that at last he came and rested in IESVS the Sonne of MARY. An haeretical fable indeede, which noe man can tell what to make of? but wherein is it like to our transubstantiacion? these haeretiques make two Christs wee acknowledge but one; and the same both in heauen and in the consecrated host. Marcus, as Irenaeus saith, by the helpe of the Diuell through art magique, changed the colour of the wine in the cup or chalice, which the knights is pleased of himself to call sacramentall, into seueral colours. The Catho­lique Priest doth the cleane contrary; for the colour and other accidents remayning, he changeth the substance of the wine into the Bloud of Christ, by the Omnipotent power of almighty God. For the Capharnaits, they thought they should eate Christ's body peece meale, and after the manner of the flesh whereon they feede; we receiue Christ whole and entire, not in the forme and shape of flesh, but of breade; and in a spiritual, though real manner. What likenesse then in all these doctrines with ours, to a man in his right witts?

7. A third point is of the Supremacy of the Pope, which he fetcheth from Phocas Empe­rour who he saith first gaue it to the Bishop of Constantinople 600. yeares after Christ. But to giue vs more antiquity, he saith the Gētils were our first founders, and benefactors. For which he alleadgeth the saying of our Sauiour. The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship ouer thē, Luc 22.25. and [Page 93] they that exercise authority vpon them are called benefactors. Heere he saith we are deriued from bloudsuckers and Gentils, vsurping power ouer kings in things spiritual and temporal: whereas his doctrine he saith is from Christ: Whosoeuer wilbe great among you, let him be your Mini­ster; and whosoeuer wilbe chiefe among you let him be your seruant. This is his discourse. To which I answeare, that the knight is egre­giously mistaken in saying that Phocas gaue that authority to the Bishop of Constantinople; though if hee should haue giuen it, or rather attempted to giue that which he could not giue to the Bishop of Constantinople, what is that to vs? Doe we deriue our Succession from Constan­tinople? was there not a Bishop of Rome, and was hee not acknowledged for heade of the Church some hundreds of yeares before euer there was a Bishop of Constantinople or a Constantinople, or euen a Constantine himself? What then doth he tell vs of the Bishop of Constantinople, or Phocas, or any such? rather the cleane contrary: for all true history telleth vs, that whereas Iohn that ambitious Bishop of Constantinople, vt habetur in ep. Pelag. to. 1. Conc. would haue had that title of Vniuersall Bishop whereby hee might seeme to aequall the Bishop of Rome (though in words he protested neuer to doe any thing against the See Apostolique) wherein he had beene supported by Mauritius the Em­perour, and vpon whom therefore and all his,V. Cedr. Lonar. & alias ap. Coqu. cont. progr. 22. pag. 327. almighty God shewed the seuerity of his iudg­ments, when Phocas came to bee Emperour, [Page 94] though otherwise a naughty cruel mā, he made a constitution, declaring that the Church of Rome,Plat. in Bonif. 3. which is head of all Churches should bee soe called and held by all, forbidding the Bishop of Constantinople the vse of that title, which he tooke vpon him of himself. Out of which commonly the Protestants obiect, that the Bishop of Rome hath receiued his authority from Phocas, which is a most absurd and foolish con­ceipt. For the Bishop of Rome's authority is farre greater then can be giuen by any earthly man, and which being giuen by our B. Sauiour himself heere vpon earth▪ the Bishops of Rome had possessed and exercized continually for the space of more then 600. yeares before Phocas his tyme. How then could it come from him? But this sheweth the knight's igno­rance and absurdity (which is our busines in this place) first in saying that Phocas made such a Decree in behalf of the Bishop of Con­stantinople, which sheweth his ignorance, for that Decree was made by Phocas in fauour of Bonifacius Bishop of Rome against the Bishop of Constantinople. Secondly in alleadging that for a reason or ground of the Bishops of Rome's authority, which is commonly alleadged euen by Protestants against it, who by exalting the Bishop of Constantinople would willingly depresse the Bishop of Rome.

8. As for the knigt's other argument or his place of Scripture of the kings of the Gentils. I see not what it is that hee would say to the [Page 95] purpose. Our Sauiour indeede telleth his Disciples, hee will not haue them imitate the do­mineering manner of gouernment of those Kings; but contrarywise, that hee that is cheife among them, shalbee as a Seruant to the rest. Which Councel is & hath euer beene most obserued by the Bishops of that holy See of Rome; who therefore haue vsed to stile themselues. SERVVS SERVORVM DEI. THE SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, but will this knight therefore haue it that by reason of this humility there must not bee any Superiority, that because he must carry himself like a seruant, therefore hee must not feede the Lambes and sheepe of Christ? If he meane this, as I see not what els he should meane, I say noe more but that it is a conceipt worthy of him? But besides what a fine line of Succession is heere? Doth the Pope succeede either Phocas or any other king or kings of the Gentils? to what purpose then are they named?

9. But to goe yet on with his toyes, hee deduceth our worship of Images from the Basi­lidians and Carpocratians, who (saith hee) did worship images; and professed that they had the image of Christ made by Pilate, for which hee citeth S. Irenaeus in the margent. His owne doctrine he deriueth from the second of the ten commandements, according to his owne translation, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image. Heere againe the Knight giueth yet more ample testimony of his notorious [Page 96] naughty dealing. For why, when he said that these Haeretiques had the picture of Christ, made as they said by Pilate, why I say could not hee haue gone on with S. Irenaeus, who, speaking of that, and other pictures both painted and carued, which they had, saith. Has coronant, Iren. lib. 1. cap. 24. & proponunt eas cum imaginibus mundi Philosophoram; to wit cum imagine Pythâ­gorae, & Platonis, & Aristotelus, & reliquorum; & reliquam obseruationem circa eas similiter vt gentes faciunt. They crowne them, and propose them with the images of the Philosophers of the world, to wit, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the rest, and vse such other obseruation towards them, as the Gentiles doe. Doth not this answeare you Sir Humphrey? Doe you not heere find a dif­ference betweene that worshipp and ours betweene idolatry and religion? betweene their adoring the creature of wood and colour, in place of the creator; and our adoring the creator represented by the creature? betweene their adoration of idolatrous damned Philoso­phers, and our worshipp of the blessed Saints and Seruants of God, liuing with him in glory? This is too too grosse for such a subtile knight as you are. Now for proofe of your doctrine by Succession from the 2. commandement, it is ri­diculous to call it Succession; though you tooke the place of scripture in the true sense, as you doe not. For how doth your doctrine succeede the commandement, a man may proue his doctrine out of scripture but not deriue the [Page 97] Succession thereof out of that proofe. For this Commandment it is neither the second, but an explication of the first; nor is it truely transla­ted; for there is not the word Image in that place of scripture.

9. A fift point is Communion in one kind, which hee saith wee haue from the Manichees, and from the Nazarites, who it is not like as Bellar­mine saith, did drinke of the Chalice against their Vow, nor yet like that they did wholy abstaine from the Communion: Out of which hee gathereth that they did communicate in one kinde onely. And heere saith the Knight, is their best Succession from Haeretiques, and an vncertaine example of the Nazarites. Whereas his doctrine (he saith) is taught by Christ, himself, Drinke yee all of this. This is the Knight's discourse. But to answeare him, I say, that before euer there was Manichee in the world, the B. Sacrament was administred, sometymes in one kind, sometymes in both. The Manichees abstained indeede from receiuing the chalice, out of one haeretical principle, as now our Hae­retiques stand to haue it for another like prin­ciple; against which as in that tyme the Church forbad the vse of one kind, soe now it forbiddeth the vse of both kinds, and may againe giue way when it shall seeme conuenient for the vse of both kinds, the doctrine euer remayning the same, as vpon another occasion I said before. For that word of our Sauiour Drinke yee all of this, from whence the Knight draweth the Suc­cession [Page 98] of his doctrine, it was spoken onely to the Apostles and in them to Priests not to the Layity. Of which I shall haue occasion to speake agai­ne afterwards.

10. But to come to an end of this matter, the Knight draweth our inuocation of Saints and Angels from the Angelici, our Works of Su­pererogation from the Cathari, our Worship of the B. Virgin from the Collyridians, our Forbid­ding Priests to marry from Tatianus and the Ma­nichees, who he saith Forbad it in their Priests. Putting downe the Latine words in Sacerdoti­bus. As if those special words were in S. Epi­phanius, whom hee citeth. But this serueth for nothing,V. Gual. chron. but to shew the man's shamelesnesse more and more. For the Angelici they were He­retiques, swaruing from the rule of the Catho­lique faith, by excesse, that is, honouring An­gels more then their dew, or more then creatu­res; as Heretiques of these tyme doe by defect; that is, not honouring them soe much as is dew nor as creatures specially honoured & imploy­ed by God, for the good of mankind. The Ca­thari or Puritans as he interpreteth the word himself, a man would thinke should belong more to him that is either a Puritane or a Bro­ther, or at least a Reformer, then to vs Catholi­ques. But the Cathari were No [...]atians, who out of pride and self conceit, as if they were more cleane and holy did condemne Catholiques, for admitting men to pennance, though they sin­ned neuer soe often & soe grieuously, whereas [Page 99] they, Saints forsooth, if a man did for feare de­ny his faith, they would haue nothing to doe with him any more. Now what is in this, like our works of Supererogation that is works which a man is not bound vnto? The Collyridians ex­ceeded the measure of honour dew to our B. Lady, for they did offer sacrifice vnto her, as the Antidico Marianitae did erre contrarily de­nying her dew honour, whom the Knight did forbeare to name, lest he might seeme to name his owne sect. Now Catholiques goe in the midle they doe not offer sacrifice vnto her, that ho­nour being dew to God alone, but they giue her all the honour that can belong to a pure crea­ture. Tatianus and the Manichees disallowed all marriage, but that they did disallow it specially in Priests I doe not find in Epiphanius as the Knight would make men beleeue by putting the words (in Sacerdotibus in Latine and in a distinct letter. Though indeede it be lesse al­lowable in Priests then in other men.

11. It being then soe, that of these haeresies which heere the Knight reckoneth, & whereof he would make vs guilty, there is not one of them that any way cōcerneth vs, but rather as a man might easily proue that he & his Church are guilty of almost all of them, how vainely and fondly doth hee conclude this Section, by saying these and the like errours taught in the church of Rome, are either lineally descen­ded from the aforesaid Haeretiques, or at least haue neere affinity with them? how vaine I [Page 100] say and fond is this saying of his? how neere they come, any man may iudge, by what I haue heere said; as also of the linealnes of the discent of our Doctrines from former Haeretiques or of his from the Apostles. For whereas the line should be drawne along by a continued Suc­cession, from the beginning to the end, hee nameth sometymes one onely man or tyme for the whole 1500. yeares, sometymes not soe much as one man, but onely a bare place of scripture corrupted or misinterpreted. Which what Succession it may make, let any indifferent man be iudge. Wherein it seemeth the very guiltines of his owne conscience doth make him misdoubt a little, that he hath not suffi­ciently performed his promise, as may bee gathered out of these words of his. (If I haue failed in calculating the right natiuity of their an­cient doctrine, &c.) but for all that, he saith, he is sure, that wee are vtterly destitute of a right Succession in person and Doctrine from the Apostles, and ancient Fathers, as hee saith shall appeare by many testimonies of the best learned among vs. But the knight hath soe ill performed his promises past, that hee cannot looke any man should giue him credit for those that are to come. And for that which hee is sure of, that we haue noe Succession in person and doctrine, that is soe false and soe apparantly false, as that it is not to bee doubted, but he that shall auerre it will make noe scruple of any lye how lowd soeuer. [Page 101] For doe not our catalogues of Popes sold and printed in London testify the contrary? for Succession in person what clearer testimony can there be in the world of personal Succession then to haue two hundred and odd Popes one succeeding the other in place and office, exer­cizing the same authority and iurisdiction in the sight of the whole world? Now out of this personal Succession, we Catholiques draw a most firme argument of Succession in faith and beleife as hee calleth it, as the holy Fathers haue euer done against Heretiques of their tymes. Which soe long as it standeth good; it is in vaine for Sir Humphrey and such men to cry out that wee haue noe Succession in doc­trine. Lett them shew when, where, in what Popes tyme, and by whom it was interrupted or broken of, or els they say nothing. And soe leauing him to find that out I passe to another Section.

Chap. 8.Of the 8. Section, entituled thus. The testimonies of our aduersaries touching the antiquity and Vniuersality of the Protestant faith in generall. CHAPTER VIII.

1. THe title of this Sectiō promiseth much, and the beginning of the Section it self much more. For in it he saith, that if the Church of Rome doe not plainely confesse the antiquity of his Church, his Tenets, and the nouelty of her owne; if she doe not proclaime the Vni­uersality of the Protestant faith, and confesse it both more certaine and safe, hee will neither refuse the name nor punishment dew to haeresy; Which how bold and vnlikely an aduenture it is I presume there is noe man of iudgment be hee neuer soe much freind euen to Sir Humphrey himself that doth not at the very first sight perceiue? how shamelesse and im­pudent it is, I doubt not but vpon a little examination I halbee able euidently to decla­re, and consequently how truely both the name and punishment of haeresy is dew vnto [Page 103] him, euen by his owne doome. Wherein I shall craue thine attention Good Reader, that perceiuing how well and truelly hee perfor­meth this promise soe great, and vpon soe hard conditions Voluntarily vndertaken in case of not performance thou maist frame a right iudgment of the whole booke by this one chapter. And as thou findest him to deale heere soe to thinke of his dealing els where. But not to say more I come to the triall of the matter.

2. Hee pretendeth then to bring the testi­monies of our authors, or to speake in his owne phrase, the confession of the Church of Rome touching the Antiquity and Vniuersality, Certainety, and Safety of his faith; which who­soeuer heareth, would hee not expect the man should bring some definition of a Councel ap­proued, or some Decree of the See Apostolique, for that onely is the confession of the Church of Rome? would not a man expect, he should bring some few authors two or three at least, acknowledging all these points, or some one author for each point; or some one author at lest for some one of them? surely he would. And yet doth the Knight nothing of all this: he brin­geth not one author, I say not one, for the Vni­uersality or ātiquity, &c. of his Church. Though if he should haue one, two, three, or ten men, it would not be sufficient for him; vnlesse he haue the authority of the Catholique Church, or [Page 104] Church of Rome. For that is it which he pro­miseth. But lett vs heare what he saith.

3. In all this Section he bringeth onely three Catholique authors; Adrian, Costerus, and Harding, for the three seueral points of Tran­sustantiation, Communion in one kind, and priuate Masse, as he calleth it, in this manner. Hee saying of himself, that when Protestants ac­cuse vs of adoring the elements of bread and wine, we excuse it by saying we adore it vpon condition: and for that end bringeth these words of Adrian. Adoro te si tu es Christus. I adore thee if thou bee Christ. Soe of Communion in one kind, when they accuse vs of taking away the cupp from the Layity, we excuse it: and thereto hee bringeth Costerus saying, that Com­munion vnder one kind was not taken vpp by the commandement of the Byshops, but it crept in, the Byshops winking thereat. Thirdly when they accuse vs for our priuate Masses contrary to Christ's institution, we excuse it; and for that end he bringeth these words of Doctor Har­ding. It is through their owne fault and negligence; whereof the godly and faithfull people, since the tyme of the primitiue Church, haue much com­plained. These three be all the authors he hath and this all he saith out of them, in which any man may see whether there bee a word, or shadow of a word for the antiquity or Vni­uersality of the Protestant faith in generall, as the title of his Section goeth.

[Page 105]4. I say nothing heere of the man's notable cunning and falshood, in pretending & making his Reader, beleeue as if we did excuse our selues in those things whereof they accuse vs: whereby wee might seeme to acknowledge some fault, whereas there is noe such matter in the world, nor one word spoken by any man, by way of excuse as shall appeare. For noe Catholique but scorneth an excuse in matter of his beleife though for life, some may haue some what which may neede excuse, though in that case, we teach an humble confession to bee the best excuse.

5. But to come now to the matter lett vs heare what it is these authors say. Adrian as he telleth vs excuseth our adoration of the ele­ments of bread and wine, because we adore it vpon condition if the consecrated bread bee Christ; the Latine words of Adrian in the margēt are these Adoro te si tu es Christus. Which words indeade Adrian hath, but they are very diffe­rent from Sir Humphrey's English as any man may of himself see, and spoken by Adrian vpon a very different occasion, as I shall now shew. Hee then disputing whether a Iudge may without sinne wish he might lawfully giue iudgment against iustice, and bringing argu­ments pro and con, (as Diuines doe), for the affirmatiue, he bringeth this. That the defor­mity of the sinne is taken away and cleared by the cōdition which is added: which hee farther proueth by two arguments: the one that the [Page 106] Councel of Constance doth excuse ignorant peo­ple adoring an vnconsecrated host, because this condition is tacitely implied if the con­secration be rightly made: the other that all Doctors agree that a man may auoide perple­xity betweene idolatry and disobediēce when the Deuill soe transfiguring himselfe as to seeme Christ commandeth one to adore; if vpon condition he adore thus. I adore thee if thou be Christ. This is what Adrian hath. Wherein first any man may see he speaketh nothing of his owne opinion but of others, and that by way of dispute only. Secondly the con­dition which is tacitly implied in the adoration of an vnconsecrated host according to the Councel of Constance is not that which Sir Hum­phrey putteth, to wit, if the consecrated bread bee Christ, but this other, if it bee righty con­secrated which is cleane another matter; for his condition euer supposing a right consecration maketh doubt whither Christ be there or not which is most false, the other condition ma­keth noe doubt of that but onely whither this particular host be rightly cōsecrated manifestly supposing that if that be, Christ is truely there. Thirdly that other condition or words. Adoro te si tu es Christus: which he would make a man beleeue were spoken by Adrian of the most B. Sacrament are spoken of the Diuell taking vpon him the shape of Christ.

6. Now what grosse delusion is this? What excuse can you finde for it Sir Humphrey? But [Page 107] suppose Adrian had erred in this or in any other particular point, either ignorantly as a Catholique may, or wilfully as onely Haereti­ques doe: Doth it follow that he agreeth with you in all other or that hee-counteth your faith ancient, vniuersall, certaine, or safe? noe such matter; nay how on the contrary he abhor­reth & detesteth your doctrine as most wicked and damnable is plainely to be seene by a Bull which he writ to Fredericke Duke of Saxony against Luther and his Doctrine disprouing euery point thereof, exhorting the said Frede­rick to forsake it and returne to the true Ca­tholique faith now in the dayes of Adrian Pope and Charles Emperour as the Saxons did at first embrace it in the tyme of the first Pope and Em­perour of the same names and then liuing toge­ther. With a great deale to the same purpose. What madnes then is it to alleadge a Catholi­que Diuine, a Pope and such a Pope for the an­tiquity and Vniuersality of your beleife.

7. Now for Costerus you say he excuseth the taking away, of the cupp from the Layity. But if you would giue a man leaue to bee soe bold with your worshipp, I would know what excuse you can find for such a notorious lye? If he excuses it he acknowledgeth the thing to neede excuse and consequently to be ill; and I pray you where doe you find him doe that? noe where verily. For he hath one special title of this controuersy; wherein he proueth [Page 108] the truth of the Catholique faith in this point, by ten seuerall reasons, and solueth sixteene obiections as well of former as later Haeretiques against it. If this be to excuse, I know not what it is to maintaine and make good a thing.

Enchirid.8. But now to come to Costerus, he by oc­casion of soluing an obiection, saith that the custome of communicating in one kind began from the people; for it hauing euer beene free to communicate in one kind, or both, as Costerus there often repeateth, the people for di­uers incōmodityes, by little and little abstained from the chalice, which abstayning of theirs the Bishops for other reasons alsoe, by silence appro­ued. Whereby you see his meaning is plaine and cleare against you. And for his words, whereas you relate them thus. It was not taken vpp by the commādment of the Bishops, but it crept in the Bishops winking thereat: They are indeede thus. It is to bee diligently noted, that the communion of one kind crept in, not soe much by the commandment of the Bishops as by the vse and practize of the people, yet the Bishops winking thereat. Wherein though there be but a little difference yet it sheweth your fi­delity according to our Sauiour's saying:Luc 16.10. Qui in modico iniquus est, & in maiori iniquus est. He that wicked in a little is wicked in a greater. For Costerus doth not say, that it did not come in by the com­mandment of the Bishops, but not soe much by that as by the peoples vse and practize.

9. Now what is this to your purpose, where is [Page 109] Costerus his testimony for the antiquity, vni­uersality, certainty, and safety of your Pro­testant religion? is not that whole booke written Onely to maintaine the Catholique Romane faith in the points now adayes in controuersy, and to condemne the contrary of vanity folly and error? how then can he thinke it salfe? But be­cause I will not stand to deduce it by way of ar­gumēt. I will onely cite one place directly oppo­site to the scope of this your section; Where he saith that onely the children of the Church, Cost. enchir. cap. 2. n. 3. (by which Church he meaneth the Catholique Aposto­lique Romane Church as he oftē declareth himself) merit encrease of grace and aeternal life; that they onely are gratefull, & pleasing to God, they onely the children and freinds of God; they onely haue communion with the Saints and merits of Saints, they onely are adorned with true and Christian vertues; they onely haue the promise and certaine expectation of aeternal life. Which saith the are great and most true priuiledges, for out of the Church, nothing of all this is found; noe holinesse, noe Christian vertue, noe worke pleasing to God, noe merit, noe hope of Saluation. Thus he. Now good Sir knight is not heere good comfort for you? are you in Costerus his iudgment in the more certaine and safe way? Doe not you then abuse authors to your owne, and other mēs perdition? but though you being become a Sect-Maister or at least a great Maister in the Protestant Sect there is little hope that this laying open of your dealing will make you better but rather make you more inraged: Yet I trust some well mea­ning [Page 110] people, deluded by you may heereby come to vnderstand themselues better, and come to the onely safe way indeede the Catholi­que Church, and leaue you to your Protestant safety.

10. But since you are also soe shamelesse heere as to say that we doe not condemne you for receiuing in both kinds, looke in the Councel of Trent and see whether you doe not find an heauy curse, against any that shall say, that all and euery of the faithfull ought by the precept of God,Sess. 21. can. 1. or necessity of saluation, to receiue both species or kinds of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. Si quis dixerit ex Dei praecepto vel necessitate salutis omnes & singulos Christi fideles vtram (que) speciem sanctissimi Eucharistiae Sacramenti sumere debere, anathema sit. The like hath the Councel alsoe of Constance soe plaine,pag. 174. that you your selfe afterwards confesse that the one doth accurse, the other accuse all for Haeretiques, that deny the lawfulnesse of one kind, as you doe. If then we not onely write against your Doctrine as against an haeresy, as may appeare by all our controuersies and schoole diuines, and euen by Gerson's treatise against the haeresy of Lay communion vnder both kinds. Which treatise you your self cite elswhere in the mar­gent; but also condemne it in two generall Councels, how can you haue the face to say wee doe not condemne you. Good God what shall a man say to such men as you are?

11. But to come to Doctor Harding, the [Page 111] third author of ours, which you bring to proue the Antiquity, Vniuersality, Certainty, and Safety of your faith, let vs heare how you vse him. You say when you accuse vs of priuate Masse cōtrary to Christ's institutiō, and custome of the primitiue Church we excuse it, that it is through their owne default and negligence whereof (saith Mr. Harding) the godly and faithfull people since the tyme of the Primitiue church haue much com­plained. Soe you. Wherein first any man may see there is noe sense. For heere is a relatiue (their) without an antecedent: which fault if you had comitted in a theme, when you were a schoole-boy, it might perhaps haue cost you somewhat. For you doe not expresse who it is that Doctor Harding speaketh of, when hee saith it is their owne default; neither can it be himself or Catholiques in generall, for then he would haue expressed it in the first person: saying it is our owne fault: and if it bee not him­self nor Catholiques in generall, then can it bee noe excuse; for they be Catholiques in ge­nerall or the Catholique Church which you accuse; and the accusation and excuse must answeare one the other.

12. Secondly it is noe excuse in reguard of the Masse: for an excuse hath noe place, but where the thing whereof a man is accu­sed is acknowledged for a fault. Now that is not heere: for that whereof you accuse vs is, that our Priests say Masse without any [Page 112] communicants, which thing Dr. Harding is soe farr from acknowledging to bee blame worthy, that hee doth expresly and stoutly maintaine it against your Iewel, as a special con­trouersy in that whole chapter which you cite. How then doth he excuse it? Thirdly he doth maintaine the doctrine of the Councel of Trent in this as in all other points where this Canon is decreed,Sess. 22. can. 8. citing also this very Decree. Si quis di­xerit Missas in quibus solus Sacerdos sacramentaliter cōmunicat illicitas esse, ideoque abrogandas: anathe­ma sit. If any man say that Masses, wherein the Priest onely communicateth sacramentally are vnlawfull and therefore to bee abrogated lett him bee anathema. Fourthly in another place he denieth your very terme of priuate Masse; and noteth, vpon the conference betweene Luther and the Diuell, which hee there setteth downe, that that terme in Luther's sense and your, came first out of the Diuells schoole: and saith that all Masse is publique in reguard it is offered by the Priest, who is the publi­que Minister of the Church, and auaileth all not onely not communicants, but euen not present. Which is al­soe the doctrine of the Councel. Fiftly I answea­re, that though you sett downe this authority lamely in this place, soe as noe man can tell what to make of it, yet citing the same els where, you say out of him, that it is the peoples owne fault and want of deuotion that they doe not communicate with the Priest: Which is but the sa­me that the Councel of Trent also saith: Which is a cleane other matter. For you doe not accuse [Page 113] our peoples coldnes of deuotion; for that would fall much more vpon your owne; but our Priests for saying Masse without the people communicating, which is noe fault: and this Dr. Harding maketh good: the other hee excu­seth, or rather not excuseth, but acknowled­geth and condemneth as a fault.

13. And for his opinion of your religion in general looke but in his Epistle to Iewel befo­re his reioynder to Iewel's reply. And there you shall find he sheweth you to haue noe antiqui­ty; For that you beganne with Luther. Which he proueth by your owne confessions, more then 7. tymes in the apology of your English Synagogue: where you say, that Luther and Zuinglius were the first that beganne to sett abroad the Ghospel, and that all the light was quite extinct; and that all the fountaines of the pure water of life, were vtterly dried vp be­fore they came. He sheweth you to haue noe vniuersality, because you seperate your selues from the vnity of the Catholique Church, dis­persed ouer the whole world. He sheweth you to haue noe charity, because charity cannot consist without vnity; nor euen faith, which he proueth by the authority of Saint Augustine, and consequently that you haue noe hope of saluation: and soe he refuseth euen to bidd Mr. Iewel farewell. Haue not you then great reason to haue affiance in Mr. Dr. Harding's testimo­ny of the antiquity, vniuersality, and safety of your Faith? Doe not you then heerein [Page 114] notoriously abuse all manner of men both authours and readers! but this is soe ordi­nary with you that there is noe wondering at it.

14. Well thus much then for these three authors whom you haue soe egregiously bely­ed. Now lett vs heare what you say of your owne or of your selfe. You say our best lear­ned (yet you name none) decline those our traditions which you deny: and that the most ingenious of vs are ashamed of those additions which you deny. (Neither doe you name any of these ingenious people.) For example you say when we are charged with worshipping of images we deny it, or excuse the manner of adoration, but doe not condemne you for not worshipping thē. But good Sir I pray you what Catholique denieth the worshipping of images what? Catholique doth excuse the manner of worshipp. Name the man if you can? Our Diuines declare adoration to be dew, and the manner how it is dew: but to excuse this, or deny that, noe man doth, noe man (I mea­ne a Catholique) euer did; noe man can euer doe. Now for you can you haue the face, to say that noe man of ours condemneth you for not adoring them? this is to Sir Humphrey. Doth none of our writers condemne you? noe Bellar­mine, noe Baronius, noe Sanders, noe Alanus Co­pus, noe Costerus, noe Vazquez to omitt the mo­re ancient Writers against the Iconomachi? Doth noe Councel of Trent say anathema to [Page 115] you, for denying dew honour and venera­tion to the Images of Christ and his Saints? Sess. 25. de­cr. develiq. & Sanctoris imaginib. Conc. Ni­caen 2 act. 7. Doth noe Councel of Nice say anathema to such as doe not salute holy and venerable images? His qui non salutant sanctas & venerabiles ima­gines anathema. Was the acclamation of the whole Councel, consisting of 350. Bishops and yet noe man condemneth you? What shall a man say to you? What answeare may a man make but onely to say that all this is your owne.

15. The like I may say of all the rest of your fond accusations, and more fond ex­cused; which you heape togeather which it would bee too long to stand answearing one by one. Onely the last I cannot omitt; which is, that you accuse vs of flat idolatry (not knowing that the Councel of Nice in the pla­ce last cited hath a special anathema for you, for that very word;) and you take comfort that we cannot charge you with the least sus­pition thereof, in your positiue points. To which I answeare Sir Humphrey, that if you marke the matter well, you will haue little cause to take such comfort. For it is a farr greater euill for you to be truely charged with haeresy, then for vs to be charged fal­sely with idolatry. And though the charge of idolatry against vs were as true, as that of haeresy is against you; yet would you not haue any such special cause of comfort, hae­resy coming not much short of idolatry. [Page 116] 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 [Page 117] 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 anciētly 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 & religiō. If therefore you will shew vs a Church [Page 118] 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 praes [...]r. cap. 36. and soe to participa­te of our Visibility and Vniuersality, I will al­leadge you a saying of Tertullians, which doth [Page 119] 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, [Page 120] and becoming wild by vntruth or lying. Thus farr Tertullian. Acknowledging indeede that haeresies haue their beginning from vs that is that the men that broach them come out of our Church, but that they are noe more ours when they beginne once to be against vs. And that the dishonour thereof redoundeth not to vs, but to themselues hee declareth by the two similitudes of the oliue and figgetree, com­paring vs to the true and fruitfull trees, and them to the bastard vaine, and wild trees, issuing out of the former. All which if you consider well Sir Humphrey you will find it but a small honour for you to haue come out of the Romane Church, though you haue layen neuer soe long in the very bosome thereof as you bragge for from the tyme you haue begun­ne to be against it you are not of it. And soe much for that.

18. Now for these points of Doctrine by you named, wherein you agree with vs, and which you hauing no Succession of your owne, you cannot haue it by any other mea­nes but by and from vs, which therefore are ours and not yours we doe not question you for your antiquity and vniuersality: but for these other points wherein you disagree; as when you deny the doctrine declared by the Councel of Trent when you deny our sea­uen Sacraments, deny the truth of one of these two Sacramēts, to wit the real presence of our Sauiour's body & bloud, & necessity & efficacy [Page 121] 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 [Page 122] 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 [Page 123] 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 [Page 124] 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 [Page 125] was couered, is to make it visible: if then Luther did first seuer it, he first made her visi­ble, which is that we desire. And soe Sir you haue spunne a faire threed. You would faine make your Church visible before Luther, and you make it inuisible; you looke well about you meane while. Now that which you say next of taking away the 3. Creeds which you professe, two Sacraments, 4. Councels and 22. booke of Scripture, without which our Church would bee a poore senselesse carcasse, is most foolish, for who doth speake of taking them away: who doth say they are yours? you will not say your selfe, but you had them from vs? What then doe you talke of taking them away? and whereas you are bold to say that wee now stile them chaffe and new haeresies, it is to sha­melesse an vntruth for any man to tell but your selfe: and therefore deserueth noe other an­sweare but that it is SIR HVMPHREY LIND'S, you vnderstand my meaning Sir.

21. One little thing more there is in this Section, which is, that whereas some of ours haue termed your religion negatiue, in reguard it consisteth most in denyall of such things as we teach, as they may well call it, you would retort that terme vpon vs; because wee deny many things which you affirme. But this is not a matter of any moment. For they who call your religion negatiue, doe not meane that you doe not teach any positiue erroneous point, but that most of your doctrine I meane that [Page 126] which is properly yours, not taken from vs, is negatiue; and euen those affirmatiue proposi­tions which you teach, if you teach any, are but contradictions of other things, which we teach are not, or may not be done. In which respect, they may be also called negatiue. But for ours it is nothing soe, for it consisteth of positiue points, deliuered not by way of oppo­sition or denyal; for it was before all haeresy; though it is true that it hath many negatiue propositiōs and praecepts. Besides out of euery positiue point a man may inferre the contrary negatiue: Which yet maketh not that a nega­tiue, as you doe in some of those propositions which you alleadge; for example you make this a negatiue point, that we deny the substā ­ce of bread to remaine after cōsecration, whe­reas that is onely a negatiue inferred out of this positiue, that the substance of the bread and wine is chāged into the body and bloud of our Blessed Sauiour, which is our doctrine, & euer was before any haeresy arose: but an haeresy arising to the contrary, as that the substance of bread remaineth after consecration: the Church out of that positiue point deduceth this nega­tiue, that the substance of breade doth not re­maine, for destruction of that haeresy. But of this there is enough, and of this whole Sectiō, wherein the Gentle Reader may see whether you Sir knight doe not deserue the name and punishment of an Haeretique, by your owne Doome not hauing proued either the antiqui­ty, [Page 127] or vniuersality, or certainty, or safety of your Protestant faith, out of any author of ours, or euen of your owne, or any shew of reasō, or said any thing to the purpose, though you haue taken more liberty to abuse those three authors which you alleadge & vtter such grosse falsityes then I doe not say honesty but euē shame would giue a man leaue: but which is most to bee wondered you haue laboured to proue the visibility of your Church, by such similitudes as proue the contrary; Which is not any praise of goodnes, for you intended it not but an argument of the necessity whereto you were driuen by the badnes of your cause, and a dispraise of your iudgment in that you see not what you say.

Of the 9. Section. The title whereof is this The testimonyes of our Aduersaries touching the Protestant and the Ro­mane faith in the particular. CHAPTER IX.

1. OVR Knight hauing promised to proue the antiquity and vniuersality of his faith, and nouelty of ours in generall by the testimony of our owne authors & Church and performed it brauely forsooth as hath beene shewed in the former chapter, he professeth [Page 128] now in this ninth Section,Chap. 9. to proue the same in like sort out of our authors in diuers parti­cular points; as iustification by faith onely, the Sacrament of the Supper, and Doctrine of transubstantiation, Priuate Masse &c. trea­ting euery one heere ex professo and seuerally in distinct paragraphes, whose methode I shall also follow in answearing of him.

§. 1. Of Iustification by faith onely, examined.

1. This point of his Protestant iustification by faith onely the Knight proueth, as hee saith, out of a booke published in Anselmes tyme, which is called Ordo baptizandi & visitandi &c. Of which he citeth two or three seueral editions to fill vpp the margents with quota­tions: and to authorize the booke more, he telleth vs that Cassander saith it is obuious euery where in libraries. Out of this booke he citeth a whole page and a halfe, which I list not heere stand writeing out, but onely I will take the worst word in it all, that is, which may seeme to make most against vs and for the Knight which is this, the Priest is ap­pointed to aske the sicke man whether he be­leeue to come to glory, not by his owne me­rits but by the merits of Christ's passion, and that none can be saued by his owne merits; or by any other meanes but by the merits of his Passion: to which the sicke man was to answeare, I beleeue. Wherevpon the Priest [Page 129] gaue him councell to putt his confidence in noe other thing. This is the vtmost he can say out of this booke: and what is all this to the purpo­se? For first the knight doth not shew vs any au­thority for this booke, or that S. Anselme had any thing to doe with it; nor telleth vs of any ancient edition before the yeare. 1556. but one­ly a mention thereof by Cass [...]der (a classical author indeede and of the first classe in the index librorum prohibitorum) in an appendix alsoe to a forbidden booke falsely called Io. Roffensis de fiducia & misericordia Dei, then which hee could haue said nothing more to disgrace it.

2. Besides he telleth vs that the Index expur­gatorius of the Spanish Inquisition, willeth those words of comfort (as he calleth them) spoken by the Priest, to be blotted out, which were answeare enough, seing the knight is to bring vs authority, which we may not except against, as I told him in the first Chapter. And this very alleadging of the Index expurgatorius, is a manifest proofe that it is sett out and cor­rupted by Haeretiques, in fauour of their owne doctrine.De corr [...]ct. lib. §. 3. & 4 For otherwise the Inquisitors can not meddle with it, or any other author sett out be­fore the yeare 1515. to change or blott out any thing therein but onely where a manifest error is crept in by fraude of Haeretiques, or careles­nes of the Printer. Thirdly and principally I answeare that there is nothing in this that doth not stand very well, being rightly vnderstood, with the Catholique faith which we now pro­fesse. [Page 130] For heere is nothing but what I shewed before out of Bellarmine, Lib. 5. de iustif. cap. 7. prop. 3. to wit, that in re­guard of the vncertainty of our owne iustice, that is whether we be iust or noe, and for the peril of vaine glory, it is most safe to putt our whole confidence in the Sole mercy and be­nignity of GOD. Which word Sole doth import confidence in that, and in nothing els. With which it may stand very well, that men in the fauour and grace of God, may doe works me­ritorious of increase of grace and glory, which is the controuersy betweene Vs and Haereti­ques. For men may bee in grace and not know it, they may doe those good works and yet not know that their works haue that super­natural goodnes, purity of intention, and other perfection which is necessary to make it meri­torious, all which makes vs vncertaine whe­ther we merit or not, though we be neuer soe certaine that if our Workes be such as they should bee, they are meritorious. And to this purpose is the discourse of the Councel of Trent in the end of the 16. Chapter of the 6. Session, where hauing explicated the meritt of good works and reward dew vnto them, it hath the­se memorable words to stopp the mouths of all insulting Haeretiques. Absit tamen vt homo Christianus in seipso vel confidat vel glorietur, & non in Domino. God forbid that any Christian man should trust or glory in himselfe and not in our Lord. What more then is there Sir Humphrey in that booke which you alleadge, then heere [Page 131] is in Bellarmine and the Councel of Trent, or which may not be easily explicated to this sense? And all this answeare is, supposing you cite your author true, for I haue not seene him: nor doth it soe much import to see him. But if it bee not against vs why will you say doth the Inquisition correct it. I answeare not for the doctrine but for the doubtfulnes & ambiguity of the words which being not rightly vnderstood might endaunger the lesse wary Reader's fall into your Lutheran errour of deniall of all meritt of good works, which was neuer intended by the author, though it may bee he might speake securely in those dayes where there was no thought of any such haere­sy. But how soeuer the booke is not of any knowne good author and it hath been printed and reprinted now in this tyme of haeresy & by Haeretiques and therefore may well fall vnder the Inquisition's correction as giuing iust cause of suspition that they thrust words in for their owne purposes. What poore authority is this then for you to build vpon? Wherefore to begin well, you haue wholy failled in the proofe of your first point of iustification, pro­ducing but one onely place and that of noe spe­ciall good authority as you alleadge it out of Cassander, and euen nothing against vs: If then you begin soe well with iustification, how are you like to iustify your self in the rest of your points which follow; to which I now passe.

The Knight's 2. §. Of the Sacrament of the Lord's super (as he speaketh) and the Doctrine of transubstantiation examined. §. 2.

1. HE beginneth this §. with a praeamble concerning his Churches Baptisme, which he saith noe mā will deny to be the same substātially, with that of the Primitiue Church, and that our salt, spittle, and other caeremonies doe not transsubstantiate the element, nor want of them enforce rebaptization. Which serueth for nothing els but to shew the man's folly and vanity; for what Catholique did he euer heare speake against the Validity of the Sacrament of Baptisme administred in dew matter and forme, and with intention of doeing what the Church doth though the Minister were neuer soe much Haeretique, Iew, Turque, or Infidell or affir­me that the caeremonies therein vsed did cause any transubstantiation of the water? or that for the want of them the party were to be rebapti­zed? noe we say none of these things; but onely, that they that administer this Sacrament without these caeremonies euer vsed in the Church from the Apostles tyme, vnlesse in case of necessity, doe cōmitt a great sinne, as Prote­stants doe; and the more because they omitt them, out of an haeretical contempt. Which notwithstanding the Baptisme is auaileable.

2. But letting this passe the knight cometh [Page 133] to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, wherein he triumpheth mightily about a certaine Homi­ly of one Aelfricke an Abbot heere in England, about the yeare 996. Which he saith was approued by diuers Bishops at their Synods, and appointed to bee read publiquely to the people on Easter-day, and two other writings or Epistles of the same authors, one to the Bishop of Sherborne, the other to the Bishop of Yorke. The words of the Homily are these, as he citeth them out of D. Vsher. There is a great difference betwixt the body, wherein Christ suffered and the body which is recei­ued of the, faithfull. The body truely that Christ suffered in, it was borne of the flesh of Mary with bloud and with bone with skin and with sinewes in humane limbs with a rea­sonable Soule liuing: and his Spiritual body which nourisheth the faithful Spiritually is gathered of many cornes without bloud and bone without limbs without soule and there­fore there is nothing to be vnderstood bo­dily but Spiritually &c. Thus farre the au­thority or words of this author: wherwith Sir Humphrey maketh much adoe spending 2. or 3. leaues in it.

3. To which I answeare first for his Synods, that it is strange hee nameth not any Synod nor any author or place where any such is extant, For the Councels I haue examined them, and yet doe not find any Synod held in England about that tyme or any thing of that nature handled. [Page 134] Lett him name the Synode, and bring the words, I doubt not but we shall find a suffi­cient answeare: therefore to let his Synods alone for the present, we come to Aelfrike whom I haue not also seene, nor can find soe much as named in those books which haue most of our Catholique authors, both moderne and ancient (saue onely by Harps­field in his history where I find also noe more but that the Berengarian haeresy beganne some what to bee taught and maintained out of certaine writings falsely attributed to Aelfricke this is all) and therefore cannot say soe much in confutation of this place, as it is like might be said if a man did see the author himselfe and not set out or translated onely by Haereti­ques, but yet I trust I shall say enough euen out of Dr. Vsher who citeth the Latine in the margent to shew Sir Humphrey's bad dealing and to satisfy any indifferent Reader.

4. First you Sir Humphrey to turne my speech to you I say, that Aelfrick was a Ca­tholique author and deliuereth nothing but Catholique doctrine in this Homily or place by you cited: which a man may proue euen out of your selfe. For you confesse that transubstan­tiation is suggested in that Homily, by two mi­racles, which you say are feigned, contrary to the author's meaning, but your cōmon fashion is to call all Miracles feigned because you can worke none your selues: besids if they goe alōg in the narration as the rest of the text (as if they [Page 135] did not I suppose you would note being a good proofe against them) what colour is there that we should suggest them and not the author write them himselfe? or why should you take the other words heere rehearsed to be the au­thor's and deny the miracles which goe along with them, in the same narration? You will say they are against his meaning and scope: that were somewhat indeede Sir Humphrey, but it is but your misvnderstanding of the au­thor, for euen in those words which Mr. Vsher citeth in Latine and which he culleth out as making most for his owne purpose I finde the author to speake very well and plai­nely of transubstantiation as I shall now shew,Vshers disp. pag. 78. & cap. 3. the words are these. Multâ differentiâ separan­tur corpus in quo passus est Christus, & hoc cor­pus, quod in mysterio passionis Christi quotidie a fidelibus celebratur, illa nam (que) caro quae crucifixa est, de Virginis carne facta est, ossibus & neruis compacta, & humanorum membrorum lineamentis distincta, rationalis animae spiritu viuificata in propriam vitam & congruentes motus. At vero caro spiritualis; quae populum credentem spiritua­liter pascit, secundum speciem quam gerit exterius, frumenti granis manu artificis confistet, nullis neruis ossibusque compacta, nulla membrorum varietate distincta, nulla rationali substantia ve­getata, nullos proprios potens motus exercere. Quicquid enim in ea vitae praebet substantiam, spi­ritualis est potentiae, & inuisibilis efficientiae, diui­nae (que) virtutis.

[Page 136]5. These are the Latine words cited in the margent by D. Vsher, which he translated farre otherwise in his English text whom you also follow, taking his English words, either be­cause you vnderstood not the Latine, or per­haps because you would be loath but to follow any error or corruption that cometh in your way. I will therefore truely translate them; and then obserue your Doctor's corruption and yours the true translation is this. The body in which Christ suffered, and this body which is celebrated euery day by the faithfull in mistery (that is, as a mystery, or mystical representation and commemoration) of the passion are separa­ted by much difference (that is, are very diffe­rent, or doe much differ) for that flesh which was crucified was made of the flesh of the Virgin, compacted with bones and nerues (or sinewes) and distinguished by lineaments of humane limbs liu'd (or made liuing) by the spirit of a reasonable Soule vnto proper life and congruent (or agreeable) motions; but the Spiritual flesh, which Spiritually feedeth the beleeuing people, according to the shew which it carrieth outwardly, consisteth of graines of corne, by the hand of the artificer, not compact (or knit together) with any finewes and bones, not distinguished by any variety of members, not vegetated or liu'd by any reasonable substance, not able to exercise any proper motions. For whatsoeuer in it giueth the Substance of life, is of Spiritual power, inuisible working, and diuine vertue. Now lett any man compare Dr. Vsher's and [Page 137] Sir Humphrey Lind's English, and see whether agree better with the Latine theirs or this, though they differ somewhat betweene them­selues; but I will chiefly follow my owne chase of the Knight's translation. He shall find first in these words, (Hoc corpus quod in mysterio passionis Christi quotidie a fidelibus celebratur. This body which is daily celebrated by the faithfull in mystery of the passion) the word (hoc) left out. And all the other words, saue onely the word (Corpus) the rest (because there is mētion made of daily cele­bration as a mystery of the Passiō of Christ, as is practized in the Catholique Church) they change in the trāslation. The Knight thus, the body which is receiued of the faithfull; the Dr. a little otherwise, but I let him alone, wherein any man may see the knight's bad meaning.

6. Secondly the knight saith the body that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary, &c. Whe­reas the true English is this. The flesh which was crucified was made of the flesh of the Virgin. Where­in though to the Vulgar Reader there may ap­peare but small difference betweene (borne) and (made:) yet there is a great deale: for Aelfrick's opposition doth not consist in this, that the flesh crucified was borne of the Virgin, and the other not; as the knight would make a man beleeue; but it consisteth in the matter whereof the body on the crosse, and the body in the Sacrament are made. For as it is in the Sacrament, it is made of bread, tanquam materia transeunte as Diuines spea­ke: and not of the Flesh of the Virgin, but that [Page 138] flesh is the terminus ad quem of the transubstan­tiating action or that whereinto the substance ob bread is changed, though it be the same body that was borne of her. And this shew­eth the knight's cunning corruption, how great it may bee in matter and substance, though the word be neuer soe like, or little.

7. Thirdly whereas the knight saith with bloud and with bone, with skin, and with Si­newes, in humane limbs with a reasonable soule. The Latine hath not the word bloud, nor the word skin. And the Knight on the other side leaueth the word (compacta.) Compacted with bones and sinews. And those words (in humane limbs) are farre otherwise in the Latine, as any man may see to wit thus distinguished by humane limbs. All which putting in and put­ting out chopping and changing though it may seeme not to make much either way, yet it is very like it is vsed by this Knight to ob­scure the author's meaning and drift; which is by all these particulars to shew the difference betweene Christ vpon the crosse, and Christ in the B. Sacrament; that is the difference in his manner of being, not in his being it selfe; nor denying him to be really in both; which is that the knight would obscure and make seeme as if this author meant, it were not the same Christ that were in both. Which is very false; which his bad meaning is farther discouered in that which followeth. For hauing putt downe these words (with a [Page 139] reasonable soule liuing) which yet doe not al­together soe well answeare to the Latine words (rationalis animae spiritu viuificata) he leaueth out these other immediately follow­ing, in propriam vitam & congruentes motus. By which it is signified that Christ's flesh cruci­fied vpon the crosse, had a reasonable soule, whereby not onely to liue, but to be able to shew this life by action, and motion agreable therevnto, which words explane the former, and are very pertinent to declare the meaning of what is said on the contrary of Christ's body in the B. Sacrament, as by and by shall appeare.

8. Fourthly whereas the Latine saith, Caro spiritualis, spiritual flesh, the knight translateth it the spiritual body: which I onely note without standing vpon it, for it is noe great matter. But that which cometh next is the maine corruption of all: For whereas Aelfricke saith that this spiritual flesh, which is as much to say as our Sauiour's flesh in the B. Sacrament, according to the outward shew which it car­rieth, doth consist of graines of corne, hath noe bones nor sinewes, noe distinction of limbs, noe life or motion of it selfe the knight leaueth out those words (Secundum speciem quam gerit exterius, according to the shew which it carrieth outwardly) which are the very life of all that which followeth, to wit, that to see to, it cōsisteth of corne; to see to, it hath noe bones, [Page 140] and sinewes; to see to, it hath noe distinction of parts; to see to, it hath noe soule, nor power to exercise any motion of it selfe, the knight ma­king his Reader thinke, that Aelfricke saith our Sauiour's flesh in the B. Sacrement hath noe bones, noe parts, noe soule, &c. which is a notorious falshood. Lastly whereas the knight maketh this inference in the same pla­ce, as if they were Aelfrick's words, therefore there is nothing to bee vnderstood bodily but spiri­tually. Aelfrick saith not soe, though that might bee said in a good sense but thus he saith. For whatsoeuer therein giueth the substance of life, is of spiritual power, inuisible working and diuine vertue. In which there is a great deale of dif­ference betweene Aelfrick's (for), which gi­ueth a reason for that which goeth before, and the knight's (therefore) which maketh an inference vpon that which was said, which a learned man will easily perceiue to make a great deale of difference in the sense, nay any man may see the difference betweene a reason and an inference. Aelfricke therefore plainely teacheth in these words that that flesh doth li­ue, but with all that that life proceedeth from a spiritual power and inuisible working. Which agreeth very well with what he had said be­fore, that according to the outward shew, that flesh hath neither bones, nor sinewes, nor limbs, nor life, nor motion, but that all these things are not seene, and that the life which it hath [Page 141] proceedeth from a spiritual power, and wor­king which is not seene.

9. Now lett any man see whither this Knight haue not egregiously abused this ancient au­thor, corrupting this little sentence of his, by fiue great corruptions besides other more of lesse moment, which I haue beene somewhat longer in discouering, because it is the man's maine proofe in this place and one of his two records as he calleth them, wherewith as it were with two speciall and ancient euidences he presenteth his Reader in the very beginning of this Section §. 1. and wherein therefore he hath vsed all the cunning he could deuise, to make this author speake his Protestant lan­guage, and consequently also the Bishops and other learned men of that tyme, who approued this Homily, if they did approue it; as hee saith, but in vaine as you may see by this that is said, and by one place more which I will bring euen out of this Knight's maister Dr. Vsher, which shall plainely shew this Aelfrick's perfect Ca­tholique beleife in this point. The words are these. Sicut ergo paulo antequam pateretur, panis substantiam & vini creaturam conuertere potuit in proprium corpus, quod passurum erat, & in suum san­guinem qui post fundendus extabat, sic etiam in deserto manna & aquam de petra in suam carnem & sangui­nem conuertere praeualuit &c. as therefore a little before he suffered, he could change the sub­stance of bread and the creature of wine into his proper body which was to suffer, and into [Page 142] his bloud which was extant to be after shed. Soe in the desert, he was able to change manna and water into his owne flesh and bloud, &c. Where he sheweth plainely a conuersion of bread and wine into that owne body of Christ, and bloud which was a little after to suffer and be shed which is nothing more then that which we call transubstantiation. And out of this as a certaine truth he gathereth that Christ had also the power to turne manna and water into his body and bloud, as well as bread and wine. And soe it is, in reguard of the power it is all one; but in reguard that Christ was not then in being, according to his humane nature, the manna could not be changed into his body and water into his bloud. Which place as plaine as it is, it is a strange and almost incre­dible thing to see how D. Vsher (which I onely note by the way for my quarrel heere is not soe properly against him) doth peruert by his interpretation. For thus hee putteth the En­glish in the text. So he turned through inuisi­ble vertue the bread to his owne body, and that wine to his bloud, as he before did in the wildernesse before that he was borne to men, when he turned that heauenly meate to his flesh, and the flowing water from that stone to his bloud. Wherein there is scarce one word truly translated, which I will not stand to shew particularly, but not onely the maine corruption: that whereas Aelfricke saith that as Christ was able to turne the bread [Page 143] and wine, soe he was able to turne the manna and water. This man turneth it quite contra­ry, that as hee turned the manna and water, soe he turned the bread and wine: which is a foule corruption. But D. Vsher I heare is suffi­ciently answeared, and his corruptions laid open to the world if the books might be as freely printed and sold as his. But therein they haue the aduantage of vs Catholiques that they haue free vse of libraries and prints and publi­que allowance for the sale. All which we want and therefore noe meruaile if books be not answeared as freely as they are written. But this is but by the way.

10. Now then if thus much may be said out of what D. Vsher picketh out for his owne pur­pose, what may a man thinke might be said, if a man saw the author himselfe, who though he were printed in London as Sir Humphrey no­teth. 1623. yet is he not now to be heard of. But as I was saying all this sheweth this Aelfricke to haue beene a Catholique and that his doctrine was none other then the Doctrine of the Catho­lique Church at this day. Wherefore Sir Knight, Campian's saying (which you account a vaine flourish) standes good still that you cannot espy soe much as one towne, one village, one howse, for 1500. yeares that sauoured of your Doctrine, and should still be true, though you might find some one man or two or more, that did agree with you in your Berengarian haeresy; (though alsoe one man doe not make either towne [Page 144] Village or howse:) For your faith doth not consist of this point alone. Nor did Campian meane, that there was neuer any man that did agree with you in any one of your erroneous points, but that there was neuer any house vil­lage or citty that did agree with you in your whole faith and religion or made the same Church with you. And for the mangling and razing one of Aelfrick's latine epistles, where­with you charge vs first Sir it is not like by this that he saith in his Homily, wherewith you say the Epistles agree, that there is any thing against vs; and if there were know you Sir it is not our fashion to deale soe with authors; but if there bee any thing contrary to the Catholi­que faith, we doe what is to bee done publi­quely, as hauing authority; and knowing what wee doe: correcting moderne authours in what they erre, & for ancient authours, noting onely what is amisse,V. reg. indi de correct. lib. §. 4. but not razing or blotting out any thing, that corner correcting we leaue for such corner companions as shunne the light. And soe your principall argument being an­sweared, I goe on to the rest.

11. First, you tell vs wee are diuided among our selues touching the antiquity and Vniuer­sality of transubstantiation: some deriuing it as you say from the words of Christ, some from his benediction before the words, some from the exposition of the Fathers, some from the Councel of Lateran, some from Scriptures, some from the determination of the Church: where to fill [Page 145] paper and make a shew, you repeate againe the same things. For what difference, for as much as pertayneth to this matter, is there betweene the determination of the Church, and the Councel of Lateran? betweene Scriptures and the words of Christ? But to let that goe I say, first, your phrase of deriuing is improper, as you vse it. For we deriue our Doctrine by Succession from those men that haue gone before vs by degrees to the Apostles tyme, shewing that in all ages and tymes it hath beene taught and beleeued, but to speake properly we not deriue but proue the truth of our doctrine, out of Scriptures, Councels, Fathers, &c. though the deriuation be also a proofe, but yet different from that of Scriptures and Councels. Secondly you speake very generally and confusedly. For whereas there bee diuers things in question betweene you and vs, as the realnes of Christ's presence in the Blessed Sacrament and Transubstantiation: others among Catholiques themselues, as whither or how farr these points may bee pro­ued out of Scripture, Tradition &c. or by what words or actions this change is made, you make no distinction at all of any of these things, nor speake any thing certainely, or constantly of any of them, but runne hopping vpp and downe from one to another; now forward, now backward, that noe mā can tell where to find you but though this confusion of yours, cause a little more trouble and length in answearing, yet in the end it will discouer [Page 146] your ignorance and vanity the more.

12. To begin then with you, I would know to what purpose you alleadge our au­thors in things controuerted among them­selues onely, eyther now because they are not defined, or heertofore when other things then controuerted were not defined, though they be since, and consequently out of contro­uersy? Doth this difference of our authors ma­ke any thing for you? noe verily but much against you: for their modest manner of dispu­teing of these things with dew submission to the Catholique Church, to whose censure they leaue themselues, their opinions, and writings, & their silence as soone as She doth speake, is a manifest cōdemnation of your haeretical pride that will stand to noe iudgmēt but your owne: and euen those opinions of theirs which you take hold of, they virtually retract, soe farre as either they may bee any way against the autho­rity of the Catholique Church, or in fauour of Haeretiques, which are the onely things you seeke. Therefore in any thing wherein they may dissent from the common beleefe, as they doe not binde vs, soe they doe not fauour you. But of this I said enough in the first Chapter. Though in the authorityes which you heere alleadge, there be not much neede of this: for either they say nothing against vs, or you cor­rupt them as I shall shew.

13. And to begin with Caietan in matter of the real presence, you say out of Suarez he [Page 147] taught that these words (THIS IS MY BODY) doe not of them selues sufficiently proue transubstan­tiation, without the supposed authority of the Church, and that therefore by command of Pius V. that part of his commentary is left out of the Romish edition. Thus you. Where first according to your vsuall liberty of falsifying, you put in the word (supposed) of your owne, to make the speech sound somewhat contemptibly of the Church. Whereas there is noe such word in Suarez his Latine text which you cite in the margent. Secondly you putt in the word (Transubstan­tiation) which Suarez there speaketh not of, as is euident, but onely of the real presence, which is a distinct thing, though you cōfound them. And in that Suarez indeede, & the whole Schoole of Deuines doe worthily condemne Caietane, for saying that those words (THIS IS MY BODY) doe not sufficiently proue the real presence of our Sauiour's body. For singula­rity whereof Caietan is often noted, in mat­ters of such moment, is very much to bee con­demned in a Diuine, & therefore Pius V. with great reason commanded that to be blotted out, agreeably to the rules praescribed in the Romane index, for correcting of books. Whe­reof you complaine much, as thinking Caie­tane somewhat to fauour your side, yet you are extreamely mistaken and by alleadging Caietanes authority in this, you giue your selfe a wound. For though hee doe not giue soe much to the bare words of the [Page 148] Scripture, as to be sufficient of themselues to proue the Reality of Christ's presence, yet hee saith that ioyning the authority of the Churches exposition of them, they are suf­ficient: as he saith in expresse words which your self after cite and yet you can alleadge him for you as you thinke heere, and which is more impudency, you are not ashamed to say that Caietan denieth the bread to bee transubstantia­ted by those words: For where hath Caietan such a word or euen shaddow of a word. You thin­ke perhaps because in his opinion those words doe not sufficiētly of themselues proue the ve­rity of Christ's presence, that therefore they doe not sufficiently cause it: but if you thinke soe as you seeme, you are much mistakē, for those are two different things. For example in Baptisme the words I baptize thee &c. besides the clensing of the soule from sinne original & actuall, cau­se also the remission of the temporall punish­mēt & imprint a spiritual character in the Soule though these effects cannot bee proued out of the signification of the wordes: and soe alsoe a man might say of the forme of the Eucharist, the proofe depending vpon the speculatiue signifi­cation of the words, the presence of Christ depē ­ding vpon their efficacy, which they haue by the institution of Christ as they are the forme of this Sacrament, which might bee separated frō the signification though de facto it be not.Caiet in com. 3. p. q. 75. a. 1. And soe Caietane though hee thinke not the bare signification of the words without the autho­rity [Page 149] of the Church sufficient to proue the presen­ce of Christ's body in the Sacramēt; yet he doub­teth not to affirme with the Councell of Florence alleadging the very words thereof, quod ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi, & substantia vini in sanguinem conuertuntur. That by the power of the very words the substance of the Bread is turned into the body of Christ, and the substan­ce of the wine into his bloud. Soe as Caietan is no­thing for you, but very much against you.

14. But yet you goe on confidently telling vs that you will produce Cardinals, Bishops, and Schoolemen to testify that there are noe words in scripture to proue transubstantiation. Secondly that those words This is my Body, are not of the essence of the Sacrament. Thirdly that the ancient Fathers did not beleeue the substance of the Sacramental bread to bee conuerted into Christ's real flesh. Fourthly that transubstantia­tion was not beleeued de fide aboue 1000. yea­res after Christ. Which fower points how well you proue I must now see Sir Humphrey. First noting by the way that though you sett them downe seuerally as if you meant to proue them in order one after another bringing one Cardi­nal, one Bishop and one Schooleman at least for euery one, yet you neither obserue order, nor soe alleadge authors as shall appeare. Though for the first of your 4. points you neede not many authors, if you adde the word (expresly) thus, that there bee no words in scripture to proue transubstantiation expresly: Which word if [Page 150] you putt in, your proposition may passe for true; if not, it is false, and without author. For though all Catholiques saue onely Caietan agree, that the words of consecration of themselues, proue the reality of Christ's presence, yet all doe not soe agree that of themselues they proue Transubstantiation. For some thinke they might bee verified, though the substance of bread should remaine together with Christ's body. Yet all agree that out of the words as they are vnderstood by the Church, transubstantiation is also proued. You might therefore haue spared Gabriel's authority, which you beginne with in these words. How the body of Christ is in the Sacra­ment is not expressed in the canon of the bible. Which I would haue spared also, but because I meane to lay open your falshood in alleadging the sa­me by halfes.Cab. lect. 40. For thus hee saith. Notandum quod quamuis expresse tradatur in scriptura quod corpus Christi veraciter sub speciebus panis continetur, & a fidelibus sumitur, tamen quomodo sit ibi corpus Christi, an per conuersionem alicuius in ipsum, an sine conuer­sione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane, manentibus substantia & accidentibus panis, non inuenitur. It is to be noted, that though it bee expresly deliuered in Scripture, that the body of Christ is truely contai­ned vnder the species of bread, and receiued by the faithfull, yet is it not soe expressed how the body of Christ is there, whither by conuersion of any thing into it, or whither it beginneth to bee there without conuersion or turning, the substance and accidents of bread remayning. In which saying of [Page 151] Gabriels as you left out the former part, because it made clearely against you, soe you might al­so haue left out the later as making nothing against vs, as is euident of it selfe without far­ther declaration.

15. Your next author is Cardinal de Aliaco. who you tell vs thinketh it possible that the bread might remayne with Christ's body and that it is more easy and more reasonable to conceiue. Whereto I answeare, what then? what is this to your purpose? if you were a Lutheran you might haue a little colour: but seing you are a Caluinist, or Protestant, or some such I know not what, it maketh nothing at all for you, not euen in shew. But bee you Caluinist, Protestant, Lutheran, or what you will, it maketh not for you. Suppose that may be possible, more easy &c. What is that to our purpose: that is not matter of faith; for Faith doth not stand teaching metaphysicall possibilityes or impossibilityes, what may bee or not bee, but what is or is not: and which is chiefly to bee considered, though this au­thor thinke that way more possible and more easy to be conceiued according to humane ca­pacity, yet euen heerein hee preferreth the iudgment of the Church, before his owne, as his very words by you cited doe testify. For he saith, that it is more easy and more reasonable to conceiue if it could accord which the determination of the Church. But what is this authority to you Sir Humphrey. Which of your 4. points doth it [Page 152] proue? Doth it say that transubstantiation is not proued out of Scripture? or that the words THIS IS MY BODY is not of the essence of the Sacrament? and soe of the rest; not a word of all these. By which it is plaine you onely looke to say somewhat, but care not what.

16. After this Cardinal, you bring Bishop Fisher, whom you might better haue called Cardinal Fisher, then some others whom in this booke you call Cardinals. For he was created Cardinal indeede, though hee had the happines to receiue the Lawrel and purple Robes of Martyrdome in heauen, before he could come to receiue the honour of his capp and Scarlet robes of his Cardinalship heere on earth. But you say out of him, that there bee noe words written, whereby it may be proued that in the Masse is made the very presence of the body & bloud of Christ. You cite him in English, and though in the margent you put the Latine a little more truly, whereas you say in the En­glish in the Masse, the Latine is (in nostra Missa) in our Masse, wherein you shall find some diffe­rence in this place, yet you putt the whole sen­tence soe lamely, that a man would thinke the Bishop by your citing him, to be quite of an­other mind then hee is. For you would make one thinke he did not beleeue the real presence could bee proued out of scripture.Io. Roffen. cont. captiu Babylo. c. 4. Whereas the 4. Chapter of the Booke heere cited is wholy imployed in proofe thereof against Luther, out [Page 153] of the very words (hoc est corpus meum: this is my body) by which hee destroyeth Lutheran compa­nation, and consequently establisheth our tran­substantiation: and teacheth plainely both there, and throughout this whole booke, that Christ himselfe did change the bread into his owne body, and this out of the very words of scripture: but in this 10. chapter which you ci­te, he proueth that the true sēse of the Ghospel is rather to be had by the interpretation of the Fathers, and vse of the Church, then the bare words of scripture, and proueth it by this, that if we lay aside the interpretation of Fathers and vse of the Church, noe man can be able to proue that any Priest now in these tymes doth conse­crate the true body and bloud of Christ. Which is the same that he saith after in other words in nostra Missa in our Masse, that is Masse in these tymes. Not, saith hee, that this matter is now doubtfull, but that the certainty thereof is had not soe much out of the words of the Ghospel, as of the interpretation of the Fathers and vse of soe long tyme, which they haue left to posterity. For, saith hee againe, though Christ of bread made his body, and of wine his bloud, it doth not follow by force of any woord there sett downe, that wee as often as wee shal attempt any such thing, shall doe it which vn­lesse it bee soe said we cannot hee certaine thereof. These are his very words, where you see how together he deliuereth two points of Catholi­que doctrine, the one of the real presence, the other of tradition for vnderstanding of the [Page 154] 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 interpretatiō 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 cōtro­uersy. 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 cō ­futation, which are these. Non potest igitur per vllam Scripturā probari, quod aut Laicus aut Sacer­dos, [Page 155] quoties id negotij tentauerit, pari modo conficiet ex pane vino (que) Christi corpus & sanguinē, at (que) Chri­stus ipse confecit, quum nec [...]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 cōsecra­te: & that though Christ did himself cōsecrate & cōmanded his Apostles soe to doe in remēbrance of him, that yet he did not adde any expresse pro­mise that the same effect should alwaies follow, whēsoeuer 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 [Page 156] 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 sentēce 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.

[Page 157]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 translate them. But because your intent in this place is to proue out of this Doctor, that the con­secration is performed not by the words of Christ, but by his blessing: for els I see not what you should ayme at, I will bring you a place out of himselfe expressely to the contrary; which is this. Tolle verba Christi non fiunt Sacramenta Christi. Odo Cam. exp. in can. Miss. dist. 3. Vis fieri corpus & sanguinem? appone Christi sermo­nem. Take away the words of Christ and take away the Sacraments of Christ. Wilt thou haue the Body and bloud of Christ made, put thereto the word of Christ. In which words he sheweth that all the Sacraments of Christ are performed by words, soe as without words they are not Sacraments as the Catholique Church teacheth. And in par­ticular that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, [Page 158] the worde of Christ is that whereby the bread and wine is changed in to his body. Of which change and matter he speaketh most plainely a little before, in this manner. In specie panis & vini manducamus & bibimus ipsam substantiam corporis & sanguinis, subijsdem qualitatibus, mutata: sub­stantia, vt sub figura & sapore prioris substantiae facta sit vera substantia Christi corporis & sanguinis. In shew of bread and wine we eate and drinke the very substance of the body and bloud, vnder the same qua­lities the substance being changed, that vnder the shape and tast of the former substance, the true substance of Christ's body and bloud bee made. Which words are no lesse euident for proofe of the reality of Christ's presence, and change of the bread and wine into his Body and Bloud or transubstantiation then the other are for proofe that the change is made by force of the words. Which declare what his meaning is in those words which you alleadge for the blessing, as if that did cause this change. For he as many other Fathers and Doctours call the very forme of consecration a benediction, both because they are blessed words appointed by Christ for soe holy an end; and because they produce soe noble an effect, or because they are ioyned alwayes with that benediction, and thanks-giuing vsed both by your B. Sauiour in the institution of this holy Sacrament, and now by the Priests in the Catholique Church, in the consecration of the same. You haue then Sir Humphrey gotten as little by. Odo, as by any of the rest.

[Page 159]20. But after all these authors you putt one in the rere who must make amends for all that the rest haue failed you in; and that is one Christophorus de Capite fontium, Arch Bishop of Caesarea in his booke de correctione theologiae. Who indeede speaketh plainely for you in be­half of the blessing against the words of conse­cration, if you cite him truely, as a man might well make doubt if the author were otherwise allowable; but because he is not, I doe not soe much as looke in him; but remitt you to the Romane Index, where you shall find his booke by you heere cited forbidden; which may be answeare enough for you; and euen the arrogancy of the title sheweth it to deser­ue noe better a place, for it is entituled de ne­cessaria correctione Theologiae scholasticae. As if he alone were wiser then all others Schoolemen putt together. Besides in the words cited out of him by you in this place there is a grosse histori­cal error which euery man may perceiue at the very first sight, to let passe his theologicall er­rours: and it is in this, that he saith, that in that opinion of his, both the Councel of Trent and all writers did agree, till the late tymes of Caie­tan; as if Caietan were since the tyme of the Councel of Trent. Whereas indeed he died aboue a Dozen yeares before the first beginning thereof. And withall you doe not marke how in citing this place you are against your self. For whereas you make Cardinal Caietan and this Archbishop of Caesarea your two champions [Page 160] against the words of consecration as if they did both agree in the same, heere this Archbishop saith quite contrary that all are for him, but onely Caietane. Whom then shall we beleeue you Sir knight, or your author?

21. Now though you thought to conclude with this Christopherus a capite fontium as being a sure card, yet cannot I omitt though after him to answeare heere a certaine authority which you bring before somewhat out of season, out of Salmeron, telling vs that he speaking in the per­son of the Graecians, deliuereth their opinion in this manner. For as much as the benediction of the Lord is not superfluous or vaine, neither ga­ue he simply bread, it followeth, that when he gaue it, the transmutation was already made, and these words (this is my body) did demonstrate what was contained in the bread, not what was made by them. Whereto I answeare first; that you mistake your termes when you call this an Opinion, which is an errour of the Graecians. Secondly I might answeare, that this is not Sal­meron's authority, whom you seeme to cite, but doe not indeed; you citing onely for authour a french Huguenot called Daniel Chamier, who also citeth those words out of Salmeron, but without any the least mention of the place, where they may be found. Soe as Salmeron's works making 7. or 8. good volumes, to looke for such a place as this without any light or direction, is almost as good as to looke for a needle in a bottle of hay. Yet I did looke in that part of his workes, [Page 161] which treateth of the B. Sacrament where I thought it most likely to find this place but found it not. Which notwihstanding, I will not say but it may bee there, for it is true that there haue beene some Latine authors that haue held that our Sauiour himselfe did consecrate not by those words, but either by other words,V. Suar. 3. p. to. 3. disp. 58. Sect. 1. & seq. or by the power of his owne will, without any outward signe; or by some outward signe other then words; or by these very words twice spo­ken. Into some of which Doctrines it is like some Graecians might fall being soe prone to er­re, as they haue beene these later ages:V. Aund. though in other authors I doe not find this errour of theirs of the benediction, before the words, but rather the contrary,Suar. 3. p. to. 3. disp. 58. Sect. 3. that these words (this is my body) wherewith Christ did consecrate, are not now sufficient to consecrate, without certaine prayers coming after in the Canon of the Masse. appointed by the Church. But of this it maketh not much matter; and it may be some of them soe thinke, and therefore, I answeare thirdly for Salmeron, this is noe opinion by him allowed (as you would seeme by your manner of citing him to insinuate,) but by him condemned of errour, as your freind Chamier saith expresly, citing to that purpose Salmeron's owne words also, euen there where he bringeth these: which you could not but see. Wherefore in this you come short of the very Minister's honesty. How little then must you needs haue? Lastly I answeare this very authority is against you in the two things [Page 162] in controuersy betweene vs, to wit, the real presence and transubstantiation; both which it alloweth; and is against vs onely in one, not soe properly in controuersy: to wit, in that it saith this change is wrought not by the words (this is my body) but by the benediction that goeth before. Which benediction it doth not say whether it were a word or a deede; and it is as like to bee some word as otherwise but whether word, or deede, it is as easy to conse­crate by these words (this is my body)) as by any other words; or outward deede. Soe as herein Sir Humphrey you haue noe helpe from any man, eyther Salmeron, or the Graecians, or euen your freind Chamier for he discouereth your bad dealing.

22. After this matter of the Blessing, you come backe againe to the proofe of transub­stantiation out of Scriptures, telling vs that Bellarmine saith it is not altogether improba­ble, that there is noe expresse place of Scrip­ture to proue it, without the declaration of the Church, as Scotus said: for though, saith Bellarmine, that place which we brought seeme soe plaine that it may compell a man not refractory, yet it may iustly bee doubted whether it bee soe or noe: seing the most learned and acute men as Scotus haue thought the contrary. In which words Bellarmine saith but what we granted before, to wit, that though the words of consecration in the plaine connatural and obuious sense [Page 163] inferre transubstantiation, yet because in the iudgment of some learned men they may haue another sense which proueth onely the real presence without transubstantiation, it is not altogether improbable that without the au­thority of the Church, they cannot enforce a man to beleeue transubstantiation out of them. What of all this? nothing to your purpose Sir Knight: though in translating this saying of Bellarmines you haue corrupted it in two places. The one, that whereas Bellarmine said one scripture, or place of scripture which he brought to proue transubstantiation, was soe plaine as to enforce a man not refractory. You change the singular number into the plural, as if Bellarmine had said the Scriptures were soe plaine &c. Which is a corruption of yours thereby insinuating, as if Bellarmine taught the Scriptures to be plaine and with out difficulty soe as euery body may vnder­stand them, which indeed is an ordinary saying of you Protestants, but as ordinarily denied by vs Catholiques. The other is, that whereas Bellarmine saith men most learned and acute as Scotus was. You say the most learned and acute men such as Scotus. Which word (the) you cannot but know alters the sense much. For it importeth as if the better part of learned and acute men went that way; which is false and contrary to the Cardinal's words and meaning.

[Page 164]23. You tell vs now in the next place, that you will proceede from Scriptures to Fathers, as if you had said mighty matters out of scripture, not hauing indeede said one word out of it, either for your selfe or against vs. Well, let vs see what you say out of the Fathers. Alfonsus a Castro, say you, was a diligent reader of the Fathers, yet after great study and search re­turnes this answeare; of the conuersion of the body and bloud of Christ there is seldome mention in the Fathers. But Sir you are noe diligent reader nor faithfull interpreter of Al­fonsus a Castro. For his words as you your selfe putt them downe in Latine in the margent are thus.Alphon a Castro lib. 8. verbo In­dulgent. De transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis scriptoribus mentio. That is. Of the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ, there is sedome mention in ancient wri­ters. Wherein he saith true and you most false. For though of transubstantiation there be rare mention, yet of the conuersion of bread into the body of Christ there is most frequent mention, as Bellarmine sheweth at large And herein it is that you shew your selfe a faithlesse interpre­ter.de Euchar. l. 3. cap. 20. But if a man consider Castro his meaning, he shall find you to haue abused that much more then his words. For his drift in that pla­ce is to shew, that though there bee not much mention in ancient Writes of a thing, or plaine testimony of scripture that yet the vse and practize of the Church is sufficient; bringing for an example this point of transubstantiation [Page 165] whereof he saith there is seldome mention, and the procession of the holy Ghost from the Sonne, whereof saith he there is more seldome mention, and then maketh his inference vpon it thus, yet who but an Haeretique will deny these things? you might then as well Sir Humphrey and better too in Castro his iudgment haue denied the holy Ghost to proceede from the Sonne, then the bread to be transubstantiated into Christ's body. And herein it is that you shew your selfe noe diligent nor vnderstanding rea­der of Castro.

24. After him cometh one Yribarne a disci­ple of Scotus, whose words you also corrupt in the translation, which it is enough to tell you of. For the matter he saith it was of the substance of faith in the primitiue Church, that Christ was really present vnder the for­mes of bread and wine, yet was it not soe of transubstantiation wherein he seemeth to hold with his Master Scotus. Who was of opinion, that transubstantiation was not a point of faith till the Councell of Lateran. For which you your self confesse he is censured by Bellarmine and Suarez which were answeare enough. For as I told you in the beginning wee doe not bind our selues to defend euery singular opinion of one or two Doctors contrary to the common opinion of others. But besides, I answeare that Scotus plainely auerreth transubstantiation and proueth it out of the ancient Fathers [Page 166] who vse the very word of conuersion, which is all one with transubstantiation. For thus he saith in a certaine place Respondeo quod nec pa­nis manet, contra primam opinionem; nec anni­hilatur vel resoluitur in materiam primam, S [...]t. 4. dist. 1 [...].9.3. contra secundam opinionem; sed conuertitur in corpus Christi. Et ad hoc multum expresse videtur loqui Ambrosius, cuius vndecim authoritates supra adductae sunt; & plures habentur de consecrat; dist. 2. I answeare that neyther the bread remayneth, against the first opinion; nor is annihilated or resolued in to materia prima, against the second opinion; but is changed into the body of Christ. And to this purpose S. Ambrose seemeth to speake very expresly out of whom 11. authorityes are brought before and more are to bee had de con­secr. dist. 2.S. Amb. de iis qui myst. initiant. cap. 9 & de Sacrament. lib. 4. cap. 3. & 4. lib. 6. cap. 1. Thus Scotus; not onely teaching transubstantiation himself, but prouing it out of S. Ambrose who maketh most frequent mention of the change, and conuersion of the very nature of bread; Which is the thing expressed by the word transubstantiatiō. By which it is plaine, that Scotus must haue held this Doctrine for the substance thereof, to bee as ancient as S. Am­brose at the least and if soe ancient then euen from the beginning His meaning therefore in saying it was determined of late in the Councel of Lateran is onely this, that whereas the words of consecration may be vnderstood of the real presence of our Blessed Sauiour's body either by transubstantiation, that is, by change, of the bread into his body or otherwise soe that the substance [Page 167] of the bread doe remaine the Church hath de­termined that the words are to bee vnderstood in the former sense as may bee gathered by his manner of speaking of the Churches expounding of Scriptures which he saith she doth by the same Spirit wherewith the faith was deliuered to Vs, to wit, by the Spirit of truth. V. Scot. in 4. Sent. dist. 11.9.3. Which is nothing against the antiquity of transubstantia­tion. And though it were also the cōmon beleife of the Church from the beginning, yet it might well be said not to haue beene de substantia fidei, Yribarne, speaketh; because it had not beene soe plainely deliuered, nor determined in any Councel till Greg. the 7. his tyme, wherein it was first defined against Berengarius, and that but by a particular or prouincial Romane Councel. Which notwithstanding the article in it selfe might bee ancient, though not soe expresly deliuered; as I declared more amply in the first chapter.

25. You haue little helpe then Sir Humphrey from Alfonsus a Castro, Scotus, and Yribarne; which although you had, yet were not that sufficient for discharge of your credit, you ha­uing promised vs acient Fathers against transub­stantiation: which these three are not; for one of them, to wit, Yribarne is perhaps now aliue: another, to wit, Alfonsus a Castro liued not past 100. yeares agoe; the third, to wit, Scotus about 300. yeares since; which is farr from the antiqui­ty of Fathers, as wee ordinarily speake of them: Wherefore bethinking your selfe at last; you bring vs a Father or two, to wit S. Aug. and [Page 168] Theodoret, telling vs that S. Aug. is soe wholy yours that Maldonat expounding a place in the 6. of S. Iohn saith that he is perswaded that if S. Aug. had liued in these tymes, and seene that Caluin expounded the same place as he did, he would haue changed his mind: and for Theodo­ret you say, that Valentia obseruing him to say that the consecrated elements did remaine, in their proper substance and shape, and figure, he maketh the like answeare, that it is noe mer­uaile if one or more of the ancient fathers, befo­re the question was debated, did thinke lesse considerately and truely of transubstantiation. This is all that euer you haue out of the Fathers. Which how little it is, and how much to your shame shall vpon examination appeare.

Aug er. 26. in Io.26. For S. Augustine then what is it that he saith in fauour of you in expounding that verse of the 6. of S. Iohn where our Sauiour saith. Your Fathers haue eaten Manna and are dead, he that eateth this Bread, shall liue for euer. He saith that their Fathers, that is the naughty and vn­beleeuing people of the Iewes dyed, to wit, spi­ritually in their soules, because they in eating Manna, did consider onely what it presented to their outward senses, and not what it repre­sented vnto their minds by faith; whereas the good men among them, as Moyses, Aaron, Phi­nees, and others, who he saith were our Fathers and not theirs, did not dye, to wit spiritually, because they did not cōsider it onely according to the sense, but according to faith, remēbring [Page 169] that it was but a figure: and a figure of this heauenly bread which we haue; as the same holy Father saith expresly in the same place Hunc panem significauit manna. Manna signified this Bread: and he saith it is the same of Iudas, and other bad Christians which receiue of the Altar and by receiuing dye, because they receiue it ill. Doth not this make much for you now Sir Humphrey? Doe not you see how wholy S. Aug. is yours. How he saith that Manna was a figure of this our heauenly bread? that we receiue it from the altar? Doth not all this make finely for you? but you will say then if it make no­thing for vs, why doth Maldonate say that if S. Aug. had liued in these tymes, hee would haue interpreted otherwise. I answeare not that this interpretation is for you, but because the other is more against you, to wit thus. Whereas S. Augustine giues the reason why they that did eate Manna dyed, to bee, because they did not eate it with faith, Maldonate maketh the diffe­rence to bee not soe much betweene the per­sons which did eate, as betweene the foode which they did eate saying, that our Sauiour maketh this a special prerogatiue of the B. Sa­crament farre aboue the Manna, that this holy Sacrament giueth life to them that eate it, which the Manna did not giue of it selfe. And indeede with dew reuerence be it spoken to S. Augusti­ne's authority, this interpretation is more su­table to the text and discourse of our Sauiour in that whole chapter, which is to compare and [Page 170] preferre that true bread which he said his heauenly Father did giue before that of Manna which Moyses gaue their Fathers. It is more also against the Haeretiques of these tymes in re­guard it is more for the honour of the Blessed Sacrament, which they labour might & maine to depresse: and that is the very reason why Caluin rather followeth the former interpre­tation, not for any loue to Truth, or reue­rence which hee beareth to S. Augustines authority.

27. How false then and absurd is that scoffing speach of yours Sir Humphrey in the next leafe of your booke, where you say iro­nically thus. S. Augustine did not rightly vn­derstand the corporal presence: For he would haue changed his opinion, if he had liued in these dayes, as if forsooth Maldonate did say that S. Augustine did not rightly vnderstand the reall presence, and that he would haue changed his Opinion concerning the same if he had liued now in these tymes: You heereby insinuating as if S. Augustine thought otherwise thereof then we now teach. But how grosly false this is may appeare plainely; by what I haue heere said, to wit, that it is not the reall presence whereof either S. Aug. or Maldonate speaketh, but how they that eate Manna haue dyed, and they that eate the body of our Lord shall liue according to our Sauiour's saying, which is cleane a different thing. Whe­rein Sir HVMPHREY you be- LINDE [Page 171] S. Aug. somewhat, but Maldonate you be- Linde much more, by making as if he acknow­ledged S. Augustine to bee against the real pre­sence, and that he should therefore correct him with one of your scorneful taunts, and say he vnderstood it not; whereas Maldonate speaketh onely of S. Aug. his exposition of that place of Scripture, which hee doth not also con­dēne, though he bring another more agreeable as he thinketh to the true meaning of our Sauiour in that place; which truely a man may doe without any such arrogancy and scoffing as you are pleased out of your ingenuity and gentlemanly breeding to fasten vpon Mal­donate.

28. And soe hauing cleared the matter of S. Aug. I come now to Theodoret, who indeede hath a place in shew a little hard, to such as want will to vnderstand him, as it seemeth you doe Sir knight. For it hath beene often clearely and seuerall wayes answeared by many and euen by Valencia; Val. de Transub. lib. 2. cap. 7. of one of whose answeares, you thinke to make your aduantage: but it will proue to your disad­uantage. For he hauing brought two or three seuerall and substātial answeares, at last con­cludeth somewhat roundly with the Haereti­ques in this māner. That if noe other āsweare will serue the turne; but that they will still stād wrangling, it is no meruaile that one or two (he meaneth Theo­doret and Gelasius, who both speake in the same māner) might erre in this point before it was discussed [Page 172] Which last answeare you onely take hold of, as if that were the onely answeare not taking no­tice of any of the rest, which as in the one side it sheweth your badd dealing, soe doth it on the other shew the goodnes of his solutions to be such as you could not tell what to reply a­gainst them.b. Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 27. Suar. 3. p. to. 3. disp. 46. sect. 4. fine. Bellarmine, Suarez and others an­sweare it in like manner diuers wayes, to whom therefore. I remitt you, onely for the Reader's sake, not to leaue him in suspence, I shall heere make one plaine and briefe answeare, and as I cōceiue out of the very words which you heere obiect against vs,Dialog. 2. which are these. Neque enim signa mystica post Sanctificationem recedunt, a sua natura, manent enim in propria substantia, & fi­gura & forma & videri & tangi possunt sicut prius, intelliguntur autem ea esse quae facta sunt, & cre­duntur & adorantur, vt quae illa sint, quae creduntur. For neither doe the mystical signes depart from their owne nature after the sanctificatiō; for they remaine in their proper substance, figure, and forme: & they may be seene and touched as before; but they are vnderstood to be that which they are made, and they are beleeued, and adored as being that which they are beleeued to bee. These are the words of Theodoret which Sir Humphrey you partly cite by halfes? and partly corrupt by mis-translation. For thus you cite him onely. The consecrated elements remaine in their proper substance and shape and figure leauing out all the later part of beleeuing and adoring, and all words which might signify any change, as there bee many. As first in [Page 173] that he saith; the mysticall signes doe not change their nature by Sanctification, which why should he deny, vnlesse the Sanctification did worke some change: or why should he make such a special matter of that, that the (mystical signes that is) accidents as I shall by and by shew, should not change their na­ture, vnlesse the substance whereto they did belong, did change it owne nature. For it were a ridiculous thing for any man to make a wonder of that, that the colour, figure, and tast of bread should remaine, the substance it self of the bread remayning; but this being changed for them to remaine is a wonder, which may beseeme a wise man to speake of. Secondly whereas he sayth these mysti­cal signes may be seene, and touched, as be­fore, you leaue that out, because it plainely shewes there is some change; for a thing cannot bee otherwise then it was before, without some change. Now the change he saith is not in the accidents themselues, or in their owne nature, for that remai­nes, therefore it must necessarily be in that their subiect, as Philosophers speake, or sub­stance, in which they did inhere, or rest, is changed. Thirdly Theodoret speaketh of something which is wrought or made by sanc­tification, and which is vnderstood, and ado­red. What is this, that is made heere? not the accidents, for they remaine the same, not the substance of the bread, for that was be­fore. [Page 174] Neither is that said to bee vnderstood or beleeued, but seene and felt, much lesse is it or can it bee said to bee adored. All this then you leaue out Sir Humphrey, we neede not aske you why, for euery man seeth the reason. Thus much of your mangling of this authority.

29. Now to come to your mis-translation. Whereas you translate (Signa mystica) conse­crated elements. I would be glad to know in what Dictionary you find (Signa) to signify elements and (mystica) to signify consecrated? For though the holy Fathers many tymes vse the word, mystical, when they speake of the Blessed Sacrament as being a Mystery, and which indeed cannot be soe without consecration, yet mysti­cal, and consecrated, are two seueral things, and they haue seueral relations or respects, and consequently seueral Significations. For con­secrated hath relation to the words and action of the Priest, whereby it is sanctified and chan­ged mystical hath relation to the secrecy or hiddennesse of it, as farr surpassing the know­ledge or comprehension of man; or as being another thing then it seemeth outwardly to bee. But for the word (Signa) I see not what colour any man can haue to translate it elements: being two such different things without any connexion. For elements pertaine to the very substance of a thing, they being the prime prin­ciples of which any thing is made, and consis­teth. Signum or a Signe properly pertaineth to [Page 175] the accidents of a thing which are the proper obiects of our senses, and which doe notify or signify vnto vs the substance of the thing, bringing it soe to our knowledge, and euery thing is called a Signe soe farr as it is apt to cause in vs this knowledge. Wherefore this is a notable cunning tricke of yours Sir Knight by changing Signes into elements, to make all that Theodoret saith of the accidents of bread, to bee vnderstood of the elements or substance of the bread, as if that did re­maine, whereas he onely saith that the acci­dents remaine in their owne substance: that is their owne entity nature or being, which to them is not accidental and therefore may be termed their substance. For it is plaine that ac­cidents haue a certaine being of their owne, different from that of their subiect wherein they inhere or rest. And this is that nature or substance which Theodoret saith doth remaine. For as for the change of the substāce of bread besides that there is enough in this very place to conuince it, I could bring diuers other plaine places out of him, as that:Ap. Suar. 3. p. to. 3. disp. 49. Sect. 2. Non est atten­dendum ad naturam eorum quae videntur, sed creden­dum mutationi quae hîc fit ex gratia. Wee must not consider the nature of those things which are seene, but beleeue the change which is heere made by grace, as also that other place where he noteth it for an haeresy springing vpp among the Grecians, of some, that did deny the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Christ. Eucharistiam & oblationes [Page 176] non admittunt quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem Saluatoris nostri IESV CHRISTI. But not to stand longer vpon it,Dialog 3. vt. habeatur ap. Suar. 3. p. to. 3. disp. 46. sect. 1. heere is enough I trow to make it euident, that Theodoret in this point agreeth with other Fathers and the whole Catholique Church.

30. And soe much for these two fathers S. Aug. and Theodoret, which are the onely an­cient authors it seemeth you can find of your selfe. But because you would make your Reader thinke there bee more for you. And that our authors acknowledge soe much, I must exa­mine what you say out of Cusanus for that pur­pose, for he is the onely author which you hee­re bring. Thus then you say Their learned Cu­sanus is not soe reserued in his opinion of the Fathers he speakeht plainely and openly, that certaine of the ancient Diuines are found of this mind, that the bread in the Sacrament is not transubstantiated or changed in nature, but remaineth still, and is clothed with ano­ther substance more noble then it selfe. Soe Cusanus as you cite him. Whereby you would make it seeme as if Cusanus taught the Fathers to bee against transubstantiation, and euen as if it were Cusanus his owne opinion: For though you doe not say it expresly, yet you alleadge, him in such manner, that any man would thin­ke it. But in this you play your part as you are wont to doe. For first where doth Cusanus spea­ke one word of the Fathers? he speaketh in­deed of some ancient Diuines, but of Fathers [Page 177] not a word? this then is false which you say that Cusanus is not soe reserued in his opinion of the Fathers, seeing he is soe reserued as not once to name them. Secondly for that which you say of certaine ancient Diuines, it is true Cusanus hath somewhat to that purpose, but not iust as you say. For these are his words. Si quis intelligeret panem non transubstantiari sed superuestiri nobiliori substantia, prout quidam veteres Theologi in­tellexisse reperiuntur, qui dicebant non solum panem sed & corpus Christi esse in Sacramento &c. If any man should vnderstand the bread not to bee transub­stantiated, but to bee ouerclothed with a more noble substance, as some ancient Diuines are found to haue vnderstood, who said that not onely bread but the body of Christ is in the Sacrament &c. Which last words of Christ's real presence in the Sacrament you lea­ue out, because they make as much, or more against your selfe, then the former of the re­mayning of bread, against vs. But for the an­cient Diuines you needed not haue gon soe farre as Cusanus, you might haue their names and er­rours in our late Schoolemen.Suar. disp. 49. sect. 2 3 4. Thirdly concer­ning Cusanus his owne opinion, there can bee nothing more manifest then his true & cōstant beleife of transubstātiation: Excit. lib. 6. edit. Bas [...] 1565. pag. 522. lib. 4. p. 446. in this very place hee saith, ita manent accidentia vt prius, sed substantia conuersa est. The accidents remaine as before but the substance is changed. And in another place. Huius sacramenti institutio ita facta est per Christum, quod panis in corpus Christi, & vinum in sanguinem conuer­titur, pro esca spirituali sub speciebus sensibilibus. The [Page 178] institution of this Sacrament was soe made by Christ, that the bread is changed into the body of Christ, and wine into his bloud for spiritual foode vnder the sen­sible species or accidents. And there he goeth on with a large & excellēt discourse, expressing all things now in controuersy, as transubstantia­tiō, I meane the very word, Concomitancy, the efficacy of the very words, Christ's manner of presence whole in the whole host, & whole in euery part thereof, illustrating and prouing all by reasons and examples of natural things, and this not briefely, or in one place onely, but soe largely & in soe many places, as a man by onely opening the booke without an index may pre­sently find enough, to shew his Catholique be­leife, & confute your errors. What strange ma­lice and boldnes then is this Sir Humphrey soe to leade your reader into tentation, by making him beleeue Cusanus is for you. I omitt to note your ignorance in citing Cusanus his booke Exercit: that is either Exercitiorum or Exercita­tionum, whereas he hath noe such worke but Excitationum? Which by your great ignorance euery where shewed I haue good reason to thinke not to bee the Printers fault, but yours. But heere is an end with Cusanus in whom you haue noe refuge more then you had in the Fathers.

31. Now then hauing done with Scriptures and Fathers you come to the Schoolemen, tel­ling vs that Scotus taught that before the Councel of Lateran, transubstantiation was not beleeued as [Page 179] a point of faith: Which Bellarmine disalloweth in him: & Suarez saith that the Schoolemen which teach that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not very ancient are to be corrected such as Scotus was. Of Durand you say that in like man­ner hee & some of his fellow Schoolemen after him professed openly, that the material part (or substance) of the Sacramental bread was not conuerted: but that Bellarmine condemneth this doctrine for heretical, yet excusing Durand from being an Haeretique because he was rea­dy to submitt to the iudgment of the Church. Then letting passe Wickliffe and the Walden­ses you say our owne Proctours Osiensis and Gaufridus tell you that there were others in those dayes, who taught that the substance of bread did remaine, and this opinion say they, (as you cite them) was not to be reiected. Lastly to come to this last age you say Tonstall thinkes it had beene better to leaue euery man to his owne coniecture for the manner of the reall presence whether it bee by transubstantiation or otherwise as it was before the Councell of Lateran: And Erasmus saith it was defined but of late by the Church These are all your au­thors and your whole discourse out of Schoo­lemen.

32. To which I say first for Scotus that I haue sufficiently answeared that of him before in answearing the testimony of Yribarre his Schollar,Sup. hoc §. n. 24. where I shewed that he meant [Page 180] not soe much of the substance of the doctrine, for hee acknowledgeth the antiquity of the conuersion of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and bloud as either of the word trāsubstantiatiō or of the proof thereof by determining the sense of scriptu­re. And this it may be is it wherin Tonstall also followeth him. If they meane otherwise the matter is not great; for one single author or two contradicted by others carry noe credit with vs in matter of beleife though to say truely Tonstall was noe Schooleman but a Canonist, as Cardi­nal Pole answeareth him very well by letter vpō another certaine occasiō, wherein he did swar­ue from the rules of true Diuinity: as I haue seene by the letters of both, in both their owne hands. Erasmus is noe author to be answea­red nor named as you know I haue often told you.

33. For the Waldenses and Wickliffe you doe well to lett them passe. But the very naming of them shewes you had a good mind to fill out your number of Schoolemen with thē: though for the Waldenses I doe not find that they agree with you much in this point of the Blessed Sa­crament. For they had Masse but once a yeare, & that vpon Maundy thursday neither would they vse the words Hoc est Corpus meum. This is my body but 7. Pater nosters with a blessing ouer the bread. Whereas you may haue your Commu­nion oftener, and you vse the words This is my body. Not 7. Paters as they did. But what neede [Page 181] I say more of them or the Wickliffists either, being knowne condemned Haeretiques.

34. Now for Durand hee is a Schoolman in­deed and a learned one, but yet not wholy free from errour in some points, and particularly in this, of the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ. For he is of opi­nion that the change in this Sacrament is noe other then as the natural changes of other sub­stances one into another;Durand. 4. dist. 11. q. 3. and that it is super­natural onely for the manner because it is done in an instant and without the concurrence of naturall causes. And that as in theis naturall changes of the elements one into another or other mixt bodyes the forme onely is changed the material part or subiect as Philosophers spea­ke remayning still the same, soe also that heere the forme of bread is changed onely the mat­ter or material part of bread and wine remay­ning. Which yet he thought to bee sufficient to verify not onely the realnes of Christ's pre­sence, but also the conuersion of bread into the body of Christ. For to that purpose he hath these two expresse conclusions.4. dist. 10. q. 1. Dicendum saith he quod verum corpus Christi natum de Virgine & passum in cruce est realiter in hoc Sacramento. I say that the true body of Christ which was borne of the Virgin and suffered on the crosse is really in this Sacrament. The other conclusion is this. Di­cendum quod substantia panis & vini conuertuntur in substantiam corporis Christi. Dur. 4. dist. 11. q. 1. It is to bee sayd that the substance of bread and wine are turned into [Page 182] the substance of Christ's Body. Whereby it is plai­ne he held a true and reall presence by a true and reall conuersion of the bread or substan­ce of the bread into the body of Christ disco­uering also therein your cunning and delu­ding corruption whereby you would make it seeme to your Reader that these two bee all one (the materiall part of bread, and substan­ce of bread) for soe in the citation of Durand's sentence you glosse the words materiall part with this parenthesis of your owne (or sub­stance) whereas the material part of bread and substance of bread are two things. For the matter in euery compound is but a part of the substance and the absolute denomination of such a specificall substance doth not be­long euen to the forme it self alone though it be the more noble and more essentiall part, much lesse to the matter or materiall part. For we doe not say the forme of fire or water is fire or water but it is that which giueth the being of fire or water to the materiall part or matter which of it selfe is soe farr from hauing any such denomination as some Philosophers doe scarce giue it any proper being of it owne or euen the common name of ens. And all agree that it hath noe quality noe actiue power nor force of it self to doe any thing as being but a meere passiue power.

35. Wherefore though the matter of bread should remaine in this conuersion or change yet could not the substance of bread bee said to [Page 183] remaine soe long as the forme is changed noe more then all the bread and meate which you eate may be said to remaine because the mate­rial part of all the bread, beefe, mutton, ca­pon, pheazant, and whatsoeuer els you eate, remaineth vnconuerted which as it were a great absurdity in any man to affirme, soe is it as great an one in you to affirme that the substance of bread in this Sacrament should not bee conuerted though the material part should remaine, for as the onely change of the forme in all natural conuersions is sufficient to verify that this thing is changed into that, for example Fire into Water, soe might it bee in this: For as much as pertaineth to the truth of that manner of speaking. Which I onely vrge in Durand's defence not that I allow his doctrine. For this was his very reason why he did hold that opinion because he thought it sufficient to verify not onely the reall presence but euen transubstantiation also. Which very word he vseth in another place, for making answeare to a certaine obiection drawne out of the words of S. Iohn Damascen wherein that Fa­ther said that the nature of bread was assumed by Christ. As if by that manner of speaking he should seeme to insinuate that the bread re­mayning the same in nature was Hyposta­tically vnited to Christ, Durand saith thus.Durand. in 4. dist. 10 [...] q. 1. Si­cut in baptismate aqua assumitur vt materia Sa­cramenti permanens sic panis & vinum assumun­tur vt materia Sacramenti tranfiens quia materia [Page 184] Sacramenti conuertitur in corpus Christi & per con­sequens dicitur aliquo modo vniri diuinitati non per assumptionem manente natura panis aut vini sed per transubstantiationem in humanitatem priùs assump­tam. As in baptisme water is assumed as the perma­nent matter of the Sacrament soe bread and wine are assumed as the transient or passing matter of the Sacra­ment, because the matter of the Sacrament is turned into the body of Christ. And by consequence is said in some sort to be vnited to the Diuinity not by assump­tion or hypostaticall vnion, the nature of the bread or wine remayning; but by transubstantiation into the Humanity before assumpted Which words de­clare his opinion both fully and plainely of the change of the matter of this Sacrament into the body of Christ by Transubstantiation.

36. But howsoeuer hee faile in declaring this transubstantiation in that he taketh not the whole substance of the bread to bee changed into the whole body of Christ he doth not say it confidently and certainely but doubtfully and with dew submission to better iudgment, and especially to the Church. Saluo meliori iudicio existimari potest &c. are his words.4. dist. 11. q. 3 Sauing better iudgment it may bee thought &c. and in answeare of an argument to the contrary wherein was obiected the common consent of others against him, he saith that that notwithstanding yet soe long as their saying is not confirmed by the Church it is lawfull to thinke the contrary. In which words he sheweth two things; one, that his Opinion was contrary to the common current of the Catho­lique [Page 185] Doctors of his owne tyme. Which is con­trary to that which you said that hee and his fellow Schoolemen professed that doctrine openly; for you see he acknowledgeth all others to bee against him, neither doth he himself professe it soe openly, for he speaketh it doubtfully and with submission to better iudgment: The other thing is that hee plainely acknowledgeth the authority of the Church to bee such as that it is not lawfull for any man to hold opinion against it. But though hee should haue said nothing thereof in this place it is sufficient that in the praeface of his Commentary vpon the Maister of the Sentences, hee submitteth all his works to the correction of the holy Romane and Catholique Church to which hee acknowled­geth the interpretation of all doubts of the holy Scripture to belong: Which profession with­out more may serue to excuse and free him from the crime of haeresy either in this or any other point wherein hee may haue chaunced to erre as Bellarmine doth therefore iustly excuse him.

37. Now for Gaufridus and Ostiensis our owne Proctors as you call them, as you haue the obiection soe you shall haue the answea­re alsoe out of Durand. Durand. in 4. dist. 10. q. 1. Thus then hee obiecteth against the praesence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Ostiensis and Gaufridus note 3. o­pinions concerning the manner of being of the body of Christ vpon the altar: of which one saith that the bread is the body, of Christ: another [Page 186] saith that the bread doth not remaine but is changed; and that the accidents alone doe remaine; Which seemeth to be approued by that text of Cap. firm [...] ­ter. The third opinion saith that the substance of bread doth remaine and is together with the body of Christ vpon the altar. Behold that they call it an Opinion of the remanency of the substance of bread neither doe they say it is reproued nay rather they referre it to the confession of Beren­garius which was approued by the Councel. Thus the obiection sett downe and vrged by Durand, not cited out of them. Now his answeare is this. For that which is afterwards said of Gaufrid, Ber. and Hostiens. Glossers vpon the Chap. firmiter it is to be answeared, that though they recount three opinions they approue none for true but onely that of the body of Christ's being vpon the altar by transubstantiation of the bread and wine. And if they doe not expresly call any of them er­roneous, it followeth not therefore that it is not erroneous. For they did not know all the passa­ges of holy Scripture from which the fore said opi­nion doth differ. Thus the obiectiō & answeare in the very words as they lye in Durand. Out of which first it is cleare, these men are onely Cano­nists noe Schoole Diuines; such as you pretend heere to alleadge. Though you alsoe insinuate the same somewhat, in as much as you call them our Proctors. Wherein yet you mistake your termes, the word Proctor being not soe fitt for soe great Doctors of the Canons as they were: for how thinke you vould your Ciuill or Canon [Page 187] Doctors of the Arches take it at your hands to be called Proctors? or your great Lord Sir Edoward Cooke and Doctor as I may say of your common Law to be called an Attourney at Law? Secōdly heereby appeareth also your corruptiō in saying that they taught that this opinion, was not to be reiected; for thus you putt it in a different letter. (This opinion say they was not to bee reiected) whereas they say noe such thing. But onely Du­rand enforcing the obiection to the vtmost as Diuines are wont to doe the more fully to an­sweare; taketh hold that they call it an opinion, and likewise taketh hold that they doe not say it was reproued or that it ought to be held for an error. Thirdly hence it appeareth that both they themselues did not allow of it in that they held onely that middle opinion of trāsub­stantiation for true; and that though they did not soe expresly cōdemne it of error yet it doth not follow but that it was error for they knew not all the passages of scripture: Scripture being not their study. Thus then all your Schoolemen are answeared and consequently this whole §. of Transubstantiation.

PARAGRAPH. 3. OF PRIVATE MASSE.

1. In this third § Sir Hūphrey pretēdeth to make good the doctrine and practize of his Church, and ouerthrow outs in point of priuate Masse [Page 188] as he calleth it: beginning with the curse of the Councel of Trent, against such as cōdemne it for vnlawfull. And then bring an article of Ireland to the cōtrary, which saith, that for the Priest to receiue the Eucharist without a cōpetent number of Communicants, is against the institution of Christ, & practize of the primitiue Church. For proofe of this his doctrine he bringeth the words of Christ; 1. Cor. 11.1. Take yee, eate yee. And those of S. Paul. Be yee followers of mee, euen as I am alsoe of Christ. As likewise those other. When you come together tarry one for another. And the cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the Cōmunion of the bloud of Christ? and heere the knight saith out of Hugo de S. Victo. (whom hee of his owne free goodnes is pleased to create a Cardinal, both heere and els where, to make vp the number of his Cardinals Bishops &c.) that it is called a Com­munion, because the People in the primitiue Church did cōmunicate together. And he saith of himself, that it is soe called because the Priest and people communicate together. After this he bringeth a Canon of the Councel of Nantes, forbid­ding Priest to say Masse alone. For to whō, saith the Canon, doth the Priest say The Lord bee with you to which he addeth 12. or 13. of our authors in proofe that anciently the people did commu­nicate euery day, witnessing therein as he saith the antiquity of his Doctrine and intimating the nouelty of ours and he telleth vs also that the Councel of Trent concludeth with a well-wishing to his Doctrine, in saying that it [Page 189] wisheth that the people would communicate not only spiritually but also sacramentally, ad­iudging his communion to be more fruitfull. This is the summe of this whole §

2. To which I answeare, beginning with this last of the Councel of Trent, that the Rearder seeing the Man's abhominable Lying by this one thing, may giue a guesse of the rest. The Councel as he confesseth in the beginning accur­seth him and his Doctrine, and heere he saith it concludeth with a well wishing therevnto. Is it euen soe good Sir your Communion is allowed by the Councel of Trent? you tell vs Newes; I pray you what Canon, what Chapter, what Session is your Cōmunion once named in? there you will say, where the Councel wisheth that the people that heare Masse would cōmunicate, not onely spiritually but also sacramentally? is this your Communion? what? haue you Masse Sir Hum­phrey? take heede id may cost you money. An informer that should heare this might catch you by the backe, and bring you in for soe many hundred marks, as you haue receiued bytts of bread, in your Church; Which truely might proue a deare ordinary for you. And this you must either confesse, or lett alone the Councel of Trent, which acknowledgeth noe Communion without Masse. For if you deny your Seruice to be Masse, we deny your Communion to bee Communion, for no Masse, noe communion: therefore bethinke your selfe, whither you will be content to haue a Masse or noe Trent-Com­munion? [Page 190] and while you stand studying of this, I will putt you another thing to consider of. Which is this, that it is one thing for the Councel to wish that the people would communicate; because to heare Masse and receiue withall would bee more profitable; another, to say that if there bee noe body to communicate, or that such Masse is vnlawfull as Haeretiques say; the Priest must not say Masse: what thinke you Sir are not these two things? study the matter a while and tell vs. Doe not you then speake wondrous wittily, when you say that there cometh blessing and cursing out of the same mouth, as if the Councel did approue and con­demne the same thing when it commendeth sa­cramentall communion of the people together with the Priest, and yet condemneth not those Masses as vnlawfull, wherein the people doe not communicate: yea approueth them? the like wit and lesse honesty you shew alsoe in that you say, that from the Confession of a general Councell your Communion is concluded to bee more fruitfull; what affinity betweene your empty communion which is but a morsel of bread, and a supp of wine, and the true real & substantiall Body and Bloud of CHRIST IESVS which the faithfull Catholique receiueth: the Councell commendeth daily receiuing of the Blessed Sacrament as more profitable therefore say you it cōmendeth your Communion which you vse, once, twice, thrice, or 4. tymes a yeare. It wisheth that the people would receiue sacra­mentally [Page 191] as the Priest doth, you make it say noe; but that the Priest must doe as the people doth, that is, not celebrate but when they are disposed to receiue: is it not meere madnes for you Sir Humphrey thus plainely to abuse the Councel soe contrary to the plaine meaning thereof?

3. Like to this is your folly, in alleadging soe many authorityes in fauour of your Commu­nion, as you thinke. Which whither you cite them true or noe I doe not stand to examine, for it maketh noe matter. They say it was the practize of the primitiue Church to communi­cate euery day with the Priest; I grant it. What then? therefore the Priest now must say Masse but once in two or three months, or once in a twelue moneth, or not once in seauen yeare, vnlesse the people be soe deuout as to come & receiue with him? this followeth of your doc­trine: is not this wise arguing? but to answeare you another way Sir Humphrey, you cannot bee ignorant that there is not one of these authors which you cite for the peoples daily commu­nion that saith that either it is or was of neces­sity soe to doe, but onely beare witnes of the practize:Bell. lib. 2. de Mis. cap. 9. & 10. Durant. de ritib. lib. 2. cap. 4. n. 5. Whereas some of them as Bellarmine and Durantus doe proue most manifestly that there was noe such necessity, or dependency of the Priest's celebrating vpon the peoples cōmu­nicating, that they might not celebrate vnlesse the people did communicate. Nay they proue clearely that it was ordinary for Priests to cele­brate, [Page 192] though noe body did communicate. Doe they not proue by manifest authorities that in the Easterne Church, in the tyme of S. Ambrose, S. Aug. & S. Chrisost. the people did cōmunicate but once a yeare, and yet S. Chrysost. euen there where he complaineth of the peo­ples coldnes, saith of himself, that he celebrated euery day though there were noe body to par­ticipate with him? but because these Fathers li­ued after the Primitiue Church, though not long, and that your authors speake most of the Primitiue Church it is manifest that euen in that tyme the people did not still communicate euery day as they had done in the beginning for whe­reas people did communicate before without command, onely of their owne deuotion, they were growne soe cold by Pope Fabian's tyme,Fab. epi. 3. which was about the yeare 240. being but the one & twētith Pope, that hee was faine to make a Decree to compell the people to communi­cate at least thrice a yeare, and this was almost one hundred yeares before the end of the Primi­tiue Church, the like decree I might alsoe bring out of Soter about the yeare 175. which was 60. yeares before Fabian. Whereas notwithstan­ding then Priests and Bishops did celebrate euery day as appeareth by S. Cypr. Ambr. Aug. Hiero­me, Lib. 2. cap. 4. &c. cited by Durantus. And which is more those Fathers, S. Aug by name, saith he doth neither commend nor discommend the daily Communion of the people; but wisheth that at least vpon Sundayes they would communicate, [Page 193] but with a mind free from desire of sinning, whereas hee together with other Fathers make frequent mention of dayly sacrifice. But what is all this to your purpose, or to your cōmunion? as of all that is said by the Fathers of the holy Communion were meant of your sacrilegious communion?

4. Now for your proofes out of Scripture, as that, that our Sauiour said to his Disciples, (take yee, eate yee). I answeare that as our Sauiour there spake to all his Apostles who did all eate, soe out of this place a man might euen as well say, that all must communicate that are in the Church at the same tyme, and that the Priest must not say Masse, vnlesse not onely one 2. or 3. communicate, but all that are there, which I doe not beleeue you will grant. For I doe not thinke that when any one man among you receiueth your communion, all receiue it. Solue this obiection then of myne, and you answeare your owne. For S. Paul's words where he inuiteth Christians to imitate him, as he did imitate Christ, out of which you would gather that Priests must not say Masse, vnlesse there be some body to communicate, if a man should tell your Ministers and your selfe too Sir Humphrey of many things which S. Paul did, and wherein hee did desire to bee followed, as the chastizing of his body, his fasting and praying, his chastity, his labours, and the like. Both you and they would haue witt enough to find a solution for your selues, [Page 194] and would easily find something els wherein to imitate him: neyther would you bee soe well able to proue your selues followers of him in those things, as wee can doe our selues in this. For first the thing wherein S. Paul desireth the Corinthians to imitate him cannot bee the distributing of the commu­nion, which belonged onely to the office of Priests, whereas S. Paul [...]s imitation is directed to all. Secondly the thing, that he desireth to bee imitated in,1. Cor. 10.31 is that which goeth next before in these words. Whither you eate or drinke, or doe any thing els, doe all to the glory of God. Bee without offence to Iewes and Gentils, and to the Church of God, as I please all in all things, not seeking what is profitable for my selfe, but for many that they may bee saued. Then come very fitly, and consequently these words. Bee imitators of mee, as I alsoe of Christ in this there­fore as Christ did seeke not his owne pleasure but the good of many, wherein S. Paul did imitate him soe hee would haue the Corinthians, and in them all Christians to imitate him. Now that which followeth is a new matter; for he goeth from exhorting them, to praise them thus. I prayse you my bretherem, that you are mindefull of mee in all things, and Keepe my praecepts as I haue deliuered vnto you. And there alsoe deliuereth a great many good praecepts of other matters, before hee come to the B. Sacra­ment. Thirdly in this matter of Masse wee imi­tate him: for our Priests are ready to communi­cate [Page 195] such as come worthily to receiue, but you must proue that S. Paul would not say Masse or communicate himself, vnlesse others would communicate with him; or that he did teach that other Priests must not. But that you will neuer bee able to doe.

5. That other place of staying one for an­other, is spoken to the people; who made the suppers called agape, as is plaine by the text. Wherein he reprehends the abuses that were committed as that some did exceede, others did want; some were drunke, some went away hungry which could not pertaine to the bles­sed Sacrament, as euery man knoweth besides the distribution of that belonged to the Priests, not to the people, who are heere instructed and reprehended for their manner of making their suppers; for he speaketh to the same people heere, that he doth in all the epistle, and to whom he had a little before in the beginning of the chapter giuen such praecepts as noe way belong to Priests but are common to all. As for exāple that men must not pray or prophecy with their hats on, and that women must not contrarywise pray or prophecy bare headed: that a man may not nourish his haire, that a woman may &c. And then spea­keth of this matter of their suppers, without any change of person: besides that there were not many Priests then in that church & at that tyme: For I doe not find much mention of any Bishop or Priest at that tyme amōg the Corinthiās, [Page 196] but onely of Sosthenes who alsoe was with S. Paul at that tyme when he writt that epistle to the Corinthians and ioyned with him in the writing, as appeareth by the beginning, and indeede he is most like to haue come to S. Paul, to acquaint him with those disorders, and to desire his authority and helpe for redresse of them. It is true S. Paul speaketh also imme­diately after of the B. Sacrament which went alwaies with those suppers which he teacheth them, with what praeparation and examina­tion of themselues they are to receiue, which is nothing for our purpose in this place.

6. Your last place of S. Paul is, where the chalice is called the cup of Communion; the reason of which name you say is because the Priest and people must communicate together; or as Hugo de S. Vict. saith because the people in the Primitiue Church, did communicate euery day. What of that which Hugo de S. Vict. saith? nothing to the purpose. For we acknowledge that this holy Sacrament is cal­led the communion because it vniteth vs to Christ our head, and vniteth vs among our selues as members of the same body. And though it doe this most perfectly, when it is also receiued sacramentally, yet not onely soe but it doth the same alsoe in some mea­sure, being spiritually receiued: and as this vnion may remaine among vs members, though euery one doe not receiue euery day, soe it may also be or remaine betweene vs [Page 197] and the Priest, though he say Masse and we not receiue. And if this argument of yours be good, it will follow that not onely some but all the people must receiue together with the Priest for if because it is the com­munion, the Priest must not receiue without the people, it followeth that the people also must not receiue one without another: for it hath the name of Communion as well in reguard of vniting vs one to another, as to the Priest, and indeede not to the Priest but as he is one of them. For as he is Priest he doth offerr it as a sacrifice, and therein ex­celleth the people, but as he receiueth it sa­cramentally or formally as a Sacrament, there­in hee is but as one of the rest or participateth thereof but as others doe, though his recei­uing bee more necessary, in reguard of fini­shing the Sacrifice.

7. Now to come to your authority of the Councel of Nant's, (which you haue not rea­ding inough to cite out of any original, or any good author your selfe, but out of Cassander onely, beyond whom, and one or two more such fellowes it seemeth your learning doth not streatch. I answeare that, there is such a Decree cited by Bell. and others out of Bur­chard and therefore I allow of it: though it be not extant among our Councels now. I meane that decree is nor now extant in any Councel of Nants that wee haue: but the mat­ter is not great, for there bee many such [Page 198] decrees in other Councels, which although there were ten for one, yet were it not one iott the better for you Sir for this and the like Canons speake onely of not saying Masse all alone, without one or two to answeare, and to whom the Priest may seeme to speake when he saith Dominus vobiscum. Our Lord with you, and the like: but what is this to saying Masse without some body to communi­cate with him? Where is there any one word in this Canon, or any other, any Father, any Councel, any authority of an approued au­thor of not saying Masse without communi­cants? who did euer heare that the Priest must goe first and aske his parishioners, whe­ther any will communicate with him, before hee will goe to Masse, as it is praescribed in your booke of common prayer published by Parliament-authority, that you must doe before your communion,Annotat. after the order of ad­ministringe the commu­nion. neyther will it serue the turne to haue one or two to beare the Minister company, but there must bee a competent number: for example saith your booke if the Parish consist of 20. persons, there must be 3. or 4. at least otherwise the Minister must not communion it. And by this rule a man may say proportionably if the parish haue twenty hundred or 20000. there should be 3. or 4. thousand to com­municate at once. And if a sicke body would receiue he may not receiue alone, but hee must haue some body to beare him company, [Page 199] and not onely one or two, but many, or a competent number, as your booke saith, which therefore is to bee considered according to the number of Parishioners. This and much more may bee said of the prettines of your seruice and good fellow communion: but heere is enough of such an idle subiect, and soe hauing answeared your third Paragraph of priuate Masse as you call it I come to the 4.

PARAGRAPH. 4. OF THE SEAVEN Sacraments.

1. In this 4. paragraph which is of our Seauen Sacraments, the Knight hoyseth vpp all the sailes of his eloquence, and putteth to all the force of his witt as if both by wind and oare he would goe quite beyond vs in this point of our faith: wherein for that cause he doth enlarge himself beyond the ordinary measure of his paragraphs, and filleth his mar­gents with citations of Fathers and of Schoole­men laying first for a foundation a wise dis­course of his owne. Which I will alsoe beginne with without longer prefacing with him. He setteth downe first the Canon of the Councel of Trent accursing whosoeuer shall say the Seauen Sacraments of the new Law were not instituted by Christ, Sess. 7. ca [...]. 1. de Sacr. in gen. or that there bee more or fewer then [Page 200] Seauen; or that any of them is not properly and truely a Sacrament. Which decree saith Bellarmi­ne, ought to suffice though we had noe other. For if we take away the authority of the pre­sent Church and present Councell, the decrees of all other Councels, and the whole Christian Faith may be brought into doubt. Which canon of the Councell, and authority of Bellarmine he cryeth out against; and saith it is a foundation of Atheisme, for in his iudgment the word of Christ alone is sufficient for all Christians: which hee proueth by those words of S. Paul. I haue not shunned to declare vnto you all the counsel of God. Act. 20. And that wee may know he speaketh of the written Word, he bringeth Bellarmines au­thority saying, that those things are written which were by the Apostles preached generally to all. And hee is soe confident against this point of the Seuen Sacraments, that hee is content the cur­se shall light vpon him, if any learned man shall shew it out of any Father of the Primi­tiue Church, or any knowen author for about a thousand yeares after Christ. This is his be­ginning; whereat I will make a stay and an­sweare, not to take too much at once. Hee thinketh it then a foundation of Atheisme, to say that if wee take away the authority of the present Church, and present Councel wee may call in question the whole Christian Faith. And why soe good Sir Humphrey? What Atheis­me is it to say that there is one Faith: that that Faith is to bee found onely in the Church? [Page 201] that, that Church cannot fayle or erre at any time: and consequently that that Faith which it teacheth cannot faile or erre? and espe­cially that then the Church can least erre, when it is gathered together in a General Coun­cel, and defineth matters of Faith with ap­probation of the Supreme Pastor of God's church and that if such a Councel may erre, the Church, may erre? that if the Church may erre, the Faith which that Church teacheth may faile, and consequently that there can bee noe certainty? is this the way to Atheis­me to teach that there must be some certaine meanes to learne true faith, and beleife in God? and that if there bee none such there can bee noe certainty? would a man thinke that it should euer enter into any man's mind to say that the affirming of this infallibility were the way to Atheisme. Whereas the de­nyall thereof is the most direct way that can be imagined vnto Atheisme. For take this in­fallibility away and there is noe rule of faith, if noe rule, noe faith, if noe faith, noe right beleife in God, which is the height of Atheisme.

2. But because you Sir Humphrey are not capable of this Discourse, as euident and demonstratiue as it is, I will goe about with you another way. I would know of you whi­ther if wee should take away the holy Scri­pture or written word, it would not follow in you iudgment, that the whole Christian [Page 200] [...] [Page 201] [...] [Page 202] faith might bee called in question? I say in your iudgment: for whether it would or would not in myne I doe not say any thing heere: cer­tainely it would. For some rule men must ha­ue, and that is your onely rule. Now againe doe not you know that S. Gregory the great did of­ten say & write, that he did hold the fower first Councels in the same honour, that he did the 4. Ghospels, which was the same as to say, they could as little erre as the 4. Ghospels. Why may it not then follow that vpon deniall of the au­thority of those 4. Councels, the authority of the Christiā faith may be shaken, as well as by deniall of the Ghospell?V. B [...]ll. lib. 2. de Concil. cap. 3. and this which I say of S. Gregory I may say of many other Fathers in re­guard of all or some of those 4. Councels, and particularly of that of Nice which whosoeuer should haue denyed, was noe lesse to haue bene counted an Haeretique then if he should haue denied the Ghospell.1. Eliz 1. & you your selues in your Parliament Lawes giue great authority to those 4. first Councels, & euen as much if you vnder­stand your selues well, & speake consequently as S. Gregory doth: for you are cōtēt to acknow­ledge for heresy whatsoeuer is condemned for such, by any of them. Which is in other words to acknowledge them for a rule of faith, & cō ­sequently of infallible authority? you ioyne thē in the same ranke with the canonical Scriptu­res. You giue also the like authority to other general Councels; but with this lymitatiō, that these later must haue expresse scripture, where­by [Page 203] to cōdemne a thing for heresy: but which is most of all to bee noted, in the same statute you giue power to the Court of Parliament, with the assent of the Clergy in their Conuocation, to adiudge or determine a matter to bee heresy: Which is the very same as to giue it power to declare faith, or to bee a rule thereof: which if it may agree to such an assembly or Court of a temporal Prince and Kingdome I see not why it may not agree to a General Councel, as being the Parliament of Christ his Church, to which he hath promised his speciall assistance. But this is by the way.

3. Now out of this authority which you grāt to those ancient Councels, I goe a little farther with you, and aske what you can say more against the present Church, and present Councel of Trent, then against the Church of that tyme & Councels of those tymes? whatsoeuer you can say of the Church now, that it may erre, may as wel be said of the Church of that tyme. For our Sa­uiour's promise for the perpetuity & infallibili­ty thereof is as much for one tyme, as another; for our tyme now, as for those then. What you say now of the Councel of Trent that it is disclay­med by a great part of the Christiā world, may be said much more of the Councel of Nice: which was gaine said both by more, & other māner of men then the Councel of Trent. & the same may bee also said of some of the rest. & soe forth of any thing els, that you can obiect. Wherefore to conclude, if it were not atheisme to say then, [Page 204] that by questioning the authority of the Nicene Decrees, the authority of the whole Christian faith might bee questioned, I see not why it should bee Atheisme to say the same of the Councel of Trent. But you thinke it is Atheisme to deny the Scriptures alone to be sufficient? For that is the sense of your inference. But it is farre otherwise. For all Catholiques say they are not soe; and yet they beleeue that there is a God, and honour and worshipp him as their God. But this of the alone sufficiency of Scrip­tures is a seuerall matter of it selfe. Onely for your place of S. Paul, it is plaine you peruert it. For he speaketh not of the written word but of the doctrine of Christ by him preached, as is manifest by his owne very words there. Which are these.Act. 20.20. Vos scitis quomodo nihil subtraxerim vti­lium quominus annunciarem vobis, & docerem vos publice & per domos testificans &c. You know how I haue withdrawen nothing that was profitable but that I preached it vnto you, and taught you openly and from howse to howse testifying to Iewes and Gentils penance towards God, and faith in our Lord IESVS CHRIST. For neyther had S. Paul then writtē his Epistle to the Ephesians, to whom he there spoke. For he wrote it out of prison from Rome, and euen the second tyme of his imprisonment, which was many yeares after this speach. Whe­reas at the tyme of this speach he was but going to Hierusalē where being takē, after some tyme of imprisonmēt, hee was sent to Rome. And you might as wel haue aleadged those words of our [Page 205] Sauiour to his Disciples All that I haue heard frō my Father, I haue made knowne to you. Io. 15.15. As these of S. Paul; and yet is well knowne our Sauiour did not deliuer any one word in writing to his Apostles. Neither doth Bellarmines saying helpe you any thing: for though those things which are necessary for all in generall to know, which are but few, be written; there bee yet many more not written which are necessary to bee knowne by some in the Church, though not by all. Now for the curse, which you are content shall light ypon you if wee shew the number of Seauen Sacraments to haue beene the beleife of the Church for a thousand yeares after Christ, bee not too forward to draw malediction vpon your self; it will come fast enough to your cost. It is an heauier thing then you are aware of, to haue the curse of a Mother; and such a Mother as the Church, which doth not curse without cause nor out of passion. For as the Scripture saith: Maledictio Matris eradicat fundamenta. Eccle. 3.11. The malediction of a Mother doth roote out the foundatiōs. 4. Hauing thus praefaced against the authority of the Councel of Trent, you come neerer to the matter, giuing vs a new definition of a Sacra­ment, to wit, that it is a seale witnessing to our consciences that God's promises are true. For as you say, God by his word declareth his mercie, and sealeth and assureth it by his Sacraments, and in the word we heare his promises, in the Sacraments we see them. Out of which you inferre Baptisme and the Lord's Supper, to bee pro­per [Page 206] Sacraments, because in them the element is ioyned to the word, and they take their ordi­nance from Christ, & are visible signes of an inui­sible sauing grace. In which words is contained another farre different definition of a Sacra­ment hauing noe manner of connexion or de­pendence vpon the former. Out of which againe you inferre that the other 5. beside Baptisme and the Eucharist are noe Sacrements; not Cōfirmation; because it was not instituted by Christ; not Pen­nance & Order; because they haue noe outward element; not Matrimony because it was before Christ's tyme, and is common to, Turks and in­fidells; neither doe you see forsoothe how it can be a holy thing, and yet forbidden, as it is to Priests. And from this you tell vs that if the cur­se of the Councel take place, then Woe to all the ancient Fathers: of whom you name these following, Ambrose, Austin, Chrysostome, Bede, Isidore, Alexander of Hales, Cyprian, Durand, and Bessarion. This is your discourse.

5. To which I answeare. That for your formet definition it is a senselesse one, without ground in any father,Lib. 1. de S [...]t [...]r. in gen. cap. 14. & 16. or other author but onely Kemni­tius and Caluin, and which is largely refuted and proued most absurd by Bellarmine to whom I remit you. For how can the Sacraments be seales, or giue vs a [...]urance of his words, when all the assurance wee haue of the Sacraments is his word: this is idem per idem. Besides what pro­mises are these that are sealed; or if they bee sea­les what neede we more seales or Sacraments [Page 207] then one: or if there may bee more why not seauen as well as two? Againe how doe we see the promises of God in the Sacraments? when a man hath receiued the Sacrament of Baptisme, what other assurance hath hee that his sinnes are forgiuen or that he is the Child of God and heyre of his kingdome, then the word of God promising that vertue to the Sacrament, or how can any man see by the Sacramēt that he is soe? these are but foolish fancies bredd in haeretical braines; and soe to be contemned. For your other definition it is not much better, being Melancthons; Vbi supra▪ related and refuted by Bellarm. which therefore I leaue, and answeare onely that which you say, that two Sacraments haue the word and element and ordinance of Christ. The other 5. not. For Confirmation and Ex­treame Vnction you cannot deny the element and word to wit oile and the forme: but you deny the ordinance of Christ. For proofe of which and other particulars, it wil be too long to stand vpon it in this place, you may see Bellarmine and others namely Suar. who beside scriptures bringeth irrefragable proofes of an­cient Popes of the Primitiue Church, Councels, 3. p. to. 3. disp. 32. and ancient Fathers. And for Halensis and one Diuine or 2. more which may say somewhat to the contrary they are not to bee heard against the whole torrent of Fathers & Doctors. Though euen these acknowledge them true Sacraments & instituted by Christ, for as much as pertaynes to the effect or promise of grace annexed to them, [Page 208] though not for the outward ceremony and words; which they thinke was afterwards ap­pointed, of which I shall say more by and by.

6. For Order and Penance, you deny not the institution of Christ but you deny them to haue any outward element ioyned to the word. This is strange is not the paten with an host and cha­lice with wine in it, which is the matter in or­dayning of a Priest, as much an outward ele­ment as is the host and wine alone, in the Sa­crament of the Eucharist? a man would thinke Soe, and a litle more too: and soe of Pennance, is not the true sorrow of hart declared by hum­ble confession together with Prayer Fasting or almes deeds enioyned for satisfaction, an outward elemēt or thing to be perceiued by our outward senses? Why not then matter for a Sa­crament? soe also the bodyes of man and wo­man, are they not as much an outward element in the Sacrament of Matrimony as water in Bap­tisme? but you say it was before Christ. What then? might it not bee a natural contract before and yet after be exalted to the dignity of a Sa­crament by Christ. Water had the vse of washing from the beginning, might not Christ therefore giue power vnto it to cleanse our soules, and exalt it to the dignity of a Sacrament? the same I say alsoe of bread and wine: but say you againe if it bee a holy thing, why is it forbidden to some men? I aske you againe wheter Order bee not an holy thing? You will not deny it. If it bee why then is it forbidden to all women? which [Page 207] sheweth the ridiculousnesse of your discourse. You must know then all good is not for euery body: and in good there be degrees of compari­son as well as in other things; Marriage is good but of an inferiour ranke, and not soe agreeable to the high state of Priesthood, or religious Life. And soe to offer Sacrifice is a good thing indeede, and too good for Lay men to exercise, as wee see by the reproba­tion of Saul, for presuming to doe it, and Ozias his Leprosy wherewith hee was strucken by the hand of God for presuming to offer in­cense in the Temple.1. Reg 15.2. Paralip. 26.19. Why then may not these bee Sacraments? by the way you note in the margent that Vazquez acknowledgeth Matri­mony to be noe Sacrament properly, citing a place after in this your owne booke, which I shall answeare there, and discouer your noto­rious falshoode.

7. Now to the curse whereof you will make the Fathers guilty, as well as your self. I answeare first, that of these Fathers which you name, two, to wit Halensis and Durand are ordinarily counted amōg the Schoolemen, not amōg the Fathers, as also Bessarion, who liued little more then 150. yeares since. Secondly that though it bee true that the Fathers vpon seueral occasions mention the Sacraments seuerally, sometymes they mētion two, sometymes three, sometymes 4.5. or 6. more or lesse, as the parti­cular matter which they handle giues occasion: yet neuer did any man say there was onely 2.3.4 [Page 208] &c. Shew this if you can Sir Knight, and you say something: els all is but babling that you talke of the Father's mentioning 2.3. or 4. &c. And this answeare hath beene often made, and can­not bee impugned; to which yet you stand still repeating your friuolous obiections ouer and ouer againe, without replying vpon the an­sweare, or euen taking notice thereof. For a chiefe part of your discourse in this §. is but taken out of Chemnitius, Bell. lib. 1. de Sacram in gen. cap. 14. as may appeare by Bel­larmine in his controuersy de Sacramentis in gene­re, where he answeareth all the argumēts fully, which shall therefore saue me some labour; soe as I shall not neede to doe more then point at somethings briefly, and discouer your owne proper corruptions.

8. Well then you tell vs the Saints Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostome, & Bede teach, that out of the side of our Sauiour when the bloud & water yssued vpon the crosse, there came out the Sa­craments, Baptisme & Eucharist. Which I doe not see to what other purpose you bring but onely to insinuate thereby as if in their opinions, there were but two Sacraments. To which I answeare that true it is, that some Fathers in­terprett the bloud and water issueing out of our Sauiour's side to signify those two Sacramēts: but yet you are best looke in your freind Chem­nitius from whom you borrow this argument whether he cite all these Fathers for this expli­cation: I doe not thinke you will find S. Am­brose and Bede there, for S. Aug. it is true he [Page 209] explicateth it soe in some places; and otherwi­se also in others, as I shall shew after. But for that place which you cite heere I am sure hee hath nothing of two Sacraments onely, or of any number of Sacraments at all, but onely thus in generall.Aug. in Io. tra. 15. De latere Christi in cruce pendentis Lancea percusso Sacramenta Ecclesiae profluxerunt. Out of the side of Christ hanging vpon the crosse smitten with a speare issued the Sacra­ments of the Church. Which words may as well be verified of seauen as of two Sacraments. But be it as you say, that all the Fathers explicate that scripture of the two Sacraments Baptisme and Eucharist. What then? Doe they say that they were then instituted, or that there were noe more Sacraments instituted, or that other Sa­craments did not issue frō thence also? noe such matter. All they say is onely, that those two Sa­craments came from our Sauiour's side simboli­cally or significatiuely, to wit the water signi­fying Baptisme, the bloud the Eucharist. But now other Fathers as I touched before to wit Saint Ambrose, Saint Hierome, Saint Cyril, S. Leo, Bede, and euen S. Augustine in another place say that both bloud and water did signify but one Sacrament onely, to wit Baptisme, either of bloud by Martyrdome or water: or rather that they did signify but onely the Baptisme of water. The water of our Sauiour [...]s side signifying the Sacrament it selfe, and the bloud signifying the origen or well spring from whence the Sacrament hath all his force [Page 210] and efficacy. Which explication Bellarmine well sheweth out of scripture it selfe to bee more literal:Bell. lib. 2 cap. 27. Shall a man therefore say there is but one sacrament? he might truely as well say so and better too, then to say from thence that there bee but two.

9. And whereas you say a little after againe, that S. Ambrose writing a treatise of Sacra­ments diuided into six bookes, maketh men­tion but of two. I would wish you to see what answeare Bellarmine maketh to Chemnitius, making the same obiection; you shall find there that hee telleth him flatly it is false, as it is in­deede. For S. Ambrose maketh expresse men­tion of the Sacrament of Confirmation both in that booke de Sacramentis, and in the other, de ijs qui mysterijs initiantur. And withall giueth the reason why S. Ambrose mentioneth noe more but three Sacraments, to wit, because his intent in that worke, is onely to instruct the Catechumens in those things which are to be done, at the tyme of Baptisme, for to them hee writeth those bookes, as the very title of the one and matter of the other sheweth. For one is written to the persons that are initiated, that is begunne or are entred into Christianity by the mysteries or Sacramēts, the other of the Sacra­ments whereby they were soe initiated, which are those three Baptisme, Cōfirmation, & Eucharist, which to people that are come to yeares of dis­cretion before they are made Christians, were & are still to bee administred together. Where­by [Page 211] is also discouered your grosse corruption in saying that S. Ambrose proclaimes to the be­leeuers of his age.Ambr. de Sacram lib. 1. cap. 1. De Sacramentis quae accepistis sermonem adorior: Which say you is as much to say, as I speake of those Sacramēts which the Church hath taught and declared vnto you. For he neither writeth to the beleeuers of his age, but onely to some beginners as I say is manifest by the very title of one of the bookes; Neither doth he speake of the Sacraments which the Church hath taught and declared, but of the Sacramēts, which those beginners that he spoke to had newly receiued, as these very words which you bring testify: wherein there is not the least men­tion of the Church, nor of any generall doctrine of Sacraments; but onely of those which as I said they that he spake vnto had receiued. Which to be soe may yet more plainely appeare in that Bellarmine bringeth a most expresse au­thority for the Sacrament of Penance out of this same holy Father. Bell. lib. 2. de Sacr. cap. 24

10. Now for S. Aug. it is noe lesse cleare, that he neuer meant, in any of those places where he speaketh of two Sacraments, to restraine them to two onely, for thus hee saith in one.Conc. 1. in Psal. 103. Respice ad munera ecclesiae, munus Sacramentorum in Baptis­mo, in Eucharistia, & in caeteris sanctis Sacramētis. Cast thine eye to the guifts of the Church, the guift of the Sacraments in Baptisme in the Eucharist, & in the rest of the holy Sacramēts By which words it is clea­re, that in S. Augustines iudgmēt there were more holy Sacraments besides Baptisme & Eucharist & [Page 212] not onely one or two more, for they had beene easily added, but more; as that general clause of the rest of the Sacraments doth import: and not Sacraments in a large sense, but Sacraments in that very sense, wherein those two by him named are called Sacraments as the word caeteris doth shew. Neither doth that place which you cite out of the same Father, lib. 3. de doctrina Christia­na auaile you, where speaking of the Sacramēts of the new Law as you tell vs he saith that they are but few in number, easy in performance, excellent in signification, naming onely the two Sacraments of Baptisme and Eucharist. Ep. 118. For it is plaine by the words sicuti, that he bringeth tho­se two for example onely which doth noe way restraine the number. Besides this holy Father repeating the very same saying almost word for word in another place when he had brought those two Sacraments for example as he doth heere he addeth this general clause & siquid aliud in scripturis canonicis commendatur, and if there bee any thing els commended in the canonical Scriptures. Which sheweth also that he did not meane to restraine his speach to those two onely. Neither is his intent in either of those places, to number the Sacraments, or euen to speake of Sacraments as Sacraments but as they are only Signes; cōparing the signes of the new testament with those of the old; and preferring them for fewnesse in number, and excellency in signification: And therefore S. Aug. his word in this place is not Sacramenta, Sacraments, as you cite him, but Signa, panca pro multis & Signes, [Page 213] which therefore is a corruption of yours.

11. This may then serue for all such testi­monies eyther out of S. Aug. or any other Father. Onely that it may not seeme strange why there should be such frequent mention of these two aboue the rest, which might giue suspi­tion as if they were the onely Sacramēts. I adde this reason thereof: to wit, because they are the first, most common and most necessary Sacra­ments. The first because Baptisme is called the gate of all the Sacraments, and by it men enter into the Church, and become Christians. With which the Eucharist was also wont to be giuen. And though Confirmation be next in order after Baptisme, yet was it not soe frequently giuen, because it is ordinarily administred onely by a Bishop, who is not alwaies soe ready at hand; whereas the other two are administred by Priests. They are the most common, because they pertaine to all: as also Confirmation doth; and therefore in that respect goeth often with them. They are most necessary because. Baptis­me is absolutely necessary or as Diuines say ne­cessary necessitate medij; that is a necessary meane, without which a man cannot be saued, the Eu­charist is necessary by another kind of necessity, to wit, of praecept or command giuen by our B. Sauiour all which considerations together are not soe easily found in any other of the Sa­craments. Confirmation also was in those tymes necessary by force of an ecclesiastical praecept or at least custome.

[Page 214]12. Another of the Fathers which you bring is S. Cyprian reckoning but fiue Sacraments:Ser. de ablut. ped. and among them our Sauiour's washing of his Disci­ples feete for one. Whereto I answeare that he reckoneth but 5. not that he thought there were no more, but that it pertained not to his purpose to speake of more in that place: his scope being onely to speake of such Sacraments as had re­lation to our Sauiour's last supper, by way of institution, blessing of the matter, or some con­nexion at least with some thing which was then done. As the Sacraments of Eucharist and Order which were then instituted; of Confirma­tion, because the matter thereof that is Chrisme, was then blessed; of Baptisme and Penance by oc­casion of our Sauiour's washing of his Disciples feete. Which washing in what sense it is called a Sacrament by this author,Lib. 2. de Sacr. cap. 24. (be he S. Cyprian or whosoeuer els) you may see in Bellarmine & there find sufficient answeare. He saying that it is called a Sacrament not in a proper and strict but a large sense onely: wherein as I agree with him, for soe much as perteyneth to the washing it selfe, soe doe I thinke that if a man reade the place attentiuely, he shall find that author by that washing to meane the Sacrament of Pe­nance, in a strict and proper sense. For he giueth vnto it the same power of remitting of sinnes, as to Baptisme. He saith it was instituted for such sinnes, as men should fall into after Bap­tisme; which he saith cannot be iterated; which are the proper attributes which we teach to [Page 215] belong to the Sacrament of Penance. Whereof that author making a long discourse I cite only these words following for a signe of his mea­ning. Propter hoc benignissime Domine pedes lauas discipulis quia post Baptismum quem sui reuerentia iterari non patitur, aliud lauacrum procurasti quod nunquam debeat intermitti. For this most benigne Lord thou dost wash thy disciples seete because after Baptisme which may not bee iterated for reuerence thereof, thou hat procured another lauer which must neuer bee intermitted. By which it seemeth plaine he doth not meane that that washing was a pro­per Sacrament it selfe, but that it did signify another thing which was to take away sinnes after Baptisme, which was to bee a sacrament, because it was to bee instituted by our Sauiour; it was to bee a lauer, and to haue like force as Baptisme, all which sheweth it to bee a true Sa­crement.

13. Besids S. Cyprian you will needs bring S. Isidore, with in compasse of the curse for say you he accounted of 3. Sacraments, to wit Bap­tisme, Chrisme, and the body and bloud of Christ. citing his 6. booke of Etymologies. chap. 18. wherein Sir Humphrey according to your vsual custome you doe notably abuse this holy Fa­ther. For in that place he doth not soe much as intend to speake of any Sacrament at all: but his onely intent is to treat of the names of certaine feasts, as the title of the chapter sheweth which is this De festiuitatibus & eorum nominibus. Of Feasts and their names; among [Page 216] which hee putted Coena Dominica. Our Lord's sup­per. Which (saith hee) is so called because vpon that day our Sauiour did make the Pasch with his Disciples which is celebrated euen to this day, as hath beene deliuered; & the holy Chrys­me is made therein. These are S. Isidor's very words, neither hath hee one word more in all the chapter of any Sacrament. Where then is there any mention of Baptisme? nay where is the­re any mention of our Sauiour's institution or ce­lebration of the B. Sacrament but onely that S. Isidore saith that the celebration of the Pasch is ob­serued to this day. Which because it cannot be vnderstood of the Paschal Lambe, giueth vs cau­se to thinke that by our Sauiour's celebration of the Paschal, he vnderstandeth the institution of the B. Sacramēt which is now daily cōmemorated in the Sacrifice of the Masse. The chiefe or most cleare mention heere is of Confirmation, by the name of Chrisme, as it is ordinarily signified by anciēt authors. But all this that is said, is not said by way of deliuering any doctrine cōcerning Sa­cramēts, but as they haue relation to such a feast. Is not this thē a notorious abuse of S. Isidor's au­thority? But because you shall see plainely that if he accidentally or for some speciall reason make mention of those. 3. Sacraments as it is like he may doe as other Fathers, Isid. de offi. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 16. & cap. 23. cap. 19. are also wont, that the­refore he doth not meane to limit the whole number of Sacraments to three, I will putt you downe one place where hee mentioneth two more, of which there may be most doubt, to wit [Page 217] Pennance and Matrimony For Penance, he maketh it a Sacrament and compareth it with Baptisme in these words. Sicut in Baptismo omnes iniquitates remitti, ita poenitentiae compunctione fructuosa vni­uersa fateamur deleri peccata: vt hoc tegat fructuosa confessio quod temerarius appetitus aut ignorantiae no­tatur contraxisse neglectus. Lett vs confesse that as in Baptisme all iniquities are forgiuen, soe all sinnes are blotted out by the fruitfull compunction of Pennance: that fruitfull confession may couer what temerarious desire or ignorant neglect hath contracted. Where you see how to compunction and confession ioyned together in this Sacrement he giueth the like power of blotting out sinnes as to Baptis­me. And for Matrimony he saith the three goods or perfections thereof are fides, proles, Sacra­mentum. Fidelity, ofspring, Sacrament. Where be­side the fidelity or mutual obligatiō which hath euer belonged to Marriage before our Sauiour's tyme, and still belongeth among Infidels, though the obligation be not soe perfect among them, he putteth downe that special perfection of a Sa­crament, though for this word Sacrament per­happs you may wrangle; but it is but wrangling, as I shal by and by shew by occasiō of S. Austines like vse of the same word. But by this that hath bene said of the Fathers, it is plaine that noe words can bee sufficient to declare your exorbitant bad dealing in citing the Fathers in this place, & drawing them with in compasse of the Councel's curse; they being soe farr from it. For it doth not commaund that whensoeuer a man nameth one [Page 218] Sacrament he shall name all or that he shall say they are seauen in number nor more nor lesse, or that he shal say they were instituted by Christ. But that noe man shall say against this, as in­deede not one doth. For not one of all those you name saith that there be not Seauen or that there bee more then Seauen, which is the thing that you dare Soe boldly say contrary to the most sacred authority of soe great a Councel as that of Trent, then which greater is not to bee found or imagined vpon earth. And this might serue for the Fathers.

14. But before I haue done with them in this point, I must in a word take notice of one fri­uolous thing whereof you make a great matter and whereby you thinke to auoid all that can bee said out of the Fathers, for the proofe of 7. Sacraments; which is, that they vse the word Sa­crament in a general signification for any sacred signe, or for a mystery, & such like: Wherein you are very copious to noe purpose. For we deny it not: but onely we deny that which you would build therevpon to wit that therefore they doe not at any tyme vse the word Sacrament in the strict and proper sense when they speake of our other 5. Sacramēts which you deny. This I say we deny, as a false fiction of yours & your Mini­sters whereas you confesse the Fathers to vse the word Sacrament strictly and properly, when they speake of Baptisme and Eucharist, we shew that they vse the same word and in the same sense when they speake of the other [Page 219] Sacraments ioyning them with these two, as I shewed before out of S. Augustine where he hauing spoken of those 2. Sacraments addeth and the rest of the holy Sacraments: Where any man of common sense may see he meaneth Sacra­ments in the same sense: neither doe we euer ga­ther any of them to be a Sacrament out of the general word alone, vnlesse there be something to limite the signification thereof, or that there be something added which sheweth the pro­per effect of a Sacrament and which cannot be done without it. And in this manner Sir Hum­phrey you shall find plaine and expresse proofes for euery one of these Sacraments out of S. Au­gustine in Bell. which S. Aug. you cannot deny to be a good & vndoubted author.Bell. de sacr. in genere cap. 24. Wherefore I cannot but dread to thinke of that feareful curse which you draw vpon your selfe in the beginning of this Paragraph: Where you are content the anathema shall fall vpon your head if any man aliue shall proue out of any ancient Father or good author within a 1000. yeares after Christ that there be noe more nor noe fewer then 7. Sacraments. For though S. Aug. doe not say there be 7. in actu signato, as Schollers speake: that is saying there be 7. and noe more, yet he doth it in actu exercito, as by saying this is a Sacrament, & that is a Sacrament, and of one in this place, of another in that pla­ce, (as the holy scripture doth of the 9. quires of Angels,) which all make vp seauen and noe more. Which manner of reckoning you are [Page 220] content with and allow for good. And indeede cānot disallow, (for as Bellarmine saith well, that is the Fathers manner of writing such things.pag. 149. edit. 3.) Soe long as we shew the word Sacrament to be taken in a strict sense, or that some other cir­cumstance doth shew they speake of a Sacra­ment properly.

15. Now because you loue malediction soe well, that you may be sure of it, I will cite you two places out of S. Aug. for two Sacraments which you most doubt of, and one specially wherein there may be most difficulty. These two are Confirmation and Matrimony. lib. 2. cont. liter. Pete­lia. cap. 104. Of the for­mer he saith thus. Sacramentum Chrismatis in ge­nere visibilium signaculorum sacrosanctum est sicut ipse Baptismus. The Sacrament of Chrisme in the kind of visible signes is holy, as Baptisme it selfe. By which words it is most plaine that Confirmation is a visi­ble signe holy in the same kind as Baptisme. And therefore leauing noe place of doubt they nee­de noe further explication. Of Matrimony the sa­me Saint speaketh in one place thus. In nostrorum nuptijs plus valet sanctitas Sacramenti quam foecun­ditas vteri. De bon. Con­iug. cap. 18. In our marriages or in the marriages of ours, that is of Christians, the holynes of the Sacra­ment is more worth then the fruitfulnes of the wombe. And in another thus.cap. 24. Bonum nuptiarum per omnes gentes & omnes homines in causa generandi est, & in fide castitatis; quod autem ad populum Dei attinet, etiam in sanctitate Sacramenti, per quam nefas est etiā intercedente repudio alteri nubere. The good of mar­riage among all nations and all men is, or consisteth in [Page 221] generation, and fidelity of chastity; but for as much as pertaineth to the people of God, also in the holynesse of the Sacrament; whereby it is vtterly vnlawfull euen vpon bill of diuorce to marry to another. Which two places doe euidently conuince marriage in Christians to bee a Sacrament not onely be­cause he vseth the word Sacrament (which though it be general, yet considering the parti­cular circumstances, and that the common vse was most to take it for a Sacrament properly, might bee some argument) but by reason of the sanctity, and by reason of the signifi­cation and insolubility; insoemuch as this Saint maketh the proper difference betweene our marriages and those of others, to be by reason of the insolubility of our marriages, which this Saint attributeth properly there­unto. For the sanctity or holynesse then it is manifest out of S. Augustine against you Sir Humphrey that marriage among Christians is an holy thing, and that it hath some perfec­tion in the new Law instituted by Christ, which it had not before, both which things you deny, to belong therevnto and therefore ex­clude it from the number of the Sacraments, but falsely as you, see which is enough against you.

16. Now this sanctity cannot consist one­ly in the signification of the coniunction be­tweene Christ and his Church. For it had that from the beginning,Genes. 2.24. when it was first said erunt duo in carne vna. They shall be two in one flesh. [Page 222] Which because it is verified by the carnal co­pulation of man and woman bound together by the band of mutual society, may bee found in all marriages, though nothing soe perfectly as in Christiā marriage. But this sheweth that seing this signification might be in other mar­riages, the sanctity which S. Aug. saith is pro­per to our marriages, cannot consist in that signification onely, but there must bee another sanctity; and a sanctity which may haue rela­tion to the persons, which cannot cōsist wholy in that absolute insolubility which in Chri­stian marriages as Diuines say, is an effect of the Sacrament. For our Sauiour by his owne words Math. 19.9. sheweth that that was in some sort natural and belonged to marriage euen from the very beginning of the world. Where­fore it followeth clearely out of S. Aug. that there is some sanctity belonging to this Sacra­ment and sanctifying it, in as much as pertai­neth to this coniunction of man and woman by the bond of Marriage: and heere in this saying of S. Aug may be noted those three goods, which I spoke before out of S. Isidore; and which Catholiques commonly attribute to marriage. Proles, Fides, Sacramentum. Whe­reof the former two may pertaine as S. Augu­stine saith to other marriages: the third onely to Christians. And soe all being cleared which you haue out of the Fathers, I come to the Schoolemen and other authors.

17. And first I begin with Bessarion, whom [Page 223] you will needs haue accursed by the Councel of Trent, together with the Fathers. For saying we reade of two onely. (Or as you say in another pla­ce) of onely two Sacraments which were deliuered vs plainely in the Ghospel. But I must tell you Sir Humphrey that in the alleadging or translating of these words you are bold to vse your ordina­ry tricks of legerdemaine, as I shall shew. Bes­sarion's words in Latine as you your selfe cite them in the margent are these. Haec duo sola Sa­cramenta in Euangelijs manifestè tradita legimus. These two Sacraments alone, or onely, we reade manifestly in scripture. Which is a very true saying: for it is nothing more but this, that we find these two Sacraments expresly deli­uered, and that we find none other or none of the rest soe deliuered; that is plainely. Whereas the meaning of it as you translate is farre otherwise, to wit that there be but onely two Sacraments in all. For first you leaue out the demonstratiue pronoune (haec) makeing the speach more general, as if Bessarion did say there were but two Sacraments; whereas he doth not speake any thing that way in these words, of the number of Sacramēts in general; but restraineth his speach to these two in parti­cular; which rather importeth, that there be other Sacraments. For if one should say these two men came this way, or these two horses be­long to mee; would not any man gather that there were more men besides those two that came this way, and more horses besides those [Page 224] two that I say belong to mee. For otherwise it were needlesse to adde this determining or dis­tinguishing pronoune (these) vnlesse, there were other things of the same kind, from which they are to bee distinguished. Secōdly the word (Sola) you place in a certaine odd and craftie manner, to make the sentence sound as if there were two Sacraments, and no more. For you put it before the word (Sacraments) whereof it followeth that the negation included in the word (Sola) falles vpon the word (Sacraments) as if there were but two Sacraments or two and noe more; whereas it is to fall vpon the words (expressè tradita) ex­presly deliuered; that is to say, that these two Sa­craments and none other are expresly deliuered, which is another thing. Neither will it serue your turne to say, you place it in English as it is placed in the Latine: for the placing of words iust soe in English as they are in Latine may ma­ny tymes alter, & many tymes also make noe sense at all: and in translation the sense is chiefly to be reguarded. Thirdly you putt in the prono­une relatiue (which) of your selfe, and change the participle (tradita) in to the verbe (traduntur) whereby of one proposition, you make two, in this manner we reade of two only Sacraments, that is of two and noe more; which two are expresly de­liuered in the Ghospell. Whereas Bessarion maketh but one proposition: in which one alsoe, his in­tention is not soe much to affirme these two Sa­cramēts to be expresly deliuered, as you make it, as to deny the other Sacraments to be expresly de­liuered; as shall farther appeare by his owne [Page 225] words. Here then in this little sentēce of not past a line in length, you cōmitt 4. faults: besides one which I passe ouer as not soe much altering the sense. One, in leauing out (haec). Another in put­ting in (quae). a third in changing the word (tra­dita) into (traduntur) thereby making 2. proposi­tions of one. A fourth in soe placing (sola) in the English, as quite to alter the sense; thereby ma­king affirmatiues of negatiues, and negatiues of affirmatiues. The least of which in as much as it alteres the sense, cannot be excused from cor­ruption: especially seeing it is by you expresly in­tended: for you say that Bessarion cōcludeth with the Protestants, and for proofe you bring his words thus translated, which sheweth that you intended his authority should sound soe, as if there were but two Sacraments as you teach, whereby you would leade your Reader into an errour. Which yet you doe in such a māner, that I cannot say but that a wary & carefull Reader, may picke out, or at least guesse at Bessarion's true meaning. But that is your cūning to haue a dou­ble sense, the one to deceiue the simple, and ano­ther to excuse your selfe against the obiectiōs of the learned. But you should remember Sir Hum. there is a Woe in store for such cunning men.Eccles. 2 14. Vae duplici corde, & labijs scelestis et manibus malefacien­tibus, & peccatori terrā ingredienti duabus vijs. Woe to the double of hart and wicked lipps & hand ill doing, & to a Sinner going on the earth two wayes. In which last word of going two wayes is touched this your cunning in this place. Though if you examine [Page 226] your conscience well, you may find your self guilty of all the particulars of this sentence.

18. But now to Bessarion I answeare, that in saying that the two Sacraments of Baptisme and Eucharist, are the onely Sacraments expresly deliuered in scripture, he comes not neere the curse of the Councel. For that canon doth not command vs to beleeue that these two, or more or lesse, are deliuered plainely or not plainely in Scripture: it leaueth that to the disputation of Diuines: onely it will haue vs beleeue there bee 7. Sacraments that they were instituted by Christ, that they are all properly Sacraments against which Bessarion hath not a word: but rather much for it. For writing that Oration in defence of the Romane Church to shew that the conse­cration in the Eucharist, is performed by words; he proueth it by the example of other Sacramēts thus.Bessar. de verb. conse. Hunc modum & Apostoli a Saluatore vt cr [...] ­dendum est, & ab Apostolis Sanct: Patres postea su­mentes, in singulis ecclesiae Sacramentis, quemadmodū materiam propriā sine qua nullo modo fieret quod pro­ponitur ita etiam propriam formam statuerunt. Quod manifestum est si quis ad Chrismatis Sacramentū men­tem conuerterit. This manner the Apostles receiuing from our Sauiour as it is to bee beleeued, and our holy Fathers from them, as in each Sacrament they haue appointed a proper matter, without which that cannot be done which is purposed, soe also a certaine forme. Which is manifest, if a man turne his mind to the Sacrament of Chrisme. By which words it is ma­nifest, that besides the two Sacraments which you speake of he acknowledgeth not onely the [Page 227] Sacrament of Confirmation in expresse tearmes, but the other Sacraments of the Church which you cannot but know to be the same 7. which now wee hold. But what neede any man more argument for Bessarion's beleife in this point, then the Councel of Florence, wherein he was a great man; and wherein was deliuered that Decree of Eugenius the 4. to the Armenians, wherein the Seauen Sacraments are precisely and distinctly taught with the vniforme consent both of the Latine and Greeke Church; soe as impiety it self cannot find what to obiect against it.

19. Thus then hauing deliuered Bessarion also frō your Worship's imaginary curse I come to the Schoolemen among whom you are not ashamed to promise your Reader that he shall find as little vnity as amōg the Fathers; which as you say in an euill sēse, as though there were not vnity amōg the Fathers: soe doe I yeild to you in a good sense, to wit that as there is vnity among the Fathers in this point, noe lesse then in others of our faith, soe also the Schoole Diuines their childrē succee­ding them haue maintained this point noe lesse then others, with the same vnity and consent; as I shall shew by answearing your fond cauills. Though some Schoolemen out of the common ignorance and infirmity of mankind, in some poīts not throughly discussed nor defined by the Church, did swarue frō the cōmon beleife of the rest, but still with dew submission to the Church.

20. I begin then with Halensis, of whom you say two things: one, that hee saith there are onely 4. which are in any sort properly to be called Sa­craments [Page 226] [...] [Page 227] [...] [Page 228] of the new Law; & that the other three supposed Sacramēts had their beginning before. The other thing which you say out of him is, that the Sacrament of Confirmation, as it is a Sacramēt was not ordained by Christ or his Apostles, but by the Councel of Melda. This last place is cited in a different letter as the author's owne words, the former not, which to any man may be a sufficiēt argumēt that it is but a false charge of your ow­ne Sir Knight. For where there is a word for you, you putt it downe, or where there is but any little shaddow that eyther by corrupting, or mis­translating you can draw it towards your pur­pose: therefore any man for this very reason may take this to bee your owne, and then noe doubt but it is as true as touch? For my part I haue loo­ked in Hales in the place heere by you cited, but can find noe such thing, but rather the contrary: for he speaking of the 7. Sacraments (as other Diuines did) without the least shew of doubt, and putting that question whither Christ did in­stitute them all, his resolution is this. Omnia pro­fectò authoritatiue, sed non omnia dispensatiue (vz. in­stitutionē a Christo habuerunt. Hal. §. 4 q 5. m 2 art. 1. deinde ar. 2.) All indeede had their institution from Christ authentatiuely, but not dispensa­tiuely. Which is as much to say, as that he did not institute them all by himselfe, but that hee gaue the authority whereby some were instituted. Which is cleane an other matter, thē to say they are not Sacramēts, it is one thing to enquire whi­ther a thing be a Sacrament, & another who im­mediatly made it a Sacrament, though you make noe differēce▪ For that matter whither Hales said [Page 229] well or noe in saying that Christ did not dispensa­tiuely or by himselfe institute all, I shall speake now in his second place by you obiected which is of Confirmation. But before I leaue this, though in the place by you cited I find but as I tell you, yet in another not farr of, where this Dr. putteth the question precisely & directly of the number of the Sacramēts, I find him giue this resolution. Nec plura, nec pauciora, quā septē numero Sacramenta Euangelica sunt. There be neyther more nor fewer in number then seauen Euangelical Sacraments. Hal. par. 4. q. 5. mem. 7. ar. 2. Which is noe lesse cleare and plaine then true and Ca­tholique a resolution. How then can you say Sir Humphrey that Hales makes account but of fower? but this is like the rest. But now come to the other place of Confirmation.

21. Well now to Confirmation; it is true I confesse Hales is of opinion (as I said before,) that our Sa­uiour did not appoint the matter & forme of Con­firmation, but gaue the grace or effect thereof in a higher manner, which he thought like wise of the Apostles, & that the forme & matter which we now vse, was appointed by the Church in the Councel of Melda: which as it was an opiniō of his somewhat different from the common of his ty­me, soe he propounded it whith doubt, and with that humility which befitteth a good Catholi­que to doe. For thus he saith, Sine praeiudicio di­cendum quod Dominus neque hoc Sacramentum vt est Sacramentum instituit neque dispensauit, neque Apo­stoli &c. institutum fuit in Conc. Meldenti, Hal p. 4. q. 9. m. 1. quan­tum ad formam verborum & materiam elementarem [Page 230] cui etiam Spiritus sanctus contulit virtutem sanctifi­candi. Without praeiudice I say that neyther our Lord nor his Apostles did institute or dispence this Sacra­ment, it was instituted after in the Councel of Melda for as much as concerneth the forme of words and ele­mentary matter, whereto the Holy Ghost also gaue the force of Sanctifying. This Hales saith without prae­iudice, that is with leaue: not stifly not arrogātly not maintayningly. Sir Humphrey, let vs heare but such a word from your mouth; and you shall see the matter will soone be ended. In this one word consisteth the difference betweene a Catholique and an Haeretique: but Sir marke the matter well and you shall find Hales more a­gainst you then for you. For he confesseth Confirmation a Sacrament which is against you, though he thought it not instituted by Christ, because he thought a Sacrament might be insti­tuted onely by authority from Christ; and it is plaine he would sooner haue denied this later then the former. For he holdeth this later but doubtfully, whereas he holdeth the former resolutely, and without doubt. Which is the thing in question properly betweene you & vs.

22. The next Diuine is Hugo de S. Vict. whom you make a Cardinal out of your ignorance, for because there is one Hugo a Cardinall you thinke all Hugo's are soe. But it is not for any good reason, either of loue to Hugo, or honour to the dignity but hate of religion, against which you thinke if you can bring the name of a Cardinal, you may quite ouerthrow it. But [Page 231] you are as much deceiued in this, and in Hugo's doctrine as you are in his Cardinalship. You say then of him that he excludeth Penance from the number of the Sacraments, and admitteth holy water. For both which Sir Humphrey a man may hold vpp his fingar to you, and wagg it, you know what I meane. But your author for this your saying is Perkins in his Problemes whom you cite in the margent, and he it seemes citeth Hugo whereby you may perhaps excuse your selfe: but that excuse will little auaile you for euery man seeth how easy a matter it had beene for you hauing such aboundance and freedome of bookes to looke in the author himselfe but onely that you were willing either to be deceiued or to deceiue. Well I haue looked for you and found Hugo to say thus.Hug. Vict. in Spe [...]ul. de myst. eccl. cap. 12. Septem sunt principalia ecclesiae Sacramenta, quorum qum (que) ge­neralia dicuntur, quia omnibus conueniunt; nimirum Baptismus, Confirmatio, Eucharistia, Paenitentia, Extrema vnctio, duo vero specialia, nimirum Ma­trimonium & Ordo: There be Seauen principal Sa­craments of the Church whereof fiue are called gene­ral, because they belong to all, to wit Baptisme, Con­firmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreame vnction; and two special, to wit Matrimony and Order. And because you may lesse doubt of Penance whereof for thus abusing your author and Reader you deserue noe small part, he hath a particular chapter;cap. 23. vbi sup. wherein he calleth it as we doe with S. Hierome, the second boord after shipwracke. Because if any man saith Hugo endanger his [Page 232] clensing, which he hath receiued by Baptisme, he may rise and scape by Penance. How say you to this Sir Humphrey? haue I not iust cause heere to tell you your owne? but I forbeare you.

23. Extreame vnction is next, of which you tell vs that Bellarmine saith that, that anoyling which the Apostles vsed Mar. 6. was not Extreame vnctiō, & that Caietane saith the same of the anoyling which S. Iames speaketh of.p. Iacq. 5. Likewise of Hugo, Peter Lombard, Bonauenture, & Altisiodorensis; You say that they held it was not instituted by Christ. Well what of all this? be it soe that one thinke it not to bee mētioned in S. Marke, another not in S. Iames, others not to haue beene instituted by Christ. What then? Doth therefore any one of all these deny it to be a Sacrament? nay doe they not all say and maintaine the cōtrary most expresly? & which is more, do not you your self out of your freind Cassander acknowledge that in Peter Lom­bard's tyme the number of seauen Sacraments was determined, though not before, as out of the same Cassander you wisely say? For Hugo Vict. as I shewed before determines the number of seauen Sacramēts somewhat before, Peter Lom­bard's tyme; but to lett that goe: if in Peter Lom­bard's tyme there were seauen Sacraments ac­knowledged, then was Extreame vnction one. But you will say that out of that which those 5. an­ciēt Diuines say, to wit, that it was not instituted by Christ, it followeth that it is noe Sacrament? I answeare, had you liued in their tymes, they would haue denied your consequence. But had [Page 233] they liued now in yours, they would haue said that Christ did institute it. For that is now defi­ned, which then was not: & soe for them you are answeared. Now for Bellarmine he saith well, it is not deduced out of that place of S. Marke, what then? out of noe place els? or if out of noe place els but by tradition should it bee noe Sacrament? What argumēts are these Sir Knight to cōuince a Catholique, or any man of learning withall? but Catetan you tell vs saith it is not that which S. Iames speaketh of? what then? Suppose he say well and truely? Doth he therefore say it is noe Sacrament? noe surely noe more then he denied the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be the true body & bloud of Christ, though hee thaught the real presēce not to be sufficiently proued out of the very words of Consecration, without the interpretation of the Church: but as both in one and other he did erre for as much as pertaines to the proofe of those articles out of scripture, which is not soe much the matter betweene you and vs, soe did he not erre for the things themselues. But had he liued to see this sense of the scripture decla­red, and this verity of Extreame vnction defined out of: hat place of S. Iames by the interpreta­tion of the Councel of Trent, Conc. Trid Sess. 14. de extr. vnct. c. 1. he would haue sub­mitted his iudgment.

24. As for the Sacrament of Order, you say that Soto telleth vs, that Ordination of Bishops is not cruely and properly a Sacrament. Well be it soe, let Soto say soe; Doth he deny the Sacramēt [Page 234] of Order in the Church? others deny the fower lesser orders to be Sacraments and some deny Sub-deaconship to be soe: what then? Doe they deny the Sacrament of Order in the Church, to be properly and truely a Sacrament as you doe? this is boyes play Sir Humphrey. There is a question among Catholiques concerning the Episcopal power and character, whither as it is distinct from Priesthoode it be a Sacrament of it self, whether there be a new: character or the same extended and the like: some say I some say noe: what is this to you? it is not matter of faith, whereof wee are not to dispute with you but keepe you off at the staffes end, or rather out of doores. When you are once recei­ued into the Catholique Church we may admit you to speake of a Schoole point: not till then.

25. Lastly about Matrimony you make much adoe. First you tell vs Durand denieth it to bee a Sacrament strictly and properly. To which I answeare that he saith indeede it is not a Sacra­ment vniuocally agreeing with the other six, which cometh much to one, with what you say, neyther wil I stand with you for a small matter: but looke in Bell. for answeare,Bell. lib. 1. de Matr. cap. 5. who handleth that matter of Durand largely lib. 1. de Matr. c. 5. I onely say briefly that all acknowledge an er­rour in him & Diuines of his owne tyme did note it for such, though then the matter were not soe clearely defined. Secondly you say Caietan saith the prudent Reader cannot inferre out of the words of S. Paul Eph. 5. Sacramentum hoc magnum [Page 235] est; that Matrimony is a Sacrament, he doth not; be it so Neither doe we inferre it vpon that word Sacramentum, but doth Caietan deny it to be a Sacrament because it is not inferred from that word? Noe surely: What then doe you bring him? for though it be not inferred from this place may it not be inferred from another; or if neither from this nor tother may it not bee de­duced out of Tradition? Thirdly you say that for a conclusion our owne Canus telleth vs that the Diuines speake soe vncertainely of the matter and forme of Matrimony, that he should bee accounted a foole who in soe great diffe­rence of opinions would take vpon him to establish a certaine and knowne doctrine: Canus saith rem aliquam certam. Which you translate a certaine and knowne doctrine. Which you might as well and as easily, haue translated any thing certaine, and more truely; though this bee but a smal matter to stand vpon: onely I note it because I see your drift is from the diuersity of opinions; which is among Catholique Diui­nes in assigning the matter and forme of Matri­mony, wherein Canus saith it were a foolish thing for a man to take vpon him to determine any thing for certaine and cleare; Your drift I say is to make your Reader beleeue that Canus saith the doctrine of Matrimony's being a Sa­crament or not, is vncertaine and vnknowne, but this is but one of your ordinary trickes. Well to come to Canus. He saith true that there is difference among Diuines concerning the [Page 236] matter and forme of this Sacramēt but he him­self maketh the chieffe difference by bringing,V. Bell. lib. 1. de Matr. cap. 7. in a new and singular opinion of his owne. By which he saith that the words which the Priest speaketh are the forme of this Sacrament: and consequently that if there be a Marriage made without a Priest it is noe Sacrament in his opi­nion. But whither it be true that, you Sir knight would make vs thinke, that in his iudgment Matrimony is noe Sacrament, he shall beare witnesse himself.Can. loc. lib. 8. cap. 5. Siue nostra opinio vera sit, siue falsa, nihil moror. Si Lutherani de hoc matrimoniorū genere disceptare voluerint, intelligant se in scholae dis­ceptationem incidisse. Nec oportere Catholicū ad eorū argumenta respondere. Sin vero argumententur ma­trimonium cum sacris caeremonijs, cum sacra materia, cum sacra forma, a sacro Ministro administratum, quemad modum in ecclesia Romana semper vsque ab Apostolis administratum est, si hoc inquam argumen­tentur Sacramentum ecclesiae non esse, tunc Catholicus respondeat fidenter, animose defendat, secure contra pugnet. Whither our opinion (that is his owne) be true or false, I stand not. If the Lutherans will dispute of this kind of Marriages, let thē know they fall vpon a schoole disputation, and that a Catholique is not to answeare to their argu­ments. But if they argue that Marriage admi­nistred with sacred caeremonies, sacred matter, sacred forme, & by a sacred Minister as it hath euer beene administred in the Romane church, euen from the Apostles tyme, if I say they argue that this is not a Sacramēt of the Church, then [Page 237] lett a Catholique answeare confidently, let him defend stoutly, let him gaine say securely. Soe hee.

26. Now Sir knight with what face could you alleadge Canus against Matrimony; and that for a cōclusion as you say? though I say noe; for you haue reserued yet a farr lowder lye to conclude with all. Which is concerning Vazquez whom heere you honour with an epithet, calling him Our learned Iesuit. You say then, he knew well that neither moderne Diuines, nor ancient Fa­thers did conclude Matrimony for a true and proper Sacrament of the Church; and then you say he makes a profession to his Disciples, that hauing read & considered S. Aug he found that when he called it a Sacrament, he spake not of a Sacrament in a proper sense; & that therefore he doth not alleadge S. Aug. his authority against the Haeretiques in this controuersy; this you say heere, whereto I will putt your marginall note which you haue pag. 145. which hath relation to this place, & it is this. Vazquez acknowledgeth Matrimony to be no Sacra­ment properly. Now to seuer the true from the false. Vazquez indeede saith that S. Aug. spea­king of Matrimony doth vse the word Sacra­ment, but in a large sense; This is true but it is but Vazquez his priuate and singular opinion not in a point of faith, nor any thing neere it: but onely of the meaning of one Father in the vse of a word; which if it be taken in such a sense is a good proofe for a point of Doctrine, [Page 238] if not it is noe proofe against it; but there may be other proofes in the same Fathers, and other Fathers may hane that very word, in in the proper sense. But euen this opinion of Vazquez concerning this word of S. Aug. is contradicted by all other Catholique Diuines,Bell lib. 1. de Matr. cap. [...]. and Bellar. particularly by diuers good reasons sheweth S. Aug. to vse this word properly when he speaketh of Matrimony. This is all that is true in your saying of Vazquez.

27. Now I come to the false; first asking you a question, if Vazquez say Matrimony is noe Sa­crament, as your marginal note which I spake of before saith, I would know what contro­uersy that is that Vazquez saith hee hath with Haeretiques; and for proofe whereof he doth not bring S. Aug his authority of the word Sacrament; because in his iudgment it is not effectual? what thinke you Sir Humphrey? is it not of Matrimony? and what controuersy is it but whither Matrimony be properly a Sacra­ment or noe? Which Haeretiques deny, and Vazquez affirmes, els he can haue noe contro­uersy with them about it. See Sir Humphrey how you looke about you, for in this very place and words which you bring to shew Vazquez for you, he shewes himselfe against you, besides Sir Humphrey looke againe in Vazquez to. 4. in 3. p. and soe whether he haue not one whole disputation expresly for the proofe of Matrimo­ny, calling it a Sacrament truely and properly, prouing it by the definition of the Church, and [Page 239] by the authority of other Fathers, (though he forbeare to vse the authority of S. Augustine for the reason a fore said) & reprouing Durand's error for saying that it was not a Sacramēt vni­uocally with the rest. Nay his expresse conclu­sion concerning the same is this.Vaz (que) de Matr. disp. 2. cap. 3. Matrimonium est Sacramentum non solum latiori significatione, pront est signum coniunctionis Christi & ecclesiae, fed presse & propriè prout est signum gratiae sanctificantis susci­pientes, sicut reliqua sex. Matrimony is a Sacrament not onely in a larger signification, as it is a signe of the coniunction of Christ and the Church, but precisely & properly, as it is a signe of grace sanctifying the recei­uers as the other six. And because you tell vs, that he knew well that neyther ancient nor moder­ne Diuines did conclude it for a true and proper Sacrament of the Church, I will add his other words in the same chapter, which are these. De Sacramento in hac significatione, semper hucusque lo­quuti sumtis; & Scholastici loquuti sunt; &c. quam veritatem Graeci semper crediderunt, & nunc etiam credunt. And of a Sacrament in this signification allwayes hitherto we haue spoken, and other Diuines haue spoken; which truth the Graecians haue euer be­leeued & still beleeue. So as not himself onely but other Diuines also, & euen the Greeks or Greeke Church, not onely doe beleeue and speake, but haue beleeued and spoken of Matrimony's being a Sacrament in the proper and strict sense. Which considered what intolerable impudency is it in you to tell vs, that Vaz (que) should say that neither moderne Diuines nor ancient Fathers did conclu­de [Page 240] Matrimony for a true and proper Sacrament? it were not to be beleeued of any man but that we see it. And with this I was thinking to end this §. Thereby to leaue a good rellish in the Reader's mind of your honest and faithfull dea­ling. The rest being nothing but such foolish stuffe, as you are wont to talke without rime or reason but onely that there occurred a place of Bellarmine, which you abuse soe strangely, as that I could not passe it ouer without noting. It is thus.

26. You say touching your two Sacraments they are knowne and certaine, because they were primarily ordained by Christ, touching the other fiue, they had not that immediat institution from Christ. Wherevpon say you the learned Card. noting Bellarmine in the margent is forced to confesse. The sacred things which the Sacraments of the new Law signify are threefold the grace of iustification; the passion of Christ, and aeter­nall life. Touching Baptisme and the Eucharist, the thing is most euident concerning the other fiue it is not soe certaine. Soe say you: where in a few li­nes you haue soe much falshood soe patched vp together, that a man knoweth not well what to begin with. But to begin, you say your two Sacraments are knowne and certaine, you meane knowne and certaine that they are Sa­craments, because ordayned by Christ primarily, the other 5. not. And for proofe you bring the Cardinal, as if he said the same. But in this place the Cardinal speaketh not one word, eyther of [Page 241] their being or not being Sacraments, or being or not being instituted by Christ; as these very words themselues doe shew, and any man may see more plainely in Bellarmine himselfe both heere, and elsewhere, where he handleth those matters: teaching the contrary expresly and of purpose. What madnes then is it for a man to say the Cardinal is enforced vpon a thing that he dreameth not of to cōfesse cleane another mat­ter? Now Bellarmines meaning in that place, is onely of the signification of the Sacraments, that is, what thing they signify: because they are sa­cred signes of something. And he saith they si­gnify three things, one thing past; to wit, the passion of Christ: another present, to wit, sancti­fying grace which they worke in our soules: another thing to come, to wit, aeternal life, which is the effect of grace; which three things he saith, euery Sacrament doth signify. And he saith it is certaine that they doe soe signify. But withall that the signification of these three is not soe ex­presse and alike apparent or knowne in all. But most apparent in Baptisme and the Eucharist, not soe apparent in the rest. Which last words being in Latine thus. De alijs Sacramentis non estita notū. Of the other Sacraments it is not soe knowne, (to wit that they signify all these thing;) you translate or rather corrupt them thus. Of the other 5. it is not soe certaine. Notum, with you, is certaine. And whereas the oppositiō in Bellarmines saying is betweene knowne and not knowne,Bell. de sacr. in gen. lib. 1. cap. 9. you ma­ke it betwene knowne or apparēt; and certaine, [Page 242] which are not opposite. For a thing may be cer­taine though not manifest, as all matters of faith are. And then you leaue out that which Bellarmine saith of the certainty thus. Tamen cer­tum est saltem implicite illa omnia significare; quia cum omnia significent gratiam, consequenter etiam si­gnificāt principium & finem eiusdem gratiae. But it is certaine that they signify all these things at least im­plicitely. Because seing they signify grace, they conse­quently also signify the beginning and end of the same grace. That is the passion of Christ, which is the cause, and aeternal life which is the effect of gra­ce. Whereby it is euident how shamefully you abuse this good Cardinal and soe I end this §.

Communion in both kinds. §. 5.

1. In this §. Sir Humphrey beginneth with the 6. article as he calleth it of the Romane Creede. I confesse that vnder one kind onely, all and whole Christ, and the true Sacrament is receiued. And the Decree of the Councel of Constāce which saith, that notwithstanding Christ did institute in both kinds yet the Laity are to communicate in one kind. Which word notwithstanding the Knight is pleased to glosse thus. As it were in despite of God and Man. with which he ioyneth the Councel of Trent saying thus. Although our Sauiour did exhibite in both kinds, yet if any mā shall say, the holy Catholique Church was not induced for iust causes to communi­cate the lay people, and the non-Conficient Priest vnder one kind to wit of bread onely, and shall say they er­red [Page 243] in soe doing, lett him bee accursed. Against this he bringeth two places of scripture & the prac­tize of the primitiue Church, and soe concludeth the antiquity and vniuersality of his Church. This goeth round with a fiddle Sir Humphrey. But now you must take vs along with you, and giue vs leaue to comin with you a little vpon the matter.

2. This you say is the 6. article of our Creede: by which a mā may see I said true in the beginning, when I told you (if it had beene your good pleasure soe to doe) you might haue deuided this Creede into 24. articles as well as into 12. for this is but a little libbet in the very later end of that article, as you haue put it downe in the beginning of your booke. Which peece also you translate out of the Latine falsely, and ab­surdly the Latine being thus, Fateor etiam sub al­tera specie totum atque integrum Christum verumque Sacramentū sumi. I confesse also vnder one kind onely to be receiued Christ whole and entire, and a true Sa­crament. Whereas you say all and whole Christ; as if the Councel had said omnis & totus Christus: where the word all is improper; for who spea­keth thus: all Peter, all Paul: and it importes as if Christ had many things pertaining to him, which were himselfe; but yet did not make one and the same thing with him: which is not imaginable how it can be; whereas totus Christus doth signify One whole Christ. And Omnis Christus, and totus Christus, to any man that vnderstandeth Latine, are two wery different [Page 244] things. And in your translation you confound totus and integer; making them both to signify the same; whereas in the Councel they haue a se­ueral signification; totus pertaineth to the inte­grity of Christ, as consisting of essential parts of body and soule, and of his personality and Di­uinity; and integer pertaineth to the integrity of all the parts of his body, as head, hands, feete &c. which the Philosophers call partes integran­tes. By this then you see how a man that were disposed to stand about you might trouble you, when in such a small thing as this there may bee found soe many faults.

3. For the Councel of Constance which you are soe displeased withall, for contradicting the word of Christ as you conceiue; me thinkes there might be found a meanes to appease your displeasure, if you would but remember that at the same tyme, and in the same decree it was also decla­red, that notwithstanding that Christ, did insti­tute the Bl. Sacrament after supper, yet men should now receiue it fasting: which decree I presume you will not condemne. Neither will you (I dare say) glosse the words notwithstan­ding soe fauourably in your owne behalfe, as you did in ours; as in despite of God and Man you would receiue your communion fasting, though Christ did receiue it not fasting, but euen after supper and bid vs doe, what hee did in re­membrance of him: and notwithstanding also that it is not to be doubted as you tell vs out of [Page 245] Bellarmine, but that is best & fittest to be practi­sed which Christ himselfe hath done? Doe you not then see Sir Humphrey how you may be made freinds with the Councel of Constance, seing it hath done you as good a turne as it hath done to vs. But because I see not how you could but know this before, and therefore haue erred as I may well say wittingly this is too freindly language to talke to you, therefore I answeare you plainely in bringing this Decree this you haue brought a staffe to beate your selfe withal. For the non obstante, which you would ioyne with Christ's institution in both kinds, as if the Councel did forbid it in both kinds notwith­standing that Christ did soe institute, is not soe ioyned by the Councel: but otherwise, thus though Christ did institute this venerable Sa­crament after supper,Conc. Const. sess. 13. and administer the sa­me to his Disciples vnder both kinds of bread and wine, yet this notwithstanding the autho­rity of the holy canons & approued custome of the Church hath obserued, and doth obserue, that this Sacrament is not to be consecrated after supper; nor to bee receiued by the faith­full but fasting; Vnlesse in case of infirmity or other necessity allowed by the law or Church. These being the very words of the Councel. By which it is plaine that the Councel speaketh not in this place of the institution of this Sacra­ment in one or both kinds; but onely of the ty­me of the institution thereof or manner, to wit [Page 246] after supper, or not fasting, and of the admini­stration thereof to his Disciples in both kinds at the same tyme. Soe as I see not how you can be excused from a notable and wilful corruption in citing the words of the Councel often and vpō seuerall occasions thus. Though Christ did institu­te in both kinds the Councel hauing noe such word, and it being likewise noted by Bellarmine for a flat corruption in Luther, V Bell de Euch lib. 4. cap. 26. Illyricus, and Che [...] ­nitius. Though if the Councel had said soe, it had said truely, but nothing to your purpose. For it is one thing to say that Christ did institute the Blessed Sacrament vnder both kinds and another to say that he did institute and cōmād all should receiue vnder both kinds. For this later is a command against which noe man may doe. The former is onely the Example of Christ which euery man is not alwaies bound to follow. And which euen you your selues doe not follow in the tyme and manner of your receiuing.

4. Now for vs you must know, this was noe new thing begunne by that Councel, (in which respect you might temper your choller against it,) but it being growne the general practice which from the beginning also was somewhat practized, and certaine Haeretiques arising and condemning the practize & beleife of the whole Church this Councel condemned them and commanded the former custome to bee still retained. This is the truth of the matter against which I doe not see that you say a word, but onely chafe and say this Councel was [Page 247] approued for soe much as pertaineth to the Doctrine againct Haeretiques, but not for that that pertayneth to the power of a Councel ouer a Pope. Which is all against your selfe, and sheweth you are in a vehement passion and know not what you say. But since you are soe out with this Councel which yet maketh as well for you as for vs in the point of recei­uing fasting and not after supper as Christ did, noe wonder if you be wholy out with the Councel of Trent: which therefore you cite in a strange manner to disgrace it.

5. The sentence as you cite it, is this. Al­though our Sauiour did exhibite in both kinds, yet if any shall say the holy Catholique church was not induced for iust causes, to communicate the Lay people and the non-Conficient Priest vnder one kind, to wit of bread onely, and shall say they erred in soe doeing, let him be accursed. Which sentence is peeced out of two seueral places of the Councel, the former part cōtained in these words. (Althouhg our Sauiour did exhibite in both kinds yet.) is taken out of the 3. chap. of the 21. Sess. the later part or rest, is the 2. canon of the same Sess. which canon as it is set downe in the Councel hath neither a (Yet) in it, nor an (Althought): and the (Yet) in the said 3. chapter inferreth another thing, thus. Though Christ did institute and deli­uer the Bl. Sacrament to his Apostles in both kinds, in the last Supper, Yet is Christ contained whole and entire vnder one kind, and a true Sacrament recei­ued. Which is another matter, then that which [Page 248] is cōmanded in the Canon. For in this is onely taught, that Christ is wholy and entirely contai­ned vnder one kind: in the Canon, there is a curse denounced against such as shall cōdemne the practize of communicating vnder one kind, as wāting iust cause or being erroneous. Where besides the difference in the matter, there is great difference in the manner. The one being a plaine definition of a speculatiue truth; the other being a command pertayning to practi­ze, or a declaration of the Lawfulnes of the Churches practize, condemning whosoeuer shall say against it. Soe as heere you peece two seuerall matters out of the Councel together without any connexion, iust as you are wont to doe, in your owne arguments and discour­ses. But in this a man may see your ill dealing for you would faine make it seeme as if the Councel did decree something in opposition to Christ, and accurse all such as should doe as he did. But this deuice of yours, is as silly as it is malicious. For it is plaine to any man that shall but looke in the Councel, that there is noe such matter intended or said but all the contrary; for the Councel saith but this, in the one place. That though Christ did institute this Sa­crament in both kinds and soe giue it in his last supper to his Disciples, that yet he is whole vnder each kind. Wherein I would faine see what opposition the subtility of your wit can find? what reason can you giue, why it may not stand with Christ's institution in both kinds, [Page 249] that he be whole vnder both? and if whole why not also a true Sacrament? This is a point worthy of such a witt as your to worke vpon: Soe as in this the Councel decreeth nothing a­gainst Christ. Noe nor in the other part neither, it being onely a defence of the Catholique Churches practice, against Haeretiques; with­out reference to Christ's institution or com­mand, which is neither for, nor against that practice.

6. Soe as when I consider how in this place you first mention Christ's institution, and then bring the Canon of the Councel, as it were con­trary vnto it, I cannot but wonder what it is you meane, or what absurdity it is that you would make the Councel guilty of thereby. For though the Councel should say thus, as it doth not. Though Christ did institute in both kinds yet it is lawfull to receiue in one: what absur­dity were there in this soe long as Christ doth not command vs to receiue in both, as he did institute, which you will neuer be able to proue. For Christ may institute a thing without com­manding it. For example he did institute Mar­riage yet commanded not euery man to marry, soe he might doe also in his māner of institution and our manner of receiuing this Sacrament. But besides this your abusing the Councel by patching vpp one sentēce out of seuerall places you offend in another kind. For whereas the Councel saith that though Christ in his last supper did institute the Sacrament in both kinds, [Page 250] and soe giue it to his Apostles, you leaue out that of the last supper and that of the Apostles both which were putt downe there for very good reasons, and to our purpose. That deter­mining of the tyme of the last supper leaueth it free for vs to thinke, that Christ might at some other tyme after his resurrection, communi­cate some of his Disciples in one kind, as some Fathers thinke he did his two Disciples at Emmaus, or at least thereby did foreshew the lawfulnes of Communion in one kind, as Suarez sheweth out of S. Aug. and others.Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp. 71 sect. 1. That word of the Apostles is likewise put downe to shew that, that particular fact of Christ and command, did pertaine onely to the Apostles, who were then ordained Priests; and in them to such as should succeede them in that office; whereas you by leauing out that word, would faine haue it seeme as if that of both kinds did pertaine to all. Thus much then for the Coun­cel of Trent.

7. Now lett vs heare what you say against this Communion in one kind. First obseruing your strange folly in saying that one that shall heare two Councels, one accursing, another condemning for Haeretiques, such as shall deny the lawfulnes of one kind, would gladly know the reasons: whereas you your self note in the margent a treatise of Gersons against the haeresy of the Lay communion in both kinds acknowledging that he shewes the causes. For if he shew cause why doe you call for [Page 251] [...], as if there were none giuen? if he doe not why doe you say he doth? But to lett that passe with the rest of your non sequiturs. You bring the two places of scripture before cited. Drinke yee all of this: and doe this in remembrance of mee. Which places you may see answeared in Bellarmine with all the enforcement and vr­ging that Luther, Caluin, Kemnitius, Melancthon, Bell. de Euch. lib. 4. cap. 24. Brentius, and all the rable of them can bring: The answeare in a word is this, that the for­mer words were spoken onely to the Apostles, and in them to Priests, as appeareth more plai­nely by S. Marke who sheweth all which our Sauiour meant of,Mar. 14.23 when he said Drink yee all of this. For saith S. Marke and they did drinke all thereof. The later words import onely the distri­bution in one kind, being spoken as appea­reth by S. Luke immediatly after the consecra­tion of the bread,Luc. 22 19. before the consecration of the Chalice. And though they should haue beene spoken after both, How will you proue to which action of our Sauiours (for he did more then one at that tyme) that pronowne (Hoc) had relation, or which it did demon­strate? The sense therefore and explication thereof, is to be taken from the Fathers and Church who vnderstand noe such precept in those words, as is the giuing of both kinds.

8. Another argument of yours is the prac­tise of the Primitiue Church; for which you bring ten or eleuen authors, which needed n [...]t. For we would haue granted you that, [Page 252] without all that labour, but what proue [...] out that? that all must doe soe now? You must first proue it a practize grounded vpon some di­uine praecept indispensable, or els it followeth not, but that it is in the power of the Church to alter the practize in the vse and administra­tion of the Sacraments: as it was to change the Sabboth into the Sunday; though the obseruing of the Sabboth were a diuine praecept; Nay you must proue that it was general, soe as none did or might doe otherwise; but that you cānot doe. For Bellarmine euen in the place heere ci­ted by you teacheth that euen then all did not receiue in both kinds; and heere by the way I note two things: One is that whereas Bell. in the place heere cited, saith he proued before, that all did not receiue in both kinds; that of the prouing you leaue out, putteing a little line, which might giue a man some notice of some­thing wanting; which yet is a litle better dea­ling, then commonly you vse, though not soe good as you promised vs at first. Another that whereas Bell. bringeth six maine reasons dedu­ced out of scriptures, partly out of the figures of the old testament, and partly out of the doctrine and examples of our Sauiour and his Apostles in the new; and in one of those reasons which is deduced out of the practize of the Pri­mitiue Church, he bringeth six seueral rites or practices, which our aduersaryes cannot deny, euidently conuincing the frequent vse of one kind, you in your 7. Sect. heere before bring but [Page 253] one coniectural place (which I there promised to answeare) as if Bellarmine had noe more, nor noe better proofs: euen which coniecture you neither doe nor can impugne. For it is grounded vpon two places of scripture, thus Bellarmine saith it is a probable coniecture that the Nazarites among the first Christians in Hieru­salem did communicate in one kind: Bell. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. He proueth it thus one scripture saith of these first Chris­tians in Hierusalem, that they were all perse­uering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and brea­king of bread, which is the receiuing of the Eu­charist as all agree. Among these, there were many Nazarites, as it is most probable, for there were many continually among the Iewes. Which being soe, there was another scripture that did forbid a Nazarite to drinke wine, or euen eate a grape, raisin, or soe much as the stone; it was not like then that they did receiue in both kinds. For either they must make the former scripture false, if they did not communicate at all; or they must breake the command of the later, by communicating in both kinds. This Bellarmine doth not say is a conuincing proofe, for such he hath a great many others; but onely probable and such noe man can deny it to bee. Why then should you stand geering at it, without once saying what is false or improbable.

9. Touching the rest of your authors which you bring for proofe that it was the common [Page 254] practise of the Primitiue church for the Layty to communicate in both kinds, I allow of their authority they affirming onely that it was the practise, not any command. But for as much as you bring one authority to proue the more conueniency of Communion in both kinds quite contrary to the author's meaning, I meane heere to haue a saying vnto you for it: this author is Ruardus Tapperus whom you cite thus. It were more conuenient the communion were administred vnder both kinds, then vnder one alone, for this were more agreeable to the institution, and fulnesse thereof; and to the example of Christ, and the Fathers of the Primitiue church; R [...]ar. Tapp. [...] 15. the Latine being thus habito respectu ad Sacramentum eius (que) perfectionem, magis conueniret sub vtraque specie fieri communionem, quam sub altera tantum, hoc enim magis consonum est eius institutioni, & inte­gritati, & refectioni corporali, & exemplo Christi &c. that is. If wee reguard the Sacrament, and the perfection thereof, it were more conuenient to haue the communion vnder both kinds, then vnder one. For this is more agreeable to the institution thereof and the integrity and corporal resection, and the example of Christ &c. Where first you leaue out in your English translation, those words habito respectu ad Sacramentum though you put them in Latine in the margent. Which words are the life of the sentence, and plainely shew that Tapper doth not speake of the conue­niency absolutely, and all things considered, but in some respect, to wit, in respect of the Sa­crament, [Page 255] or in respect of the signification of our Sauiour's passion, which is more expresse in both kinds then in one; & in respect of the institutiō, which was in both, & in respect of the integrity, because as the Diuines say, both the Species, are partes integrantes, as two peeces of bread in one loafe though both together haue noe more es­sential perfection then one alone. And in respect of corporal refectiō, which as it requireth meate and drinke, soe the spiritual refection is more ex­presly signified by both; though noe lesse effec­tually performed by one. Soe that this while Tapper speaketh not of the absolute conueniēcy, but onely in some respects: wherein I appeale to the Reader whether you haue kept your promi­se of not wilfully or wittingly mis-citing or mis­translating any author. For heere it appeareth how you haue mis-trāslated, leauing out as a mā may say the principal verbe: which shall yet more appeare by that which followeth immediatly in the same author, which is this. Alia tamen con­sideratione reuerentia vz. Quae huic Sacramento d­betur, vtque in eius vsu vitemus omne [...] [...]reuerentiā, minus conuenit, atque etiam malun est, nulloque mod [...] expediens ecclesiae vt populus Christianus sub vtraque specie communicaret. B [...] in another consideration, to wit, of the reuerence which is dew to this Sacrament, and to the end we may auoid all irreuerence, it is lesse conuenient and euen it is ill and noe way expedient for the Church, that the Christian people should com­municate vnder both kinds. Loe you Sir Humphrey, was it honestly done of you to leaue out this [Page 254] [...] [Page 255] [...] [Page 256] being the other halfe of the sentence, answea­ring to the former which of it selfe was imper­fect, and which was the authors absolute iudg­ment and determination. Can any man euer giue you credit more? but because Sir I will not lea­ue any scruple in any mans minde concerning this authors meaning, and that by the perfection and integrity which he spoke of in the former part of the sentēce, he did not meane the want of any spiritual fruite, I will adde one word more out of him, which is this. In omissione calicis nullū interuenit peccatum, aut periculum nec aliquod gratiae spiritualis iactum, in the omitting or leauing of the Cha­lice, there is noe sinne, or dāger, or losse of any spirituall grace. What could hee say, or we desire more?

10. Wherefore to come to your cōclusion which you draw out of that, that because many Fathers and learned men doe agree in saying, that the Communion in both kinds was most frequent in the Primitiue Church, therefore they giue tes­timony of your doctrine, it is most foolish, for we also agree with them in the former, and yet deny your doctrine which is, that all men are bound to receiue in both kinds, & consequently that it is not lawfull for thē to receiue it in one kind and that soe to receiue it, is to receiue but an half Communion, and such like absurdityes. This is your doctrine for proofe whereof you ha­ue not brought one word out of any author, but brought some that say absolutely and expresly the contrary, as Val. Tapper, Bell. &c. Nay what will you say, if a man shall shew you out of your [Page 257] owne statute Lawes made now in this your ty­me of Reformation, some approbatiō or allow­ance of the Communiō in one kind, 1. Edw. 6. cap. 1. which is the thing you exclaime soe against vs for. See in the Lawes of K. Edw. 6. reuiued and cōfirmed by Q. Elizabeth. whether they doe not say onely that the Cōmunion is to bee commonly deliuered & ministred to the people, vnder both kinds;1. Eliz. ca. 1. & vith this exception also, vnlesse necessity otherwise require. Looke you Sir Humphrey, is it not heere allowed vpon necessity, though the necessity be not expressed, what or how great it must be; but hence it followeth that if particular necessity may excuse in a particular case, if the necessity shall proue great & vniuersal it may be also suf­ficient, for abstayning from one kind vniuer­sally or generally: and howsoeuer it sheweth Communion in both kinds not to bee so strictly commanded by Christ. For if it were noe neces­sity could excuse it in one Kind.

11. And soe this might serue for this matter; but that I am loth to lett passe a worthy saying of yours in the very end of this §. Which is this. And as cōcerning the halfe Communion which is receiued in the Romane Church for an article of faith, as it wants antiquity and consent of Fathers by their owne confession, soe likewise it wants a right foundation in the Scriptures, which an article of Faith ought to haue. Thus you: where with your worships good leaue, a man may tell you, you haue as many faults as words; we teach all the cōtrary, to wit, [Page 256] [...] [Page 257] [...] [Page 258] that it is not halfe communion, but that Christ is receiued whole and entire, and a true Sacra­ment, and as much spiritual fruit necessary to saluation in one kind as both, as the Councel of Trent by your confession defineth. We say it neither wanteth antiquity, nor consent of Fa­thers as you may see in Bellarmine and many others. We say it doth not want a right founda­tion in the Scriptures; for as I said before, we proue it out of the scriptures,V. Bell. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. both of the old & new testament, the doctrine and example of our Sauiour. And his Apostles, expressed in scrip­ture. Wee say also to conclude therewith, that it is most false of all which you take euery whe­re for a very truth, as if it were agreed vpon on all sides, to wit, that an article of faith must haue sufficient and expresse proofe of scripture. Whe­reas the cleane contrary is truth: and as gene­rally concluded among all Diuines and Fathers, as you boldly affirme yours which assertion the­refore of yours I heere absolutely deny, once for all, and though I neede not stand prouing it being euery where in all our authors, yet for the Readers sake I will cite one place of S. Ierome coming first to my memory, who hauing proued a point of faith against the Luciferian Haeretiques out of scripture which they stood vpon, he answeareth thus. Et etiam si sacrae scriptu­rae authoritas non subesset, Dialog. 2. con. Lucifer. totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret. And although the authority of holy Scripture were wanting, the consent of the whole world on this side should haue the force of [Page 259] a praecept. And soe there is an end of this 5. §.

Of Prayer and seruice in a knowne tongue. §. 6.

1. In this §. the Knight speaketh against the prac­tise and doctrine of the Catholique Church in two things. One is for vsing the publique serui­ce in a tongue not knowne to the vulgar peo­ple, another for saying some part of the Masse with a lowd voyce, so as the people cannot hea­re. The practice of which two things (though the Knight confound them into one) was seue­rally and distinctly approued by the Councell of Trent, & anathema pronounced against whosoe­uer should condemne either of them. Against which notwithstanding he beginneth with the Councel's owne authority, thinking also euen by it to make good the contrary practise of his Church. For saith hee, the Councel in saying that the Masse doth containe great instruction of the faithfull people, or as he translateth the words of the Councel in the beginning of this §. great in­struction for the common people. And that it is to be interpreted vnto them, doth consequently affir­me that the seruice and prayer in the reformed Churches in the vulgar tongue, was better for the aedification of the Church: and this he cōfir­mes with an argument of his owne thus. And without doubt (saith hee) the Apostles being cō ­manded to shew forth the Lord's death till his coming, it was not intended to shew it to the walls, or in a silent & vnknowne voyce, as it is [Page 260] now vsed in the Romane Church, but to pro­nounce it openly to bee heard and vnderstood of the hearers. Soe farre our Knight. Now to reckon with him.

2. Because the Councel of Trent saith, that the Masse containeth great instruction of the peo­ple, and that for that end it is to be interpre­ted vnto them, he saith it consequently affirmes the practize of the reformed Churches to be bet­ter for aedificatiō of the Church. Doth it soe Sir Humphrey? by what Logicke doth this cōsequē ­ce follow, or by what figure of Rhethoricke do You take one thing for another? the Councel saith that though the Masse containe great instruction, yet it doth not follow, that it should bee in the vulgar tongue, you tell vs the Councel by cōsequence doth affir­me it to follow; the Councel thinketh it better to retaine the general and long continued practise of the Church, of not vsing the vulgar tongues in the Sacrifice of the Masse, but for instruction of the people to interprete something of what is read: you say it approueth the contrary custo­me of your Church? if it had soe, had it not beene an easier matter to haue appointed it to be read in the vulgar tongue: but the Councel knew well that course was not soe fitt, neither in respect of the publique good of the Church, nor in reguard of the priuate good of the faith-full people: for many reasons.

3. First, for the general practise and custome which hath beene obserued in the Church of God, of hauing the Masse and publique office in Latine all ouer the Latine or Westerne Church, both [Page 261] in Italy, Spaine, France, Germany, England, Africke, & all other places: and soe likewise in Greeke in the Graecian or Easterne Church, though it were as large in extent, & had as much variety of vulgar languages in it, as the Latine Church hath. Which custome is not to be forsaken, especially for Hae­retiques, & out of that their false perswasiō, that it is noe good or lawful practice. Secōdly for the vniformity, which is fit to be vsed in such things, and vnity of the Catholique Church, which is ex­cellently declared, & also much maintained by this Vnity of Langage in the Church-office. For as lāguage is a thing most necessary for cōmerce amōg men in ciuill matters, so also in ecclesiasti­cal: and without this vse of Latine in this māner, there could not bee that cōmunication betwene men of learning: neither would mē of one coun­trey be the better for the writings of others the­re would be litle meeting of men of seueral na­tions in Councels, little study of Councels, of Fathers, & others, who haue all writtē in Latine, or some learned language: whereas the vse of the Latine tongue in the Church is the cause of all the con­trary effects, as we see by experiēce. Thirdly, the vse of vulgar tongues in the Masse and Church-office would cause not onely great confusion but breed an infinite number of errours by soe many seueral translations, not onely in seueral countries, but by seueral translations in euery countrey of any small extent, euen in the same place vpon a litle change of tyme: for as we see in euery age the vulgar language reci­ueth a great alternation; of which translations [Page 262] the Church would not be able any way to iudge, scripture being the hardest thing to translate of all other, & which therefore for the well trāsla­ting thereof, requireth the special assistance of the holy Ghost, which noe priuate man can promi­se himselfe. Lastly the vse of a vulgar language in such things, would breede a great cōtempt of sacred things, with prophanes and irreligiosity; besids the daunger of haeresy, which cometh noe way sooner, then by mis-vnderstanding of holy scripture. Neither are any more apt to mis-vn­derstād it, then the simpler sort of people if they once take vpon them to vnderstand. These rea­sons then among others, but most of all the tra­dition of the Church, drawne euen from the A­postles by perpetual Successiō and practise, might perswade the Councel to thinke that though some benefitt might come to some few particu­lar men by vnderstanding what is written, yet it was absolutely better to retaine the same custo­me still: and euen to remedy that inconuenience another way, to wit, by explaning something of what is read in the Masse, which the Councel de­clareth by a similitude very proper for the pur­pose, to wit, by breaking of bread to little ones: fort it is euen as necessary for ordinary people to haue the Scriptures soe declared, as for children to haue their bread broken, and as vnfit to giue such men the Scripture it self whole to rea­de, or to reade it soe vnto them, as to giue a little child a whole great loafe. Neither if a man marke the Councel of Trent's words [Page 263] well, doth it say that the Masse doth containe instruction in that sense, as if the only reading of things in the vulgar language would bee an instruction, but onely that it containeth great instruction, that is many things, which might be good for the people to learne being explica­ted, which a man might truely say, though euen when it is in the vulgar language it cannot be vnderstood without helpe of an expositor, how then Sir Humphrey doth the Councel acknow­ledge your practize, to be more for aedification of the people. Nay doth it not in the Canon expresly condemne it? saying anathema to who­soeuer shall condemne the practize of the Ro­mane Church in reading some part of the Canon softly, or to whosoeuer shall say that the Masse ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue?

4. Now for the place of Scripture which you bring, to wit, that wee must shew forth the Lord's death, till his Coming; which you say is not intended to the walls, as we doe, it sheweth sufficiently how well you vnderstand Scriptu­re; and consequently how well the common people, betweene whom and your self, you I dare say thinke there is a great deale of diffe­rence, would vnderstand them, when you being euen a writer soe little vnderstand them. For that place of announcing our Lord's death, is not vnderstood by words, as you vnderstand it, but by deeds, as it is most plaine by the circumstan­ces wherein they were spoken, to wit, by con­secrating and changing the bread and wine [Page 264] into the body and bloud of our Lord; as we doe daily in the Masse, in memory of our Sauiours passion. For soe S. Paul, hauing spoken of the institution and manner to be obserued in the consecration expresly saith, as often as you shall doe this, you shall announce the death of our Lord. The doing therefore is the announcing, not the Saving. Besides these words, at least in the māner of speaking, doe not import any cōmand: For you shall find the word annuntiabitis is the indi­catiue moode, and future tēse, if you looke well into your Accidence Sir Humphrey. And with­all it is somewhat conditional, to wit, that as often as we shall doe that, we shall announce the death of our Lord. Besides Sir Humphrey I neuer heard before, that it was, all one to speake La­tine, and to speake to the walls: if a man should speake a word of Latine to you, were that to speake to a wall? You see then you doe not marke what you say.

5. But now you haue spoken soe well of your selfe, lett vs heare what you can say out of other men. And first for Haymo, whom you cite for your purpose, asking this vnanswearable question as you call it. If a man that knoweth onely his Mother's tongue stand by, or make a Sermon, or giue a Blessing, how shall hee say Amen, since he doth not know what thou saist? Soe you. To which I answeare, it is true, Haymo hath a question to this purpose, but not soe much to yours, if you marke him well, nor soe vnanswearable, if you take him altogeather, with what he saith before and [Page 265] after your question. For soe you shall find he doth not require, that all that are by shall vnder­stand, but that he that supplieth the place of the Idiot, or lay man in answearing for the people shall vnderstand: for before that Question of yours, he maketh this other first, quis supplebit vel quis adimplebit locum illius, qui te audit & non intel­ligit verba tua? who shall supply or who shall fulfill the place of him, that heareth thee and doth not vnder­stand thy words? Which sheweth that he doth not speake of the idiot or ordinary bystander, but of one that is to supply his place, or make answeare for him; which appeareth yet more by that which followeth immediatly after your question, thus, Si non aderit alius pro illo, sciens quid tu dicas, qui respondeat Amen. 1. Verum est, quod tu dixisti, vel fiat ita. If there shalbe none other for him (that is in place of the ignorant man) who knowing what thou saiest, may answeare Amen. That is to say; it is true which thou hast said, or bee it soe done. Which plainely sheweth that in Haymo his iudgment, it is sufficient if there be one vn­derstander to answeare for the rest, or for him that doth not vnderstād. Nay he doth not seeme to require soe much, as that this answearer shall vnderstand all soe perfectly, but onely soe farre as to be able to answeare Amen. for this is the inconuenience which he maketh to follow the­revpon, if the answearer doe not vnderstand the language, that he doth not know where the prayer endeth for him to answeare. Nescit quippe, saith he, vbi sermonis clausula firmatur. For he knoweth not where the cōclusion of the speach is ended. [Page 266] For which truely, there doth not neede any such great vnderstanding of Latine. Soe that though Haymo thinke, that the Apostle spea­keth in that place of the publique prayers of the Church offered by the Priest, as some few other Doctors doe, though not soe rightly nor soe conformably to the true intent and drift of the Apostle, yet he requireth noe more but that there be one to answeare Amen; which surely may be more easily had, then for want thereof to be faine to change the whole office of the Church in to English. And soe Haymo his vn­answearable question is without any such great adoe answeared. Now for S. Paules meaning, though your obiection require it not and that it require also a longer disputation, yet not to leaue the Reader wholy vnsatisfied thereof, I say in a word that S. Paul his meaning in that place where he asketh how he that vnderstan­deth not the prayer shall say Amen, is not of the publique prayers of the Church offered by the Priest, which noe man can doubt of, either for the truth or goodnes, and therefore he may confidently say Amen to them, but of priuate prayers or prayers made by priuate and Lay men ex tempore, and on the suddaine not in La­tine, Greeke, or any ordinary knowne tongue, but in an extraordinary vnknowne tōgue, such as men spake by the guift of tongues, which guift was giuen in those beginnings not onely to the Apostles, and Preachers, but euen to Lay people and to many among the Corinthians, [Page 267] which they it seemes grew prowd of, and vsed for ostentation. For correcting of which abuse the Apostle writeth heere vnto them preferring Prophecy, that is exhortation before tongues, and giuing many reasons therefore: among which this is one, that others that heare that prayer in a strange Language, are not the better, nor can say Amen to it. And this to be the Apostles drift the circumstances of the text and persons to whom he writeth plainely shew.

6. After Haymo cometh Iustinian the Em­perour, who (say you) made a constitution that Bishops and Priests should celebrate the Lord's supper and prayers in Baptisme, not in secret, but with a Lowd and cleare voyce; to this Bellarmine maketh two answeares:Bell. lib. 2 [...] Miss. cap. 12 one that Iustinian being a meere secular man had no­thing to doe to make Lawes in such matters as it is most true; and you cannot but know he is ordinarily taxed, for too much taking vpon him in that kind. The other that euen that Law doth command nothing more, but onely that Bishops and Priests shall pronounce distinctly and clearely, that which according to the custome of the Easterne Church was to be spoken aloud. For saith Bell. there were many as may be gathered out the very constitution it self, who to hide their owne ignorance, did contrary to the receiued custome pronounce those things softly, which should haue beene pronounced alowd. And this to be soe may appeare plainely by the Law it selfe which you [Page 268] doe not seeme to haue read, for you cite it onely out of your Cassander▪ who serueth you to great steed for most of your citations.

7. You haue in the next place a text out of the Canon law, the former being out of the Ciuil, to shew your learning in all sciences:Cap. Quoniā in plaerisque de off. iud. Ord. you cite it thus. We command that the Bishops of such Cittyes and Diocesses, (where nations are mingled together) prouide meete men to minister the holy seruice, accor­ding to the diuersity of manners and languages. The words are these in Latine. Pontifices huiusmodi ciuitatem siue dioceseon prouideant viros, qui secundū diuersitates rituum & linguarū, diuina illis officia ce­lebrēt, & ecclesiastica Sacramēta ministrent, instruen­do eos pariter verbo & exemplo: in English thus, Let [...] the Bishops of such cittyes ordiocesses, prouide meete men, who according to the diuersity of rites and lan­guages, may celebrate vnto them the diuine offices and administer vnto them the ecclesiasticall Sacraments, instructing them both by word and example. Where­by you see Sir Humphrey, you might haue cited the place more truely, though that be not soe much the matter I cite it fully for, but for ano­ther purpose, as you shall see, when I haue told you Bellarmines answeare to this obiection, which is this: that this decree speaketh onely of the 2. languages Greeke and Latine: for it was made by Inno. 3. in the Councel of Lateran, because Cōstantinople hauing beene taken not long before by the Latines and then there being a Latine Em­peror and Patriarch and many Latines by that oc­casion being mingled with the Gr [...]cians in the [Page 269] same citty, they made a propositiō in the Councel, that they might haue 2. Bishops one Latine ano­ther Greek; to this the Pope and Councel make answeare, that it is not fit to haue 2. Bishops, of one citty, but that the Bishops of the citty should substitute another in his roome, to celebrate the diuine office and administer the Sacraments according to their owne rites and language▪ and this Bellarm. proueth to be the true meaning of this decree, not onely out of the story, but also by the effect. For if this decree had concerned the Latine Church any way, it should haue beene put in practise in some pla­ce thereof, and most of all in Italy, in the Popes sight, but there is noe signe of any such thing, but plaine proofe to the contrary. Which answeare is cleare and solide. But besides this answeare of Bellarmines, a man may answeare also, that the Councel speaketh of two things heere, to wit, of celebrating the diuine offices, and administring Sacraments, and then putteth two things more answea­ring vnto those two, to wit, rites and langua­ges, rites answearing to diuine offices, and languages to Sacraments, as if it had said, let such Bishops prouide men who may celebrate the deuine offices according to the diuersity of their rites, and administer the Sacraments according to the diuersity of their languages. For indeede it is a matter of necessity in admi­nistration of some Sacraments to vse the vulgar language, as in marriage & Penance; but it is not [Page 270] soe of other things. For this reason then I cited the place as it is: and though you may cauill at this answeare, yet I see not though there were noe other why it might not serue for as good an obiection as yours.

8. But now you say you will not stand pro­uing this point any more, by citing the particu­lar Fathers, but you will bring our owne men confessing, that Prayer and Seruice in the vul­gar tongue was vsed in the first and best ages, according to the praecept of the Apostles; and practize of the Fathers. And then you bring Lyra, Ioannes Belethus, Gretzerus, Harding, Cas­sand. and 2. or 3. more. To which I answeare that it is true, as these authors say, that in the beginning it was soe: but what thinke you was the reason? euen because those three holy Languages Hebrew, Greeke, and Latine were most vulgar, and common: the Hebrew in Hie­rusalem and the parts adioyning, the Greeke in Greece where S. Paul preached most, and Latine at Rome & other parts subiect to the Romane Empire. For if you marke it Sir Humphrey, most of your authors which you bring speake this of prayers and benedictions being wont to be made in the vulgar language, by occasion of that 14. Chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians where Greeke was the vulgar. And indeede that it was the vulgarnes or commonesse of the tongue, that the Apostles reguarded most in their writing of scriptures, and the like, it is plaine, by that, that S. Paul of his 14. epistles which he [Page 271] writ to soe many seuerall Nations and persons he writ onely one in Hebrew to wit that to the Hebrewes; the other thirteene in Greeke euen that to the Romanes though Greeke were not their vulgar or natural Language: and soe did all the rest of the Apostles and Euangelists, saue only S. Mathew who writ his Ghospel in Hebrew, and as some say S. Marke who writ his in Lati­ne, though many doubt of that, and say rather, that he writt it in Greeke. Whereof what other reason could there be, but the vniformity which the Apostles, would haue to bee obserued in the Church, by vsing for scriptures and diuine Of­fices those languages, which were more vniuer­sal, and common to most nations, thereby to draw all to vnity. Which though it could not be soe absolute, as to come to the vse of one onely language, yet they restrained it to those few most vniuersal languages, Hebrew, Greeke, S. Hillar. ap Bell. lib. 2. de verb. D [...]i. c. 15. and Latine; Which were dedicated vpon the crosse, our Sauiours title being written in those three languages by mystery, as holy Fathers, note, to signify that by them Christ his name and faith was to be most published and preached ouer the whole world. And for proofe hereof, we say it hath not beene euer heard of, that any part of scripture was originally written in other language: or that there was any Liturgy of the Apostles, or neere their tymes, or any transla­tion of Scriptures in other language: much lesse was it euer heard, that the Scriptures were reade in the meetings of Christians, or celebration of [Page 272] the diuine Mysteries in other language, then that wherein they were ordinarily had and read, to wit, in some one of those languages. Of later ty­mes we confesse there hath beene vse of other languages, as Arabick, Chaldaick, and the like, but yet soe as that the Church hath euer made choyce of some one language which hath beene very common to many kingdomes and Na­tions; not proper to any particular prouince or country.

9. And heere it is to be noted further, for answeare of your authorityes in this point Sir Humphrey that whereas some of our authors are of opinion, that S. Paul, in that 14. Chap. of the 1. to Corinth. where he speaketh of prayers in a knowne tongue is to be vnderstood of the publique prayers of the Church that explication is contradicted by most of our other authours; and there be many reasons out of the very text and circumstances against it; as namely that the men which are heere reprehended for their ostentation of languages are the People not the Priests: as appeareth by the whole epistle, as I noted heere before §. 3. n. 5. vpon another oc­casion; as also because this pertaineth to women also, who it seemeth did vse to speake among the rest, which S. Paul, therefore reprehendeth as an abuse and forbiddeth. Thirdly S. Paul, speaketh of the infidells coming in and being present at those their meetings and conferen­ces: Which therefore could not bee of the Church office and Sacrifice of the Masse to [Page 273] which Infidells were not admitted. Wherefore it cannot be of the publique prayers of the Church which belonged onely to Priests to make publiquely for others in the Church: But though it were soe and that some doe put them­selues to more straits then they neede, in inter­preting S. Paul, of publique prayers, yet doth it not auaile you Sir Humphrey. For euen those men giue a reason of difference, why now it needeth not; to wit because now as S. Thomas of Aquine, saith, People are sufficiently acquainted with the ecclesiastical rites, and men know very well what is done by being present, and seing, though they doe not vnderstand the particular epistles and Ghospels, which are seueral according to the Sundayes and holy dayes; but the rest of the Masse being the same continually they vnder­stād it sufficiently for exercise of their deuotion, though not to satisfy the vaine curiosity of such people, as you breed vp in the pride of an hereti­cal spirit, to beleeue nothing but what they see, and contemning whatsoeuer they doe not see or vnderstand: our people know sufficiently, what the Priest meaneth by turning to them & saying Dominus Vobiscum, Oremus, Orate Fratres, and the like; I say sufficiently to lift vpp their minds to Almyghty God, to ioyne in their harts & minds with the Priests in that prayer, which he maketh publique for them, as well as any learned Clar­ke that vnderstandeth the English of the words. Soe as our authours by you cited helpe you not a whit in this matter.

[Page 274]10. But now because you say this prayer in the vulgar tongue was vsed by the praecept of the Apostles, and practise of the ancient Fathers, I would know of you, where this precept is ex­pressed, either in scripture, or out of scripture, in any author of credit? I doe not find soe much as any shaddow of a praecept in scripture. S. Paul in that epistle to the Corinthians which your men for the most part stand vpon, doth not con­demne that Prayer in an vnknowne tongue, as you doe; for he both saith it is good, though he preferre the guift of Prophecy before it: and also he alloweth the vse of it, but wishing withall that some other should interpret it; as you see the Councel of Trent wisheth Pastours and Curats to doe of the Masse, and mysteries therein contained. Where then is the precept commanding a knowne tongue or forbidding an vnknowne tongue? and this I say supposing for disputations sake two things, which are nei­ther of them soe: to wit, that S. Paul there spea­keth of publique prayer of the Church-office; and that the Latine Greeke or Hebrew tongues are rightly called vnknowne tongues, or any way comprehended vnder that appellation in S. Paul.

11. Now for the practice of the Fathers which you speake of but name none I would gladly know Sir Humphrey what Father you haue whose authority or example you can bring for your selfe in this matter? name him if you can. We shew you Fathers and learned men of many [Page 275] seuerall nations and of different tymes vsing the Scriptures onely in some one of these 3. holy languages. For example Italians, Spaniards, French, German, English, Polish, Africans, and others vsing the Latine: and diuers ancient Fa­thers of seueral countries, as S. Cyprian, S. August. in Afrik. S. Ambrose in Italy S. Prosper in France. Others in other countries, citing the very words which we to this day vse in our Masse:Duran. de ritib. lib 2. cap 31. & Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei. cap. 15. & 16. as Sursum corda Habemus ad Dominum, and the like, whe­reof you may see more in our authors. And yet being soe destitute of all proofe for your selfe, and soe ignorant of ours which we haue in aboundance, you can talke soe cōfidently of the praecept of Apostles and practize of Fathers. But you will say you bring Lyra, Belethus, Gretzerus, &c. to proue what you say. Whereto I answeare noe such matter: for first they speake not a word of any praecept. Secondly some witnesse only the practise of that tyme yet withall giuing the reason why it neede not be soe now: others speake nothing that way: for example Io. Bele­thus, euen as you cite him saith onely that in the Primitiue Church noe man was to speake in tongues vnlesse some body were to interprete; from whence he saith is growne our custome when the Ghospell is read to expound it: which is quite against you; for he acknowledgeth spea­king of languages which you deny, and ex­pounding, which according to you will not be needfull. Others againe speake but doubtfully as S. Thomas of Aquine, Dicendum forte saith hee [Page 276] It is to bee said that it may be that in the Primitiue Church Benedictions were vsed in the vulgar lan­guage: whom yet you make to speake absolutely and certainely. Thirdly though some say the prayers of the Church were vsed in a language vnderstood by the people yet noe man saith that, that language was any of the ordinary vulgar languages or indeede other then Hebrew Greek or Latine. Wherefore all the authors you can bring though you should bring ten for one in this manner will nothing auaile you.

12. Now for your citation and translation of such authours as you bring I could find many faults but I passe them ouer onely Bellarmine I cannot lett passe because you abuse him some­what more grosly; for you bring an obiection of his out of one place, and an answeare out of another there being noe connexion or corres­pondence betweene the answeare and obiection as you make it, thus. It may be obiected, say you out of him, that in the tyme of the Apostles all the people in diuine seruice did answeare one Amen. And this custome continued long in the East and West Churches, as appeare, &c. Which is true, but nothing to the present purpose: for men may answeare Amen, to the publique prayers of the Church without their being in a vulgar language. Neither is it the thing which, Bellarmine obiecteth against and answeareth: but he hauing proued that those prayers and spiri­tual canticles which the Apostles, would haue to be made in the Church in the vulgar tongue, [Page 277] that the people might vnderstand & answeare, Amen, were not the publique prayers of the Church but priuate extēporary deuotions though in the Church with others: he obiecteth in behalf of an Haeretique thus; you will say that as the Apostle would haue those prayers to bee made in a vulgar tongue, to the end the people might answare Amen, soe he ought in like sort to wish, that the diuine Office might be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, that the people might answeare, Amen. To this hee answeareth denying the con­sequence: because the diuine Office was celebra­ted, in Greeke, which was vnderstood by many though perhaps not by all, and this was enough, for the Apostle did not desire that all should answeare, whereas the other languages which they spoke by the guift of tongues, were such many tymes, as not one man there vnderstood them, not euen the speaker himself: and this was Bell. First answeare which you leaped ouer Sir Humphrey, Lib 2. de Ver. Dei cap. 16. because you saw it was a good and proper for our case: for it is the same of our La­tine and their Greeke; for though all doe not vnderstand Latine yet many doe and almost euery body enough to answeare, Amen. Bellar­mines second answeare is that which you make or rather marre by mistranslation: besids saith hee because then the Christians were few all did sing together & answeare in the diuine Offices: (which is a reason why it was more necessary for the people to vnderstand the language): but afterwards the people increasing the Offices [Page 278] were more diuided, and it was onely left to Clarks to performe the common prayers and prayses in the Church: soe as though it might bee then more needfull for the people to vnder­stand because they were to answeare yet now it is not because they are not to answeare and sing but that belongs to Clarks. Now in Englishing Bellarmines words besids other smaller faults, you haue these two, which I note. You say the office of publique seruice was diuided: whereas Bellarmine saith not soe, but that offices were more diuided, that is, the seueral functions in the Church, to wit, that which belonged to Priests and Clarks was left to them, and that which be­longed to the people was left to the people or they to it: for to them it did not soe properly belong to sing and answeare, but onely for that tyme of necessity, when the number both of Clarks and people was but small, the other fault is, that you translate Solis Clericis: onely to the Church: whereas it is to the Clarcks alone, or by themselues: which though it may be the same in sense, I see not why you should take that liber­ty, to alter at you pleasure in the translations of other men's words? And soe much for your authors.

Honor. gem­ma anime lib. 1. cap. 103. Innoc. 3. lib. 3 de M [...]ss. cap. 1.13. Now to come to your conclusion of this §. you tell your Reader, that you will lett him vn­derstand one special cause of the alteration of the office in the Romane Church: which is a story out of one Honorius, of certaine She­pheards who hauing learned the words of con­secration, [Page 279] because in the primitiue tymes say you the Canon of the Masse was publiquely read and vnderstood of all,Io Beleth. de diu. offi. cap. 44. and pronouncing the words of consecration ouer their bread and wine in the fields, the bread and wine were suddainly transubstātiated into flesh and bloud; and themselues strucken dead by the hand of God. Wherevpon you say that by Honorius his confession the canon of the Masse was anciently read alowd, and which is strange say you, also, that Shepheards did transubstantiate bread and wine, by which you tell vs farther, it seemeth the alteration of the Church seruice into the Latine and vnknowne tongue was occasioned: the same story you say is told by Innoc. 3. and Io. Belethus: adding a reason withall out of them why the words of consecration are pronoun­ced secretly, to wit, ne Sacrosancta verba vilesce­rent. Least the holy words should grow contemptible. Thus you talke freely Sir Humphrey as if all were Ghospel you say.

14. But you must giue other men for all that, a little leaue to make doubt thereof: and first you runne heere from one thing to another, to wit, from seruice in a knowne or vnknowne ton­gue, to soft or lowd pronouncing of the words of consecration, or of the Canon of the Masse. Secondly you say that by occasion of this Story which you tell vs, the Church altered the ser­uice in to the Latine, and vnknowne tongue: wherein Sir Humphrey you forgett your self much: for you told vs before that, that alte­ratiō [Page 280] was brought in by Pope Vitalian, about the yeare. 666. which cannot well agree with this story of yours: for if it were a late story neere Honorius his tyme, that relateth it, that was neere 500. yeares after Vitalian's tyme, if the story be an ancient one as there is one some what like, which I shall by and by speake of, in the booke called Pratum spirituale then that was a good while before Vitalian's tyme: for the man that writeth it liued in Honorius, 1. his tyme which was the 6. Pope before Vitalian, and that author writeth it by the relation of a graue ancient man who knew one of the per­sons that were actours in this busines, now an old man, the thing hauing happened when hee was but a boy, soe that there might very well bee 80. or 100. yeares betweene the tyme of this story and Pope Vitalian. Thirdly I see not why this story should cause soe great an alteration, as to change the Church-Office or Masse into another tongue: for it might haue serued the turne very well to reade the Canon or speake the words of consecration softly, that others might not heare or learne them. Or if they must be chāged into an other tongue, not to be knowne, why into Latine the most knowne tongue in the whole world: besids where this thing hapned the Church-language was Greeke, which was not soe common to the vulgar, which if it did not hinder the irreue­rence committed there, how should it be li­kely that changing it into Latine onely would [Page 281] hinder it heere? Moreouer if it did not cause any change in the Easterne Church where it hapned, why should it cause any in the Wester­ne Church where perhaps this story was not heard of for a long tyme after? And indeede lett the language be what it will, any man may learne some few words and abuse them if he will, therefore that will helpe little. Lastly me thinks it had beene meete for you Sir Humphrey, to haue said somewhat when this change was made, or what language it was that was vsed before: or bring some author for your self; for of these 3. which you say mention the story, there is not one that ma­keth any mention of changing the Church-Office into Latine vpon it, but onely they alleadge it by occasion of the secret reading of the Canon of the Masse, which was the thing they had in hand.

15. Now for the story it self you cannot but know that it is answeared by Bellarmine it being obiected formerly by Kemnitius: Bell lib. 2. de Miss. cap. 12 his answeare then is, that there is such a story related by good authority in Pratum spirituale: but there, neither the bread nor wine were transubstantiated but consumed by fire from heauen; nor the shepheards strucken dead; but onely layd for dead 24. howers; after which they came to themselues againe, which is neither im­possible nor improbable. Now for these three authours, that you cite, none of them doth rela­te it out of any author or with any special credit, [Page 282] but onely out of a report which they expresse by the word Fertur and therefore some of them as Honorius and Belethus, might be mistaken in some of the circumstance, though Innocentius be not:Innoc. 3 lib. 3. de Miss. cap. 1. for he saith noe more of it, but this, that it is reported that when certaine shepheards did sing the words in the fields, they were struc­ken from heauen: which is true. Now this sup­posed as the story doth not make any way against vs, for we grant that the words were anciently pronounced alowd in some place; Soe it maketh against you, who deny that any whe­re they were spoken softly: for the author of this story giuing a reason, how the boyes came to learne the words saith thus.Prat. Spirit. cap. 196. Quoniam verò quibusdam in locis alta voce consueuerant presbyteri sancti sacrificij orationes pronunciare, pueri vt pro­pius astantes saepius eas audiendo didicerant. Be­cause in some places the Priests were wont to pronoun­ce the prayers of the holy sacrifice with a lowd voyce, the boyes as standing neerer by often hearing had learned them. Loe Sir Humphrey it was but in some places; that they did say those prayers alowd. Soe that withall this labour you haue proued nothing but against your selfe. Well then you haue failed in the proofe of your doc­trine in this as in the rest withall the corruption and tricks you can vse; let vs see what you doe in the next.

§. 7. Worship of Images.

1. This 7. §. of Image-worshipp our Knight beginneth after his ordinary manner with an article as he calleth it of our Romane Creede, wherein we professe that the Images of Christ, our Lady, and the Saints are to be had and re­tained, and that dew honor and Veneration is to be yeilded vnto them; and then bringeth the Decree of the Councel of Trent, Sess. 25. for the same point, in these words. We teach that the images of Christ the Virgin mother of God, and other Saints, are cheifly in Churches to be had and retained, and that dew honour and worshipp is to be giuen them. Which Decree he might haue translated a little better, and more clearely, by saying that those images are to be had and retained especially in Churches: the Latine word being (praeser­tim) and his translating thereof chiefly and pla­cing it soe oddly, giueth cause to thinke he had an euill meaning therein, as if he would haue his Reader thinke that the Councel taught that these Images were the chiefe things to bee had in Churches, which is not the Councel's mea­ning, as is plaine the words being very cleare in Latine. But this is but a note by the way not as a thing that I stand vpon.

2. This our Doctrine of image-worship he doth absolutely deny and condemne, as a wic­ked and blasphemous opinion: first because it not onely wants authority of scripture, (which [Page 284] he saith an article of faith ought to haue) but because the scripture doth flatly and plainely forbid it: and in the margent citeth Leuit. 26. Ex. 20. Deut. 4. Esay. 40. This censure is so­mewhat deepe Sir Humphrey, vpon such sleight ground, because forsooth we haue noe proofe of scripture; for though you thinke it necessary to haue expresse proofe of scripture to make a matter of faith, yet as I said before you are much mistaken; wherefore you ought not to stand still vrging it in such manner as if it were a certaine and vndoubted principle; yet this I graunt you that though expresse Scripture be not necessary to make a matter of faith, yet if you haue expresse scripture against it, it is true, it can be noe matter of faith: but by your leaue none of those places which you note, make any mention of image-worship but idol-wor­ship which you cannot but know to be a diffe­rent thing hauing beene soe often told it, as you haue beene by vs: therefore your first proofe fayling all failleth, for though you put a First, yet I see noe second. and soe much for that.

3. But because heere had beene an end too soone of soe good a matter: you tell vs Vazq. saith, all images were forbidden soe farr forth as they were dedicated to adoration, and Cor­nelius Agrippa, saith the Iewes, did abhorr no­thing more then images: to the same purpose you alleadge Philo the Iew, speaking of the Iewes, of those tymes: and Sir Edwin sands of the Iewes that are now adayes. Wherevpon [Page 285] you conclude that it is agreed vpon on both sides that the Iewes, neuer allowed adoration of images for 4000. yeares and from thence you descend to the new Testament wherein you say the same law remayneth, because it was mo­rall; for though some Catholiques, teach that it was a positiue caeremonial law, yet others say it was natural; and for that you alleadge Bellar. wherefore the law being not abrogated, you would haue some exāple or precept in the Ghos­pel for adoration: of which you say, Mr. Fisher, acknowledgeth there is not any expresse, but that there be principles, which the light of na­ture supposed, conuince adoration to be lawful. Soe as from the light of nature say you, an ar­ticle of faith must be declared. Well this is your discourse Sir Humphrey, which in a word is but this. The Iewes might not haue nor adore images, ergo, we may not. For asweare whe­reof I might say in like sort the Iewes might not eate bloud nor swines flesh nor many other things ergo, we may not: but because you may say these precepts are caeremonial & therefore not now in force the other natural & therefore in force, for the present, I will onely make this argument to shew the connexion of your antecedent and consequent: the Iewes might not make any similitude or likenesse of any thing in heauen or earth to adore it for a God, ergo, we may not make or haue the images of Christ and Saints to reuerence and honour them, as the pictures of Saints onely, and not Gods: [Page 286] is not heere a good and a substantiall argument trow you? and yet it is yours Sir Humphrey.

4. But say you there was such a command of not making any images in the old Testa­ment which is still. True: I graunt there was such a command then, but whether it be still in force or noe or how farr it is in force there is the question: for resoluing whereof it is to be considered that there be two opinions among our Diuines as you take notice; of which some say it is moral: others caeremonial: & according to both I answeare you two wayes; one accor­ding to Vazq. and his authours: who say that there was such a commaund indeede but that it was but for that tyme onely, and is now ex­pired being but temporall and caeremonial, made and obserued then in reguard of the pro­nesse of the Iewes to idolatry. Which if it were not soe then, but that it were yet in force as you would haue it, then could not you how haue your wiues picture nor she yours without breach of that command: therefore in that sense you cannot vrge it more against our pictures then we against yours. Neither can you saue your selfe by saying that your pictures are not dedicated to adoration as ours are. For in Vazq. his sense they are euery iott as much: as is plaine by his very words which are these that follow.Lib. 2. de [...]dor. disp. 4. cap. 3. n. 76 & cap. 6. n. 98. & [...]q. Modus accommodatus adorationi est cum imago de­picta aut sculpta est per se, non veluti appendix & additamentum alterius rei in ornatum illius, &c. The manner accommodated or fitted for adoration is [Page 287] when a Picture is painted or carued by it selfe not as an appēdix or addition to another thing by way of or­namēt By which rule your pictures are in state of adoratiō, or so that they may be adored because they are whole and compleate pictures of them­selues, not additions, ornaments or appurtenan­ces ioyned or belonging to another thing: as the Cherubins in the temple were, which he saith therefore were not in state to be adored because they were not there as compleate of themselues, but onely by way of appendix or appurtenance for ornament of the arke: for hence he inferreth, that all manner of pictures were forbidden euen out of the Temple: Whe­refore euen in Vazq. his opinion whose autho­rity you alleage you must acknowledge this commandement to be onely caeremonial, and but for that tyme of the old law. For by it in this sense all making or hauing any image or picture whatsoeuer was forbidden, which cer­tainely is not now in force and soe not against vs any way.

5. Now according to the other opinion also I may answeare that the praecept was moral; and therefore doth bind still, but that by it were not forbidden all images, but such as were made to represent false Gods, and were to be soe adored: and that therefore it is noe distinct praecept or commandment but onely an explication of the first of the ten commaundements which is that we should haue noe other Gods but him; to wit, that we should not make a God to our selues of [Page 288] anie thing els, either in heauen or earth, making any Idol or likenesse of any of all those things to adore it. So that whether with Vazq. we deny the very making or hauing of pictures or whether with Bell. we allow the making and hauing them & deny onely the adoring them with diuine ho­nour the diuersity of opinions helpeth you not one whit. Both standing very well with the Ca­tholique faith and both against yours: for euen Vazq. though he deny the making of pictures and consequently all adoration of them yet he graunteth and proueth euen out of the old testa­ment that honour and reuerence might and was giuen to things insensible and as little deser­uing reuerence in themselues as pictures soe it were with reference to almighty God: as for example the arke and Temple vnderstanding that place of the Psalme adorabimus in loco vbi steterunt pedes eius, Psal. 131.7. We will adore in the place whe­re his feet stood, Psal. 5. v. 8. of the arke; as it is indeed to be vnderstood: and that other of the Temple, ado­rabo ad templum Sanctum iuum in timore tuo. I will adore at thy holy temple in thy feare; Vazq. de ador. disp. 4. cap. 4. and proueth that ad, which I interpret, at, to be a spare particle according to the Hebrew phra­se, and that the true meaning is I will adore thy Temple. You may find his proofes out of the hebrew yf you haue wherewithall to vn­derstand him. Whereby it is cleare his authori­ty is nothing for you.

6. Now for Philo his authority it maketh not against vs; for he saith nothing, but that the [Page 289] Iewes were not wont to admitt any image into their Temple: and that their ancestours did ac­count it a wickednesse to paint the invisib [...]e God, or faine a representation of him, and that the worke of Painters and Caruers are the ima­ges of material Gods: this I say is not against vs, for neyther doe we paint the invisible God, or faine a representation of him: that is, any pictu­re representing his nature or deity? What is this to the decree of the Councel of Trent, allowing the pictures of Christ and his Saints: we may not make a picture of the invisible God therefore not of a visible man? a good consequence Sir Humphrey and fitt for soe good a Scholer and soe wise a man as you are: the former part of the same sentence is as much to the purpose. You say they were not to haue images in their tem­ple; I say also not in their howses, therefore must you haue none? or if you deny the con­sequence, I inferre vpon you againe. If not­withstanding that practise, command, or be it what you will of the Iewes, you haue your freind's picture in your house, may not I haue the picture of God's freind in myne? may not a man by being Gods freind, haue a much pri­uiledge as by being yours? beside what pictu­res could the Iewes haue in their Temple? not the picture of God for he cannot be painted, not of any Saint: for there was none as yet might haue that honour to haue their pictures in the temple, themselues being not yet admitted into [Page 290] the heauenly temple of God. all other pictures are profane & vnfitt for such a place: the people withall were grosse, carnal, and prone to idola­try, none of which reasons haue place with vs. Touching the last part of Philo his saying, that the works of Painters and Caruers are the ima­ges of material Gods: it is true, if it be vnder­stood that the material Gods are the worke of men's hands: but if he say that all the works of Painters and Caruers are material Gods, it cannot be true. For suppose Sir Humphrey some of your Ministers or other your deuoted Cliēts out of the opinion they haue of your worth and great desert in writing this booke of your should erect you a statua in the corner of two high wayes, pointing out your fingar to shew a trauailler the 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. [Page 291] 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 [Page 292] 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 [Page 293] 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 [Page 294] 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. [...]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 [Page 295] such yesterday people as you and they are.

10. As for that which you say out of Mr. Fisher that though there bee noe expresse prac­tice or praecept of worshipping the image of Christ, yet there be principles which, the light of nature supposed, conuince adoration to be lawfull, it is as well and truely said by him, as that is falsely, foolishly & impertinently which you say therevpon, that from the law of God and grace we are come to the law of nature, and to declare an article of faith by the light thereof. Mr. Fisher saith the light of nature sheweth it to be lawfull, which is true: you say he declareth it an article of faith from the light of nature, which is false: there is great difference betweene those two; to be lawful, and to be an article of faith; the light of nature may reach to shew a thing to be lawfull, but not to make an article of faith: for that must be grounded vpon the su­pernatural light of diuine reuelation which is farr aboue the natural light of humane rea­son: though by your fauour Sir Knight as scor­nefully as you speake of the light of nature, it haue somewhat more to doe also in matters of faith, then you are aware of. For out of one premisse reuealed, and another euident by the light of nature, there may be drawne a conclu­sion of faith, or at least such as may sufficiently ground a definition of a Councel and practize of the Church: and likewise the light of nature hath place also in all the mysteries of our faith; in some shewing the reasons or congruences; in all [Page 296] shewing that there is noe falshood, or impos­sibility. And the light of nature is the guift and law alsoe of God. Why then should you speake soe contemptibly of it, but onely that you want it in great part and consequently know not the worth thereof.

11. But it is strange heere to see how, though you cannot find in your hart to allow the light of nature alleadged for adoration of images, you can alleadge it against them; but euen as wisely as you deny it for them You say Varro an heathen Philosopher by the instinct of na­ture professed the contrary by saying the Gods are better serued without images. The Latine is, castius Dij obseruantur sine simulachris. Aug. 4. de Ciuit. ca. 31. Which saying you tell vs S. Aug. comendeth: and soe he doth indeede, but vnderstandeth him farr otherwise then you doe. For he doth take Simulachrum not for an image as you doe fal­sely, but for an idol, as it is indeede, and soe commendeth Varro for coming neerer to the knowledge of the true God, and going farther from idolatry, in that he neither acknowled­geth any Deity in those material idols nor that multiplicity of Gods but rather alloweth the opinion of them that held that God was the soule of the world: which though it were also an errour in him, yet S. Augustine saith it co­meth neerer to truth in that it teacheth but one God and him not a material or corporal but a spiritual and invisible substance: for proof whereof Varro alleadgeth that for aboue an [Page 297] hundred yeares the Romanes had worshipped their Gods without those material idols, which whosoeuer brought in, saith hee, did take a way the feare and added or increased the error: he meaneth that they that brought in those idols tooke away all feare of the Gods, because men seeing those idols proposed for Gods contem­ned them: and this is that which he saith castiùs dij obseruantur sine simulachris: The Gods are more chastly or purely obserued or feared with­out those idols. Now what is this against vs. doe not we say the same thing much more amply, and more fully? I see not then why you should bring it, vnlesse it were to vsher in a thing which you haue out of Eusebius, to giue the reason, as you say, why these Fathers con­demned the worshippers of images for Haere­tiques and Idolaters in these words. Because, saith Eusebius, the men of old, of an heathenish custome were wont after that manner to ho­nour such as they counted Sauiours. Where­vppon you say that after images had gott foo­ting among Christians, the Bishops and Empe­rours by Councels and commands tooke spe­cial care to preuent, both the making and worshipping them: and thereto you bring a Canon of the Councel of Eliberis, that noe pictures should be in Churches least that which was worshipped should bee painted on the walls. And an authority out of the Ci­uill law of a Decree made against adoration of [Page 298] images which I shall cite when I come to an­sweare it. This is your discourse Sir Humphrey. Wherein you haue giuen soe sufficient testimo­ny of notorious bad dealing, especially in the 2. places of Eusebius and of the Ciuill law: that if there were nothing els falsified or corrupted in your whole booke, this were enough vtterly to deface all memory of you, from among honest men.

12. The matter is this, hauing brought onely S. Aug commending Varro his saying against Idolls you say in the plural number, these Fathers as if you had brought some great number of Fathers: and withall you say these Fathers con­demned the worhippers of images for Haereti­ques and Idolaters: what words haue you brought out of any father one or other to this purpose, from the very beginning of this §. either condemning the woship of images in vs Christians, or calling vs Haeretiques or idolaters for it? how then can you haue the face to say it soe boldly? but we must not aske you reason for any thing you say, but take it as you say it. Well you tell vs Eusebius giueth the reason why the Fathers condemned vs for Haeretiques and ido­laters, which importeth that Eusebius concur­reth with those Fathers in iudgment, whose fact he giues a reason for. But what if Eusebius doe not condemne it, can you desire to be coun­ted an honest man? I presume you cannot: Well let vs then see whether he doe soe or not. Ma­king mention of the Citty of Caesarea Philippi by [Page 299] occasion thereof he relateth a story of the Wo­man which was cured by touching the hemme of our Sauiours garment,Eus. hist. lib. 7. cap. 14. and how coming home after her cure to Caesarea Philippi where she liued, she made her selfe a brazen statua sett vpon a high stone before her owne doore as if she were kneeling vpon her knees and holding vp her hands like one praying and looking towards another statua of a man standing straight vpp, with long garments downe to the foote, stretching out his hād to the Woman: which statua the people said was the Statua of IESVS. Vpon the very basis or foote of this sta­tua, they said there grew a certaine strange and vnvsual kinde of herbe, which as soone as it grew vpp soe high as to touch the hemme of the brazen garment, it had vertue to cure disea­ses of euery kind: Which statua Eusebius saith continued to his tyme and that he saw it him­selfe. Neither is it to be wondered, saith hee, going on with his discourse, that those that were sprung of the Gentils, and receiued be­nefits of our Sauiour while he liued heere on earth, did thus; seing we also haue seene the pictures of Peter and Paul Apostles, and of our Sauiour himselfe, expressed in variety of co­lours, and kept: and that, as it is like, because our ancestours (maiores nostri which you Sir Humphrey translate the men of old you know best why your selfe) would come as neere as might be to the fashion of their owne people or kind­red, who were wont to honour such as had [Page 300] done them any benefitt or helpe in that man­ner: by way of parenthesis I note the Latine word of heathenish custome as you Sir Humphrey translate it, is Gentilis consuetudinis. For which you are best looke in your dictionary of Tho­mas Thomasius whether among all the Englishes of Gentilis which are there sett downe you can find heathenish? Which I dare say you cannot. The Greeke word in Eusebius his text is [...] which signifieth the same that Gentilis in Lati­ne, to wit, belonging to a Countrey, people, nation, Stocke, or family: though Scapula doe add in his Lexicon that by ecclesiastical Wri­ters it is vsed to signifie heathenish or auerse from Christian religion: but it is cleare that in this place the sense requireth the plaine and natiue signification which I haue expressed in the translation: though you bee pleased to draw it violently to the worse sense. But to goe on with Eusebius, he saith following on the same discourse, that the Bishops of Hierusalem had successiuely kept and highly esteemed the Chayre of S. Iames the Apostle, and first Bishop of Hierusalem. Whereby saith hee they plainely declare how the ancient Fathers euen to our tymes haue giuen, and doe still giue dew ve­neration to holy men, for their true piety towards God. Thus Eusebius: wherein for my fidelity in citing and translating I referr my self to the iudgment of what Aristarchus soeuer you your self Sir Humphrey shall choose. And if this be true which I say out of Eusebius, [Page 301] then doth your creditt lye a bleeding. For doth not Eusebius relate this story of the Woman's sta­tua with approbation? doth he not relate a con­tinual miracle wrought by God, shewing his approbation also thereby? doth hee not ac­knowledge the vse of pictures of our Sauiour and his Apostles, as a thing coming from our ancestours? doth not he approue that custome of the Gentils in keeping the statues and thereby honouring the memory of their benefactours? doth he not acknowledge the ancient fathers were wont to honour rhe memory of holy men, by reuerencing those things that belonged vnto them? What say you to all this Sir Hum­phrey? Looke now into your owne conscien­ce, and see whether it can flatter you soe much as to say you are an honest man? Or that you haue dealt truely in this citation of Eusebius?

13. Now for the Councel of Eliberis, it is a triuial obiection, and hath beene answeared an hundred tymes ouer. 3. or 4. seuerall wayes. First the authority of the Councel is little, being an obscure prouincial Councel of, 19. Bishops onely, without any certainty of the tyme, when it was held. Neither doth it appeare that it was euer approued: to which we op­pose one of Constantinople: another at Rome vnder Greg. 3. of 3. Bishops: a third at Nice ge­neral of 350. Bishops whereof you may see more in Duran. de rit. lib. 1. cap. 5. Secondly [Page 302] it might perhapps seeme conuenient at that tyme to forbid the vse of images, in that part of Spaine, when the people being but newly conuerted from their heathenish superstition, were not throughly weaned from it, and did not vnderstand the vse of Images: soe it may be they were forbidden for a tyme onely till the people were better instructed. Thirdly that Canon forbiddeth not pictures absolutely but onely painting them on the walls: whereof there bee two reasons ordinarily giuen, but both drawne from the honour and venera­tion dew to pictures: one is because that being a tyme of persecution when the Christians were faine to fly many tymes they could not carry away or hide them being painted on the walls, as they did other sacred things; but were for­ced to leaue them to the fury and scorne of the Gentils another least the plaster breaking of in some places, they might become deformed and soe contemptible. Lastly it seemeth plainely by the Councel that it was out of honour to Images, that they did forbid it, because they thought not the walls a place conuenient. For soe it seemeth to say, Least that which is adored should bee painted on the walls. In which words it expresly ac­knowledgeth the adoration of images and be­cause they are to be adored therefore not to be painted on the walls. More you may find in others Sir Humphrey which you if you had dealt honestly should haue replied vpon, and not stood still repeating your thred bare obiections [Page 303] as if they were new.

14. But now for your authority out of the Ci­uil Law there be soe many foule fauts commit­ted by you in it that I know not where to be­gin, but begin I must: your words of it are these. The good Emperours Valens & Theodosius made proclamation to all Christians against the ima­ges of Christ in this manner. Forasmuch as we haue a diligent care in all things to maintayne the religion of the most high God, therefore we suffer not man to fashion, to graue, or paint the image of our Sauiour ei­therin colours, or in stone, or in any other kind of mettal or matter: but wheresoeuer any such image shalbe found, we command it to be taken downe, assuring our Subiects, that we will most strictly punish all such as shall presume to attempt anie thing contrary to our Decrees and commandments. Thus you praeface & cite the place. Where first you call Valens a good Emperour; whereas hee was a man farr from all goodnes: for he persecuted good Catholiques in most cruell manner, being him selfe a wic­ked Arrian Haeretique, Socr. lib. 4. cap. vl [...]. Soz. lib. 6. cap. vlt. Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 3. Cod. Theod. lib. 1. tit. 8. Nemini li­cere. vpon whom almighty God also did shew his iudments by a disastrous end. Secondly this Valens and Theodosius whom you ioyne together in making this Law, were not aliue together Valens being killed 23. yeares before Theod. was borne. For this was Theod. the younger, grand child to Theodosius the elder who came to bee Emperour in Valens his place, when he was gone. Thirdly the Law it selfe is most fowly corrupted, and the meaning wholy peruerted, for the Law was made in honor of the [Page 204] Crosse, to wit, thus. We command that it shall not be lawfull for any man to carue or paint the signe of our Sauiour Christ either on the ground, or in any stone or marble lying on the ground: which to haue beene meant in honour of our Sauiour's Crosse and picture, appeareth by a Canon of the Councel called Trullanum in these words.Con [...]. Const. in Trull. cap. 37. We command that all the figures of the crosse, that are made vpon pauements be taken away or defaced, to the end that the triumphant Signe of our Victory, be not vnwor­thily defiled by mens feete. And the very title of the Imperial Law is this. Nemini licere signum Saluatoris Christi humi vel in Silice vel in marmore, aut insculpere aut pingere. That it is not lawful for any man to paint the signe of or Sauiour vpon the groūd in flint or marble. Now your leauing out the two words humi & in solo vpon the ground, is it not a manifest corruption, both of the words and meaning of the Law? but which is more this was a corruption of which Plessy Mourney was conuinced by the Bishop of Eureux, in that publi­que assembly of France. And he labouring to ex­cuse himselfe as perhapps you will doe, said that he did not looke in the law it selfe, but had it out of one Petrus Crinitus: whom you also cite heere for author; which was shame enough for him, and will bee for you also, professing soe much Schollership as euen to write bookes: and yet not to be able to take such an authori­ty out of the original but borrow it of another or take it vpon trust, in a matter of such mo­ment: but withall it was vrged against him that [Page 205] Crinitus had beene noted by diuers learned men, to be but a bold and rash Gramarian of later tymes. Soe as Plessys was foiled on all sides, not knowing which way to turne himselfe. And Suthcliffe after him againe vndertaking the de­fence of the same cause, was worse foiled: & yet after all this Sir Hum. you are not ashamed to take vp this notorious corruption againe & vent it to the world, as if it had neuer beene excepted against but were soe authentical and good, soe free from exception, as nothing could bee more. May not you then beare away the bell from all lying and corrupting fellowes that haue euer gone before you? where is your great promise of sincerity? nay where is your shame? but I say noe more this is enough I sup­pose. Now by this any man may see whither I haue not discharged my selfe of my promise, and whither I may not henceforward when I take you tripping tell you, you Lind it?

15. Hauing then thus notoriously discouered your falshood Sir Humphrey I hope it will not be hard to persuade the Reader the same in other places heereafter which I must passe ouer more briefly, for it wilbe to long to stand vpon all, there being not that place in the whole booke, that is not either falsely, or imperti­nently alleadged. But to goe on with you; you say you forbeare to cite the particular Fa­thers, that opposed and condemned the worship of images in the Primitiue Church onely you [Page 306] will make it appeare by the confession of our learned Romanists, that we want Visibility of the ancient Church. You forbeare to cite the particular Fathers, Sir Humphrey? I cannot blame you there is good cause why? to wit, because you cannot; for if you could, it had beene as easy a matter to haue cited one Father or two, as 8. or 10. obscure and vnknowne authours: filling two whole leaues with their authorityes partly false, and partly impertinent: as I shall shew, but what Romanists are these trow you, whose confessions you bring? you haue 10. au­thours whereof there bee onely two free from exception,V. Bell. de scrip. verb. Hincmarus Rhemansis. to wit, Agobardus and Peresius who are not against vs. Hincmarus is a Catholique in­deede but that place by you cited is noted of manifest errour, not in matter of Doctrine, but in matter of fact, which he relateth of the Coun­cel of Francfort falsely; being mistaken, as our authours shew: and as I shall after declare mo­re.See Exam of Fox his Ca­lender. Nicolaus Clemangis and Polydor Virgil his worke by you cited, marked in the Romane Index: though I shall shew you to abuse Poly­dore egregiously: besids Clemangis himself is a Wickleffian haeretique. Cassāder, Erasmus, Cornelius Agrippa, Wicelius, euery man knoweth what goodly and learned Romanists they are, and of what account. The last of your Romanists is Chem­nitius in his Examen of the Councel of Trent, as good a Romanist as your selfe: who telleth vs it is not to be found that any of the Patriarches and Prophets for Fathers did adore images but that [Page 307] the scriptures cry out to worship one God & him onely to adore and glorify: and that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church did forbid the adora­tion of Images, as he saith, appeares by Epiphanius and Augustine who reckon the Worshippers of images among the Symonians and the Carpocra­tian Haeretiques. Wherein you are also pleased to shew vs a tricke of your witt: for in the text you put these words (the Councel of Francfort) in the beginning, as you doe your other au­thours, as if the text following against Images were the very words of the Councel: but in the margent you putt Chemnitius; which is wicked dealing to make the lesse careful Reader fall into error, by taking the Haeretiques words for the words of the Councel; whereas the Councel hath not one word of that, that is there sett downe, nor indeede at all of images: all that we haue is by relation of some histories; whereof 3. or 4. haue erred in the relation of a matter of fact concerning the same Councels condemning the 2. Councel of Nice as is most manifest not one­ly by contrary authorityes of greater weight, but by the very contradiction which out of ignorance, they shew in their owne narration for they say that the false Councel of Constanti­nople vnder Constantine and Irene, was condem­ned at Francfort. Which is manifestly false, there hauing neuer beene any such Councel at Constan­tinople in their two tymes,Binius in annot. ad Conc. Franc­for. 794. but because this re­quireth a longer dispute, I turne you Sir Hum­phrey to Binius, Bell, and others with them. Onely [Page 308] heere I tell you, that whereas you bring Hinc­marus his authority and the Councel of Franc­fords out of Chemnitius; Bellarmine sheweth by testimony of the same Hincmarus, the Magde­burgian's, Lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 14. and other your awne authors, that that very Councel did say Anathema to all such as deface images: is not this then abhominable falsehood in your freind Chemnitius, to cite nay forge it against images & in you follow him in it.

16. Polydore Virgil shalbe next: out of whom you say.Poly. Vir. de rerum in­uentor. lib. 6. cap. 13. The worshipping of images not onely those who knew not our religion but as S. Hierome witnes­seth almost all the anciēt Fathers condemned, for feare of idolatry. This place was brought by Dr. White in his reply to Mr. Fisher's 9. points and soe ans­weared againe in the Reioynder to his reply, as if you Sir Humphrey had had any reguard to Dr. Whites credit you would neuer haue giuen oc­casion to renew the memory thereof againe. The 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 [Page 309] 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. [Page 310] 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 [Page 311] 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 [Page 312] 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 recordandum non ad colendum. The ancients had the pictures of Saints painted or carued for history to remember not [Page 313] to bee worshipped: this it may be is it you would be at; but I answeare that both these and those of yours if there, be any such are to be vnderstood in the sense of his whole discourse, to wit, that there is noe example in the Scriptures or Fathers of such idolatrial adoratiō as he speaketh against there: which is true. Which to be his meaning I shall by and by demōstrate more plainely. Now for the last words; to wit, that images ought to be taken for an ornament to please the sight, not to instruct the people. I doe not also find them, but these. As­piciamus picturam quasi pictura sensu & ratione ca­rentem: pascatur hac visione oculus Deū vero veneretur animus. Let vs behold the picture as a picture wanting sense & reason. Let the eye be sedd which this sight but let the minde worship God: which is very true Ca­tholique doctrine: for we teach men to make a difference betweene the wood & colour of the picture or the picture in it selfe, and the thing which is by it represented: but heere is not that which you say out of him, that images are not to be vsed to instruct the people: but the contrary for in the words heere next before cited he saith they are to be vsed for history which is all one as to say for instruction. Wherefore I wonder how it should come into your head to father soe fond and senselesse a thing vpon so wise and learned a man? & soe cōtrary to the light of nature & euen to your owne practize. For if pictures may not be vsed for instructiō of the people, why do your painters drawe the King, Prince, & Lords in the parliament howse, the siege of Rochel, Berghen op Zoome, Bolduc, Breda. & the like, but for instructiō [...] [Page 316] reliques of S. Polycarpe: and withall he relateth with applause and commendation, how the people of Alexandria hauing destroyed their idols, and being conuerted to Christ soe great fer­uour of Christianity inflamed their harts, that euery one painted the signe of the Crosse on their posts, doores, windowes, walls, & pillards: and to cōclude telleth of S. Gregory the great how he reprehended the Bishop of Frioly; for beating downe out of his Curch the images of the Apos­tles, Peter and Paul, in reguard of the superstition of the vulgar sort, adoring them contrary to the rule of faith, as also for that he did not rather by his authority correct their error, letting the pic­tures stand for the memory of posterity then by indiscreete zeale beate them downe: wherein then is Agobardus different from S. Gregory, and other Fathers? nothing at all: but rather his au­thority ioyned heere together with S. Gregories in the last place may serue for answear to all the rest of your friuolous obiections which you bring to the paragraph, of the abuse and danger of images.

20. As for the abuse it is not such as you talke of; but suppose it were; that is to be taken away, as the Councel of Trent, & in it the whole Catho­lique Church doth teach: the good must not. For if euery thing should be presētly takē away, because it is ill vsed by mē, what would become of this world? You must therefore learne an axiome of the Law,De reg. iur. n 6. Vtile per inutile non vitiatur: the profitable is not vitiated or spoiled by the vnprofi­table. [Page 317] Separate that which is vnprofitable from the profitable, and keepe, the later that is the profitable or good. Which I dare boldly say is farr better to counsell, thē that which you giue, to wit, that images should be absolutely forbid­den, till some conditions sett downe by Bellar. or rather by the Councel of Trent (for they are the sa­me), be performed; which as you thinke (though falsely) are not performed, to wit, that images be honoured onely for them whom they represent, without placing cōfidence in thē, or requesting any thing of them, or cōceiuing any diuinity in thē. For where shall you find soe simple a soule one among 10000. in the Catholique Church, that doth not performe the forenamed condi­tions? or if there should be one such, silly old woman, must the other 10000. be debarred of all that fruite, & God & his Saints of all that ho­nour: that cometh by hauing, seeing, & adoring them in their images as we all doe? this Councel I say of myne, or not myne, but of the holy Ca­tholique Church, you shal find to be better, by the very testimony of Gabriel, whom you bring in reprehending the blockishnesse of some peo­ple, for not obseruing the foresaid conditions in the worshipping of images, in his 49. lect. which is the place by you cited though you Sir Humph. falsely cite it lect. 14. but that may be your prin­ters fault the title whereof is: Of the veneration of the most diuine Sacrament of the Eucharist. In which he treateth largely of three kinds of worship, Latria, Hyperdulia, and Dulia, as our Diuine doe; [Page 318] Which he saith belong properly to a rational nature, improperly to irrational; eyther in re­guard of representation, or connexion which may haue with the rational or reasonable natu­re: and then reprehending the foolishnesse of some, who neither know themselues, nor will with humility learne of others, the true nature of adoration, concludeth at last thus. Nec tamen propter hoc imagines proiiciendae sunt &c. Neither for this are images to be throwne away, or thrust out of oratories by occasion or pretence of auoyding idolatry, or pilgrimages to certaine pictures or certaine places either consecrate, or not consecrated to be reproued. Soe Gabriel which words you could not but see; if you saw the other which you cite, for they follow immediately: and therefore it had beene more honesty for you, to haue forborne the ci­ting of the former, if you did not meane to cite the later, as it seemeth you did not. For that which you conclude with comparing vs to De­metrius in the scripture, that made a liuing of ma­king siluer shrines for Diana's temple, as if we maintained images to bring money to our pur­ses, it is Lindinge Sir Humphrey, you know my meaning: you and such as you that perhaps haue had your shares in pulling downe of images and siluer shrines this last hundred yeares: are more like to be drawne with the loue of gaine, to the pulling downe of images then we that loose all for maintaining and setting them vpp: for what we and our ancestours haue parted with from our selues and out of our owne purses for [Page 319] the honour of God and his Saints you or men of your religion pull backe from God & his Saints, to bestow vpon your backs and bellyes and vpon you Ministers, their wiues, and bratts. Werefore you might haue held your peace of that matter. And soe now I conclude this §. where I hope I haue made it appeare that all your great words against Images are but 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 [Page 320] 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 [Page 321] 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 [Page 322] 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 [Page 323] 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 their subiects, though he did permitt the vse thereof to others some tymes more, sometymes lesse according to the diffe­rence of tymes, places, and persons. But this of the extent of the Popes power in this kind, is not a matter for this place, but it pertaineth to that disputation of the Popes authority in gene­ral. [Page 324] It is enough heere, if we proue the same power and vse of giuing Indulgences now, as was in most ancient tymes, as the Councel of Trent declareth and you your selfe confesse in as much as you graunt that Indulgence and Pardon was granted by the Byshops then; Which we proue to be the same now: for neither doth the Councel of Trent, stand saying who hath mo­re, or who hath lesse of that power, for that was needlesse; the question being with Haere­tiques, who denyed the power wholy to be in God's Church.

5. The difference then betweene our Indulgence, and that of the primitiue Church, is not in this: that is in the power of granting it: Wherein thē? you may say as you seeme indeede to say that it consisteth in this, that ours is by application of the merits of Christ and his Saints, which we ter­me the treasure of the Church. And that their was a free relaxation without any such reguard to this treasure. But the difference cannot also be in this: for the Bishop's power whereby he did par­don then, was grounded in the merits of Christ; for what he did, he did in the person of Christ, as S. Paul saith of himself, in forgiuing the Corinthian. Neither did he forgiue the guilt of the temporal punishment wholy gratis, or freely without any manner of satisfaction to the iustice of Almighty God, in as much at lest as these penances were imposed for satisfaction for the fault in the sight of God alsoe: this I say the Bishop neither did, nor could doe for Christ [Page 325] himself did not forgiue sinne soe: but by shed­ding of his bloud. For as S. Paul saith in lege sine sanguine non fit remissio. In the Law there is no for­giuenes without bloud. Heb. 9.22. Whereby the holy Apostle proueth that without the shedding of Christ's bloud, there is noe remission of sinne, and all forgiuenes of sinne, as well for the guilt, as pu­nishment, is dependent thereof. Wherefore what the Bishops did forgiue in this manner, they did forgiue by application of Christ his merits. Now these merits were not new, but the former merits of his life and passion: for Christ did consummate all by one entire obla­tion of himselfe as S. Paul saith:Heb. 10.14. if then it were by vertue of those merits, then must they needs lye in store ready to be applied to men, as they did dispose themselues to receiue the fruit of them, and the Pastours pleased to dispence them; and why then may not Christ's merits lying thus in store for the neede of all men, be compared to a common treasure and be called by that name? Soe farr forth then as those Pardons were grounded in Christ's merits or granted by application of them to the peni­tent, there is noe difference betweene theirs and ours.

6. Now for the merits of the Saints: you seeme to say that they had noe part in those indulgen­ces; that is, those Indulgences were not giuen by application of the merits of the Saints. But therein you are also mistaken Sir Humphrey. For euen in that place of Saint Paul, wherein [Page 326] you allow him to speake of Indulce, he saith he doth forgiue the Corithian, not onely in the per­son of Christ, but for their sakes also: which im­porteth the prayers and deserts of Saints, to haue some place in the bestowing of that indulgence, and soe likewise it was the practize of the Pri­mitiue Church, as you cannot but know, for Martyrs that had made a good confession of their faith, and endured torments for the same, to make intercession to the Bishops, for relea­sing part of the punishment dew to others, who out of weaknes failed therein: and what was this but by applying the superaboundant merits of the one, to supply the want of the other: and that this was not by way of impetration or fa­uour onely at the Bishop's hand, but by applica­tion of the very Martyr's merits, appeareth by Tertullian, Tertull. lib. de pud. cap. 12. who being become now an Haereti­que did reprehend that custome saying, that a Martyr's merits were litle enough for himselfe, without hauing any surplusage to helpe others withall: wherein yet he doth not seeme to deny this application, if men haue to spare of their owne satisfactions, as noe question many and almost all great Saints haue. For though they may continually as long as they are in this world increase in grace and merits for soe much as pertaineth to essential merit, without hauing to spare but rather still needing: which kind of merit, they cannot part with to others, yet for that other fruit of their works and sufferings, which pertaineth to satisfaction and temporal [Page 327] punishmēt dew for their owne sinnes, they may haue sufficient for themselues & to spare also to helpe others. For example a man falleth into so­me one sinne, for which he cometh to be soe sory after, that he betaketh himself to a state of penance during his whole life, leading the same in great austerity of fasting, watching, praying, and in the exercise of all Vertues: and it may be hauing first obtained pardon of the fault it self by harty contrition and humble confession, by those good works obtaineth also remission of the temporal punishment within the space of 1. 2. 3. 7. 10. or 12. yeares for examples sake: he then leading the same life still 20. 30. 40. 50. 60. yeares more as many haue done what shall be­come of all that satisfaction, which is ouer and aboue for that sinne or sinnes, which he com­mitted before? it doth not perish nor passe with­out fruite, though not of him, yet of others at least, who are members of the same mistical bo­dy with him? soe then some men haue merits superaboundant to this effect, and these merits may be communicated to other members of the same body, and these merits are not lost nor for­gotten by almighty God, though they be not applied presently; why may not they then be said to lye in deposito as money in a treasury?

7. In this therefore is not the difference betweene our Indulgence and those which you allow; wherein then? I see not vnlesse it be, that we extend our indulgence to the dead as indeed you seeme to make it in part. To this I [Page 328] may answeare first that it is another controuer­sy, or another point at least of the same contro­uersy. For Indulgences are applied in a different manner to the liuing and the dead: and that definition which you giue that Indulgence is an absolution from the guilt of temporall punish­ment doth not pertaine to the dead: for ab­solution is a iuridical act to be performed by a Superiour and iudge towards an inferiour and a subiect being vnder his power: which the soules in Purgatory are not in respect of the Pope. Wherefore you in going to indulgence for the dead seeme to allow them for the liuing, or rather shew you cannot say against them. Now for applying indulgences to the dead though the manner of application be different and that we doe not find examples altogether soe an­cient as of the former, yet the things is in some sort the same, supposing you grant the power of applying Indulgences to the liuing, as you cannot deny, your owne ground being laid; thus therefore I shew the matter to be the sa­me, supposing another point alsoe of faith, which is not heere to be disputed of, to wit, the communion of Saints, or communication which is betweene the Saints liuing and dead, either raigning in heauen or suffering in satis­faction of their sinnes in Purgatory. This I say supposed the punishment which was dew hee­re by the poenitential canons may be taken away as you confesse; which being not taken away by indulgence, nor suffered heere accor­ding [Page 329] to the Canons, must be suffered there? why may it not then be taken away by ap­plying indulgences to them there, as well as by works which other men may doe for them heere on earth. Which according to the Ca­tholique faith are auaileable for them there in Purgatory. Which communion, or communi­cation among themselues being grounded in the society and vnity which they haue with Christ, why may not the same Vnity and society be sufficient for them to partake of the merits and satisfactions of Christ and his Saints, who haue gone before, and left that treasure of their merits, as well, as by the merits and suf­ferings of men liuing heere vpon earth? there is noe difference then, nor reason why you should grant that ancient manner of indul­gence and denye ours now a dayes; or why you should grant indulgences for the liuing, and not for the dead, soe long as they pertaine to the communion of Saints, and haue neede the­reof.

8. Now for that which you adde heere to make our Indulgences applied to the soules in Purgatory ridiculous, by saying we grant them for many thousand of yeares after death, the­reto citing an old Sarum booke of the howers of our Lady: it is false and idle. False both because your authority which you cite doth not mention Purgatory, but onely saith that who­soeuer shall say these & these prayers, shall gaine [Page 330] soe many thousand yeares of pardon. Which is noe more for the dead then for the liuing, but onely that you doe not vnderstand the matter either of the one or other; or rather they are for the liuing onely. For Indulgences are not to be applyed to the dead, vnlesse that be expressed in the grant, which is not soe expressed in this grant of yours. It is also false because the very thing which you say, and would proue by your authority is false, to wit, that we giue Pardons for thousand of yeares in Purgatory after death. For we doe not soe, neyther doe we vnderstand those Pardons wherein are mentioned such numbers of yeares soe, as if men were without those Pardons to remaine soe long in Purgato­ry. But we vnderstand those yeares according to the poenitential canons, by which many yea­res penance were dew for one sinne. And many men's sinnes being both very grieuous, and a man may say without number according to the account of the ancient poenitential canons, they may soone amount to thousands of yeares; which though a man cannot liue to performe heere in this world, nor euen in Purgatory for the length of tyme, yet he may in Purgatory in few yeares space, nay few moneths or few weekes space suffer soe much punishment, as is answearable to all that penance of many thou­sands of yeares, which a man should haue per­formed heere if he could haue liued soe long: in which case a man may haue a pardon of soe many thousand yeares as well as a plenary, [Page 331] both coming to one. What strangenesse then or impossibility is therein this discourse if you did vnderstand it that you should thinke onely by a scorneful laugh to disgrace or disproue it? It is also idle for you to vrge any thing that you find in any old booke, as if that were presently of vncontrollable authority, being nothing soe. For we defend nothing but what hath suffi­cient approbation or allowance of the Catholi­que Church, which many such old books as you cite want: you should therefore haue added that withal if you had meant to proue any thing thereby.

9. Now after this, you tell vs, that long be­fore Luther's dayes by relation of Thomas Aqui­nas, whom yet you cite not but onely out of Valencia, some whereof opinion that ecclesiasti­cal Indulgence of it selfe could remitt noe pu­nishment, neither in the Court of God, nor of the Church, but that they were a pious kind of fraud to draw men to doe good works, but this opinion you say the Iesuit condemneth for erroneous? and why I pray you Sir could you not as well say that S. Thomas did condemne the same not onely for erroneous, but impious also; but onely because you would make your Reader thinke it was condemned onely by the Iesuit, and not by S. Thomas, or rather that hee did as it were winke at it: but how farre S. Tho­mas was from that, and how free on the other side any man may see, by this, that putting the question in the 1. ar. of his [...]5. q. of the Suppl. whi­ther [Page 332] indulgences auaile any thing, he maketh answeare, that all grant that they auaile some­thing, because it were impious saith he, to say that the Church did doe any thing in vayne: and in the 2. art. asking how much they auaile, he saith that some say they auaile to euery one but according to their faith and deuotion he himsef saith, it is very perilous to say that they doe not auaile soe much as they sound: that is, to soe much effect or pardon, as they are giuen for. Wherefore the antiquity of this opinion no­thing auaileth you but rather doth you harme it being then condemned for an errour: as li­kewise it auaileth you not, that you bring halfe a dozen of our authours, witnessing that there is noe expresse proofe of Scripture nor of some ancient Fathers, as S. Aug. Hilary, Am­brose, &c. for Indulgences. For we grant there is not soe expresse mention of them as of many other points, because there was not soe much vse of them, though out of some Fathers also much more ancient then S. Aug. Hilary Ambro­se, &c. we proue the vse of them, to wit, out of S. Cyprian and Tertullian as you may see in Bell. the one aboue 100.Lib. 1. de in­dulg. cap. 3. the other aboue 200. before any of these Fathers, and besides them the au­thority of certaine Councels as that of Nice, Ancyra and Laodicea though if we had not either of these Fathers, nor any els, nor of these Councels yet would not that follow which you ground therevpon, to wit, that we want anti­quity and consent of Fathers. For it is a most [Page 333] stronge argument of antiquity, that it is the practise of the Catholique Church, tyme out of mind; and of consent that noe man is found to haue spoken against it, but onely knowne Haeretiques such as the Waldenses who were the first impugners of Indulgences: Bell. lib. 1. de indulg. cap. 1 therefore you are still out of your bias, when you thinke to proue the nouelty of our doctrine, by our want of testimony of antiquity. For though we haue such testimony for superaboundant proofe, yet it is enough that such a thing is thaught and practized in Catholique Church, without any memory when it beganne, for that is S. Augustines rule continually to proue a thing not onely ancient, but euen Apostolical.

10. But now to come to your authours in particular you bring Durand in the first place saying that there can be little said of certainty concerning Indulgences. ap. Bell. lib. 1. de indulg. cap. 2. Whereto I answeare that it is true, Durand doth not speake soe constantly and resolutely of the threasure of the Church, in as much as it consisteth of the sa­tisfaction of Saints, whereon Indulgences are partly grounded; but he is farr from any haere­tical and pertinacious denial thereof, much lesse of Indulgences; for, supposing them as a thing most certaine, he disputeth Theological questions of them as other Diuines of his tyme did: and making this the first question:Dur. in 4. dist. 20. q. 3. an ali­quid valeant indulgentiae: whether Indulgences auaile any thing, after the manner of Schooles he putteth two arguments against them in the first [Page 334] place and then cometh with his argument, Sed contra agreeing for the most part with his con­clusion and agreeing expresly in this place, he saith thus. In contrarium est generalis consuetudo & doctrina ecclesiae quae contineret falsitatem nisi per in­dulgentias dimitteretur aliquid de poena peccatori de­bita. On the contrary is the general custome and doc­trine of the Church which would containe falshood if some thing of the punishment dew to a sinner should not be forgiuen by indulgences; and then hauing sett downe his resolution that there cannot be much said of certaine because neither the Scri­pture maketh mention of them nor some holy Fathers, whom he there nameth, yet he conclu­deth that in speaking of Indulgences; the common manner is to bee followed: and soe goeth on with other questions, per quem modum valeant, ex qua causa vaeleant, quis eas possit concedere: in what māner they auaile, out of what cause, who cā graunt thē, &c. nay and for the treasure of the Church though by way of theological dispute in one place he make some doubt of it, yet in others he speaketh plainely and clearely in these words.Dur. 4. dist. 20. q. 3. Est in eccle­sia, &c. There is in the Church a spiritual Treasure of the Passion of Christ and the Saints who endured much greater torments then their sinnes deserued and therefore the Church may out of this treasure communi­cate to one or more what may bee sufficient to satisfy for their sinnes either in part or in whole according as shall please the Church to communicate this treasure more or lesse which are nothing els but the communi­cation of the paine of Christ and the Saints to vs [Page 333] to satisfy for our sinnes. Wherefore indulgences auaile by way of solucion or payment in as much as by Christ and his Saints the paine dew to vs is payd. So farr this author most clearely, truely, & Ca­tholiquely; though after againe he somewhat doubt of this treasure, as I said before, in as much as it consisteth of the satisfactions of Saincts. Now for the very place which you alleadge you committ a fault in making it seeme as if he said the ancient Fathers in general did not make any mention of Indulgences, and that he did name S. Ambrose S. Hilar. S. Aug. and S. Hierome onely for examples sake: whereas it is farr otherwise. For presently after he nameth S. Greg. and saith of him that he did institute indulgences at the Stations in Rome. Soe as it is plaine he spoke onely of those 4. not of all the Fathers in general. And soe much for Durand.

11. As for Alphōsus à Castro another of your au­thors, he denieth not all testimony of Scriptu­re, as none of the rest doe, but onely plaine & expresse testimony; and though he also confesse the vse of Indulgences not to haue beene soe much in those ancient tymes, as since, yet he alloweth of them soe farr, as to condemne any man for an Haeretique that shall deny them: these are his words.Alph. a Castr. de hae­res. lib. 8. verb. Indul­gent. Verum etsi pro indulgentiarum approbatione, S. Scripturae testimonium apertum desit, non tamen ideo contemnendae erant, quoniam ecclesiae. Catholicae vsus a multis annorum centurijs, tantae est authoritatis, vt qui illum contemnat haereticus merito [Page 334] censeatur. But though there want open testimony of Scripture for approbation of Indulgences, they are not therefore to bee contemned, because the vse of the Catholique church for many hundreds of yeares, is of soe great authority, that whosoeuer contemned the same is worthely esteemed an haeretique. And againe in the same place. Apud Romanos vetustissimus praedicatur illarum (to wit, indulgentiarum) vsus vt ex Stationibus Romae frequentissimis vtrumque colligi potest. Among the Romans this vse of Indul­gences is said to be most ancient as may be somewhat gathered by the most frequent Statiōs at Rome Looke you Sir Humphrey what a witnesse you haue brought for your selfe? Doe you not see how new he maketh this Doctrine of Indulgences; Confessing euen the vse of them to be most an­cient and of many hundred yeares standing? nay doth he not in the same place acknowledge that S. Gregory the great and first Pope of that name did graunt some Indulgences, which is aboue a thousand yeares? Doe you not heare how much he giueth to the Church acknowled­ging the practise thereof to bee of soe great authority that whosoeuer denyeth the truth of a thing soe practised is worthily to be counted an Haeretique? What thinke you now of your selfe? to be called haeretique out of your owne mouth as it were, that is out of your author's mouth whom you bring for you? For Castro his authority then though it had beene more for you then it is in this matter of Indulgences yet you had beene better haue let it alone then to haue it with such a condition. The like a man [Page 335] may say of euery author you bring heere for the same purpose but that it is needlesse to stand soe long vpon examining euery one in particular.

12. Now after such good authorityes as you bring against Indulgences you thinke you may with authority prate very freely of the Popes selling of Indulgences, and bringing money to his owne coffers by them, but to that I neede make noe other answeare but that it is such 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 [Page 336] 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 [Page 337] 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 [Page 338] 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 [Page 339] contentiosus esse nos talem consuetudinem non habemus neque ecclesia Dei. If any man seeme to be contentious we haue noe such custome, nor the Church of God. And soe much more may we now say of our long continued customes of many hundreds of yeares. Wherefore your exception Sir Hum­phrey against the Councel of Trent for defining this matter of Indulgences, without such testimony of scripture & antiquity as you require, is vaine; as that is also false which you heere againe re­peate, that an article of faith cannot be warran­table without authority of scriptures. For faith is more anciēt then Scripture: for to say nothing of the tymes before Christ, faith was taught by Christ himself without writing, as also by his Apostles after him for many yeares without any word written, and soe it hath beene euer the common consent of all holy and learned men that as noe lesse credit was to be giuen to the Apostolical preaching, then Writing; soe noe lesse creditt is still to be giuen to their words de­liuered vs by tradition, then by their writings, the credit and sense euen of their writings de­pending vpon the same tradition, among whom the cleane contrary principle is as certaine and vndoubted, as this of yours is with you and yours Ministers.

14.See Tert. de praescr. cap. 21. Epiph. Chri­sost. Basil. The particular testimonyes you may see in Bellarmine to whom I remitt you onely for S. Aug. I cannot omitt to make more par­ticular mention of him in this place, by rea­son of a certaine sentence which you haue [Page 340] brought in the end of this §. as alsoe of euery one of the 6.Damascen. & alios. ap. Bell. de verb. Dei. lib. 4. cap. 7. foregoing §§. still cōcluding with this saying of that holy Father. Siue de Christo, fiue &c. Whether concerning Christ, or concerning the Church, or concerning any other thing that pertayneth to our faith, I will not say we, who are noe way to bee compared to him that said, but if an Angel from heauen shall preach vnto you beside what you haue receiued in the legal and euangelical scriptures, lett him be anathema. And in the end of euery one for the most part adding the particular controuersy of that §. as for example in this of Indulgences you say, if wee or an Angel from heauen preach vnto you any thing concerning the faith of Indulgences, besids that you haue receiued &c. and soe in euery of the other particular points. Whereby you would perswade your Reader that Saint Aug. would haue nothing beleiued but what can bee proued by expresse words of Scripture. Wherein I appeale to your owne conscience as bad as it is, whither this be not damnable dishonest dealing both towards S. Aug. and towards your Reader. For if you haue read S. Aug. as you pretend, how can you be ignorant how many points of faith he doth defend against seueral Haeretiques either onely or chiefly by the tradition and Practise of the Ca­tholique Church: De Bap. c [...]nt Donat. lib. 2. cap. 7. & lib. 5. cap. 23. as single Baptisme against the Donatists, Consubstantiality of the sonne, Diui­nity of the Holy Ghost, and euen vnbegottenesse of the Father the first person in Trinity against the [Page 341] Arrians: and the Baptisme of Children against Pe­lagius? to say nothing of prayer for the Dead. Cont. Maxi. lib. 3. cap. 3. & ep. 174. de Genes. ad literam lib. 10. cap. 23. De cura pro mortuis. ep. 118. Ob­seruation of the Feasts of Easter, Ascension, Whitsuntide and the like; nay this truth was so grounded with him, that he counted it most insolēt madnesse to dispute against the common opinion and practize of the Catholique Church. Which is of soe great authority with him as that he saith in one place that when we follow it, we follow the truth of the Scriptures; these are his words. Scripturarum a nobis tenetur veritas cum id facimus &c.Lib. 1. cont. Crescon. cap. 33. The truth of the Scripture is held by vs when we doe that which seemeth good to the whole Church: which Church the authority of the Scriptures themselues doe commend, that because the holy Scripture cannot deceiue whosoeuer is afraid to bee deceiued by the obscurity of this questiō may haue recourse to the Church, the which the holy Scripture without any ambiguity doth demonstrate vnto vs: soe he there: and, that it may farther appeare that to deny this authority and practize of the Church is not onely to deny the authority of Scripture but euen of Christ himselfe. I cannot heere omitt to note a place of the same Saint his booke de vnit. ec­clesiae. Where hee treateth this very point very particularly and excellently soe as to take away all doubt of his opinion therein. For heere he doth of purpose intend to shew that where plaine proofe of Scripture is wanting we must haue recourse to the Church: prouing it thus, by occasion of the question of rebaptization and supposing that there is noe proofe of Scripture [Page 340] [...] [Page 341] [...] [Page 342] either way. Puto si aliquis sapiens &c. I thinke (saith hee) if there were any wise man of whom our Sauiour had giuen testimony (to wit,Aug. de Vnit. eccles. cap 22. of his wisedome) and that he should be asked in this que­stion we should not doubt to doe what he should say lest we should seeme to gainesay not him soe much as Christ by whose testimony hee was commended. Now Christ beareth witnesse of his Church. And a little after againe he saith, that Whosoeuer refuseth to follow the practize of the Church doth resist our Sa­uiour himself. Who by his testimony commendeth the Church. By which discourse and comparison any man may see that in S. Augustines iudgment the Churches word is warranted by Christ as much as if he should haue named any one man in par­ticular whose words he would make good and whom consequently we should follow & that by refusing or leauing him: we should leaue Christ himself. Soe as nothing can be more plaine and euident to declare this holy Fathers opinion in this point of the Churches authority in the beleife and practize euen of things not expressed in Scripture. And this may sufficiently cōuince you Sir Humphrey of malicious deceipt, in al­leadging that other place of this holy Father soe contrary to his meaning, declared in soe many places, and soe plainely.

15. But because you may yet make difficulty in this testimony, which you alleadge as though it alone should stand against all other that can be alleadged out of him, and that noe interpre­tation of any man els, can be able to satisfy you, I will alleadge his owne words interpreting [Page 343] the meaning of S. Paul's words, which he allead­geth & vseth in this testimony to shew that the word (beside) doth not import, that a man must not beleeue any thing but that which is expres­sed in Scripture, but that a man must not belee­ue any thing contrary. For thus he saith. The Apostle did not say if any man euāgelize to you more then you haue receiued,Aug. to. 98. in Io. but beside that which you haue receiued. For if he should say that, he should praeiudicate (that is goe against) himselfe, who coueted to come to the Thessalo­nians that he might supply that which was wan­ting to their faith. But he that supplieth addeth that which was lacking taketh not away that which was &c. These are the Saint's very words in that place. By which it is plaine that he ta­keth the word (praeter) beside not in that sense as to signify more then is written as you would vnderstād it; but to signify the same that (contra) against or cōtrary to what is written. For other­wise there would be noe sense in his saying or opposition cōsisting of two members with dif­ference of the one from the other. Which to be his meaning is yet more plaine by his whole dis­course, which is to shew what māner of know­ledge or priuate reuelation is to bee admitted: & indeede there hee alloweth of such as it not a­gainst the rule of the Catholique faith contra regulam Catholicae fidei: & reprehends only in Haeretiques such kind of knowledge as is also contrary or against the rule of faith, and then obiecting this very place which you soe often repeate out of S. Paul to himself, he answeareth it by expounding [Page 344] the word praeter in the same sense with contra. Which standeth very well also with the pro­priety of the Latine word: and for the Greeke it the same both heere Gal. v. 8. and Rom. 16.17. Where there is a like sentence of S. Paul's wi­shing the Romanes to marke & auoyd such as putt scandals and stumbling blocks contrary to the doctrine, which they had receiued. The word I say is the same; (1) [...] with an accusatiue case which doth signify as well if not better contra then praeter; and in your owne bibles you translate it in that place to the Romanes contrary to the doctrine. I see not therefore why you should not vnderstand it alike in both places? But to retourne to S. Augustine, the thing being soe; I may iustly aske of you Sir Humphrey whe­ther you haue not soe often affronted this holy Father as you haue repeated this sentence soe contrary to his meaning, in your owne most false and absurd sense, to the subuersion of your Readers, drawing his words from their true Catholique sense which he hath soe often and soe seriously inculcated vpon seueral occasions, to the establishing of your peruerse and haere­tical principles, soe much by him euer detested. But there is a countinge day Sir Humphrey, as litle as you thinke of it, for this & all other mat­ters, wherein also this Saint will reckon with you in particular & you are like to feele the hea­uy doome of him and all others whom you haue soe freely affronted in this kind. But meane while I trust in the goodnes of God by the [Page 345] prayers of this holy Saint that those well mea­ning people that shall take the paines for their owne soules good to peruse this answeare, wilbe able thereby to discouer, and proclame to others soe much of your dealing, as that any thing you haue said, or shall euer say will be able to doe little harme to any, but such as shall wilfully runne vpon their owne ruine. And soe Sir Humphrey I shall make an end of this §. and Section wherein is contained the cheife matter of your whole booke soe as I hope there wilbe lesse to doe with that which followeth.

[...]
[...]

Chap. 10.Of the 10. Section entituled thus. The te­stimonyes of our aduersaryes touching the infallible certainty of the Pro­testant faith and the vncer­tainty of the Romish. CHAPTER X.

1. SIr Humphrey hauing in the two former Sections proued the antiquity and Vni­uersality of his faith both in general & in par­ticular, (as he would haue vs thinke;) cometh now to proue the certainty thereof and vncer­tainty of ours. Where a man would expect he should bring some new thing either reason or authority, but he doth neither, but onely vpon the rotten ground which he supposeth he hath laid very soundly in the precedent Sections, he goeth on very confidently with the certainty of his faith, and making a short preface, how he hath out of our owne authours proued, that the faith & doctrine now taught in the Church of Rome was not knowne informer ages: and that though the Priests, especially Iesuits are bound by oath to maintaine the Papacy, yet that it can not be denied, but that we haue te­stified against our selues in behalfe of his doc­trine, and howsoeuer we excuse the matter, yet [Page 347] we are diuided among our selues, and soe want vnity of faith. After this preface I say, he ma­keth a short reuiew of our confessions for him, in matter of Iustification, transubstantiation, priuate Masse, Sacraments, Communion in one kinde, prayer in an vnknowne tongue, Worshipping of Images and Indulgences. Vpon which he calleth men & An­gels to witnesse, that we haue noe antiquity, & vniuersality, and that consequently we haue resolued the grand question touching their Church before Luther, to wit, that it was in Christ, in the Apostles, in the Fathers, in the boso­me of the ancient Church before Luther's tyme. This is the summe of almost halfe this Sectiō, in all which I must appeale, gentle Reader, to thy indifferent iudgment. Whether there be a true word or noe? For supposing that thou hast read what is gone before, thou wilt easily see, that though it were not my taske heere to proue the antiquity of the points of our Faith, or vniuersality, or any thing els; but onely to answeare the fond obiections of Sir Humphrey; Yet I haue accidentally and by the way proued the same in most points, and by the same au­thours, and places, which he bringeth against vs; and his fayling in his proofes of our no­uelty, is sufficient proofe of our antiquity, and his owne nouelty.

2. What a shameful boast then is it for him to say, that most of our points now taught were vnknowne to antiquity: For though some might perchance not haue beene soe anciently [Page 348] defined, and consequently doubted of by some, yet to say they were not commonly beleiued and much more to say they were not knowne, cannot come frome any man but such a blinde but bold Bayard as Sir Humphrey Linde. For if one man or two doubt of a thing, must it there­fore be vnknowne? when not onely one or two on the other side, but two for one, or rather ten, nay a hundred for one say the contrary. Now lett him name that one of his points of faith heere by him disputed, wherein not onely since it was defined, which is enough for our purpo­se, but euen before that; we shall not bring him a great many, that held that way, which it was defined, for euery one of those that held the other way. How then could it be vn­knowne? The next thing in his praeface is of an Oath, which our Priests, especially Iesuits take, to defend the Papacy and doctrine of the Church of Rome. But if a man should aske him where he findeth this Oath, he would not be able soe readily to tell vs; though if he could, I see not why any man should be ashamed of it: nay why he should not glory of soe heroical an act, as is an oath: whereby he bindeth him­self to the defence of the authority, whereon the waight & frame of the whole Catholique Church, and saluation of all soules from Christ his owne tyme to the very end of the world, hath, doth, and still shall depend. But this I onely note for the Knight's ignorance; for I beleeue the thing he would be at, is the fourth vow of the Iesuits, [Page 349] Whereby they specially bind themselues in O­bedience to the Sea Apostolique, to goe in Mis­sion to any part of the world, whether infidel or haeretique; which is a little different at least from that which he talketh of an oath to defend the Papacy.

3. The third thing in his praeface is want of Vnity wherewith he chargeth vs. Whereof I onely say that as we confesse there may be difference of iudgments before a definition of faith, soe lett him shew the diuision after such definition. Lett him name that man, and we will giue him leaue to take him for his owne, to encrease his Church and make vpp his number of learned men: for noe man but an haeretique can dispute against what is once defined. Catholique Doctors may indeede differ in opinion soe long as a thing is vnde­fined. For soe long it is not faith, but when it is once defined they must be silent and con­curre all in one, because then it is matter of faith. Which agreement and concurrence of opinion in such a case sheweth there was still before a kind of radical vnion, that is, a praepa­ration of mind or promptnes to submitt to Au­thority of the Church when it should shew it self: Wherefore whatsoeuer hee or any man els shall say of our differences are but arguments for the vnity and certainty of our beleife.

4. Now for his reuiew of all his. 8. points, it is but a reuiew indeede; wherein he taketh all that he said before for true, as if [Page 350] he had carried all smooth before him, which prouing quite contrary, all this reuiew and discourse builded thereon, falleth to the ground. Neither will I stand examining them all heere againe, but remitt the Reader to what is said particularly of each one in his owne place. Onely heere I will reflect vpon his conclusion, which is a witnessing of men and Angels, that we haue noe antiqui­ty and Vniuersality for proofe of our articles. For his protestations and witnessings, there are many examples gone before which shew how foolish, false, and hypocritical they are: of this therefore I say noe more, but that it may goe with the rest. But I aske him how he proueth, we haue noe antiquity? For his first point, he laboureth to proue a­gainst our Iustification by words out of a Ri­tual in S. Anselmes dayes some fiue hun­dred yeares since, that the sicke party was to putt all his trust in Christ's merits. Which thing I shewed to be nothing against vs. Wherein then hath he derogated from the antiquity and Vniuersality of our Doctrine? and though that proofe had beene good, that is to say, against what we teach of iustifi­cation, what could the bare authority of soe late a worke haue preiudiced our antiquity, which we maintaine 1000. yeares before that tyme? Or what could that doctrine taught in such an obscure booke of I know not whose writing, nor of what authority and but in a [Page 351] corner of the world, praeiudice the Vniuer­sality of our doctrine taught in all tymes, in all countryes, by Fathers and Doctors in their seueral tymes, and in general Councels? or doth it shew his doctrine to be ancient because it was taught 500. since, or Vniuer­sal because it was taught in England? noe such matter. In his second point of transubstan­tiation he bringeth one man saying the words of consecration doe not of themselues with­out the explication of the Church proue the realnes of Christ's praesence in the Sacrament, another man saying they doe not proue tran­substantiation, or that it was defined but in the Councel of Lateran about 500. yeares agoe, to which: We answeare againe that those one or two say nothing against vs, in the points of controuersy with haeretiques, and euen in that which they teach contrary to the com­mon consent of Diuines, though in matters not defined, we say they are reproued not by one or two, but by all the whole current of Catholique Diuines, what is this then against the antiquity of our Doctrine? or doth it proue his Doctrine to be ancient or vniuersall? nay doth it proue it any Doctrine at all? For what can any man tell by this what he beleeues, much lesse whi­ther it be true or noe which he beleeueth? may not another man that denieth the Protestant-Lord's-Supper proue the anti­quity and vniuersality of his doctri­ne or rather his denyal of doctrine [Page 352] as the Knight doth his, and by the same argu­ment: Because a man denieth one point of ours, doth he presently allow all his? may not he find a third way of his owne different from both: and if the Reader please to marke it, all the knights proofe of antiquity is the denial or doubt made by some one of our Wri­ters though that one of ours be much more a­gainst him in other things, as a man may see both in Caietane, Scotus, and the rest as I said before. His discourse then in this is as deuoyd of reason, as his Doctrine is of anti­quity.

5. In his [...]. point, he bringeth a great many authorityes to proue that anciently the people did communicate euery day with the Priest, which we grant: and aske againe what this derogateth from the antiquity of our Doctrine or how it proueth that a Priest is bound to forbeare saying Masse, if there be noe body to communicate or that it is ill and vnlawfull for him to say Masse in that case? or how it proueth the antiquity or vniuersality of his doctrine, that denieth all Masse? nay doe not we moreouer ex abun­danti proue, that the custome of the peo­ples daily Communion did cease, euen in the Primitiue Church, and yet that some Priests did say Masse daily? Doe not wee then proue our antiquity not onely by dis­proofe of his erroneous nouelty, but euen by positiue proofes drawne from antiquity? [Page 353] Concerning the number of Sacraments he saith, some teach there be 3. some 4. some 5. some 6; that some say of this Sacrament it was not instituted by Christ, others of that, some say this Sacrament is not proued out of this place of Scripture, another not out of the other. Now suppose all this were true, as I haue disproued him almost in eue­ry word he saieth, and shewed his folly, Doth this proue the antiquity or vniuersality of his Doctrine? is not the number of 5. or 6. as farre from his number of two, as from ours of 7. and the number of 3. or 4. as in­compatible with his number of two as with ours of seauen? What madnes is it then in a man, to thinke by this disprouing of our number, to thinke his owne to be soe presently proued, as if a man could not deny 7. but hee must affirme onely two? For as for his proofe out of some Fathers, naming of two, he confesseth others name three, others 5. some more some lesse: which he bringeth to disproue our seauen: but how doth it stand with his two? Soe of his Com­munion in one Kind he saith out of many of our authors it was anciently vsed in both, and we grant it; but we say it was also vsed in One many tymes, and might haue beene more and may also be now in One or both, as it shall seeme good to the Church, according to diuers circumstances, [Page 354] in whose power is the administration of the Sacraments. How doth the affirming of the for­mer part, or denying of the later proue the an­tiquity of his doctrine which is, that it is not lawful to administer in one kind. For publique Prayer he saith out of some of our authors, it was vsed in a knowne tongue in the Primitiue Church. We grant it and say it is soe still. For as Hebrew, Greeke and Latine were then the most knowne tōgues in which onely the Scrip­tures were written and publiquely read, soe the same languages are still vsed partly because they are sacred and partly because they are most knowne. What then maketh that against our Latine Masse? or rather is it not a proofe of our antiquity and disproofe of his nouelty? Against image-worship he talketh of the 2. Cōmaunde­ment, and the hate of the Iewes against Images. Hee bringeth the testimonyes of some Haereti­ques against them, and the saying of some one Diuine of the manner of worshipp, and the re­prehēsion of others against the abuses commit­ted in the adoration of them: out of all which setting the testimonyes of Haeretiques a part, I aske what he would conclude? Or how he dis­proueth our Worship which we allow? or how the reprehension of abuses in some of the sim­pler sort of Catholiques, suppose there be some such abuses, proueth the lawfulnes of his Ima­ge breaking, or the truth and antiquity of his doctrine? though his Doctrine, in this point [Page 355] be but onely the denial of ours. Now we proue ouer and aboue out of ancient Fathers and Coun­cels the antiquity of our Worshipping of Saints and their pictures. Lastly of Indulgences he saith out of some of our Diuines, that there is noe expresse testimony of Scripture and Fathers for the antiquity of them. To which wee an­sweare that as, this notwithstanding these very men doe not deny the antiquity of Indulgences for want of such proofe, soe others also proue the ancient vse of them, euen out of other most ancient Fathers of the primitiue Church. How­soeuer the controuersy amongst those Diuines is not of the Indulgences themselues, or doctri­ne, but onely of the Vse of them: or suppose it were soe that one or two Diuines did thinke amisse of them, doth that proue the antiquity of his Doctrine? may not those very Diuines, be against him in other things. What ancient au­thor of authority hath he brought to proue his Doctrine? not Durand, nor any man els who­soeuer is by him pretended to thinke hardest of them: & though he had Durand wholy for him, how could his bare authority or saying make the denying doctrine ancient being but 400. yeares agoe, or vniuersal being but one man and contradicted by others.

6. And thus hauing made a reuiew op­posite to his, I would faine see what any man can find should moue Men, much lesse Angels to witnesse the antiquity or vniuersality of his Doctrine? nay doth not his manner [Page 356] of proofe rather shew the sleightnes and no­uelty thereof together with the strange vanity of a brauing Knight that braggeth his Church before Luther was in Christ, in the Apostles, in the Fathers, in the bosome of the ancient Church: praetending right to the Fathers, A­postles, and CHRIST without shewing any shaddow of Succession, that being the onely thing which he was to haue done hee­re, and indeede the onely proper proofe for a man that will professe right to such ancestors. And this was indeede the proofe which Ter­tullian did exact at the hands of some Haereti­ques who claymed antiquity and would needs haue their Doctrine passe for Apostolique be­cause they were in the Apostles tymes.Tert. de praescr. cap. 32. Edant ergo, saith he, origines ecclesiarum suarum, euol­uant ordinem Episcoporum suorum, ita per Successio­nes ab initio decurrentem, vt primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis &c. Let them shew the be­ginnings of their Churches, let them vnroull or lay open the order or Catalogues of their Bishops soe run­ning by Successions from the beginning, that that first Bishop had for author or Praedessor some one of the Apostles, or Apostolical men, who yet haue perseuered with the Apostles. For in this manner the Apostolique Churches draw downe their pedigrees, as the Church of Smyrna recounteth Polycarpe placed by Iohn, the Roman church Clement ordained by Peter: & soe other Churches shew whom they haue had placed Bishops by the Apostles, as it were branches of the Apostoli­cal seede. Let the Haeretiques faigne any such thing. [Page 357] Soe he. Doe you heare Tertullian Sir Humphrey? bragg then if you thinke good still, we giue you leaue, that your Church was anciently in Christ, in the Apostles, Fathers, and bosome of the an­cient Church, without shewing any such Suc­cession of Bishops drawne downe from the Apostles.

7. Now then that you haue spoken soe well of the certainty of your owne beleife, let vs heare what you say of the vncertainty of ours, where­with you begin thus. That for farther proofe of your cause, you will giue another summons to the prime men euen of our grand inquest, who without partiality will testify on your behalfe, that your Church is built vpon a more stable and sure foundation, then the now Romane Church; and that your doctrine is more fruiteful and pro­fitable, and euery way more safe and comforta­ble for the beleife of euery Christian, and salua­tion of the beleeuer. Which you proue laying way for a ground what Bellarmine saith, that noe man can be certaine by the certainty of faith, that he doth receiue a true Sacrament; be­cause that depends vpon the intention of the Minister, whereof noe man can be certaine. By which one tenet (you say,) we ouerthrow all certainty of true faith. Which you exemplify in Baptisme wherein if there want the intention of the Baptizer, the Baptized is still an heathen, and in state of damnation: Soe of Order if the inten­tion of the Ordainer faile, it is noe Sacrament; and consequenty, if this intention were wanting [Page 358] in the ordination of Popes, all succeeding Ordi­nations would be void soe also. Of Matrimony if the intention of the Minister want, it is but Fornication, &c. Thus you rowle on Sir Hum­phrey in your discourse, but you must giue vs leaue to haue a word or two with you, before you goe farther. You giue another summōs to the prime men of our grand inquest, wherein notwithstanding I doe not find that you ob­serue any order or number of your Iurours, as is wont to be obserued in a Iury: Wherevpon I began to thinke that you vsed this phrase of summons, and grand inquest, for the euer honoured memory of your deare deceased Fa­ther who was one of the most famous grand iury men of Middlesex in his tyme, from whom it seemeth you haue learned onely the name of a grand inquest, but not the right order of im­panelling your iury, nor euen the right num­ber of your Iurours. The foreman of your iury (though you call him not soe) is Bellarmine; whom you make to giue vp his verdict against the certainty of our faith, because he saith noe man can be certaine he receiueth a true Sacra­ment. Which you say ouerthroweth all cer­tainty of faith. But I pray you good Sir Hum­phrey say truely, are you in earnest or in iest? me thinkes by the matter you should meane onely in iest it is soe idle: but though this were your best excuse, yet because you may take that ill I take you in earnest, as you seeme to [Page 359] meane it, and aske what certainty you or any Protestant hath, or can haue that you are Christians, if you thinke that your Christia­nity dependeth vpon the Sacrament of Baptis­me. If you thinke it doe not, (as it is the doctrine of the Puritans indeede;) that Ba­ptisme is not any cause of grace, but onely a signe or seale of the adoption, which they re­ceiue by carnal propagation from their faith­full parents; and it seemeth also yours, by what you say both heere and before in your 4. §. of Sacraments in the definition of a Sa­crament; if, I say, you thinke soe, then I con­fesse you neede not feare the Minister's want of intention, but that pertaineth to another disputation: but yet you haue as little cer­tainty or lesse of your christendome still, for what know you whither your Parents were of the faithfull, or noe; that is, whither they did beleiue there was a God, or what they did beleiue of him: and soe of your owne Children if their christendome depend vpon yours or your wiues faith, it may be they may bee much more vncertaine thereof, then we are by depending vpon our Priests inten­tion; for noe man can know your inward beleife: but find you what you will, we shall still find some man's intention or other that shall make your faith or Christendome vn­certaine, vnlesse you can proue you were [Page 360] Christned by God himselfe: which sure you will not goe about to doe.

8. But howsoeuer you extenuate the force and necessity of Baptisme, for Matrimony, I suppo­se you will not wholy abrogate it, though you put it out from among the Sacraments; and of it I aske what certainty you can haue of the law­fulnes of your owne Marriage, or legitimation of you children? You cannot say but the validity of that contract dependeth vpon the intention and consent of the partyes, though not of your Minister; as wee alsoe say it dependeth not vpon the intention of our Priest, but of the partyes which marry, which we say commonly are the Ministers in this Sacrament. Wherefore if (for example) your wife had no intention when she spake the words of Marriage, it is noe Marriage but fornication and consequently your Chil­dren are bastards, nay though the matter should haue depended wholy vpon your owne inten­tion in your marriage and that you be a great deale more sure of it then you can be as it is now depending vpon your wiues intention also, yet is that surety farre from the certainty of diuine faith, and soe you are in noe better case for that matter then wee. For Order I might likewise instance the same among you but a small deale of Order serues your turnes, for I see not any thing done by vertue of your Ordination; which any man or woman may not doe without it. Therefore for vs I answeare, it is cleane a diffe­rent thing of the certainty of the Catholique [Page 361] faith, which we maintaine, and of euery man's priuate or particular beleife of his owne iustifi­cation, or saluation which we deny to be soe certaine, the one being grounded vpon the au­thority of God's diuine truth and reuelation, the other vpon humane knowledge, or rather coniecture; it is one thing to say there be 7. Sa­craments, and that these Sacraments, doe giue grace, where they are duely administred, with all things requisite on the part both of the giuer and receiuer; and another to say they are soe to me: that is that in my receiuing of any one of them, all things haue concurred both on the Priests part and myne; the former is reuealed by God, and propounded by his Church; the later is not reuealed in any scripture, and therefore by your owne rule can be noe matter of faith. For the inconuenience therefore which you say may follow (though any way that you can inuent, I doe not thinke but there wilbe two for one, and farre greater) I answeare, that though in matter of Baptisme, Ordination &c. there may happen some defect in this, or that particular case for want of intention, matter, forme, or the like, yet it belongeth to the prouidence of almighty God, not to permitt any vniuersal or euen great defect to happen and soe though we be not cer­taine by certainty of diuine faith, that this or that man in particular is truely baptized, and or­dained a Priest, yet we are certaine by the cer­tainty of diuine faith, that not onely there be such Sacraments but that they are also truely [Page 362] administred in the Catholique Church soe as there can be noe danger of the fayling of either, or of any danger which may ensue therevpon, to the notable praeiudice of faith and saluation of soules; and withall though we be not certaine by certainty of faith of euery particular, yet wee haue moral certainty, that is as much certainty as there can be of any humane thing, which dependeth of the action or intention of any man; which as we see it is enough for men to rest themselues secure in all worldy matters, concerning their liues, and goods, which most men prize aboue their soules, soe it may also giue a man sufficient security in matters of his soule, especially since as we say, if he be not wanting to himself, almighty God will not of his goodnes suffer him through another man's fault to want any thing necessary for his saluation: but will in­cite him to contrition for forgiuenes of his sin­nes, or to make doubt and seeke whether he haue those necessary thinges or noe? But yet with this security there remaineth a place for an holy feare which may keepe downe our pride and make vs shake of all torpour exer­cizing our selues in good workes and wor­king our saluation with feare and trembling. But of this kind of faith it is not that wee meane when wee dispute with haeretiques of the certainty of true faith, but of faith as it is a be­leife and doctrine deliuered in general abstrac­ting from this or that man, whether he beleeue [Page 363] aright or be certaine of his beleife, that is, that he beleeueth; wherefore Sir Humphrey in chan­ging the question, herein, you committ a notable grosse aequiuocation of termes which is a fowle fault in a Scholler as you are for­sooth.

9. But from this you passe to another point of vncertainty, or rather an other kind of proofe of our vncertainty thus. You say we are vncertaine whether the Saints heare our prayers or not: and whither some that we pray vnto be Saints in heauen or diuels in hell: the later you proue out of Caiet. because he saith that the miracles whereon the Church groun­deth the canonization of Saints, cannot be in­fallibly knowne, and out of Saint August. and Sulpitius, the one saying some were tormented in hell, which were worshipped on earth, the other saying that the common people wor­shipped for a Martyr one that was damned, and who appeared and told them soe: the for­mer vncertainty to wit whether the Saints heare our prayers,Gab. in can. lect. 31. Mag. in 4. d. 45. you proue out of Gabr. and Pet. Lomb. the one saying it is not certaine, but it may seeme probable that God reuealeth vnto Saints all those sutes which men present vnto them. The other that it is not incredible that the Soules of Saints heare the prayers of their suppliants. Well be it soe Sir Hum. let it be vncertain as you say it is whether the Saints hea­re our prayers or not: yet it followes not for all [Page 364] that, that our doctrine of inuocation of Saints is vncertaine. For as Bellar. well noteth, it might be good and profitable to inuoke the Saints though they themselues should not heare vs but onely almighty God for them, what are you the better then? But besids it is not vncertaine whe­ther the Saints heare vs or noe, that is, it is not vncertaine whether they know our prayers or not. For though there be question of the man­ner how they know them; yet there is noe ques­tion but that they doe know them. Neither is Gabriel's authority or Peter Lombard's by you alleadged any thing to the contrary. For they onely make doubt of the manner without any doubt of the thing it selfe, as is most manifest by their very discourse and words, in those very places where you tooke out your; for thus, saith Gabriel. Non inuocantur Sancti tanquā datores bono­rum pro quibus oramus, sed tanquam intercessores apud Deum bonorum omnium largitorem. The Saints are inuocated not as the giuers of good things for which we pray; but as intercessours to God the giuer of all good. Where you see he speaketh not doubt­fully, but certainely of inuocation: and soe goeth on with his discourse prouing, that notwithstanding that almighty God be of him­selfe most propitious and merciful, yet that doth not hinder but that the Saints may pray for vs; and after that falleth to discourse of the manner how the Saints heare our prayers. The like, I may say of Peter Lombard. Who though he say onely in those words which you bring, that [Page 365] it is not incredible that the Saints heare our prayers, yet for their hearing or seing our pray­ers in the word of God as the Angels doe, he maketh noe doubt. Sicut enim Angelisit, a etiam Sanctis qui Deo assistunt, petitiones nostrae innotescunt in verbo Dei quod contemplantur, saith he: For as our prayers become knowne to the Angels in the word of God which they behold so also to the Saints who stand before God. Soe as heere is something more Sir Humphrey with your good leaue then proba­bility and vncertainty, in the iudgment of these Doctors, though you be pleased to conclude out of them that there is nothing but probabi­lity and vncertainty: though if there were but probability onely it were more then you haue for any point of your faith as it is yours.

10. For Caietan's authority concerning the miracles whereon the canonization of Saints is grounded, it is true as he saith, the authority of them is but humane as relying vpon the te­stimony of man. But what then? ergo we are vncertaine whether the canonized Saint bee in heauen or noe? this is your conclusion, and it is like one of yours indeede. But I answeare that it followeth not; for the certainty of cano­nizatiō depēdeth vpon a more certaine ground, to wit, the authority of the Sea Apostolique, and continuall assistance and direction of the Holy Ghost the Spirit of truth, to whom it be­longeth not to suffer Christ's Vicar vsing huma­ne diligence, and proceeding prudently in a mat­ter of that moment to erre: and the proofe of [Page 366] miracles is onely vsed, that he may proceede prudently, & vpon good ground, & in that sense Miracles are said to ground the canonization of Saints, not that the certainty of the one doth wholy depend on the certainty of the other. Soe as Caietan helpeth you not a iot to proue the vncertainty of our canonization of Saints, noe more then doth S. Aug. and Sulpitius in those au­thorityes which you bring out of them. For they speake not a word of any canonized Saint. And as for the place of S. Aug. Bellarm. answeareth that perhaps it is not his, which word perhaps you take hold of, as if you would make your Reader thinke it is but a slender answeare, or rather a grant of the authority: whereas it is farr other­wise. For Bell. vseth that word out of modesty, because as he saith he could neuer find it in any worke of S. Aug. Which notwithstanding, he will not say peremptorily it is not there, but if you will needs haue it S. Augustin's, Sir Humfrey tell vs where out of your great reading, & then you shall find 3. or 4. seueral answeares ready in Bellarmine, without any peraduentures: and in­deede any man of ordinary witt will presently see the place doth not vrge a whit. For who doth doubt but many dead men are mightily honoured by some men heere vpon earth, who­se soules are buried full low in hell: another an­sweare of Bellarmines is; that if there be any such place in S. Aug. it may be very well vnderstood of the Martyrs of the Donatists, who were ho­noured by those haeretiques for Martyrs whose [Page 367] soules were tormented in Hell: as the same B. Saint saith of them elsewhere.Aug. ep. 68 Viuebant vt latro­nes, honorabantur vt Martyres. They liued as theeues and were honoured as Martyrs: But what is this to our canonized Saints? is heere any the least shaddow thereof? For that story of Sulpitius, it is true, that there was one worshipped by the peo­ple for a Martyr indeede, but hee was farre from any canonization of the Church. For as the Story sayth, S. Martin seeing the people worship a dead man, & not knowing what he was, nor hauing any certainety from those that went before, of him, he misliked their deuotion, and prayed to God that he might know what Man that was, & soe by the appointement of God the man ap­peared, and confessed himselfe to haue beene an high way theife that was put to death by the hand of iustice for his wickednesse. This is the story and this we alleadge as a reason among o­thers why the iudgment of the Church is neces­sary in the canonization of Saints, that people may not be deceiued in worshipping wicked mē for Saints, giuing the honor, dew to almigh­ty God's freinds, to his enemyes. It is therefore good sport to soe a right learned knight as you are forsooth by a new strayne of witt to bring it to proue the vncertainty of our canonization, wherein you must argue thus. Some people in S. Martin's tyme did erre in worshipping a dead theife for a Saint, without any sufficient reason or approbation of the Church, ergo Catholiques may erre in worshipping of Saints canonized [Page 368] and authorized by the Church, vpon great and euident proofes of their holy liues and deathes, and vpon many and manifest miracles. Is not this a trimme argument to be printed and re­printed?

11. In the next place you come with the vncertainety of Purgatory whereof you say S. Aug. saith thus. It is not incredible that some such thing should be after this life, but whe­ther it be soe or noe it may be a question. You say also for the place, where it is, or how long soules continue there, whither there be fire or water, or whither material fire or noe, there is nothing certaine among vs: You cite Sir Tho­mas More, Bishop Fisher, and Bellarmine, whose words I passe ouer as needlesse; and then you tell vs that S. Greg. who gaue the first credo to Purgatory saith some are purged by fire, some by hott bathes? and vpon certaine apparitions and reuelations related by him and S. Bede you say it is come to be an article of faith: but you conclude with a place of S. Aug. quite against Purgatory, Lib. de va­ [...]it. Saecul. [...]ap. 1. where he saith that when the Soule is separated from the body, presently it is either placed in paradice for its good works, or cast into hell for its sinnes. I answeare that you still goe abusing S. Aug. who is soe plaine for Pur­gatory that noe Catholique now liuing can be more plaine: and in this very booke of his En­chiridi [...]n and place by you cited he is soe plaine, that one Mr. Anthony Alcocke, a zealous disci­ple as it seemeth translating it into English, is [Page 369] faine to write certaine animaduersions vpon the 110. chapter wherein he confesseth S. Aug. his opinion heere for Purgatory, but he laboureth to obscure his meaning or reconcile him by fetching other places, as wisely and well to the purpose, as you are wont to doe: but to be brief with you, that which S. Aug. saith may be a question is not of purgatory, or the being of Purgatory as you say most Linde like, but of the manner of paine: as whether euen as men are heere troubled in this world more or lesse with the losse of worldly things as they more or lesse loued them, which trouble or tribulation S. Aug. explicateth to be that fire, whereof S. Paul speakes saying, that those that build hay, straw, stubble &c. shalbe Saued as it were by fire; whe­ther, I say, men be soe punished in Purgatory, this S. Aug. doth not determine, but whether there be a Purgatory or noe,Enchir. cap. 110. let any man iudge since he saith there. Neque negandum est defunctorum animas &c. Neither is it to bee denied that the Sou­les of the dead are relieued by the piety of their freinds liuing when the Sacrifice of our Mediator is offered for them, or almes giuen in the Church: Note heere 3. or 4. con­trouersies decided in this one sen­tence of S. Aug. Satis­factions, Masse, Pur­gatory, Prayers for the dead. and there he also distinguisheth 3. sorts of dead people, some in heauen that neede noe such helpe, others in hell that cannot be helped by them, a third of those that are not soe well, as not to neede them, nor soe ill but that they may be the better for these helpes. This S. Aug. speaketh certainely and more we doe not say certainely of Purgatory, the particulars of place, manner of [Page 370] punishment, durance &c. are things disputa­ble among Diuines, which you haue nothing to doe with: and if for such vncertainties you will reiect the beleife of Purgatory, by the same reason you may deny that there is an hell, as it is like you doe in your hart, for els you could not say and write as you doe. Now for S. Greg. who you say gaue the first Credo to Purgatory, that is answeare enough which I alleadged last out of S. Aug. by which it appeareth he gaue it an vndoubted Credo, long before: for he died neere 200. yeares before S. Greg. but for foun­ding the beleife thereof vpon apparitions of dead men & reuelatiōs of this Saint, & S. Bedes relation, it is most false by the same argument still: For how could the faith of S. Aug. his ty­me be grounded vpon the reuelations of men lyuing two or three hundred yeares after? or indeede vpon any reuelation of any man: faith is grounded vpon the reuelation of God alone, deliuered vnto vs by his Church. Therefore to the last place of S. Aug. I say it is vnderstood that presently as soone as the soule departeth, it receiueth the doome either of Paradice or hell, that is, whether it is to goe finally and that is both true, and his meaning, as appeareth by what he saith of the same matter els where thus. Tempus quod inter hominis mortem &c. The tyme betweene the death of a man and the general re­surrection containeth the soules in hidden receptacles as each is worthy either of ease or paine according as it deserued whiles it liued. For it is not to be denied that the soules of the dead are helped by the piety of [Page 371] their liuing freinds. This place is soe plaine as not only not to admitt any tergiuersation but alsoe to explaine any other that may seeme obscure.

12. A third point of vncertaine doctrine as you obiect is Indulgences, for which you allead­ge Durand and Gerson. For Durand, looke in the § of Indulgences, & in Bellarmine, Lib. 1. de Indulg. cap. 2. and there you shall find him not to doubt of Indulgences, but of that which wee call thesaurus ecclesiae, for as much as it consisteth of the satisfactions of the Saints. And as for Gerson, who saith that whe­ther the power of the keyes extend onely to such as are on earth, or also to those in Purga­tory the opinions of men are contrary and vn­certaine, it is most friuolous to obiect him. For what doth this pertaine to faith? or doth it per­taine onely to Indulgences? is not the question common to other acts of iurisdiction vnder­stood by the power of the keyes? this is your argument. Diuines dispute whether the Popes power extend to the soules in Purgatory, ergo the doctrine of Indulgences is vncertaine? This might be answeare enough: but to display you a little more I will say a word or two more of Gerson: and first euen in this point of extending the Popes power ouer those that are in Purgatory euen to the remission of paine, absolution from venial sinne or excommunication before incurred, he is soe fauourable in this place by you cited as to graunt the opinions on both si­des probable: which is more thē other Diuines graunt and is more then needeth for applying [Page 372] Indulgences to the dead. Soe as in graunting that probable he maketh this certaine: and this for Indulgences; in as much as they pertaine to the dead. Now for the liuing or power of Indulgen­ces in general thus he saith: [...]rs 2. p. de [...]ulg. con [...]. 11. & 12 Indulgentiarum con­cessio non est parui pendenda seu contemnenda, sed amplectenda in fide, spe, & charitate Domini nostri IESV CHRISTI, qui potestatem talium claurum ecclesiasticam dedit hominibus. The graunting of In­dulgences is not to be little esteemed or contemned but to be embraced in the faith, hope, and Charity of our Lord IESVS CHRIST who hath giuen the ecclesiastical power of such keyes to men. Soe as it is plaine that Gerson holdeth the doctrine of Indul­gences certaine noe lesse then Durād & the whole Schoole of Diuines & euen the Catholique church.

13. The fourth point of vncertainty is of ado­ration of images, to which you say wee are vncer­taine what worshipp we may giue. For say you the 2. Nicene Councel alloweth a ciuil kind of worship without any corporal submission: but many of our Diuines allow them a higher kind of worshipp: that is, the very same which is giuen to their Samplers: Which Bellarmine you say, is against, and saith it is not fit to preach that opinion to the people,, because it requireth such subtile distinctions as the learned cannot well conceiue, much lesse the ignorant people, and then you bring a place of Valencia allowing idol-worship as you say by a necessary conse­quēce, these being his words. It is noe absurdity to this [...] that S. Peter did intimate that some [Page 373] worship of images was right or lawful, namely of holy images. When as he deterreth the faith­ful from the vnlawful worship of Images: for to what end should he determinately point out the vnlawfull worship of Images, if he had thought altogether that noe image-worship had beene lawful. To which I answeare that the doctrine which we teach of faith is not vncertaine, that is, onely that images are to be worshipped, not as God, nor as placing any confidence in them. Now whether they be to be worshipped with the same act & honour which we giue the pro­totype directly, indirectly to the image, as our act of honour tēdeth directly to the Kings per­son, & indirectly to his purple, or with an infe­riour kind of worship tending directly to the picture it self, but yet as it is the representa­tion of such a person, or with reference to the person represented, is a theological speculation out of your element, nor to be disputed of with an haeretique. Both may stand with faith, as many things more of which Tertull. saith they may Salua regula fidei in quaestionem deuenire. de praesc. cap. 12. Come into question the rule of faith being safe. Faith is cer­taine not to be touched, other things may but you haue nothing to doe with them till you haue faith. But because you speake of the 2. Councel of Nice, as if it were for you, I cannot heere omitt to set downe what it saith of you and your doctrine, for your comfort: to those that vse the words spoken in scripture against idols, against venerable images, Anathema or be they [Page 374] accursed: to those that doe not salut holy & venerable images Anathema: to those that call holy images idols Anathema; to those that say that Christians come to images as to Gods Anathema; to those that say the Ca­tholique Church hath at some tyme receiued idolatry Anathema. These are all the Councels words & curses. Of all which you cānot but cōfesse your selfe guilty; & you can insinuate as if the Councel were rather for you then vs; would a man thin­ke it possible? But besids whereas you say the Councel pretends nothing but a ciuil kind of em­bracing or kissing without any corporal sub­mission vnto the Images, I would know of you what it meaneth when speaking of images it saith they are to be worshipped so farre. ad oscu­lum, & ad honorariam his adorationem tribuendam: to giue a Kisse and honoring adoration. Doth not adoration include corporal submission and spe­cially honorary adoration? Neither doth the Councel meane onely a ciuil kind of imbracing or kis­sing, as you call it, but a religious worshipp. For it continually addeth some one or more of these epithets, Sancta, sacra, veneranda, or venerabilis. Holy; sacred, venerable to the word imago image. When it speaketh of images. But because you seeme not to thinke corporal submission to be sufficiently implyed by the Councel either in tho­se epithets or in the words colo, suscipio, veneror, & adoro, which goe together for the most part in the subscriptions of the Bishops in the Councel, (though amōg men it would be counted a poore kind of worship or respect which should want [Page 375] all corporall submission). I will bring you most plaine and expresse proofe both of prostration and kneeling by 2. seueral relations or histories. One is this. It is there related how when the Re­liques of S. Anastasius a Moncke & Martyr were brought to Cesarea the people receiued thē with great deuotion & honour onely one great Lady would not, but in her owne hart slighted them. Wherevpon the Saint appearing to her in her sleepe she was taken with a very vehement paine in her backe for 4. dayes together till the same Saint appearing to her againe in the same man­ner, willed her to goe to S. Anastasius in such a place of the towne where his Reliques & picture were kept, she not knowing all this while who it was that appeared vnto her: and soe awaking she was caried thither, & as soone as she came in the sight of the picture, she cried out that, that was the man that in her sleepe foretold her the misery which she was fallen into: and when she had prostrated her selfe vpō the ground before his pictu­re and wept, and thereby appeased the Saint, she was restored to her former health. The other story is of S. Mary Aegyptiaca her conuersion & the occasion thereof, and how she came into the Church, adored the crosse, & picture of our B. Lady whereof there is a large relation, onely this I bring for my purpose that she saith of her selfe that vpon her knees she prayed before the picture of our B. Lady and there spoke vnto it as if she had our B. Lady present in her picture. Which her miraculous conuersion and other effects which followed did shew to be pleasing to almighty God. [Page 376] These 2. stories with many more are there not only related but publiquely allowed and ap­proued by the whole Councel. How then can you Sir Humphrey say that the Councel pretends nothing but a ciuil imbracing or kissing with­out any corporal submission to images? What greater submission can there bee then kneeling and prostrating ones selfe vpon the ground be­fore a picture and speaking and praying the­reto? but this is like the rest of your sayings.

14. Now for Valentia his words which you bring as if he did allow some idol-worship, it is manifest by them that he doth not allow any such; but out of the words illicitis simula­chrorum cultibus in S. Peter, taking the word Si­mulachrum in a good sense, that is for the same as imago, as some ancient authors doe, and withall explicating his meaning in the vse thereof, he saith it may seeme to be gathered out of S. Peter's determining the word Simulachrum by the words illicitis cultibus that there is some good image-worshipp. Which argument be it good or bad, or be his vse of the word Simula­chra for images good or badd, it is all one for the matter, as long as 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 [Page 377] 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 [Page 376] [...] [Page 377] [...] [Page 378] 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 [Page 379] 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, [Page 380] 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 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 [Page 382] 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 [Page 383] 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 [Page 384] 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 [Page 385] 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 [Page 386] 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 shalbe simple (that is good) the selfe same shall my soule be ignorant of. Iob 9.21. Againe we say 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.

[Page 387]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 vtra (que) specie, bene licet sumere corpus Christi sub specie panis tantum, sicut fere vbi (que) 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; [Page 388] 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 [Page 389] 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 [Page 390] 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 in the §. of priuate Masse and els where.

7. A sixt point of your safe doctrine is the Mar­riage of Priests, whereof you say it is better to liue chastely in Matrimony, then by single life to ha­zard their soules by incontinency. This you proue by the authority of Aeneas Syluius, Panor­mitan, and Cassander. Of which three, the last is noe author to bee reguarded: the first is answea­red before. The second onely remaineth to bee answeared heere, to wit, Panormitane whom in­deede I find inclined in opinion for the Marriage of Clergymen; Panor. cap. Cum Plini. de Cler. con­ing. yet farre otherwise, then you. For first he putteth the question, whether the Church can giue way, that a Clarke may marry, as the Graecians doe: to which he answeareth affirma­tiuely: and this he saith is out of doubt with him, for soe much as pertayneth to them that are not obliged by tacite or expresse vow. And then he proueth it by reason, and sheweth that it is not de iure diuino, as we also grant. And there­vpon saith, that he doth not onely beleeue it to be in the Churches power; but he thinketh it [Page 391] would be a wholesome statute for the good and safety of Soules, to lett such as will, containe themselues; and such as cannot, to marry since experience (saith hee) teacheth the contrary ef­fect to follow of that Law of continency, seing men doe not now liue spiritually, nor are cleane but are spotted with vncleanesse to their grie­uous sinne. This is Panormitanes discourse: whe­rein first he acknowledgeth this whole matter to depēd vpon the Churches authority; & plainely sheweth by his discourse that the law of conti­nency doth bind: & that it is a grieuous sinne to goe against it. For which cause though his opi­nion indeede be, that they should haue liberty to marry, yet he would not haue thē marry against the Law standing in force: but he would haue the Law taken away, which is a farre different doctrine from yours. Secondly he alloweth the obligatiō of a Vow tacite or expresse, & seemeth not indeede to speake of such as are soe tied: now with you & your Ministers, that is all one, wheter Chastity be vowed or not vowed: nay you disallow all such vowes. Thirdly he saith that where a man is bound by expresse or tacite vow the Pope cannot dispense without a great and vrgent cause: which is against you, who require noe dispensation nor any such cause. Fourthly he doth not speake of such as are alrea­dy ordained: for they haue a Vow either expresse or tacite: but of those that are to be ordained, whereas you would haue it as free for one as for another. Lastly this opinion of Panormitane pertaineth not to the point of doctrine but [Page 392] onely to the point of prudence or conueniency wherein he differeth from the common iudg­ment of Catholiques and is therefore worthily noted by other Catholique Doctors. Soe as he concurreth not with you in opinion of the law­fulnes of the Marriage of Priests against the lawes of the Church but onely in this, that he would haue it made lawfull by taking away the contrary law. But now though it be his opinion, that it is better to lett such men marry, why should you thinke it safer to follow his iudg­ment being but one single man against the iudg­ment of all the other Doctors of the Catholique Church against all Fathers, against all authority of Councels, against the continuall practize of the Church from the very beginning,Bell. lib. 1. de Cler. c. 18. 19. 20. &c. & lib. 2. de mona. cap. 21. 22. &c. (Of all which you haue aboundant proofe in Bellarmine,) and which was neuer contradicted by any but kno­wne wicked men? Why I say should you thin­ke it safer? What reason or colour haue you? But perhapps you will strengthen Panormitane by S. Paul who saith. It is better to marry, then to burne. but that giues no strength; for it is not safety of doctrine, which S. Paul speaketh of, but practical safety for matters of life or manners,1. Cor. 7.9. of this or that particular man, supposing his disposition, occasions, and dangers: and soe it is free for euery man to choose what he will doe. Noe man is forced to it at first in the Catholique Church; but if he take vpon him the office of a Priest, or obligation of a religious state he is then forced to make good what he hath promised, [Page 393] and to render his Vowes to God, which the law of nature and moral honesty requireth. Neither is it soe out of question, that it is alwaies safer, euen in that kind of safety for a man to marry. For there is noe lesse difficulty perhapps and consequently danger for married men to con­taine thēselues with in the bounds of wedlock, then for Priests to containe themselues with­in the bounds of perfect chastity: as both reason and experience teach; besids that though Saint Paul say it is better to marry then burne, yet he saith it is better not to marry supposing eui­dently that a man may forbeare Marriage & yet not be forced to burne. Lastly in our case, though the difficulty may be greater. For as the prouerbe saith difficilia quae pulchra, high things are hard. Yet considering the helpes of almighty God's grace, which are proportionable and I may also say superaboundant to the dangers of an office, or state, being vndertaken for his sake, it becometh more easy, and more safe. For soe it is that the euangelical Law is more easy, safe, and comfortable then the old law of Moyses, though the things that are required therein, be farre more hard then those in the other. For it is the vnction of the holy Ghost, which God hath powred forth aboundātly in the new Law, that makes our Sauiours yoake sweete, and his bur­den light, which because your Ministers want Chastity, seemeth vnto them an intolerable burden. Your way Sir Humphrey then is not more safe, euen in this kind of safety, nor more [Page 394] easy, nor more comfortable. Lett vs see whether it be soe in the next point, which is of Prayer in a knowne tongue.

8. Of this you say S. Thomas of Aquin saith, it is manifest that he receiueth more benefit which prayeth & vnderstandeth what he saith: for the mind of him that vnderstandeth not is without fruite. You bring also Lyra to the same purpose, saying that people are better brought to the knowledge of God, & answeare Amen with greater deuotion, when they vnderstand the Priest, as also Caietan saying that it is better by S. Paul's doctrine for the edifying of the Church, that publique prayers were made in a vulgar tongue, to be vnderstood indifferently by Priests and peo­ple, then in Latine With two authorityes more, one of Gabriel, another out of the Rhemes testa­ment. To all which I answeare, that first you are mistaken in the whole matter. For the que­stion betweene you and vs is not soe much, whi­ther publique prayers in Latine be more or lesse profitable, as whither they be lawful or not law­ful: we affirme them lawfull you deny them to be soe. Now shew mee one author of these which you bring heere, that saith as you doe, and then I will confesse you bring them to some purpose, otherwise not. But these authors are quite against you, for that matter and euen Caietan himselfe,1. Cor. 14. who speaketh most in fauour of you saith expresly neere about the place where you cite him, that such Prayer is not onely law­ful, but good and fruitful, and Saint Thomas also [Page 395] in the Latine cited by you in the margent saith as much, though you corrupt him by your translation which is this.1. Cor. 14. lect. 3. Constat quod plus lucra­tur qui orat & intelligit quae dicit: nam ille qui in­telligit, reficitur & quantum ad intellectum & quantum ad affectum, sed mens eius qui non intelligit est sine fructu refectionis. It is manifest that he gaineth more, who prayeth and vnderstandeth what he saith: For he that vnderstandeth is re­freshed, both for as much as pertaineth to his vnderstanding, and as much as pertaineth to his affection: but the mind of him that vnder­standeth not, is without the fruit of refection. In which place I forbeare to note your im­perfect manner of citing this authority. For who hearing Saint Thomas to make a compa­rison betweene prayer vnderstood and not vnder­stood and to speake of a double fruit or refection, to wit, both of the affection and mind giuing that for a reason why the former is to be pre­ferred. Who I say hearing this will not expect that Saint Thomas should say something alsoe of the later as indeede he doth. For thus it followeth in him. Vnde cùm meliùs sit refici quan­tum ad affectum & intellectum, quam quantum ad affectum solum, constat quod in oratione plus valet prophetiae donum, quam solum donum linguarum. Wherefore seing it is better to be refreshed and fedd both in the affection and vnderstanding then in the affection alone, it is plaine that in prayer the guift of prophecy (or interpretation) is mo­re worth, then the guift of tongues onely. which [Page 396] though it follow soe connaturally that a man might presently suppose it to be there without euer looking in the booke, yet you thought best to leaue it out because it was not for your pur­pose.

9. But hauing cited the Latine thus lamely you translate euen that which you haue cited as lamely. For you take the first and last part of S. Thomas his sentence and put them in to English leauing out the middle in which he speaketh of the double refection or fruit of both mind and Will and soe ioyne them together with the causal coniunction (for) of your owne placing not of S. Thomas his and putting in an And insteed of an (Of) thus; fruite and refection insteed of fruit of refection; which makes a very great alteration of sense. For you make it thereby seeme to your Reader as if S. Thomas meant that he that vnder­standeth not his owne prayer, were without fruit and refection, that is, without any fruit; Whereas Saint Thomas his Latine words say onely, that he is without the fruit of refection, to wit, of the vnder­standing, but not of the affection, and your sense is also helped by your changing S. Thomas his sed (but) in to your (nam). (for). It is true that Saint Thomas hath a (for) but not as you haue it; but ioyned with that which you left out in the middle of your sentence thus. For he that vnder­standeth hath a double refection or fruit. Now bet­weene sed and Nam, but and for there is great dif­ference. Sed being a discretiue or seuering con­iunction, whose office is to make a separation [Page 397] or difference betweene the things which it ioy­neth: and Nam being a causal cōiunction which ioyneth two sentences together with dependan­cy one of the other. Lastly you doe not marke that you would make S. Thomas cōtradict him­self. For he hauing said onely in the first part of the sentence, that hee, that vnderstanded receiueth more benefit, in the last part you would make him say that he, that vnderstandeth not receiueth noe be­nefitt. Which two if you looke well into the matter you will find to be cōtradictories; which yet you would make to be both true, and one to be the reason of the other by ioyning them together with your (for) which is most absurd I could also haue a saying to you for the Lati­ne. Wherein you putt the word effectum for af­fectum: effect for affection. For the word (effectū) being more fitt to obscure the sense, or make it rather none, I haue iust reason by the rest of your good carriage to thinke it to be your doing; but because it is but the change of a let­ter, I will be content to lay it vpon your Prin­ter, and excuse you all I can: and thus much onely for the very citation of the place though in that consist almost all. For as for the matter it is plaine S. Thomas doth not disallow or dis­commend Prayer in a tongue which the party that prayeth doth not vnderstand; but acknowled­geth some fruite therein. Neither doth any au­thor you bring say the contrary. Whereby all your argument is answeared.

10. But yet gratis. (The lawfulnes of prayer [Page 398] in a tongue not knowne to the party being noe way disproued). I say farther our cōtrouersy is not, whether it be better for men to say, their priuate deuotions in a language which they vnderstand, then otherwise. For as for that we grant that it is better, as that note which you haue out of the Rhemes Testament acknowledgeth, but saying withall that the other is good: because as S. Tho­mas saith, it is better to refresh or feede both the vnderstanding and will, then the will alone. For though the refection of the will be the prin­cipal fruit, the will being the principal power in the exercize of prayer: and whereon the fruit of prayer doth necessarily and essentially depēd, yet the other helpeth; but not soe, but that without it the prayer may be good and fruitfull: and therefore S. Thomas putteth the will before the vnderstanding in this his sentence. For if the will or desire bee good, the prayer hath his fruit, though the vnderstāding bee distracted: as when a man is distracted vnwillingly as it hapneth most frequently, and with the best men: in which case it were hard a man should be depri­ued of the whole fruit of his prayer, without any fault of his. Now a distracted vnderstan­ding, is all one with a mind that vnderstan­deth not the words which he prayeth. Soe also with some proportion, or in some respect we say of publique prayer, that the people perhaps might reape some more fruit that way if they did vnderstand the publique prayers: but the que­stion then is whether that fruite which may [Page 399] come that way, can counteruaile the tenth part of the inconueniēces which may happen by ha­uing publique prayers in a vulgar tongue: which are well noted in the Rhemes Testament there where you tooke out your note. All which annotation if you had read well & vnderstood,Annot. in cap. 14. 1. Cor. you could neuer haue said more of this matter: the incon­ueniences are much vanity, curiosity, contempt of Superiours, disputes, emulations, contentions, schismes, horrible errours, profanations, and diuulgation of the secret mysteries of the dreadful Sacraments, which of purpose were hidden from the vulgar, as S. Denys. Eccl. Hier. cap. 1. and S. Basil. de Sp. Sancto cap. 27. testify: thus that note. Besides the very ignorance of the Latine tongue, and cōsequently of all sacred learning, which would follow thereof onely in Clergy men, is ten hun­dred tymes more harme, then that fruite in the Layity is good: to say nothing of the vnity of the Catholique Church excellently represented and maintained heereby, whereof and of other rea­sons also I spake before: the Church therefore which is to reguard the publique good; & what is best and fittest all things considered, might most prudently haue ordained the vse of the Latine tongue, although it had not beene in vse from the beginning; as it hath beene, and for the common good euen with losse of some fruit to some priuate men: though indeed that fruite be noe necessary or needful fruit nor euen fruit at all, the inconuenience being well waighed and compared with the fruit. [Page 400] Now of this controuersy in this manner also none of your authorityes doe vrge, but onely Caietans; who though he were a good & a lear­ned man, yet in him the prouerb is verified: quand [...]que bonus dormitat Homerus. He is noted to be often mistaken, in matters of Diuinity which was his proper professiō, but much more in scripture, wherein hee was not soe well skil­led, and soe committed many faults: and in this particular he is greatly mistaken, for he expoun­deth that chapter of S. Paul to the Corinthians to be of publique prayer of the Church, wherein being soe plainely deceiued, noe wonder he might say it were better to haue it in a vulgar tongue: & soe also for that end he wishes there were not Organs nor Singing in the Church, that men might vn­derstand the words the better. Wherein if his iudg­ment be good, and to bee followed, why haue you Organs and singing in your church? neither were you soe well aduised in alleadging his au­thority, for a Puritane may also make vse the­reof against you and whereas Caietans reason is the aedification of the Church: he is mistaken in the very end of prayer, which is not aedification or instruction of the people but the honor of God im­mediatly. For in prayer the Priest doth not speake to the people but to God in behalfe of the people wherein the people doth onely ioyne with him. For which vnderstanding of the Priest's prayers is noe way necessary.

11. But now I come to Gabriel, who you say was soe farre from approuing vocal prayer in an [Page 401] vnknowne tongue, that on the contrary he giueth 7. special reasons why it should be vnderstood by the people. But this is most false Sir Humphrey for Gabriel doth not speake of prayer in a knowne or vnknowne tongue, nor of publique prayer: but onely of priuate prayer, and of vocal prayer, as it is compared with mental prayer, and giueth these 7. reasons which you alleadge but not for proo­fe of what you say, but onely to shew that beside mental prayer, it is also conuenient to vse vocal prayer; some of which reasons indeede haue noe place but where the words are vnderstood, but yet other some haue. For thus he saith.Gab. in can. lect. 62. Sufficit oratio mentalis quoad Deum, qui inspector est cordis; vtilis tamen est priuata vocalis, propter plures causas quas assignant Doctores Alexander, Thomas, & cae­teri. Mental prayer is sufficient for as much pertai­neth to God, who is the beholder of the hart, yet pri­uate vocal prayer is profitable for many causes which the Doctors Alexander, Thomas, & others assigne: & thē assigneth those 7. reasons. Soe as it is plaine he saith nothing in this, but what others say, & that his question is not of prayer in a knowne or vnknowne tongue: but of vocal prayer in general.

12. Your 7. and 8. points of Safe doctrine of not Worshipping images and praying to Saints I putt together, being short; & not needing much answeare. For reason you alleadge none, nor authority hut onely Erasmus, Cassander, & Chem­nitius. Who are all of as good authority as your selfe. For as for a word which you alleadge out of S. Aug. though you note not the place, I say [Page 402] it is not to purpose, for it is but this: tutius & iucundius loqu [...] ad meum IESVM. I speake more safely and more sweetly to my IESVS. You doe not say then to whom: and from hence you might as well inferre, that while S. Aug. was vpon the earth he should not so much as speake to any man or desire their prayers: as well as inferre there vppon that he should not pray to any Saint.

13. Your last point is our doctrine of Me­ritts; whereto not hauing said sufficiently at first, you thinke to say more now; but the truth is, you haue more words but not more mat­ter. For heere you proue it onely out of a word of S. Bernard's saying,Ser. 1. in Psal. Qui habitat. dangerous is the habi­tation of those that trust in their owne merits: and soe say we, but we say withall that to acknowledge that Almighty God, rendereth a crowne of iustice to good works done by his grace, and hyre to those that labour in his vineyard, is not to trust in a man's owne merits: but to acknowledge the mercy, iusti­ce, and fidelity of God. For this, not onely a man may acknowledge that hath good wor­kes, but also a man that hath none, nor thin­keth hee hath any, and consequently noe whit confideth in his owne merits. Ser. 61. in c [...]nt. Another place is out of the same Saint, but out of an other of his works, where he asketh, what safe rest or security can the weake Soule find but in the wounds of our Sauiour. And soe say we too: but what doth this hinder but a man may say, [Page 403] as I said before, that God rewardeth the good works of his Seruants out of his iustice and fi­delity, which out of his Mercy he gaue them grace to doe? but heere I note, that in the citing of this place, in the text you putt the two first words in Latine, thus Vbi tuta? as if you would make one thinke S. Bernard poin­ted at your Safe way: may not a man without wrong to your witt, thinke such a conceit might come into your head? though S. Ber­nard were dead many ages agoe? I will not say soe of you Sir Humphrey but yet thought is free, as they say. Well your next author is Wal­densis, who as you tell vs thinketh him the sounder Diuine, Suar. to. 3. de gr. lib. 12. cap. 1. n. 2. that simply denieth such Me­rit: but you say not what merit? but it is true Walden. as Suarez well noteth though he spea­ke not of this controuersy, but against the Pelagians. is somewhat too strict,V. Bell. lib. 5 de iustif. cap. 16. and though he acknowledge the thing, yet he doth not soe well like the manner of speaking of merit, as alsoe some other Diuines doe not soe approue the word meritum de condigno, though in the thing it selfe they all agree, to wit, that aeternal life is giuen to men as the reward of their good works, which is all that others meane by condigne merit. Your last authority is a place of Bell. which hath beene answeared before, to wit, that it is most safe to trust wholy in the merits of Christ. Which I won­der why you should alleadge for your doctri­ne against ours. For it is ours as well or more then yours neither doe we cōdemne you for not [Page 404] trusting in your works,Chap. 12. or trusting wholy in Christ, if so be you doe not deny the necessity and efficacy of good works; for purchasing grace and glory. And that is your doctrine which you should shew to be Safe, but that you cānot, nor doe not soe much as goe about. Wherefore to come to an end of this Chapter all your proofes sayling in euery point, your vaunting cōclusion of the Safety, profitt, and Comfort of your beleife vanisheth into smoake, as the rest doth.

Of the 12. Sect. the title whereof is this. Our aduersaries conuicted by the eui­dent testimonies of the Ancient Fathers either ridiculously elude them, or plainely reiect them. CHAPTER XII.

1. IT cannot be vnknowne to any man of learning or that hath but any the lest ac­quaintance with the controuersies of this age, what great aduantage we Catholiques haue by the writings of the ancient Fathers, how highly we esteeme them, what confidence, we place in them, and how we appeale to them for de­cision of our controuersies, and how small respect on the other side Haeretiques shew [Page 405] either to their persons or writings, as being in their opinions but men and subiect to er­rour or rather how contemptibly they speake of them. For proofe whereof a man neede not goe farther then that little treatise of Campians 10. reasons: the 5. of which is of the Fathers. Where a man may see what the Haeretiques say of them they call one an old doting man: ano­ther they call a childish writer; a third they call a dolt and forsaken of God; a fourth they call a fabler that knoweth not what he saith: a fift they say is bewitched by the Diuell: a sixt they say is as damned as the Diuell, iniurious to the Apostle, blasphemous, wicked, impious? and what Fathers are these thincke you that they name thus? who but Denis the Areopagite, Hippo­litus, Cyprian, Gregory Nazianzene, Ambrose, and Hierome: and for the writings of the Fathers they say this man's are like dreames and most perni­tious, another hath foule wennes, another wri­teth like a madd or frantique man, another bringeth forth darnel and dreggs, others haue left blasphemies to posterity: and the like. One haeretique preferreth one Caluin before an 100. Augustines, another careth not for a thousand Augustines, Cyprians, Churches, whose very words and places are quoted by F. Campian. And yet heere is a Knight of the same broode that vnder­taketh forsooth in a particular Section to proue that we establish the antiquity of his doctrine, & decline the certainty and safety of our owne: by saying that we auoide the proofe of Fathers? [Page 406] wherein he sheweth himself more & more im­pertinent, the farther he goeth. For whereas there hath beene sometymes one father, that hath erred, or held some singular opinion diffe­rent from the common, of other Fathers & one or two ancient writers that haue euen become Haeretiques: because our authors note those things soe, as noe Haeretique can but acknow­ledge that to be true which we say, nay and he himself cannot tell what to say against vs, he ac­counteth this forsooth to bee eluding of the Fa­thers or reiecting their euident testimonyes. Nei­ther doth he in all this Section bring one argu­ment, or one word of authority to disproue any thing that any authour of ours hath said; nor doth hee alleadge euen the reasons which our authors giue of their saying, whereas they giue very many & solid reasons: Soe that for my part I cānot tell what the man meaneth in this man­ner of dealing nor what to say to him: for euen the words of our authours which he bringeth are very sufficient answeares, soe as I see not well what more he neede to haue: but because in the fashion or sleight manner of speaking he may delude some of his Readers and make them thinke the answeares insufficient: I must a little more discouer his impertinency in leauing out some of the answeares and extenuating others, and euen in bringing some nothing at all to this purpose.

2. And soe to beginne with him: he saith in the first place that touching the all sufficiēcy of Scrip­tures [Page 407] S. Chrysostome saith the Church is knowne, tantūmodo onely by the Scriptures: & heerevpon he askes this question, what say the Romanist to this authority? Bell. saith hee, answeareth, it is proba­ble the authour was a Catholique, but it seemes to be none of Chrysost. thus hee. To which I an­sweare first that I find not this place obiected in Bellar. whereto to giue any answeare at all: but there is another place not much vnlike; and to that he answeareth that the worke out of which it is taken is not Chrys. but another's, commonly cited by the name of author. imperfecti, who Bell. saith was either an Arrian himself, or his worke was corrupted by Arrians and this he doth not barely say, neyther in his cōtrouersies nor in his booke de Scripto eccles. De verb. Dei. lib. 4. cap. 11. Which is the booke heere cited by Sir Humphrey where Bellarmine saith the thing, but not by way of answeare, (as he makes him) I say he doth not onely say it, but also proue it by a plaine example or two of Arianisme: Verb. Io. Chrysost. but because he findeth Catho­lique doctrine in other places of the same worke, and in the same points, he rather thinketh the authour to be a Catholique, and his worke onely to haue beene corrupted: and this is most true and euident. Which had the Knight but sett downe thus plainely, what had there beene more to be obiected or an­sweared? but he curtails it, as if Bell. had said onely it is none of Chrys. Which is also soe true & plaine, as he himselfe cannot gainesay it and yet he is not ashamed for the creditt of his obiec­tion, [Page 408] to call it Chrysostomes. But the place it selfe, is soe farre from prouing the all sufficiency of Scripture, as it proueth nothing at all but the insufficiency of Sir Humphreys wit. For how many wayes may it be answeared, euen suppo­sing that the words were S. Chrysostomes or some other good authour's being but these that the Church is knowne onely by scriptures? For I aske him what then, what is this to many other points which we say cānot be knowne by onely scripture? Were this a good consequence the Church is knowne by onely Scripture, ergo all things els and euen Scripture it selfe is knowne onely by scripture? surely noe: and yet this consequence must be good or els Sir Humphrey your argumēt is not good. Besids these words may be vnder­stood of the Scriptures compared with other Writings, that is, that the Church is knowne to vs onely by Scriptures not by other Writings, whereof either none speake soe clearely of the Church, or none are like therevnto for authority: which yet doth not exclude other proofes or markes of the Church. And indeede the Church is most knowne and best proued out of Scripture, of any point of our faith as may appeare by this that S. Aug. proueth the same soe notably out of Scriptures onely gainst the Donatists, in a par­ticular booke of that matter,De vnit. eccles. Aug. in Psal. 30. and in another place he saith the Scriptures speake more plai­nely of the Church, then of Christ himself; be­cause the holy Ghost foresaw it was more to be contradicted: and what? might not these words [Page 409] be taken somewhat in the same sense? but this shall serue for that place.

3. You come next with two places of Saint Aug. whereof one was answeared before, and it is onely where you tell vs he saith that many are tormented with the Diuel, who are wor­shipped by man on earth: to this Bellarmine say you, answeareth that perhaps it is not S. Au­gustines making you Reader beleeue as if Bell. neither gaue other answeare, nor any reason of this answeare. Whereas he doth both, his reason why he thinketh it not Saint Augustines is both because he could neuer find any such place in him, & it is like he should find it if it were there; he hauing beene soe diligent a reader of S. Augu. as appeareth by his works he was,Bell. de Sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 9. as alsoe be­cause noe Haeretique that obiecteth it doth note the place where it is to be found, as they are wōt to doe in their other obiections; and it is like would doe in this, if they could find it: but be­cause Sir Humphrey you are a man soe well read in S. Aug. and stand soe vpon answeare of this place. Doe you but tell vs where it is, and you shall then see what we will say vnto you; meane while looke a little better in Bellar. againe and tell vs whether there be not 3. or 4. other ans­weares. See also before cap. 10. The other place of Saint Augu. is as you say, touching the Po­pes supremacy, because S. Augu. in those words of our Sauiour. Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church, taketh not Peter and this rocke to be all one: but the Rocke to bee [Page 410] our Sauiour himself, and Petrus to bee a deriua­tiue onely of Petra, to which you tell vs Stapleton makes answeare, that it was lapsus humanus, for want of knowledge of the Greeke and caused by the diuersity of the two languages Latine and Greeke. Which answeare though you re­late in a slight fashion as if you tooke it to be in sufficiēt yet you neither doe nor indeede can say against it, if you know Greeke and Latine: or if you doe not, goe but to some of your Mi­nisters, and get them to looke in their owne Greeke Lexicons I meane sett out by Haereti­ques: and see whether [...] be an adiectiue and a deriuatiue of [...] or whether it be not a substantiue signifying the very same thing: and let them looke yet farther into the origi­nal tongue it self, to wit, the Syriake wherein our Sauiour spake,Lib. 1. Ro: Pontif cap. 25. and see whither they be not more the same; to wit, the onely word Cephas in both places. On the other side it is well knowne Saint Augu. professed noe great skill in Greeke as hee witnesseth of himselfe in many places.Aug. in Psal. cont. Partem Do­nat. & ep. 165. Besids Saint Augu. doth not bring this exposition to derogate from Saint Peter's pri­macy, which he confesseth in 20. places as may be seene in Bellarmine and where for proofe thereof he vseth the very word Petra which heere he distinguisheth from Petrus calling the Seate of Peter this rooke. Numerate Sacerdotes ab ipsa sede Petri, ipsa est petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae. Reckon, saith he to the Donatists, the Priests from euen the seate of Peter, [Page 411] that is the rocke which the proud gates of hell do not ouercome. How then doth he deny S. Peter's primacy and perpetuity of his Sea? Againe Sir Humphrey you might finde other answeares; for Saint Augu. himselfe in his retractations putteth both the explications wherein the word Petrae is spoken of Christ and of Peter, leauing the choise to the Reader: allowing both inter­pretations, which you doe not, because one is flat against you: Whereas we doe not reiect either, as being against vs; but onely we shew the one not to be soe good; because it standeth not soe with the original tongues (which that Saint was not soe well skilled in,) and literal sense of scripture which noe Haeretique can deny.

4. The 3. place is out of S. Ignatius for proofe of Communion in both kinds. Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 26 One cupp is distribu­ted to all to which you say Bellarmine makes answeare that in the Latine books it is not found, that one cupp is giuen to all, but for all: against which you can say nothing: but giue me cause to say much against you. For first Bellar­mine doth not say one cupp is giuen for all: but saith vnus calix totius ecclesiae. One cupp of the whole Church. Which is the true reading, and indeede another thing. Secondly though you make as if Bellar­mine did onely barely say this without farther reason or proofe: yet is it farre otherwise for as for the reading he saith that though the Greeke haue it as the Haeretiques commonly cite, that is as you doe heere, yet the true [Page 412] reading is as the Latine translation which we follow hath it, whereto he saith there is more trust to be had then to the Greeke books of S. Ignatius, which wee haue now. Whereof he bringeth this proofe that the testimonies cited out of him, as we find in the works of S. Anas­tasius and Theodoret, agree better with our Lati­ne translation then the Greeke which is now extant. Which is a plaine proofe of the better­nes and greater purenes thereof as being taken out of the ancient Greeke editions. Besids that Bellarmine proueth this euen out of the Magde­burgians, because they cite this very place at we doe. Neither doth he answeare this authority onely by the variety of the reading, but withall he giueth 2. answeares more: one that S. Igna­tius putteth all the force in the vnity of the bread and cupp. thus, that though many eate & many drinke yet the bread and cupp is but one, and the same, from whence it followeth not, that all must drinke thereof but onely that: all that drinke, drinke but of one and the same cup. Thirdly he answeareth that at most, take the words how you will, they can signify noe more but onely the practize of that tyme. All this doth Bell. say which you could craftlly dissem­ble, and make your Reader beleeue, as if hee shuffled ouer the matter onely with a different reading without farther reason: but in this you Linde it as you doe euery where els.

5. A 4. author is Origen out of whom you haue these words touching the Sacrament of [Page 413] Christ's body. Thus much be spoken of the typi­cal and symbolical body: to which you say Sixtus Senensis makes answeare that he suspec­teth the place to bee corrupted: thus you heere: and a little after you come about with Origen againe, and say; if we produce Origen, Ribera the Iesuit saith he was full of errours, which the church alwaies detested. To the first place I answeare that beside that answeare of Sixtus Senensis; which I doe not see you disproue,V. Bell. de Euch lib. 2. cap. 8. you know other Catholique authors giue other answeares. Some say not onely that place to be corrupted; but that whole worke of his to be dubiae fidei of vncertaine auctority. Others ex­plicate that, & other places brought out of the same worke by Peter Martyr against Gardiner not of the Sacrament of Christ's body, but of a certaine holy bread, which was want to be gi­uen to such as did not communicate, in place of the Eucharist; whereof there is frequent men­tion in antiquity: but Bellarmine hath a plaine and substantial answeare, that these words are spoken of the Eucharist, and that they are no­thing against the real presence; neither doe I see any cause in the world, why a man should de­cline the authority, or try any other way of an­sweare. For is it not most true, that it is the typical and symbolical body of Christ, in as much as it is representatiue of Christ himselfe vpon the crosse or euen as he is now in heauen in as much as it is a pledge of aeternal life: espe­cially seing Origen in many other places allead­ged [Page 414] by Bellarmine speaketh most plainely of the reall praesence. Now for the later place I see not why you should be troubled at Ribera's words of Origen. For hee doth not speake them by way of answeare to any obiection (though you please to say soe, for your words are these: if we produce Origen; as if you did obiect some place out of him which you doe not:) or weakning his authority for his owne aduan­tage, for he writeth noe cōtrouersy, but onely by way of general aduice: he himselfe as he saith hauing anciently beene well inclined towards Origen, for the fame of his learning; but finding him soe deepely censured by many holy Fathers and general iudgmēt of the Church, he altered his opinion of him: this I say hee speaketh onely by way of aduice being to comment vpon Malachias the Prophet and being there to treate which were the best interpreters of scripture without any reguard to any obiec­tion or controuersy. Now what is this to your purpose, or what can you except against it? I see not, nor any man els nor euen your selfe I thinke, if you marke what you say. But why should you alleadge Ribera the Iesuit, as if he were the onely man that did condemne him. See in Bellarm. de Script. Eccles. whether he be not censured of errour by S. Basil, and condemned of haeresy and reckoned among Haeretiques by S. Epiphanius, as for S. Hierome, it is well knowne how deepely he cōdemneth him: Who also trāslated one of Origen's works [Page 415] full of errours to that end, to desplay them: and euen in the 5. General Councel to say nothing of particular men, there is anathema said to him, and his writings, euen as to Arius, Ma­cedonius, Eunomius, Nestorius, and Eutyches: and yet you could find noe body that should tax Origen of errour but one poore Iesuit: though almost all this be mentioned by the same Iesuit and in the same place which you cite soe as you could not choose but see it. What then shall a man say to this your manner of dealing?

6. A fift Father is Theodoret: touching transubstantiation. Who, say you, saieth the substance of bread and wine ceaseth not in the Sacrament: to which you tell vs Valencia ma­kes answeare that he erred in the Councel of Ephesus, though afterward he repented him, as if this were all the answeare, that either he or any man els giueth; or as if euen that were not true which Valencia saith of Theodoret's erring in the Councel of Ephesus: Chap. 9 §. 3 but to this place I answeared before shewing it neither to bee against vs, nor that to be Valencia his onely answeare but the last onely of 3. or 4. besides other men's answeares.

7. The 6. is Epiphanius touching images: of whom you say out of a certaine Epistle of his, he found a vaile at the entrance of the church representing the image of Christ, or some Saint which he cut in pieces, and withall commāded that none such should be heereafter suffered [Page 414] [...] [Page 415] [...] [Page 416] to hang there: to this you say Sanders and Ba­ronius make answeare, that they are not S. Epi­phanius his words but the words of some coun­terfaict, & image-breaker: as if these two were the onely men that said soe, or as if they said soe onely, because it was against the worship of images, without farther reason of their saying, or as if that were their onely answeare: but in all these you faile fowly. For it is not the answeare of these two alone, but the com­mon of allmost all learned men; nor the onely answeare, nor vpon any one or more man's bare word. That it is not the onely answeare, may be seene in Bellarmine who bringeth two more,Bell. lib. 2. de imag. cap. 9. one out of Waldensis who supposeth it to haue beene soe done by Epiphanius, in reguard of the Anthropomorphit haeretiques raigning at that tyme, the other is of Marianus Victorius & some others saying that, that was not the ima­ge of Christ, or any Saint, but of some profane man hung there in the Church as if it had beene the picture of some Saint, that being noe fit place for it: by occasion whereof I cannot but note your corrupt citing of this testimony as you call it of Epiphanius: for whereas the pre­tended words are these. Cum inuenissem imagi­nem hominus pendentem in ecclesia tanquam Christi aut alicuius Sancti, nescio enim cuius erat. When I had found the image of a man hanging in the Church as if it were the image of Christ or some Saint, for I know not whose it was. You say thus that he found a vaile representing the image of Christ, [Page 417] or some Saint: which is plaine corruption. For S. Epiphanius saith in plaine manner, it was neither the image of Christ or any Saint, but 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, [Page 418] 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. [Page 419] 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 [Page 420] 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 [Page 421] 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 are wont also to say, a man were better not heare Masse at all, then not to heare it deuoutly, or a man is better not to doe such, or such a thing, then not to doe it well, or willingly, and the like; though indeede in our iudgment we thinke it better the thing be done though with some imperfection, then not at all. But this we say to signify the desire we haue to see it well done, or that we doe not receiue that content by [Page 422] the slender or sleight manner of doing it. And this is the very truth of S. Chrysost. saying,Bell. de Miss. lib. 2. cap. 10 as Bell. maketh it to appeare plainely: both by an exam­ple out of scripture and by other argument's out of S. Chrysost. himselfe which you may looke better vpon againe, and consider well with your selfe, whether you haue dealt well with Bell. in alleadging his bare words, soe as if he had giuen noe reason for his saying. Besids I doe not find that S. Chrysost. speake the very words which you alleadge soe crudely and harshly as you make him. For he doth not say plainely that it is better not to be present at the Sacrifice, then not to communicate: but to shew the indignity of it, bringeth a similitude of a man that should inuite a freind to a feast, and that freind coming should onely sitt there, and not eate a bitt of meate,Chrys. hom. 3. in ep. ad Ephes. he asketh whether in soe doing he doe not putt an affront vpon his freind that inuited him? and were it not better saith he that he had not appeared at all? wherein he saith most truely. Which for all that being but a simili­tude, doth not hold soe rigourously in euerie particular. Lastly I see not what colour there is in this place, to disproue that which you call priuate Masse. For if Saint Chrysostome had said it had beene better for the Priest not to say Masse, then not to haue some to communicate with him, it had beene something but to say of the people, that it was better for them not to be there, then not to communicate I doe not see by what consequence it can be drawne against [Page 423] the Priests saying Masse without communicants: especially seeing it is euident,V. Durant. de rit. lib. 2. cap. 4. n. 5. that this Saint did say Masse euery day and many of his people did not cōmunicate past twice or thrice and many also not past once in a twelue moneth.

10. The 9. ancient authour is Prudentius, whose words you cite not, but onely say thus, if we cite Prudentius, Bellarmine answeares I say noe more of him, but that he playeth the Poet, but what I pray you Sir is the reason you forbeare to cite Prudentius his words or sense? any man may easily guesse there is some­thing in the wind; something that you thinke better concealed then discouered: but I shall for once supply your want heerein. First putting you in mind that in the beginning of this sec­tion you told vs you would shew how we elude or reiect the testimonies of the Fathers, or to vse your owne words the records and real proofes in Fathers and other learned authours touching the chiefe points in controuersy be­twixt vs. Now let vs see whither that for which Prudentius is obiected in Bellarmine be such or not. The question in Bellarmine is whether the damned soules in hell feele any benefitt by the suffrages of the liuing or noe. For the affirma­tiue he bringeth some sayings of Fathers, which may seeme to insinuate as much, and among others two verses out of Prudentius thus.

[Page 424]
Sunt & spiritibus saepe nocentibus
Paenarum celebres sub styge feriae.

The English whereof is, that the wicked spirits haue often tymes holydayes, that is some ease of their paines, to which Bell. maketh noe other an­sweare indeede, but that hee played after the manner of Poets, now I aske you whither this be a chiefe point of controuersy betwixt you and vs? it should seeme you take it soe: because you seeme in all this Section, as if you allead­ged onely such as make for you in your con­trouersyes against vs: and your very words which you vse heere thus, if we cite Prudentius &c. import, as if you did cite Prudentius for your selfe in that matter, whereto Bellarmine an­sweareth: yet it is plaine on the other side that there is not any difference betwixt you and vs in that matter. For I neuer heard that any haeretique of this tyme said any such thing as that the damned find any release or ease of their paines by the prayers of the lyuing. What say you then Sir Humphrey doe not you alleadge Prudentius to very good purpose? doth not this shew a strange contentious spirit in you that care not what you say whether it be to the purpose or not, soe it may seeme somewhat against vs, though indeede it be not. But now for Bellarmines answeare, it is true and good: and it is well knowne that Poet's words are not allwaies to be soe strictly interpreted, nor [Page 425] truth to be altogether soe exacted at their hands, as at other men's: the restraint which they are faine to vse in the number of their verse, giuing them a little more liberty in the matter.

11. The 10. Tertullian, Bell. de Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 6. whose words you doe not alsoe cite, but onely say that if you obiect him Bellarmine answeares his authori­ty is of noe great account when hee contra­dicteth other Fathers, and when it appeareth he was noe man of the Church. His words I say you doe not cite, but yet in saying, if wee obiect him, and indeede in naming him, you seeme as if you had some controuersy with vs in that point for which he is cited, which is of the Virginity of our B. Lady in our Sauiour's birth: that is, whether she were a Virgin in the birth alsoe or not. But though the haere­tiques of this age generally speake very mea­nely and contemptibly of this most sacred Vir­gin, yet I doe not find that your Protestants are soe earnest against her Virginity, as to make the contrary a point of your beleife, much lesse a chiefe point as you make all that you bring ancient authors for in this place. But for the matter it is this: Bellarmine spea­king of an authority of S. Ambrose his, which might seeme at first sight to make against the same, then saith that Origen and Tertull. haue something like also; and soe answearing al­together he sheweth of Origen & S. Ambrose, that they are not against vs by expounding [Page 426] those places, which seeme against it by other plaine places out of them. For Tertullian he saith his words are obscure, nor much to be reguar­ded when he contradicteth other Fathers; and when it appeares he was noe man of the Church. Which last words you translate fal­sely, and withall leaue out an authority of special moment: the words falsly translated are these. (Cùm constet) since it appeareth. Whe­reas you say when it appeareth. Which is a diffe­rent sense; for aske any schoole-boy whether cùm with the subiunctiue and indicatiue moode be all one: the thing which you left out is S. Hierom's authority which Bellarmine alleadgeth thus. Seing saith he it is euident as Saint Hiero. speaketh, that hee was noe man of the Church: these being Saint Hierom's very words: heere then you see againe that it is Saint Hierome not Bellarmine alone that doth reiect Tertullian: nor is Saint Hierome alone of the ancient Fathers in this opinion of him, but almost all the Fathers: Vincentius Lerinensis saith he was by his fall a great temptation to many,Vinc. Lerin. cap. 24. Hilar. in comment. in Math. cap. 5. and Saint Hilarius saith there, that Tertullian's later errours, did detract a great deale of authority from his approued writings. Soe then it is noe wonder if Bellarmine make small account of him where he contradicteth other Fathers. And soe you may say that S. Hierome, Vincentius Lerinensis and S. Hilarius reiect and elude the Fathers as well as Bellarmine.

12. The 11. is Saint Hierome of whom you [Page 427] say that if you cite him, Canus makes answeare Hierome is noe rule of faith: Can. de locis. lib. 2. cap. 11. but you tell vs not where, or vpon what occasion you cite Saint Hierome, noe more then you doe the three for­mer Fathers: though it be true that in that matter that Canus speaketh of, which is the Ca­non of Scripture, you haue Saint Hierome a little more fore you in shew then in any thing els, or more then you haue any other of the Fathers: yet I dare say you wilbe loath to stand to his iudgment euen in that very matter for though this Saint reckon the books of the old testament, according to the Canon of the Iewes, which you also follow, if a man should vrge you with S. Hieromes authority euen in this point, I beleeue you would say the same, or more then Canus doth, to wit, that he is noe rule of faith, for S. Hierosme alloweth the booke of Iudith to be canonical Scripture,Proef. in Iudith. though it bee not in the Iewes canon, which yet you reiect; and on the contrary he saith of Saint Peter's second epistle, à plaerisque reijcitur: it is reiected by most: Descript. eccles. Verb. Petrus Apost. wherein yet you doe not follow him: this is for the matter. Now for the words you doe not cite Canus right, for he doth not say that Saint Hierome is noe rule of faith, (though that be true as I shall shew presently) but thus: hauing alleadged Caietan's saying that the Church did follow S. Hierome in reckoning the books of Scripture he denieth it thus. For neither is it true, saith Canus, that S. Hier. is the rule of the Church in de­termining the canonical books. Which is most true. [Page 428] S. Hierome is not the rule of the Church, but the Church is his rule,Hier. praef. in Iudith. as appeareth in that he reckoneth Iudith among the Canonical books, vpon the authority of the Church. Nei­ther is it all one to say S. Hierome is noe rule of the Church for determining which books be Scripture, which not, and to say he is noe rule of faith. Besides if Canus had said S. Hiero­me is noe rule of faith, he had said most true, and nothing but what holy S. Aug. saith in other words, in an Epistle to this same S. Hierome, and speaking euen of his writings thus:Aug. ep. 19 Solis eis scripturarū libris, &c. I haue lear­ned to giue that feare and honour to those o­nely bookes of scripture, which are now called canonical, as to beleeue most firmely that noe author (or writer) of them hath erred any thing in writing: but others I reade soe that though they excell neuer soe much in any ho­linesse & learning, I doe not therefore thinke it true, because they thought soe, but because they haue beene able to perswade either by those canonical authors or by probable rea­son, that they say true: and there he goeth on specifying euen S. Hierome himselfe, and saying vnto him that he presumeth he would not haue him soe wholy approue of his writings, as to thinke there is no error at all in them. The like he hath in another place shewing plainely that any priuate Doctor may erre,Lib. 2. de Bap. cont. Donat. cap. 3 and consequently can be noe rule of faith. Yet for all that, the authority of any such is very [Page 429] great in any thing wherein he agreeth with others, or is not by them gaine said. For that is a token that what he saith is the common tradi­tion and beleife of the Church, which is a suffi­cient rule. Is this then to reiect and elude the Fathers, to say that one is noe rule of faith? if it be, then doth S. Aug. reiect and elude them: it is plaine therefore you doe but cauill: for why may not Canus say the same of S. Hierome that S. Aug. doth?

13. After S. Hierome you come to Iustin, Ire­naeus, Epiphanius, and Oecumenius, whom say you if you cite, Bellarmine answeares I see not how we can defend the sentence of these men from errour.Bell. lib. 1. de Sanct. cap. 6 Heere againe as else where you forbea­re to tell vs the matter, for which you cite them or who of your authors cite them: For this would haue discouered your falshood and vanity. The matter then is concerning the damned spirits, whether they suffer anie pu­nishment for the present tyme before the day of iudgment or not, these fathers thinke not: the common consent of all other fathers, and of the whole Catholique Church is against them in it. How then shall Bellarmine excuse it from an error: but I pray you Sir Humphrey be­thinke your selfe well, and tell vs againe whe­ther this be any point controuerted betweene you and vs? I know it is a thing which you might better maintaine, then most or perhaps any one point of your faith, hauing these 3. or 4. Fathers for you therein, but yet I doe not [Page 430] find by your 39. articles or any other suffi­cient authority, that you hold that error much lesse as a chiefe point of your faith. Wherefo­re it is false that you say (when you cite these Fathers.) For you doe not cite them, neither is their errour in a matter of controuersy be­tweene vs, I note heere also in a word, that whereas Bellarmine saith onely he doth not see how he can defend the opinion of Iustin, Irenaeus &c. from errour you make him say, the opinion of these men, as if he did spea­ke but slightly of the Fathers which is a great wrong. For though he doe not in all things and alwaies approue the opinion of euery par­ticular man yet doth he allwaies speake with great reuerence of the holy Fathers as all Catho­liques doe.

14. Lastly you come with Salmeron saying that if you produce the vniforme consent of Fathers against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin; Salmeron the Iesuit makes an­sweare, weake is the place which is drawne from authority for pauperis est numerare pecus. It is the signe of a poore man to number his Cattell. Thus you say of Salmeron in a few lines dis­couering a great deale of fals-hood. For first it is false that you produce Fathers against the Conception of our Lady. That being noe controuersy betweene you and vs but onely among our selues: wherefore if there be any such consent of Fathers it is not you that produce them but our owne authors, you [Page 431] onely out of the great good affection you beare forsooth to our B. Sauiour are ready to embrace any opinion that may more de­rogate from the dignity of his blessed Mother: but what doe crowes looke for but carren? Secondly it is false that Salmeron acknowled­geth any such vniforme consent of Fathers against him, or that he makes any such an­sweare to them. It is true indeede he saith the contrary part alleadge for themselues the testimonies of the ancient Fathers and special­ly of Saint Augustine. Which he answeareth another way: but for those which he answea­reth as you say here, they are onely later au­thours or Doctours: as shall after appeare. Thirdly it is false that hee acknowledgeth any vniforme consent euen of these later Doctours against himselfe: for he opposeth a farre grea­ter multitude of Doctours against them vsing that saying of Elizaeus the Prophet: 4. Reg. 6.16. plures nobiscum sunt quam cum illis: there be more with vs then with them. Where then is the consent? Fourthly it is a cunning tricke if not a false for you to ma­ke this answeare seeme Salmeron's onely, whe­reas he professeth to haue it out of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas of Aquine citing two or three seuerall places of Saint Augu­stine but it is well at lest that, though you con­temne their authority; yet you doe not doe it soe openly but couertly onely vnder the shad­dow of a IESVIT. This therefore might be an­sweare enough for you to shew that we doe [Page 432] not reiect or elude the Fathers: seing we haue our answeares out of them: but to explaine the meaning of Salmeron's saying that the place of authority is weake, a little more, I will allead­ge S. Thomas of Aquine his obiection and an­sweare: he obiecteth that the science of Diui­nity cannot be argumentatiue:1. p q. 1. ar. 8. and 2. because saith he it must argue out of authority or reason; not out of authority because according to Boetius the place of authority is most weake: not out of reason because then faith hath noe merit: to this he answeareth that it argueth out of Diui­ne authority; and saith that Boetius is to be vn­derstood of humaine authority, which he also saith is the weakest kind of proofe. Soe as by this Salmeron's meaning is plaine not to reiect authority, but onely to preferre reason before humaine authority: as it is most plaine that it ought to be preferred. Besids Salmeron giueth other answeares as that he opposeth also a contrary multitude of Doctours; he opposeth the force of reason; he opposeth the consent in a manner of the whole Church: concluding therefore that though some of the cōtrary part number a great many authors some 200. some 300. some but 15. yet the very nūbering shew­eth them to be few according to that saying Pauperis est numerare pecus, it is onely for a poore man to number his cattell: whereas a rich man's cattell or other wealth is not soe soone counted: insi­nuating thereby that his authors are soe many that they are not to be numbred: and indeede [Page 433] he hath almost as many Vniuersityes, kingdo­mes, commonwealths, religious orders and other communityes for him as the other side hath single authors: By all which it is apparent that there is noe such absurdity in his saying as you would haue it seeme: for he sligh­teth not authority but preferreth onely grea­ter authority before lesse, and reason befo­re both: which noe man in his right witts can deny to be very good reason; where then was your reason Sir Humphrey when you read Salmeron? it was straying after some haereticall fancy.

15. By this then that hath beene said in this whole chapter it may appeare how like your selfe you make that vaunting conclusion to your reader, that by what you haue heere said, he hath heard the proofe of the Romish wit­nesses in the chiefe points, made good by the testimonies of the Fathers themselues. For disproofe whereof I should vrong my Rea­der's iudgement, if I should stand bringing other arguments then those, which I haue done already in answearing euery particular place which you bring. Wherein I haue shewed not one Father of all these to be against vs, vnlesse it be in some one or two points, wherein they are as much against you, and in things which both you ackno­wledge for errours, and are contradicted by the common consent of other fathers, whe­rein I hope my deeds will waigh more with [Page 434] any man of iudgement then your words:Chap. 13. and soe I passe to another section.

Of the 13. Sect. which is thus entituled by the Knight. Our aduersaries con­uinced of a bad cause, and an euill conscience by razing of our re­cords and clipping their owne authors tongues. CHAPTER XIII.

1. IN the later end of the former section, the Knight saith that many in our owne Church haue spoken freely and truly in particular points of doctri­ne with his, and against our tenets. For which the Inquisitours haue passed their censure vpon them, blotting out such lines or leaues as ma­ke against vs: and now in this section he na­meth some authours in particular. To which I say that for the former part the Knight saith very true, there be and euer haue beene some [Page 435] light new fangled people, who giue too much liberty to their wandring thoughts and penns, suffering themselues like chaffe as they are, to be blowne hither and thither with the wind of inconstancy. And such people they are for the most part that become haeretiques, though some also remaine in the vnity of the Catho­lique church, yet soe as they suffer some things to escape, which deserue censure. Wherefore the Catholique church to preuent the danger and harme, which may come by such bookes, taketh the best order that can be in Catholique countries, that noe such boo­kes be printed till they be reuiewed, and ap­proued not to containe any thing contrary to faith and good manners: but because there ha­ue beene many such writings published this last age, by occasion of heresy and liberty which came therewith, to the great preiudice of the Catholique faith there hath beene a course taken for the restraint of all such, not onely writings of Haeretiques, but euen of Catholiques which haue any tange of haere­sy, either vtterly forbidding them or cor­recting them, soe as they may be safely rea­de without danger of faith and good life. And this kind of care hath euer beene vsed in the Catholique church, though more or lesse, as the necessity of tymes hath beene greater or lesse.Act. 19.18. Soe we see in scri­pture it selfe, some that followed cu­riosities, becoming Christians confessed [Page 436] their deeds, and burnt their books. Soe we see afterwards the books of Arius were comman­ded to be burnt and men forbidden to keepe them vnder paine of death,Socrat. hist. lib. 1. cap. 6. and soe of others which I will not heere stand vpon, onely con­tenting my selfe with one exāple of this kind, which for the antiquity and authority may be both proofe and warrant for the practize of the Catholique Church now at this tyme, wherein the Haeretiques doe soe much cry out against the Inquisition, and index expurgatorius.

2. This example is that of Gelasius 1. Pope about the yeare 490. who in a Councel at Rome gathered for that end, made a Decree to decla­re what Scriptures were canonical, what Fa­thers and Doctours might be safely read, and what not: whereof hauing made a catalogue he addeth these words in the end. Item opus­cula atque tractatus omnium orthodoxorum &c. Also we decree to be read the workes and treatises of all the orthodox Fathers, who in nothing haue strayed from the company of the holy Romane Church, nor haue been sepa­rated from the faith and preaching thereof, but by the grace of God haue held with the same euen to the last day of their life; and then before he come to make a catalogue of the haereticall books, which he forbiddeth, he saith thus. Coetera quae abhaereticis &c. Other things which haue beene written or preached by Haeretiques or Schismatiques the Catho­lique and Apostolique Romane Church doth [Page 437] noe way receiue, of which some few that come to mind and are to be shunned by Catholiques, we thinke good to sett downe heere: and soe there setteth them downe. Now I would know of the Knight or anie man els that crieth out soe bitterly against our Index expurgatorius, what he can say against it, that he may not say against this decree and Councel of Gelasius? and against which we may not defend our selues by oppo­sing it as a buckler against all their darts.

3. But of this matter therefore I neede not say more it being euident by the light of nature that supposing there be a certaine rule of faith, to which all men must cōforme their thoughts, sayings, and writings, and that the swaruing from it is a declining to haeresy, it pertaineth to the Catholique Romane Church (which must of necessity be this rule of faith. For it hath nei­ther spot nor wrinckle as Gelasius saith, which cannot be said of any Church els what soeuer) to preuent the danger that may come by such books forbidding the vse of them; and a more dangerous and vnnatural part it would be in her, not to vse this care, then it were in a Mother that should see sugar and ratts-baine lye together, and seing her child going to tast thereof should forbeare to warne it; but leaue the choice thereof to the child. But of this matter I said somewhat in the beginning, and there being diuers learned treatises of this subiect particularly, I neede say noe more: but remitt such as desire satisfaction to them or [Page 438] euen to the very rules sett downe in the begin­ning of the Index expurgatorius which are grounded vpō soe good reason as I presume noe indifferent man that readeth them can disallow of them: I will not therefore stand particu­larly to examine euery particular authour and iustify the Inquisition, for it would be both a long & needlesse labour. Onely I cannot omitt one authour called Bertram whom, to turne my speech to you Sir Humphrey, me thinks you among all men liuing should neuer soe much as name, considering how much disgrace you haue sustained by translating his booke and venturing your owne credit, and the credit of your Church vpon the faith thereof: and for him I answeare that though his booke were proued plainely to containe good Catholique doctrine in the matter of transubstantiation: yet because it was obscure in many places and the­reby gaue occasion of erring: and indeede was of vncertaine authority, this onely being cer­taine that it hath beene in this last age pub­lished by Haeretiques, we know not out of what records with some errours of their owne inserted, therefore it might well be forbidden by the Inquisition? but I say you should of all men liuing most labour to haue the memory thereof blotted out, therewith to obliterate your owne shame.

4. Another thing which I am also to note is, concerning your coting of a Canon of the Councel of Laodicea, in this section; whereat I [Page 439] wonder, that the inquisition hauing said no­thing to it, why you should reckon it heere among such authours, as you say are razed or clipped by the inquisition. But let vs heare what it is that you say to it? you cite the Canon thus in English onely. We ought not to leaue the Church of God, and inuocate Angels: saying withall that in the same Councel published by Merlin and Crabbe, by change of a letter, Angelos is turned into Angulos, Angels into Angles and Corners, thus, that we must not leaue the Church of God and haue recourse to Angles or Corners. and this say you, lest soe faire an euidence of an ancient Councel should be produced against inuocation of Angels, V. Bin. to. 1. Concil. thus you, Sir Humphrey: wherein first is to be noted your error in chronology, concerning the tyme of this Councel which you make to be the yeare 368. which was 43.Con. Lao­dien. can. 35. yeares after the 1. Councel of Nice, whereas it was celebrated before that Councel. Secondly your corruption in the translation and cutting of of the Ca­non, which is thus. Non oportet relicta ecclesia ad Angelos abominandae idolatriae congregrationes facere, quicunque autem inuentus fuerit occultae huic idololaetriae vacans Anathema sit, quoniam relinquens Dominum (IESVM Christum) fi­lium Dei accessit ad idola. Noe man must, lea­uing the Church of God, make congregations to the Angels of abominable idolatry: and whosoeuer shalbe found exercizing this secret idolatry, let [Page 438] [...] [Page 439] [...] [Page 440] him be anathema, because leauing IESVS Christ the Sonne of God, he hath come to idols. Now where in this Canon doe you find the word inuocation of Angels; Which is the thing that you pre­tend to be forbidden: and much lesse doe you find such inuocation of Angels as we vse? For in this Canon is onely forbidden such idola­trical inuocation as the Simonian and other hae­retiques did vse, praeferring the Angels before Christ, and making them the creatours of the world and the onely or chiefe mediatours, without whose helpe there was noe accesse to be had to God, which is the same wicked hae­resy which Saint Paul speaketh against Coloss. 2. as all interpreters vnderstand him. By whose words it is plaine that those Haeretiques left Christ and had recourse to Angels in this sense. Nemo vos seducat non tenens caput, &c. Let noe man seduce you, not holding the head, that is, not holding by Christ. Now where doe you finde that we by inuocation of Angels forsake Christ? this place then maketh nothing against vs. Thirdly there is noe reason why you should charge vs with changing the word Angelos into angulos. For though some may reade it Angulos yet others reade it Angelos and euen two for one. For whereas Binius out of whom you your selfe cite this Canon, in his last edition of the Councels hath the Greeke text and three se­ueral Latine translations thereof; all these haue Angelos and not Angulos, & Bellarmine, Baronius, and almost all other authors reade it angelos and [Page 441] according to that reading answeare that triuiall obiection which your people ordinarily draw from thence against our adoration of Angels and Saints noe way excepting against the word, angelos, as if that were not the right reading, but shewing the sense not to be any way against vs.

5. Is it not then shamelesse dealing in you, to make your Reader beleiue that we corrupt the reading, left soe faire an euidence, to vse your words, should be brought against vs; whereas we keepe the euidence soe faire and entire, in our best editions that were it not for them, you would not know what the true reading were; you knowing withall, that there is noe cause why we should goe about to chan­ge the word, which is nothing against vs: for we forsake not Christ; we acknowledge noe angels to be the framers of the world, nor chiefe mediators, nor that with out them we cannot haue accesse to God. These are all haereticall de­uices, which we together with S. Paul and the Councel of Laodicea detest. But as I said before seing you would needs bring this impertinent obiection, I wonder why you did not bring it before, but heere in this place, as if the inquisi­tion had commanded something to be blotted out, or the word angeli to be changed into anguli. But you wanted matter to fill out your section; and therefore you put that in heere, and withall to helpe it out yet a little more you tell vs of one Henry Boxhorn a learned professor of Louaine, as you terme him, and who as you [Page 442] say in your English text, being commanded to put the Decree of the Inquisition in execution, his hart was smitten, and his eyes opened to see the abomination of the Papacy; an idol in the temple, tyranny in the commonwealth, poyson and infection in religion: and therevpon became a conuert to the Protestant faith: thus you Sir Humphrey: but if such matter as this will serue your turne, you may haue enough; neither need you search corners to find out such obscu­re: fellowes as this Boxhorne whose harts haue beene smitten, and their eyes opened; you might bring the Fathers of your religion for examples as Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius, Beza, Carolstadius, and who not: for though they might pretend seueral causes, yet there was one principal one, which consisted indeede in the smitting of their harts, with a fiery dart of carnal loue. And when they found an Eue to giue them an apple, then their eyes were opened; and soe it proued also with your freind Boxhorne, as I shall heere shew you by a briefe story of his life most au­thentically related by that graue and holy man Oliuerius Manaraeus of the Society of IESVS, in a certaine written treatise, wherein he re­counteth onely the exāples of his owne tyme, and such as he himself knew had become Apo­statas from the said Society: thus then hee wri­teth.

6. Henry Buxhornich Licentiate of Diuinity and Deane of the church of Tielmond not farre from Louaine, did often confesse himselfe to [Page 443] be soe certainely called to the Society, that he hath beene heard many tymes to say, that he did thinke he should proue a reprobate and be aeternally damned, vnlesse he did enter there into: and he was wont to say it with soe great feeling that there was noe doubt but he spake it enflamed with heauenly fire. But his Mo­ther endeauoured by all meanes to withdraw her sonne from soe good a purpose, and in­deede preuailed soe farre as to make him dif­ferre it from month to month and from yeare to yeare. After some yeares falling sicke he was heard by some that euen told it me agai­ne saith F. Oliuerius Manaraeus, to repeate and renew his vow but being recouered he went on as before, yeilding to his Mothers enticements and concupiscences of the flesh, gaue the raines to his sensuality. In that tyme the haeretiques sacked and spoiled the towne of Tielmond, and killed all that did not either flye or hide themselues: heere then the poore Licentiate hidd himselfe in a certaine caue or denne the enemy running round about him on euery side, and almost lighting vpon him. But being in this daunger he had re­course as he was wont to God and our Bles­sed Lady, renewing his vow nine tymes to­gether, and crauing pardon that he had not accomplished the same before: which almighty God hearing deliuered him, and he magnifying the benefit, resolued presently to fulfill his Vow: but being againe ensnared [Page 444] by the allurements of his Dalila he did soe long differr it till he became publiquely a sacrile­gious concubinary giuing himself soe ouer to his lust, that he kept a nest of women in his howse. Being then questioned by the Bishop's Vicar. he sent away all his women, & gaue his oath that he would keepe himself within his owne doores as in a prison. But he breaking his faith, stole away the next night with a great summe of money whereof most did belong to the Church, carrying his concubine with him, and marrying her afterwards according to the custome of Haeretiques became a Preacher and Minister in Holland. A little after endeauouring to reconcile the Lutherans and Caluinists he writ a booke which he called Concord. in which he speakes very bitterly of the Society of IESVS, calling the religious thereof Esauits: he became presently extreame wicked who seemed before endewed with angelical vertues and adorned with admirable sweetnes of manners soe as by word and example he drew many to vertuous courses; but now he is become soe vgly to be­hold as is related and his life soe execrable in Holland that noe man can endure him. His mo­ther through the iust iudgment of God hauing beene cause of his perdition was faine to leaue him, not being able to endure his cruelty and wicked manners: and whereas before she liued in great aboundance, she is now become soe poore as to liue vpon almes all crooked and as it were double at Louaine getting what she can [Page 445] by washing and spinning, euery man wonde­ring at her, and admiring the iust reuenge of almighty God vpon her: thus farre this most true and faithfull relation. Whereto I may adde one word more which is this that a cer­taine Apostata Franciscan running away to Breda when it was in the hands of the Hollan­ders and where this Boxhorne was at that tyme chiefe Preacher and being lodged in his howse and in the next chamber to him and his Wo­man, he heard such kind greeting betweene them that night the one cursing the other and imputing their 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 [Page 446] 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 [Page 448] 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.

[Page 449]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 [Page 450] 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 of restraint: though if the­re had beene, we might very well haue warran­ted it by the authority of S. Hierome who did noe way admitt such free vse euen of the Lati­ne bibles; for hauing spoken largely and lear­nedly out of Scripture of the hardnes and ob­scurity of scripture,Ep. ad Pau­lin. he complaines that euery body did presume to take, reade, and teach it before they learned it themselues, disallowing that euen such as himself should goe from sae­cular learning presently to the holy Scriptures, and interpret them at their pleasure. S. Hierome then thought them hard, and was not soe free in allowing the reading of Scriptures as you are. For if he doe not allow the reading thereof in Latine to men and Scholars, how much lesse [Page 451] would he haue allowed it in English to womē and Children? Besides it is noe such cryme to forbid the reading of scripture to some sorts of people, as may appeare by this testimony of this holy Father, who in the same place also saith moreouer that the beginning of Genesis, with the beginning and end of Ezechiel were not to be read by the Iewes, till they came to 30. yeares of age; which kind of forbidding is noe dero­gation but a great commendation of the holy scripture. And I call it but a kind of forbidding; for it is farre different, though you make it all one, from the forbidding of haereticall bookes. For these are forbidden as wicked, detestable, & of themselues dangerous; the other out of re­uerence and honor dew vnto them and in re­guard of the danger which may come by them not of thēselues, but in reguard of the weaknes of the Reader, for want of necessary learning & humility: both which a man that is to handle the Scriptures must come well prouided of.

4. For Cornelius Agrippa it maketh noe more matter what he saith, then what you say: for it is but aske my brother if I bee a theife? but it is fine that these fellowes cannot be inuited by a generall Councell with promise of all securi­ty that can be desired to come and propound what they can say out of scripture, or any way els, and yet when they come before a Iudge they will dispute forsooth and by disputing auoide the rigour of the Law. Indeede I cannot blame them; but if this seeme reason to you, [Page 452] why doe you deny Catholique Priests the like liberty of Disputation? How often and ear­nestly haue they desired it but could neuer ob­taine it? But neither euen in that case with vs are people denied any conuenient liberty: nei­ther is there any credit to be giuen to Cornelius Agrippa. For being a Magitian he may very well be said to haue shaked hands with the Diuell the father of lies. Which you your selfe it seemes knowing and suspecting that his te­stimony would not passe for currant, you tell vs we shall heare our owne authors how they speake of the Scriptures. For you tremble to speake it as your words are. You tell vs some say they are dead characters, a shell without a kernel, a leaden rule, a wood of theeues, a shop of Haeretiques, imperfect, doubtful, obscure, ful of perplexities, with many more epithets, which I let passe, these being of the very worst and especially the last 4. for which you allead­ge Lessius, alleadging likewise for euery one of the rest a seuerall authour. Whereto not to stand answearing euery one seuerally, the mat­ter being the same of one and all; I say in ge­nerall, that these things are spoken not of the Scripture, as it is in it selfe that is consi­sting of both words and meaning, as it we­re life and soule together, but of the bare words and letters onely which Haeretiques still doe and euen haue abused as the Diuell himselfe did to our Sauiour and in this sense it is a wood of theeues. For as theeues runne into [Page 453] a wood to escape thereby, soe doe Haeretiques runne in all controuersies to the letter of the Scripture, leauing the true sense and fra­ming a false one according to their owne fancy.Tert. de praes. cap. 17 Which is that that Tertullian saith that there is noe good to be done with haeretiques by Scriptures for that either they deny the booke or peruert the sense, and whatsoeuer wee say they deny or what we deny they de­fend: and so a wood of theeues, and shop of hae­retiques, dead characters, and the like are all one: the meaning of all being soe as these speeches are not meant of the Scripture pro­perly in it selfe, as I saied before, but as it is yours or as it is made by you and other Haereti­ques, and yet alas good man you tremble to heare the words that doe but expresse your owne deeds. Alac for you that your stomacke is soe queasy, that it cannot endure to heare that, which you are bold and hardy enough to doe by your daily practize.

5. But because you are soe dainty that your stomacke turneth at what our moderne au­thors say of you, let vs see whether it wil broo­ke any better what that ancient & learned Fa­ther S. Hierome saith. Let vs see whether your tender conscience wilbe soe scandalized at his words as you seeme to be now at ours.Hierom. 1. Gal. Marcion & Basilides saith he, & caeterae haereticorum pestes nō habent Dei Euangelium, quia non habent Spiritū San­ctum, sine quo humanum fit Euangelium quod docetur. Nec putemus in verbis Scripturarum esse Euāgelium, [Page 454] sed in sensu, non in superficie, sed in medulla; non in sermonum folijs, sed in radice rationis. Dicitur in Pro­pheta de Deo. Michae. 2. Sermones eius boni sunt cum eo. Tunc Scriptura vtilis est audientibus cum absque Christo non dicitur, cum absque Patre non profertur, cum sine spiri­tu non eam insinuat ille qui praedicat, alioquin & dia­bolus qui loquitur de scripturis, & omnes haereses se­cundum Ezechiel inde sibi consuunt ceruicalia quae ponant sub cubito vniuersae aetatis &c. Grande peri­culum est in ecclesia loqui, ne fortè interpretatione peruersa de euangelio Christi hominis fiat euangelium aut quod peius est Diaboli. Marcion Basilides and other plagues of Haeretiques haue not the Ghospel of God, because they haue not the Holy Ghost: without whom it becometh the ghospel of man which is taught. Nor let vs thinke that the ghospel is (or consisteth) in the words of scripture but in the sense, not in the superficies (or barke) but in the pith; not in the leaues of speach (or word) but in the roote of reason. It is said in the Prophet of God. His speeches are good with him: then the Scripture is profitable to the hearers when it is not spoken without Christ, when it is not brought with­out the Father, when he that preacheth doth not insinuate it without the Holy Ghost, otherwise both the Diuel who speaketh out of Scripture and all hae­resies according to Ezechiel make themselues pil­lowes out of it to put vnder the elbowes of all ages. It is a great danger to speak in the Church lest per­chance by peruerse interpretation of the ghospel of Christ there be made the ghospel of man or which is worse the Ghospel of the Diuel. Thus farre [Page 455] Saint Hieromes words, which mee thinks with­out more adoe may easily answeare your who­le argument for in them this holy Father sayth as much or more as all those Epithets which you bring out of our seueral authours put to­geather and withall sheweth in what sense they are to be taken. Soe as if you will say any more of this matter you must vndertake the quarrel against Saint Hierome. You may doe well also to note the very first words: Marcion, Basilides & caeterae haereticorum pestes: among whom you haue your part.

6. Now for the 4. last epithets which you bring out of Lessius, though they seeme not such strange termes, as some of the rest, yet they are farr worse and more derogatory from the holy Scripture if they be there as you say. I haue therefore more particularly examined him, whither he say soe or noe:Less. Consul. Quae sit fides &c. rat. 11. and whe­reas the words being all put downe by you heere as it were seuerall epithets, a man would haue thought they had beene all soe together in the authour himselfe, I say first that there be neither any such words lying togeather, nor any such a part, nor any one word of those, that I can find in that whole place or reason which I may call a chapter, for it is in manner of a chapter, much lesse any of them vttered of the holy Scripture, though the whole Chapter or discourse in that pla­ce be onely of the Scripture, and to proue [Page 456] that it alone and of it selfe can not be a rule of faith. Which he proueth by many reasons, one is because by it we can not iudge of the Scripture it selfe, and soe the very rule shall remaine vn­certaine, which ought to be most certaine. And in this place he hath the word incerta, which though it signify the same with some of the words heere alleadged, yet is it not the same word. But yet heere Lessius is farre from saying that the Scripture is vncertaine in it self, that is, that the doctrine thereof is doubtfull: but onely that our rule wilbe vncertaine to vs or rather we vncertaine of the rule, because we cannot know the Scripture by it self. For example that this booke is true scripture, not suppositions, or feigned; or that this is the true meaning and sense thereof. And this kind of vncertainty is noe derogation to the Scri­pture. Lessius his second reason is that, that can­not be a certaine rule which may be accom­modated or fitted to contrary doctrines, as he saith, Scripture is by seuerall Haeretiques for establishment of quite different opinions. His 3. reason is this: that cannot be a iudge, that cannot clearely determine on which side sen­tence is giuen, but leaueth it soe, that the partyes may still contend one affirming the sentence to bee for him, another for him. And soe he saith is the scripture laying asi­de the exposition of the Church, and Fathers. Whereto he there bringeth also an example of two men, who going to law would admitt [Page 457] noe other iudge but the Law booke; one brin­ging one Law cleerely for him, as he thinketh; the other another Law as cleerely for him in his iudgment, of which suite there could neuer be an end soe. Fourthly he sheweth by experience, that this rule of Scripture is not sufficient for ending of Controuersies: because the Lutherans Caluinists and Anabaptists are alltogether by the eares, yet euery one alleadging Scripture for himselfe. Lastly he saith that the Scripture it self in noe place sendeth priuate men to seach the Scriptures in doubtfull matters, but to the Church and Pastours praesiding therein.

7. This is the whole substance of Lessius his discourse in that place, wherein I would gladly heare what word there is derogating from the dignity of holy Scripture or any way condem­ning it of imperfection, doubtfulnes, ambi­guity, and perplexity? some of these things might bee truely said and in a good sense, as the doubtfulnes or ambiguity in the same sense that I spoke of the vncertainty, not in it selfe but to vs-ward. But for the imperfectiō, because that is a great matter with you, I absolutely deny it: for neither doth any Catholique say either that, or any thing els from whence it may be gathered. For it is not all one to say, that it alone is noe sufficient rule, and to say it is imperfect: for though you imagine that the all sufficiency, or contayning of all things expresly, is a necessary point of perfection, you are deceiued; for then would it follow, that [Page 458] the ghospel of S. Mathew S. Marke and other particular books should be imperfect, and spe­cially that of S. Iohn, wherein he saith expresly that all things are not written; neither if all the Scripture did containe all things in that manner as you would haue it, and soe were perfect in your sense, yet would it not euen then be a sufficient rule of faith of it selfe alone: for it would still bee a booke or vriting, the very nature whereof doth not suffer it to be the sole rule of fayth or iudge of controuersies; for a Iugde must be able to speake, to heare, answeare &c. whereas the nature of a booke or writing is as it were to leaue it selfe to be read, and ex­pounded by men; for in case two men should ex­pound it differently, the nature thereof doth not require that it should say whether of the two expoundeth it right. The perfection there­fore of it doth rather cōsist in the truth, fulnesse of wisedome, profoundnes, maiesty, grauity, efficacy, authority, and certainty, then in con­tayning all things expresly as you require & soe long as it hath those perfections cōtaining with­all the principal matters pertayning to faith, and teaching vs a certaine and infallible way, whe­reby we may come to the knowledge of the rest which is the Church, it cannot be said to be vn­perfect or to wāt any perfection dew therevnto. And this may be answeare sufficient to the rest of this Section which is nothing but a litle more of such wise stuffe: for you tell vs we decline Scriptures as vnperfect, the fathers as counter­fect, [Page 459] the Protestants as haeretiques, our owne authors as erronious. Of which there is not one true word but this that we decline Protestants as haeretiques: for soe we doe indeede; but for the rest it is most false. For what Catholique did euer decline the authority of our Schoo­le Diuines or ancient fathers much lesse call the one erronious or the other counterfect. Some one may haue strayed a little from the common opinion of the rest in some one particular point or perhaps haue beene corrupted by haeretiques, and soe we may decline that particular author in that particular point, but call him erroneous or counterfect we doe not: nay we giue you leaue to name that Father or Catholique Doc­tor, to whose iudgment we will not stand for trial of the controuersies betweene you and vs: and if hee be for you in one, I will vndertake he shalbe against you in 5. or 10. others for that one. With what face then can you say we de­cline them? but because I imagine you reflect most in this saying vpon this worthy worke of your owne▪ I leaue it to the consideration of the indifferent Reader whether I haue soe de­clined one author either moderne or ancient; or whether I haue not shewed euery one which you haue brought to be quite against you. Now for the Scripture because you say wee decline it as vnperfect I challēge you to name the man that saith it is vnperfect & for that reason declineth it. You fathered indeede that terme vpon Les­sius but I shewed it to be most false, for that he [Page 460] hath not the word at all in that chapter much lesse doth he say it of Scripture, and lesse againe doth he decline the trial thereof in reguard of the imperfection but onely in reguard that it being a written word noe haeretique can be conuinced by it, as I shewed also euen now out of Tertullian, who saith it is but lost labour to dispute with an haeretique out of scripture. But because I see your drift in the often repeti­tion of the word imperfect is onely to beget in men's minds an hard conceit of vs,De pr [...]. cap. [...] as if we made small account of scripture, I would know of you who they be that haue preserued the Scripture with such care for soe many ages? who they bee that haue translated, commen­tend, and expounded them? who they be that haue made soe many decrees in particu­lar and general Councels for the preserua­tion, authority, reuerence, and dew vse of them? who they bee that haue filled libraries with learned works not onely expounding the particular passages, but frequently and largely declaring their necessity, dignity, vtility, and other perfections?Veu. B. 2. [...]p. Sr. [...]p. Let any man by these effects iudge who reuerenceth them most Catholiques or Protestants? Let him compare the labours of the one with the labours of the other and then he shall soone find the truth of this matter.

8. But because you still talke of our decli­ning of Scripture, besids that it is false, as I said before, for we are content to admitt any kind [Page 461] of triall with you, to take that alsoe out of your mouth. I answeare you farther, that in this we cōdescend more vnto your infirmity being wil­ling to try all wayes to gaine you, then we neede, or you can of right challenge. For we acknow­ledge that saying of Tertullian's most true, Whereby hee as it were stoppeth this gapp against you. Hunc igitur potissimum gradum ob­struimus, non admittendos eos ad vllam de scripturis disputationem sihae sunt vires eorum, anne eas habere possint dispici debet cui competat possessio Scriptura­rum, ne is admittatur ad eas cui nullo modo competit. We stopp vp this entrance chiefly that they (that is haeretiques) are not to be admitted to the disputation of Scriptures if in these their force consist, we must see whether they may haue them to whom the pos­session belongeth, lest he be admitted therevnto to whom it in noe wise belongeth: as also that other place wherein conformably to the question which heere he maketh this being an impor­tant point) hee defineth.de praesc. cap. 15. & 37. Non esse admittendos hae­reticos ad incundam de Scripturis prouocationem, quos sine Scripturis probamus ad Scripturas non per­tinere. That haeretiques are not to be admitted to the challenge of Scriptures, whom without Scriptures we proue not to pertaine to Scriptures: that is not to haue any thing to doe with them. For, saith he, if they be haeretiques they cannot be Christians, and not being Christians they can haue noe right to Christian writings. Wherefore Sir Humphrey while you stand bragging of Scri­ptures and chalenging vs, we may say vnto [Page 462] you as the same Tertullian saith consequently in the same place. Qui estis? quādo & vnde venistis? quid in meo agitis non mei? quo denique Marcion iure siluam meam caedis, &c. Who are you? when and whence haue you come? what doe you in my ground, you that are not mine? by what right ô Marcion dost thou fell my wood? by what leaue ô Valentine dost thou turne my fountaines? by what authority ô Apelles dost thou re­moue my bounds? It is my possession what doe you others heere sowing and feeding at your pleasure? It is my possession. I possesse it of old, I possesse it first: I haue the Originals from the owners whose the thing was. I am the heyre of the Apostles, as they haue be­queathed vnto mee by will, as they haue committed to my custody, as they haue adiured mee, soe I hold. For you truely they haue euer dis-inherited you and cast you of as strangers and enemyes. This is Ter­tullian's discourse and wordes: wherein it is but changing, the names Marcion, Valentine and Apelles into Luther, Caluin, Beza or if you will into Sir Hum. Linde and it will fitt as well as if it were made for you, or spoken in answeare of what you say heere, that if you bring Scripture we decline it for heereby you may see how much you are mistaken. We doe not decline it: but we decline you from it, telling you it is none of yours, you haue nothing to doe with it: the Scriptures were committed to the Church by the Apostles, to be kept; they are the Churches euidences therefore noe man out of the Church as you are hath to doe with them as Tertullian telleth you heere,ep. dedic. n. 6. and as I told you in my dedi­catory [Page 463] epistle, out of another place of his; that we must first seeke out where that faith is, to which the Scriptures belong, where the men to whom Christian discipline was deliuered. You must first shew your selues to be these men, to haue this faith before we can admitt you to the Scriptures. You must first shew your selues owners of the land, before you can claime the writings and euidences which belong vnto it, and which make good the title. Therefore Sir Humphrey I cannot lesse admire your impu­dency in this which you say of Scriptures then in any thing els which in all this Lindy treatise you haue said: though indeede as you goe drawing towards an end you shew you self still more like your self in this kind as shall appeare by the following Sections.

Chap. 15.Of the 15. Sect. the title being this. Our chiefest aduersary Cardinal Bellarmine testifieth the truth of our doctrine in the principal points of controuersy betwixt vs. CHAPTER XV.

1. IN this Section your drift is to proue the truth of your doctri­ne out of Bellar. who you say is inforced to confesse the anti­quity and Safety of your doctri­ne, and plainely to acknowledge the Vncer­tainety and nouelty of his owne. For which end you produce 8. seueral places, six whereof I haue answeared before, and there also shewed that some are nothing in the world to the purpose, others most grosly falsified. The 1. place, to wit, that noe mā can be certaine of his faith, because he cannot bee certaine he receiueth a true Sa­crament, because that dependeth vpon the Mi­nisters intention, is answeared and proued most foolish chap. 10. n. 7.8. &c. the secōd place which is of transubstantiation as if Bellarmine confessed it probable that it could not bee proued out of scripture, is answeared in Cap. 9. §. 2. n. 22. [Page 465] concerning which I onely note that in this pla­ce you haue a new corruption. For whereas Bellar. saith onely that yt may be doubted whe­ther there be any place of Scripture soe plaine as without the declaration of the Church, to enforce transubstantiation, because some learned mē as Scotus did doubt thereof, though Bell. saith to him the Scripture seemeth soe plaine as to en­force it, heere you make him say it may be doub­ted whether the Scripture will beare it, which is cleane another thing, for to enforce a sense, & beare a sense, are two Seueral things, neither did Scotus or any Diuine els euer make question, but that the scripture would beare that sense; but whither that were soe cleare and obuious a sen­se as of it selfe, to enforce the beleife of transub­stātiation. The 3.Bell. lib. 2. de Miss. cap. 9. & 10. place which is of Masse without cō ­municants I passed ouer before as impertinent to the purpose; and soe I might doe heere, but for the Reader's fuller satisfaction I answeare. Bel­larmine saith that Masse is ordained both to offer sacrifice to God, and to nourish the people with spiritual food: in which respect as it is not vnlawful to offer it to God, though there be none to communicate, but very lawfull, good, and holy; soe is it more perfect and as I may say in a certaine sort more lawfull, where be some to communicate. For then it hath both the ends for which it was ordained. Now what doth this make for you Sir Knight, or against vs? as also that which followeth heere, to wit, that there is not any expresse mention among the ancien [...]s, [Page 466] where none did cōmunicate but the Priest alone, but onely coniectures: For noe more is there any expresse mention to the contrary, that noe Priest might, nor euer did say Masse without communicants, which vnlesse you can shew in Bellarmine, you say nothing against vs: neither if you could shew it, should you therefore say any thing for your owne sacrificelesse com­munion; which hath noe affinity with our Mas­se: the essence whereof consisteth in being a Sacrifice and communion in being a participa­tion of the same Sacrifice. Your Protestant com­munion, being but a bitt of vnblessed bread and noe participation of Sacrifice, for you absolutely deny all manner of visible Sacrifice in the Church. Now for Bellarmines coniectures, it is true he giueth them noe other name but of con­iectures, but they are such as may with great probability perswade any indifferent man to conclude, that many times and I may say much more frequently the Priest said Masse without communicants, then with them. And the lest of them is such, that if you had but halfe such an one for any point you hold, you would vaunt it and triumph as if you had an vnanswearable demonstration. But be it soe or bee it not of some of the peoples communicating when­soeuer the Priest said Masse: what maketh it to our purpose, which is whether it be law­ful to say Masse without communicants or not? they did not will you say, in the pri­mitiue Church: I aske what then? may not [Page 467] we now? the people did communicate euery day then, must euery body communica­te now therefore euery day? all gaue their goods away and liued in common, must euery body doe soe now? I beleiue Sir Knight you will not like that soe well. If the peoples deuo­tion grow soe cold as not to participate sacra­mentally of the sacrifice, must the Priests grow soe cold also as not euen to offer Sacrifice, for his owne and the peoples sinnes. This is noe good councel Sir Humphrey, almighty God re­prehendeth it by his Prophet, Isay. 24.2. that the Priest were growne like the people. Sicut populus sic Sa­cerdos. We could be glad Sir if you could helpe to mend the people, but not marre the Priest, which you would doe; enkindle their deuotion, not destroy their faith, nor take away the holy Sacrifice of the Masse, which affor­deth many benefits euen to not communicants, though not soe much as to them that doe com­municate sacramentally. But what doe I in this discourse heere? it is enough to shew that Bel­larmine doth not patronize you, nor weaken vs. The two places following touching prayer in a knowne tongue and Communion vnder both kinds in the primitiue Church are also answeared before, & are onely of the same kind of argument with this: the 6. place which is as if Bell. taught your two Sacramēts is answeared in two places vpon seueral occasions;Chap. 9. §. 4 fine. and ch. 10. fine. and in both is shewed your notorious corruption both of words & sense.

2. Now for your two last testimonies, which you [Page 468] brought not before, I shall heere examine. One you tell vs is touching faith and good works; of which say you it is Bellarmines confession,Bell lib. 3. de [...]ustif. cap. 6. that the Protestants doe not deny but that faith & repentance are requisite, that is a liuely faith and earnest repentance: and that without them noe man can be iustified. To this I answeare first that you propound the matter very imper­fectly and ignorantly, in saying thus touching faith and good works it is Bellarmines confes­sion, &c. not telling vs the particular contro­uersy, for which you bring this saying of Bel­larmines, there being more controuersies then one betweene you and vs, as whither any thing be needful to iustification beside faith? or what faith it is that iustifieth? and how and whither good works bee necessary or noe? and how they concurre? for there be all these things and more in question betweene you and vs. And a man would haue thought by your general title of faith and Workes it had beene in proofe of some of these, that you had brought Bellarm. But it is for noe such matter, Bellarmine in the place cited handling a cleane differēt question, to wit, whether a man can be certaine of his owne grace and iustice, that is whether he be in the grace and fauour of almighty God, or not: and for proofe that a man cannot be certaine thereof, he bringeth diuers places of Scripture, which imply a condition on our part; in our iustification as if we turne to God, if we seeke him in our whole hart, if we doe penance, if [Page 469] we beleeue, if we doe his will &c. God will turne to vs, forgiue our sinnes and the like. Which condition saith Bellarmine, we cannot be certaine whether we fulfill or not, and con­sequently we cannot bee certaine of our grace and iustice. And he saith these places are soe manifest, that our aduersaries cannot deny something to be requisite on our parts. For though, saith he, they deny the remission of Sinnes to depend vpon the condition of wor­kes: or our penance, faith or other act to be the cause or merit of iustification, yet they grant them to be requisite, and that without them a man cannot be iustified. This is Bellarmines discourse wherein he doth neither confesse any good of your haeretiques nor any way allow or approue your saying, as you would make one thinke, but bringeth your owne confes­sions against you and euen by soe much as you confesse, though that be farre from enough, ouerthroweth another error of yours, to wit, your vaine confidence and certainty of your iustification. Now then Sir Humphrey is not this honest dealing in you, to take a word spoken by Bellarmine for one purpose, and to transferre it to another farre different? and againe in fa­uour of your selfe to alleadge those words out of Bellarmine as his confession which he allead­geth onely for yours, and to take it soe as if his allegation were an approbation or allowance of them whereas he bringeth them but in the nature of an obiection against your selues, [Page 470] and there withall plainely declareth the diffe­rence betweene your error and our faith that you will not haue faith or works to be any cause, or merit of iustification, nor iustifica­tion to depend vpon works as vpon a condi­tion, whereas we teach all the contrary. Which though Bellarmine doe not stand to proue there, because that was not a place for it, yet he plainely sheweth that to be his beleife.

3. The second place of Bellarmine you say is touching iustification by faith onely; wherein you tell vs he concludeth with the reformed churches: saying that either a man hath true merits or hee hath not. If he haue not, he is dangerously deceiued; if he haue true merits he looseth nothing by not respecting them, but putting his trust in God onely. But in this againe as before, and euery where els, you still Linde it egregiously. For heere you make as if Bellarmine did allow of your iustification by faith onely, whereas he confuteth the same largely and learnedly for 13.Lib. 1. de iustif. cap. 1. whole chapters together beginning his disputation thus. Ho­minem non sola fide iustificari 5. argumentis prin­cipalibus demonstrare conabimur. Wee will endea­uour by 5. principal arguments to demonstrate that a man is not iustified by faith onely. How then doth he conclude with your reformed chur­ches? He concludeth against them: & you tell vs he concludeth with them. And this place which you bring out of him is aboue 50. leaues, [Page 471] from that where he beginneth to treate of iusti­fication by faith, and is an argument for a farre different matter; to wit, that it is most safe for a man, though he may put some trust in his owne good works, yet in reguard of the vn­certainty he hath of his owne iustice, and danger of vaine glory; not to put any trust in them, but all in God. This later part, whe­reof there is noe controuersy betweene vs and Protestants, Bellarmine proueth by the reason heere brought. Because if he haue not true merits, he deceiueth himself: but if he haue, and yet trust not in them, he looseth nothing by not trusting in them. And what is all this good Sir Humphrey to your iustifi­cation by faith onely? and consequently all that you haue said out of Bellarmine in this section, to the antiquity, and safety of your doctrine, or the contrary of ours? not one word to any such purpose on either side; and the­refore all is, but vaine bragging wherewith you conclude heerevpon, that our best lear­ned confesse that many principal points of their owne religion, yea many articles of faith are neither ancient, safe, nor Catholi­que. Wherein you speake ignorantly in distin­guishing principal points of religion, from articles of faith, for though euery proposition which is de fide be not an article of faith, yet euery principal point is, and therefore some giue that for the reason why we call a point an article, to wit, because it is a principal [Page 472] point: but this is but to shew that you cannot speake two words soundly without faltering: And yet you must be shewing men the WAY forsooth.

4. Hauing then said all you can out of Bel­larmine, you tell vs it is not the name of Catho­lique which we assume, that makes good the Catholique doctrine, neither the opinion of learning or multitude of our side, that must outface the truth. For say your our Sauiour doth specially note the members of his body, by the name of a little flocke; as if the paucity of true beleeuers, were the special character of the true Church. And for our learned you bring a saying of S. Paul to the Corinthians. 1. Cor. 1.26. Not many wise according to the flesh; not many mighty, Mat. 11 25. not many noble. And another out of S. Mathew. I thanke thee Father, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast reuealed them to babes: and then you will vs to reflect vpon our owne church, and we shall find the marks of a false church fore­told, that it should be after the working of Satan, with all power and signes, and lying wonders, and after a little of this rauing talke, you conclude with S. Augustine that miracles are not now to be expected: thus you trowle it out Sir Humphrey. Where first to beginne with, I might aske what all this is to that which the title of your Sec­tion promiseth, to witt, of the truth of your doctrine out of Bellarmine? But that it seemes [Page 473] prouing but dry matter you take your selfe the freedome, without reguard to the consequence of your discourse, to talke of the Church, of Miracles, stronge delusions, and other such stuffe good for nothing but to fill paper. But this very discourse for the matter it selfe shew­eth your witt: for you could haue said no­thing more to the aduantage of our cause nor more to the disaduantage of your owne. For you shew ours to be the true Church your ow­ne a false one. Which to be soe I shall shew not in myne owne words, but in S. Augustines who giuing account what it was that kept him in the bosome of the Church reckoneth these very things, which you make soe little account of as Miracles, multitude of people, and the very name of Catholique: and I may say also lear­ning.Aug. cont. ep. fundam. cap. 4. For answearing that epistle of the Mani­chees called Epistola fundamenti. He beginneth his discourse thus. In Catholica ecclesia vt omittam sincerissimam sapientiam &c. In the Catholique Church to say nothing of the most sincere wisedome. (Wherein by mentioning this Wisedome in such manner euery man seeth that to him it was a motiue, though he did not soe much vrge it against the Haeretiques which denied it.) And a little after againe he goeth on thus: to say nothing of this Wisedome which you doe not beleeue to be in the Catholique Church, there be many things els which may most iustly hold mee in the boso­me thereof. There holdeth me the consent of people and nations, there holdeth mee, authority begunne by mira­cles, [Page 474] nourished by hope, encreased by charity, strength­ned by antiquity; There holdeth me the succession of Priests from the very seate of Peter, to whom our Lord after his resurrection committed the feeding of his flocke to the present Bishoprique. Lastly the very name of Catholique holdeth me. And after againe. These therefore soe many and soe great most deare chaines of the Christian name doe rightly hold a man beleeuing in the Catholique church, though for the slownesse of our vnderstanding or merit of our life, truth doe not shew it selfe soe very clearely. But with you (that is, Ma­nichees, and I may say, Protestants or any other sect whatsoeuer) where there is nothing of all these to inuite and hold mee, there soundeth onely a promise of truth. Thus farre Saint Augustines very words, by which any man will perceiue that he made soe much account of the learning, of the multitude of people and nations, of miracles, of antiquity, of Succession, of the name of Ca­tholique in our Church (which you account no­thing) as by them to hold himself in the bo­some of that Church insinuating withall that the want of them in haereticall congre­gations is sufficient to deterre any man from them how much soeuer they prate of Truth, Safety, Certainty, and I know not what.

5. In graunting vs therefore these things and acknowledging the want of them in your sel­ues in the iudgement of Saint Augustine you confesse ours to be the true Church and your owne a false and haereticall conuenticle. As [Page 475] likewise you doe in that you make the smal­nes of number to bee a note of the true Church Saint Augustine shewing it to be no­ne. For whereas the Donatists did bragge the­reof, hee confuteth them thus.De vnit. eccl. cap. 7. Quid est haereti­ci quod de paucitate gloriamini, si propterea Domi­nus noster IESVS CHRISTVS traditus est ad mortem, vt haereditate multos possideret. What is it ô yee Haeretiques that you bragge of the smalnes of your number, if Christ were therefore deliuered vp to death that hee might by inhaeritance possesse many. And there he goeth on prouing the same far­ther out of diuers places of Scripture and na­mely by 9. or 10. most plaine places out of Esay the Prophet, and then concludeth againe vbi est inquam quod de paucitate gloriamini? Where I say is it that you bragge of your fewnes? are not these the many of whom it was said a little before that he should possesse many by heritage: but of this the Scriptures are soe full and soe cleare as I may well deny him the name of a Chri­stian that denieth it: Wherefore for that pla­ce of a little flocke which you bring in shew onely to the contrary,Aug. ep. 50. ad Bonif. & ep. 48. ad Vinc. S. Aug. explicateth it not of the Church in general but of the good who are small in number in comparison of the wic­ked, or of Christ's flocke or church at that tyme in the beginning.lib. 4. cap. 54 in Luc 12. And S. Bede expoundeth it two wayes: one of the smal number of the elect in comparison of the reprobate; the other of the Church in general, in reguard of the humility wherein Christ will haue it to [Page 476] excell & increase to the end of the world how much soeuer it be dilated in number quia vide­licet ecclesiam suam quantalibet numerositate iam di­latatam tamen vsque ad finem mundi humilitate vult crescere. For that place of S. Paul it patronizeth not your ignorance one iott. For it is onely meane of those whom our Sauiour at first made choyce of to preach his faith, and make knowne his name vnto the world: who indee­de were not many in number being but 12. nor great in wisedome according to the flesh, not hauing beene brought vp in learning but to meant trades, as fishing & the like, nor mighty, nor noble, being but poore and obscure for wealth and parentage: and this for a speciall reason as S. Ambrose declareth in these words. Aduerte caeleste consilium, non sapientes aliquos, non diuites, Lib. 5. com­ment. in Luc. non nobiles, sed piscatores & publicanos quos dirigeret elegit, ne traduxisse prudentia, ne redemisse diuitijs, ne potentiae nobilitatisue authoritate traxisse aliquos ad suam gratiam videretur; vt veritatis ratio non disputationis gratia praeualeret. Marke the hea­uenly Wisedome he did not choose some wise, or rich, or noble, but Fishers and publicans to send, lest he might seeme to haue brought any to his grace by wile, redeemed them by riches, or drawne them by authori­ty of power or nobility; that reason of truth and not the grace of disputation might preuaile.

6. And soe Christ made choyce of a few sim­ple men to conuert the world that thereby it might appeare that the conuersion thereof was not a worke of any wordly or humane [Page 477] but of diuine power and vertue. But if they should not conuert the world, that is great multitudes and seuerall nations, kingdomes, and countries, wise, powerful, and learned men, but onely some such small handful as you would haue your little flocke to be, some wea­ke, vnlearned and poore people as you will haue your Church to consist of, it had beene noe wonder at all. For we see many Sect-maisters draw great multitudes after them, farre greater euery way then your Church of England. This place therefore which you bring for defence of the smalnes of your number and want of learning in your Church, sheweth it not to be the true Church, which for number is to be numberlesse and for extent to be spread ouer the world.Psal. 18. In omnem terram exiuit sonus eorum (saith holy Dauid) their sound went all ouer the earth. Whereas you acknowledge the contra­ry a marke of your Church: the true Church is to consist of many wise, mighty, and noble perso­nages gathered and drawne to the true Catho­lique faith by those few vnlearned, weake, and ignoble people: For soe S. Paul after in the sa­me place seemeth to insinuate saying. Quae stulia sunt mundi &c. The foolish things of the world hath God chosen that he may confound the wise, and the weake things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong, and the base things of the world and the contemptible hath God chosen, and tho­se things which are not that he might destroy those things which are. Soe as you see these few wea­ke [Page 478] and ignorant men were to subdue the lear­ning, might, and wisedome of the world to Christ, and draw it to his Church; and this is that which Dauid saith that he shall send forth the rodd of his power to rule in the middest of his ene­myes; Psal. 109. that is, of worldly wisedome and power otherwise it had beene noe wonder: besides that though these men were at first weake and vnlearned in worldly learning, yet by the holy Ghost they were replenished with all knowledge of heauenly wisedome, and in­dewed with power from heauen. Of which their learning S. Hierome hath a large and excel­lent discourse,Hier. ad Paulin. which not to be too long, I re­ferre you vnto. Now by this is also answeared your other place of S. Mathew, of hiding things from the wise, and reuealing them to little ones. For it is vnderstood of little ones by humility for onely such are apt to receiue heauenly wise­dome: and such can noe haeretique be, that prowdly preferreth his owne iudgment before the iudgment of the whole Catholique church, as if God had forsaken his Church and enlightned him alone, which is as much to say as that the funne doth not shine to the whole world els but shines in onely at his window, but heere is enough of this matter.

7. Now for Miracles, which you say we make a character of the Church, it is true we doe indeede, but whereas you call them the working of Satan. I answeare, it is a saying that can come from none, but a child of Satan, to at­tribute [Page 479] the works of God to Satan: but our com­fort is that our Sauiour foretold vs of it, and armed vs against it by his owne words & exam­ple: Si patrem familias Beelzebub vocauerunt, Mat. 10.25 quanto magis domesticos eius. If they called the Fa­ther of the family Beelzebub, how much more his fa­mily? and if the Pharisees attributed our Sauiour's miracles to Beelzebub, is it to be thought that Haeretiques who farre surpasse the impiety of the Pharisees will not doe the same of the mira­culous works, which his Seruants doe in his name, that is for his honor and by his power? this you doe Sir Humphrey or rather would faine doe, making our Miracles to seeme the wor­king of Satan: and you would also proue it to be a marke of a false Church, and foretold by Christ and his Apostles. For proofe whereof you bring something out of S. Paules 2. ep. to the Thessal. of a stronge delusion and deceiuablenes of vnrightuousnes which God should send,3. Reg. 22. v. 22. be­cause we did not receiue the Loue of truth: but remember Sir Humphrey there is one in scripture that started vpp and said ere spiritus mendax in ore omnium Prophetarum. I wilbe a lying Spirit in the mouth of all the Prophets. This your discourse sheweth him not to haue beene farr of when you writ this: for marke Sir Humphrey how many lyes heere be in a few lynes. You say out Sauiour and his Apostles discouered the marks of a false church? & where I pray you good Sir doth our Sauiour speake of such a false church, or where doth he set downe the marks thereof? [Page 480] and this among the rest? For my part I find it not. And as for the Apostles though they spea­ke many tymes of Haeretiques, yet doe I not find them to doe them soe much honour as to call them a Church. Vnlesse it be in that sense that holy Dauid saith the Church of the malignant or S. Iohn the synagogue of Satan: Psal. 24. Apoc. 2.9. but yet euen there I doe not find the working of Miracles to bee a token of such a Church. From whence then doe you proue it? Out of that place of S. Paul which you bring? well supposing the proofe to be good that is but one Apostle, not Apostles in the plural number. But beside Sir Humphrey heere I conuent you before your owne conscience, whether it be true that S. Paul speake there of any Church, or company of men? or whether he doe not speake of one onely man, to wit, Antichrist? you cannot deny but he speaketh of him alone, and that most plainely. How then doe you make men belee­ue he speaketh of a Church? was it not that lying Spirit that put this into your head? and who are those that the same Apostle saith that God shall send them stronge delusions, and that they should beleiue lyes because they receiued not the loue the truth? these you say are Catholiques: but you may say any though neuer soe absurd and false by the priuiledge of your spirit, how els could you say a thing soe euidently false, it being most cleare by the Apostles phrase, and discourse, the persons also to whom he writeth considered, that he meaneth that of the same [Page 481] kind of people of whom and to whom our Sa­uiour spake in a manner the same words. Ego ve­nio in nomine Patris mei, & non accipitis me: Io. 5.43. si alius venerit in nomine suo illum accipietis. I come in the name of my Father, and you doe not receiue mee: if another shall come in his owne name, you will receiue him. These are the Iewes who reiecting Christ shall receiue Anti-Christ: neither can it belong any way to Catholiques who though you may say they haue forsaken the faith of Christ, yet you cannot deny but they once receiued him: whereas both our Sauiour and S. Paul speake of them that would not receiue him. It is the Spiritt you wot of that suggested this vnto you: as that also which followeth next, where you say that the Spirit of God foresaw that our doctrine would consist in forging not onely of Fathers, of Councels, of Schoolmen, but of daily miracles. For where doth the Spirit foretel our forging of Fathers Schoolmen Councels &c. You charged vs before though falsely of elu­ding or reiecting & counter fayting the Fathers, but not a word of forging Schoolmen or Councels till now. Whereof if you could haue alleadged any example or shaddow, I presume we should haue had it before now. I take this therefore to be but an hott fitt of your Spiritt which transporteth you beyond your selfe; and surely vnlesse you had some such helpe, it were not possible for you soe to ouer-Linde it as you doe heere. As for that which you bring heere out of Lyra of feigned miracles wrought either [Page 482] by Priests, or by their companions for lucre sa­ke, it sheweth you would say something if you knew what:1. Cor. 14. be it soe that some naughty Priests, or their companions worke Faigned Miracles for lucre sake, what then? be there noe true Miracles therefore? a proper argument, like this: there is tinn and copper in the world ergo noe siluer or gold, some bad men ergo none good: a trimme argument Sir Hum­phrey.

8. But to conclude this section you come with a saying of Saint Augustine which will make all sure: which is this, that as miracles were necessary before the world beleiued to induce it to beleiue, soe he that seeketh to be confirmed by wonders now, is to be wonde­red at most of all himselfe in refusing to belei­ue what all the world beleiues besids him­selfe. Out of which you would haue your Reader gather, that in that Father's iudge­ment, Miracles haue ceased: and that whatsoeuer Catholiques speake now of Mi­racles it but feigned: is not this your mea­ning Sir Humphrey? sure it is, for what els it should bee I cannot imagine. Now to this I answeare, that it is farr from Saint Augustines meaning as shall appeare. For he in this place reasoneth with the Pagan, who did not beleiue the Miracles wrought by the first preachers of our faith: because he saw not the like in his tyme: to which Saint Augu­stine answeares that they were not soe needful [Page 483] then as in the beginning, but yet proueth that there were such wrought then: For how els saith hee came the world to beleiue? and now the world beleiuing there needeth noe miracle to make a man beleiue, the conuer­sion of the world being argument enough; and that therefore he were to bee wondered at, that would stand vpon Miracles for his beleife: and this is for vs. For soe say we, a man that should stand vpon miracles to become a Catholique, the whole world of this age and for soe many foregoing ages, beleiuing and professing that faith, were to be wondered at himselfe: and we say againe that he is as much to be wondered at, that shal beleiue a new hae­reticall religion not knowne before to the world, and contrary to the common be­leife thereof such as Luther's or Caluin's is without Miracles. For all true religion must haue some testimony of Miracles from God in the beginning, till men beleeue: but men be­leiuing, they are not soe necessary. Soe as thus much as you haue sett downe of Saint Augustine his discourse, is not against vs, but rather against your selfe. But now seeing you will needs speake against Miracles and that out of Saint Augustine. Let vs see what els there is in this place against or for Miracles. And to beginne with the very title of that chapter, out of the very beginning whereof you take your place, it is this.Aug. de ci­uit. lib. 22. cap. 8. De miraculis quae vt mundus [Page 484] in Christum crederet facta sunt, & fieri mundo cre­dente non desinunt. Of the miracles which were wrought that the world might beleiue in Christ, and doe not cease to bee wrought now, that the world doth beleiue. Looke you Sir Humphrey is not heere comfort for you to beginne withall? Miracles wrought not onely in the beginning, but af­terwards in S. Aug. his tyme? well, in the chapter it selfe, whereas he said that he that would not beleeue without Miracles would bee a wonder himselfe, he expoundeth his meaning not to be soe, as if Miracles were ceased as our Haeretiques and you for one Sir Humphrey say. Nam, saith he, etiam nunc fiunt miracula in eius nomine &c. For euen now Miracles are wrought in his name, either by the Sacraments or by prayers or memories of Martyrs. And then he spendeth that whole and long Chapter in re­counting of such Miracles, as happened then in his tyme, and euen in his owne sight or hard by: and soe also in another place, whereas he had made himself an obiection, why such Mi­racles as our Sauiour wrought were not then wrought, and answeared because they would not moue vnlesse they were strange,Retract. lib. 1. cap. 14. nor would be strange if they were ordinary: he expoun­deth himself thus. Haec dixi quia non tanta nec om­nia modo, non quia nulla fiunt etiam modo. This I sayd because not soe great nor all now, not because none are wrought euen now. By which it is most cleare that you haue not S. Aug. with you against Miracles but as plaine as may bee against [Page 485] you. Soe as I doe not see what you can say for your selfe but by laying the blame vpon the Spirit I spoke of before who ought you a sha­me and therefore put you vpon writing such matter as cannot be otherwise maintained then by such meanes as you are heere faine to vse.

Of the 16. Sect. entituled. Our Aduer­saries obiection drawne from the testimonies of pretended Mar­tyrs of their religion answeared. CHAPTER XVI.

1. THE blessed Martyr F. Edmund Campian in his tenth reason bringing all sorts of witnesses for proofe of the Catholique faith be­ginneth with Martyrs, those particularly who being Pastors of the Romane Church suffered Martyrdome successiuely one after the other to the number of 33. these saith Campian were ours, and nameth some of them as Telesphorus, Victor, Sixtus, Cornelius, with the particular points which they held conformably with [Page 486] vs against Protestants: Chap. 16. as the fast of Lent, the Sa­crifice of the Masse, power of the Pope and the like this our Knight taketh hold of confessing Mar­tyrdome to carry some shew of honor in our Church but denying them to be ours because they neither suffered for our faith, nor profes­sed it while they liued: which he proueth by asking whether euer any Martyr died vpon con­fidence of his owne merits, and whether any Romanist dare dye in iustification of his owne righteousnes? and whether any of those 33. died and were canonized for adoration giuen to Images? and many more such wise demands: to whom I answeare that those Martyrs suffered death not for the points now in controuersy with Haeretiques; but for the profession of Christianity at the hands of the enemyes of Christ: but that not onely such as dye for Christ himself by the hand of the Pagans are Martyrs, but such as dye for his Church at the hands of Haeretiques; or for any one particular point euen the lest of them that are defined by the Councel of Trent; for which euery Catholi­que is bound rather to dye then deny any of them. Now that these Martyrs are ours notwith­standing they died not for any of these points, it is plaine because they professed the same Ca­tholique faith which we doe, which we also proue by the faith of their Successor Vrbanus 8. who as he holdeth their seate, soe also their faith, [...]. 1. Concil. for Peter's chaire and faith goe together, as the very haeretique Pelagius confesseth to [Page 487] Lozimus Pope; saying to him qui Petri fidem & sedem tenes: not to stand heere vpon the most effectual and infallible prayer of our Sauiour himself oraui pro te Petre vt non deficiat fides tua. Which proofe must stand firme till Sir Humphrey can tell vs, what Pope began to vary from his Praedecessors.

2. Now for the particular points it is plaine euen by those which F. Campian citeth, that they were ours: but much more by their owne decretal epistles which are all soe full of those things, that the Haeretiques haue noe other shift but to deny the authority of the same E­pistles therefore they are idle demāds which the Knight maketh whether any haue died vpon cō ­fidence of his owne merits or whether any Ca­tholique dare dye for iustification of his righte­ousnes? For these are noe matters of faith, but of praesumption: but for 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 [...] [Page 490] 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 cōmon 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 [Page 492] 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 [Page 493] 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 [Page 494] 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 s [...]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 doctrines.

[Page 495]3. For traditions, adoration of images, Saints, &c. all is answeared before. Soe li­kewise his Communion in both kind and merit of good works. But for that which he saith, that he acknowledgeth vniuersality of nations and people not to be a marke of his Church, I cannot but wonder at it. For what is this but euen in plaine termes to confesse his Church not to be the Church of Christ. Isa. 2. Isay the Prophet describing the Church vnder the type of a mountaine saith that all nations shall flow vnto it. Psal. 71. Psal. 2. The Prophet Dauid describing the Kingdome of Christ saith that he shall beare sway from sea to sea: Dan. 2.3. [...] that God will giue him nations for his inhaeritance and the bounds of the Earth for his possession. Apoc. 7.9 [...] Daniel describeth the Kingdome of Christ like a mountaine growing from a little stone and filling the whole earth. S. Iohn seeth a multitude which noe man could reckon of all na­tions and tribes and people and tongues: this being also the thing wherein the Church of Christ is specially distinguished from the Sy­nagogue of the Iewes, that that pertained but to one nation, this to all the nations of the earth; and all the Fathers proclai­me nothing more, particularly S. Augustine in a whole booke of this argument against the Donatists. And a Knight to come and tell vs he doth not account this as a marke of his Church? What is this but in plaine termes to acknowledge that his Church [Page 496] is not the Church of Christ? Beside I would know what he hath meant all this while by Vniuer­sality, which he hath laboured to proue to be­long to his Doctrine? the principal thing vn­derstood by Vniuersality when we take it for a note of the Church is the Vniuersality of place to wit,Mar. 16.15. diuers kingdomes and countries, as it is vsed by our Sauiour himself, euntes in mundum vni­uersum praedicate euangelium omni creaturae: and now in denying this marke to belong to his Church, doth he not deny it to belong to his doctrine? for how can that doctrine be vniuer­sal that is taught by a few, and in a corner of the world? and in acknowledging his Church not to be vniuersal, doth he not acknowled­ge it not to be Catholique? for is not Catholique and vniuersal all one, as all men know? in this word then, he hath graunted enough to ouerthrow all that euer he hath said or can say of his Church.

4. But now to come to the matter which he purposeth in this section which is to answeare our argument, that it is safer for a man to take the way of the Catholique Church, then the Pro­testant, because euen Protestants agree with Catholiques in this that they may be saued in their religion, and Catholiques deny that Prote­stants can be saued: this argument the Knight denieth, being sory for his part that a charita­ble opinion on the Protestants part, should gi­ue any Romanist occasion to liue and dye in the bosome of that Church; therefore he in­terpreteth [Page 497] that saying to be meant onely of such as by inuincible ignorance, resigne their eysight to their Priests & Pastours: which men if they hold the articles of Christian beleife, without opposition to any ground of religion, and liue for outward things in the vnity of the Church, such men he saith liuing Papists and dying Protestants in the principal foundation of Faith, may find mercy; because they did it ignorantly. But such Papists he saith, as liue in States and Kingdomes, where they may co­me to knowledge of the truth, and will not; these men dye in their sinnes; though yet agai­ne he a little temper the rigour of this doome, in saying he will not iudge their persons though he pronounce their doctrine soe dam­nable, as that if he had 10000. soules, he would not venture one of them in the Ro­mane Faith and Church. For which he taketh God and his holy Angels to witnesse: and then concludeth very pathetically thus. Farr be it from the thoughts of good men to thinke the points in controuersy betwixt them and vs, to be of an inferiour alloy, as that a man may re­solue this way or that, without perill of his saluation. And then tells vs the fresh bleeding wounds and sufferings of holy men and Mar­tyrs in his Church, doe sufficiently witnesse the great danger in our religion, and difference betwixt vs: and that we may know that the best learned of his Church, were farr from graunting saluation to any Papist, liuing and [Page 498] dying in the profession of the now Roma­ne Faith, he bringeth a saying of Whitaker who would haue vs take it vpon his word, that in heauen there is not one Iesuit, nor one Papist to be found: this is the Knight's whole discourse in the second part of his section.

5. Whereby vpon examination it will ap­peare, hee is as well redd in his owne authors, as in our Schoolmen and Fathers. And to begin­ne with him, he is sorry the Protestants chari­table opiniō should giue any man encouradg­ment to dye a Papist. But by his leaue, this opi­nion doth not proceede from charity; but from euidence of truth as all testimony from an enemy doth. But whether it be charity or not, this Knight will none of this charity: and therefore he saith that this is meant one­ly of some ignorant people, whose ignorance may excuse them; but yet euen these men though they liue Papists, they must dye Prote­stants in the principall foundation of that Faith. This is good stuffe Papists may be sa­ued in their religion; but yet they must dye Protestants? very right Sir Humphrey where haue you learned this theology that a man may be saued in one religion, yet soe as he must dye in another: this is a new conceit ne­uer heard of before that a man may bee saued in a religion but soe as not to dye of it: and heere a man might aske at great many pretty questions as what foundation of Faith that is, that they must dye in, what articles of Apostoli­que [Page 499] and Christian beleife, what grounds these are that may not be opposed? all these had beene necessary things to be expressed in such a singular treatise as this of yours: which must forsooth beare the name of a SAFE WAY leading men to true Faith. And why also a man that holdeth the Apostles Creede and other things common to Catholiques and Prote­stants, not forsaking the Catholique church and indeed not knowing any thing els (for heere you speake of a Catholique in a Catholique countrey where it is to be supposed, the name of a Protestant or other heretique is vn­knowne:) why I say such a man should be said to dye a Protestant, in the principal points of his faith I see not. For why? doth the Apostles Creede belong more to you then to vs? had we it from you or you from vs? nay if I would stand vpon it, I could shew you not to beleiue a right in any one article thereof. Whereof he that listeth to know more may looke in Poss. bibl. select. lib. 8. cap. 32. Nor doe I see what that meaneth that you say of men that liue for out­ward things in the vnity of the Church, where they dwell. For if it be soe that they may make shew of one thing outwardly, and meane an other inwardly, as I see not what you cā meane els, then I say it is the most damnable & dange­rous dissimulation of all other & the most sure way not to be saued in any religion. For neither the outward profession of a religion without the inward beleife, nor inward beleife with [Page 500] an outward contrary profession can saue a man. What then is it you would say? a man may see you are in straights: faine you would not goe absolutely against that, which many Pro­testants say, that a Catholique may be saued in his religion, yet that will not stand neither with your owne iudgement as it seemeth nor bitter speeches which you haue spoken of the Catholique church as calling it Babylon, the Seate of Anti-christ and such like; nor drift of your booke which is wholy to draw men away from the Catholique faith: and therefo­re you would faine find some ignorant people who should be Catholiques and noe Catholi­ques, liue Catholiques and dye Protestants, in outward shew Catholiques, in inward beleife Protestants. Which are two great and grosse absurdities and withall doe not serue the tur­ne. For in neither of these two cases is that pro­position verified, that a man dying a Papist may be saued, for he doth not dye a Papist. Neither can that ignorance which you speake of, alleadging the place of saint Paul saue men, noe more then it could doe him, who doubt­lesse should neuer haue found such mercy as to be saued, had he not first found the mercy, to be drawne out of that his ignorance, wherein he was. This I doe not say, that it is abso­lutely impossible to find one soe inuincibly ignorant as may not be saued without a di­stinct and particular profession of the Catholi­que Faith and abrenunciation of the Protestant, [Page 501] but I say it is a metaphysical and morally impos­sible case. For how shall a man receiue pardon of his sinnes, be enabled to walke the way of God's commandments while he liueth, or be armed against the combats of the Deuil at his death, without receiuing the Sacraments of the Church, which is a sufficient profession of faith, wholy distinguishing him from the Pro­testant or any other sect. Therefore the Knight's chiefe answeare to the argument is a plaine denial that a Papist can be saued, especially in England or in any Protestant State, where there is a course taken to bring him to the knowledge of the contrary; though yet he doe not pro­nounce damnation on our persons, as he saith we doe on his. But wherein doe we pronounce damnation vpon their persons more then he on ours: he and others of his opinion say our doctrine is damnable, and consequently that noe man can be saued by it; we say the same of his doctrine, and that noe man can be saued by it for this or that particular man we doe not take vpon vs to giue any absolute iudgment, but that we leaue to God.

6. But now for that which he saith of vs, that we cannot be saued, and that it is farre from the thoughts of good men, to thinke the points of controuersy betweene Catholiques and Protestant to be of an inferiour alloy soe as a man may hold either way without peril of saluation, I will appeale onely to his owne men, and to such as I presume he will not [Page 502] deny to be good men, at lest chiefe men of his owne Church. For the points therefore in con­trouersy as frewill, prayer for the dead, honouring of reliques, reall presence, transubstantiation, commu­nion in one or both kinds, worshipping of images, the Popes primacy, his being Vicar of Christ and head of the Church, auricular Confession, and the like they are all acknowledged some by one, some by another, not to be material points, soe as a man may without perill beleiue either way and one maine point, to wit, the real praesence is said by some to be but as it were the grudging of a little ague. The seueral authours are Perkins, Cartwright, Whitgift, Fulke, Penry, Some, Sparke, Reynolds, Bunny, Whitaker, Iohn Frith in Fox in his acts and other English wri­ters, beside Melancthon, Luther, and other La­tine writers whose names may be seene in the Protestants apology where their very words are sett downe,Protest. apolog. tr. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 14. and places of their works exactly cited: which therefore for breuityes sake I omitt heere to doe and shall onely content my self with citing some for the other point which the Knight denieth, to wit, that we may be saued. First noting by the way, that heere is a full iury of good men and true in the iudg­ment of any Protestant, who giue vpp their verdict against our good Knight Sir Humphrey (as honest a Middlessex Iuror as his father was, and as great a freind of Iuryes as he is) confessing the points in controuersy to be of an inferiour alloy (to keepe his owne word [Page 503] of art). And which is specially to be noted, whereas a mayne reason why our Knight is loth to yeild the points in controuersy to bee matters of indifferency, is because the fresh bleeding wounds of the Martyrs of his Church witnesse the daunger of our religion; among these authours there is one Iohn Frith a fa­mous Foxian martyr who acknowledgeth that the matter touching the substance of the Sa­crament bindeth noe man of necessity to sal­uation or damnation whether he beleiue it or not; and the like the same man also saith of prayer for the dead, which Mr. Iohn Fox relating and not disapprouing he is to be presumed to approue and so both the Martyr Frith and Fox the martyr-maker, whose authority me thinks should be more worth then an hundred of his Martyrs, are against our Knight; and notwithstanding all their bleeding wounds and sufferings will giue him leaue to thinke his points of controuersy to be of an inferiour alloy: and many of them not onely soe but euen absolutely condemne his very beleife and doctrine, as a man may see fully proued in the examen of Iohn Fox his Calender to which I re­mit him contenting my self with one onely Martyr whom I presume our Knight will acknowledge for a great one, to wit,V. Protest. apolog. tr. 2. cap sect. 5. Iohn Husse: this man Luther saith did not depart one fingars breadth frō the Papacy. Iohn Fox saith he held Masse, transubstantiation, vowes, freewill, prae­destination, informed faith, iustification, merit of good [Page 504] works, images of Saints. And indeed of the hae­resies now in controuersy betweene vs and Protestants he held onely one, to wit, Commu­nion in both kinds, in all the rest he held with vs: this Martyr then must needs sooner allow vs to be saued then Protestants: but heere is enough of this idle matter.

7. Now therefore to the other point whe­ther we liuing and dying in our present Romane faith may be saued or not. Wherein though the Knight be verily persuaded we cānot, alleadging Whitaker's authority for the same and saying that the best learned of his Church haue beene farr from granting saluation to any Papist. being withall soe zealous and earnest in this beleife as he wisheth it farr from the thoughts of good men to thinke soe, yet by his Worship's leaue it is the iudgment of many great men of his Church, nothing inferiours in that which he taketh for learning and goodnes to Mr. Whita­ker, or any man els of his opinion: for example Mr. D. Barrow saith, he dareth not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists, sith the learneder writers doe aknowledge the Church, of Rome, to be the Church of God. If the Church of God, then certainely Sir Humphrey a man may be saued therein. Mr. Hooker saith the Church of Rome is to be reputed a part of the howse of God, a lymme of the Visible Church of Christ, & you in the beginning of your booke bring this Hooker's authority acknowledging vs to be of the fa­mily of IESVS CHRIST, in as much as we [Page 505] beleiue the articles of the Apostles Creede, which are the maine parts of the Christian faith whe­rein we still persist as he confesseth beleeuing then the maine points and being of the family of IESVS CHRIST there can be question in his iudgmēt but we may be saued. Mr. Bunny saith we are noe seueral Church from them nor they from vs: and that neither can one of vs iustly account the other to be none of the Church of God. We may then as well bee saued as you, and we are as much of the Church as you. D. Some saith the Papists are not altogether aliens from God's couenant for in the iudgment of all learned men and all reformed Churches there is in Popery a Church a Ministery a true Christ &c. and saith he if you thinke that all the Popish sort which dyed in the Popish Church are damned you thinke absurdly and dissent from the iudgment of the learned Protestants. Loe you Sir Humphrey doe not you thinke ab­surdly and dissent from the learned Protestants in denying vs saluation. Doct. Couel saith thus. We affirme them of the Church of Rome to be parts of the church of Christ and that those that liue and dye in that Church may notwithstan­ding bee saued.

8. I could bring others to the same purpose as D. Field and Dr. Morton saying that we are to be accounted the Church of God whose words may be seene in the Protestants apology: tract. 1. Sect. 6. Sub. 1. 2. 3. but these may serue the turne I hope fully to dis­proue your assertion Sir Knight: for heere be [Page 506] 7. authors alleadged whom your Church of England hath euer held for good and learned men. From whose thoughts it was not soe farre as you would haue it to thinke we might be saued; but rather soe deepely grounded that they auerre it constantly; and say also that it is the iudgment of all learned Protestants: and that it is absurd to thinke otherwise. Doe you not then see Sir Humphrey what a Linder you shew your self vpon one Witakers authority to determine a matter soe peremptorily against the iudgment of soe many great Doctors of your owne side? and to say that it is the iudg­ment of the best learned Protestants? and that it is farre from the thoughts of goodmen to thinke otherwise? what may a man thinke by this you doe with our Catholique authors and fathers, whom you neither haue soe much to doe with, nor vnderstand soe well, nor care soe much for, as you doe for these Sage men forsooth of your owne the pillars of your Church, and writing in your owne Mother tongue, whereof it is to be presumed you can skill a little more, then of Latine. But now for the maine matter or argument which you in­tended to answeare, how is it answeared? You see soe many learned Protestāts thinke we may be saued liuing and dying in our faith, without your limitation of inuincible ignorance; and meerely in reguard we are a true Church, the family of Christ, the howse of God, holding the foundation of faith and that the points of [Page 507] controuersy are not of such necessary conse­quence: whose number and authority though perhaps it be not sufficient to reforme your iudgment, yet to vs it is sufficient to ground this argument, that since Protestant Doctors make noe doubt but we may be saued in our faith, and noe Doctor of ours saith soe of your faith, it is out of doubt the Safer way to em­brace ours: the force of which argument you goe not about to auoide otherwise then by denying that to be the opinion of learned Protestants: which being proued to be so mani­festly, the argument still hath his force and the more because you cannot answeare it. And soe I come to your last Section.

Chap. 18.Of the 18. Section, the title being this. Prouing according to the title of the booke by the confession of all sides that the Protestant religion is sa­fer, because in all positiue points of our doctrine the Romanists themselues agree with vs, but in their additions they stand single by them­selues. CHAPTER XVIII.

THE substance of this section is contained in the title, and in no­thing but to turne the Catholi­ques argument mentioned in the former section, the other way for the Protestant side: but yet soe ill fa­uouredly that it may be turned backe againe with much more disaduantage of the Protestant cause. For by it a man may proue any haeresy that euer was, nay Iudaisme and Turcisme to bee a Safer way then the Catholique faith, or euen the Knight's Protestant faith. He beginneth then [Page 509] with putting the case we may be saued, and then laying for a ground that it is Safer to persist in that Church where both sides agree, then where one part standeth single in opinion; adding withall, that if he make not good the title of his booke, to wit, that he is in the Safer way, hee will reconcile himself to the Romane Church, & creepe vpon all fower to his Holinesse for a par­don. And then falleth to proue it in this man­ner, that because Both agree saith hee in the beleife of heauen and hell, and that we stand single in the beleife of Purgatory and Limbus puerorum, we are not therefore in soe Safe a way: soe of the merits and Satisfactions of Christ all agree, that men are to be saued by them, but wee stand single in the addition of the Saints merits and our owne satisfaction: and soe forward of the number of Sacraments, images prayer to Saints, & the like: Which is the whole discourse of this Section.

2. Whereto I answeare first that, that his ground of Safety, which he thinks he taketh from Catholiques, is folish, impertinent, and without sense, as se setteth it downe. For thus he saith it is the Safer way to persist in that Church, where both sides agree, then where one part stands single by themselues in opinion. For I would know what Church is that whe­rein there be two sides to agree or disagree? or what Church that is that doth not stand single in opinion by it self, if it be a Church of a diffe­rent faith as we speake heere of a Church, a [Page 510] Church must haue vnity, it being a company of men all professing the same faith and religi­on: therefore it is plaine there is no sense in this principle of his, as it is his, or as he putteth it downe: but as the Catholiques put it, it hath very good sense, thus: that whereas there be seueral professions and churches, the question being which of these is the safer way, we Ca­tholiques say the Catholique church is the safer way and this we proue because not onely we our selues say it, adding withall that all our an­cestours haue beene saued therein and that there­fore we may doubtlesse be saued in it as they were; but also for that our very enemyes who are of a different profession graunt we may be saued therein. But as for the Protestants noe man saith they can be saued in that faith, but onely themselues. Whereby it is plaine that our is the safer way; for both sides agree in the possibility of saluation among vs, and both sides doe not soe agree in possibility of saluation among them. But though his principle haue no sense as he putteth it, yet because I see by his ensuing dis­course what he would be at, I come to that al­so. His meaning then is this, that it is safer to hold those points of doctrine onely which both sides hold then those wherein they differ; be­cause in them both sides agree, and in these one side standeth single by it self: and the holding of those former points, our Knight counteth all one, as to persist in a Church where both sides agree. But he is much deceiued for the holding of those points alone, doth not make a man of [Page 511] any Church at al. For a mā to be of any Church, he must hold all the points that are taught of Faith in that Church, & be vnited with those of the same professiō in Sacrifice also & Sacraments, which are things essentiall to a Church. Where­fore the holding of those points wherein both sides agree precisely, neither make a man Ca­tholique, nor Protestant. But to be a Catholique a man must beleiue all thing els, whatsoeuer the Catholique church teacheth as necessary to salua­tion: and to be a Protestant besides the beleife of those things wherein we agree, he must stand to the deniall of those which are in controuersy betweene vs.

3. In which case I would aske him whether he doe not stand single as well as wee, by affirming of what we deny, or denying what we affirme, or rather whether he and his church be not soe much more single then we, as they haue not one on their sides for euery milliō which we haue, & haue had on ours. In this singlenes of opiniōs thē the question remaineth the same still as before; whither of these single sides is to be embraced: for of the rest there is not any doubt. Soe as in this Sir Humphrey hath alsoe altered the que­stion; for whereas the question was of the mat­ters in controuersy which side was truer he hath altered it thus; whether the things in contro­uersy or out of controuersy be safer. Which is but a slippery cunning tricke of his, and which will not serue his turne to make good the title of his booke. For we by holding the points which are out of doubt are as safe as he: for we hold them as much as he, and for the rest [Page 512] we are vpon euen termes with him, thus farre that he is as well single in those things wherein he dissenteth from vs, as we in those wherein we dissent from him; though in this we be Safer that his men confesse wee may be saued holding those things wherein we differ from them; and noe man of ours holdeth that they can be saued holding obstinately whatsoeuer they differ from vs in. Soe as euen by this is answeared all this maine argument whereof the Knight was soe confident as therevpon to ventute his re­conciliation with the Church of Rome, and cree­ping vpon all fower to his Holinesse for a pardon; to creepe vpon all fower indeede, is a very fitt gate for men soe deuoid of reason as to make such discourses and vse such malicious insinua­tions, as if men vsed to creepe vpon all fower to the Pope. But good Sir Humphrey since you talke soe much of creeping, and like it soe well you may remember that it is the proper punishment of pride as you may see in Nabuchedonozor whose Pride which he tooke in his great citty Babylon seemeth farre short of that which you take,Dan. 4. not onely in this great worke of your Safe Way counterposing and preferring it before the knowne way of the Catholique Church, but euen in this contemptuous and sacrilegious gest of God's holy anointed and contempt of his Church. And for Pardon as light as you make of it, it were penance little enough for you indeede to creepe on all fower to Rome: holy men haue done very neere as great penance for farr lesse faults: and [Page 513] for your reconcilement to the Church though we be glad of the saluation of any poore soule whosoeuer he bee, yet we would not haue you mistake you self soe farre as to thinke that wee make any such special account of your parti­cular person aboue other men.

4. Now that this rule of yours as you pro­pound it may leade and Secure a man in any hae­resy or euen in Iudaisme and Turcisme as well as in your Protestant faith I proue thus. Arius may say he agrees with vs Catholiques in all things saue onely in the Diuinity of the second person of Trinity whom he acknowledgeth with vs to be an holy man and that we stand single by our selues in the assertion of his Diuinity. Macedo­nius may say the same of the Holy Ghost. Nestorius of the plurality of persons in Christ. Eutyches of the Singularity of Natures; Sergius, Pyrrus and the Mo­nothelytes of the vnity of Will in Christ; Ebion, Cerin­thus, Marcion and almost all Haeretiques in their seueral heresies as Anabaptistes, Brownists, and who soeuer els may say as you doe of the points controuerted that we stand single by our selues in them and soe that it is the safer way to beleeue onely that wherein they and we agree. Nay as I said he Iewes may make the same argument thus that they agree with vs that there is One God creator of heauen and earth, that there be 22. books of canonical Scriptures the Law and Prophets iust as you doe, for the rest we stand single: and the Turke may say he agreeth with vs that Christ is an holy man and a Prophet for the rest we stand [Page 514] single: and that therefore he is in the Safer way. What can you say Sir Humphrey for defence of your argument? for though Iewes and Turks doe not agree with vs in the profession of the Christian Faith yet I see not why that should be necessary by this your argument: and thereby a man may see what a good guide you are and how Safe a way you goe: and whether the saying of Salomon be not truely verified of your Safe way. Prou. 14.12 Est via quae videtur homini recta & nouissima eius deducunt ad mortem. There is a Way which seemeth to a man straight and the end of it lea­deth to Death: and consequently to Hell. For what other is the end of Haeresy, Iudaisme, and Turcisme whereto your rule doth leade all such as wilbe ruled thereby.

THE CONCLVSION.

HAuing therefore thus demonstrated the period of your Safety to be death and hell which is the lott and portion of all wicked Sec­taries as Arrians, Eunomians, Macedonians, Euty­chians, Monothelites, Wickliffians, Hussits, Ana­baptists as also Iewes and Turkes: all which in the last section I haue proued by your owne rule to be in as safe a way as you are. I may now for a conclusion demand what all this that you haue hitherto said is to the Iesuit's challenge which you heere pretend to answeare: he hauing re­quired at your hands that you should shew as I said in the beginning a visible Church and Succes­sion in all ages from the Apostles tyme to this of ours, a Succession I say or catalogue of Doctours and Pa­stours teaching your 39. articles and of people professing the same faith which now you pro­fesse: this being the thing which was required at your hands; I would gladly know where it is that you haue performed it in this your booke in what section or in what number? In the first 7. sections you talke of the causelesse bitternes­se of the Romane Church against yours, of the cau­ses of contention, of reformation, of corrup­tions in faith & manners, of many Catholiques that haue come to dye Protestants, of the deri­uation of our Doctrine from ancient Haereti­ques [Page 516] and yours from Christ and his Apostles? all which supposing you say true, I would know what it is to the purpose? For where be the men heere named in whom the profession of your doctrine hath continued, and by whom it hath bee­ne deriued from the tymes of the Apostles to those of Luther and Caluin? Likewise in the 8. 9. 10. and 11. sections you stand prouing the Antiquity, Vniuersality, Certainty & Safety of your Faith in generall and in particular as you say with as little order or methode truth or sub­stance as it is little to the purpose though you should haue proued those things neuer soe well and substantially. For lett your Doctrine be ne­uer soe ancient, vniuersal, certaine, and safe: if you name not the men that professed it for soe many ages as are from the Apostles to Luther you are but where you were at first? For a man may still aske Where your Church was before Luther? that is where the men were that professed your Faith. For it is not the Faith but the men that we loo­ke after in this place. From the 12. section to the end you tell vs of our reiecting and eluding the ancient Father's, of correcting and purging other authors, of our excepting against Scrip­ture, of Bellarmines testification in fauour of your Doctrine in some principal points, of our Martyrs, of the saluation or damnation of pro­fessed Romanists, & lastly of the Safety of your Faith and beleife. All which as I haue before shewed to be most false, soe doe I heere say it is nothing to the purpose. For where heere is any [Page 517] man named that you can say was yours, that is, did beleiue and professe the same faith with you? nay where is there one such man named in your whole booke before Luther's tyme or euen almost since Vnlesse it be a Chamier a Ri­uett, or a Chemnitius that you can say did any way agree with you? it is euident there is not; and therefore you your self are forced in the very last page of your booke to confesse as much of a great many of your authors. For you say that hauing brought your Reader into a sa­fe way you commend him briefly to CHRIST and his Apostles for his Leaders: the ancient Fa­thers for his Associats and Assistants, and the Bles­sed Spirit for his guide and Conduct. but for the other passengers as Cardinals, Bishops, and Schoole­men which you say accompany you but part of your Way because they are Strangers you will haue him be wary of them. Whereby it is plaine you professe not to agree in beleife with any one except Christ, his Apostles and ancient Fathers. Soe as from their tymes to Luther which was 900. or 1000. yeares. (The antiquity of Fathers ending by the ordinary account of your Prote­stants about S. Gregory the great his tyme or befo­re.) You haue not a man all that tyme that you can say was yours, or of the same beleife and Church with you. How then can you thinke you haue shewed vs a Safe way when you can­not name vs a man now for the space of neere a 1000. yeares who as may be gathered our of your owne discourse hath walked therein? It [Page 518] hath beene vnknowne then all this tyme: and therefore for a man to leaue the Knowne way of the Catholique Church, wherein it is euident that all sorts of men haue cōtinually in all ages wal­ked & to goe into your by-wayes neuer trod­dē by the foote of any one learned or holy man. What were it but to turne out of a common beaten high way leading directly frō one Citty or country to another: and to goe into some vast or wild desert where there is noe path or signe of any man that hath euer gone that way, noe howse or other thing to giue light & direc­tion: in which case nothing els is to be expected but that after a great deale of toile and labour a man shall wholy loose himself without euer being able to arriue at his iourneys end. Which as it cannot be counted other then a kind of madnes in a Trauailer heere in this world, soe can it not also be counted otherwise in a man that professeth to trauell to heauen-ward: and therefore it is mentioned in Scripture together with other great crimes for which almighty God professeth to forsake his people & bring their land into desolation and aeternall ignominy. Quia oblitus est mei populus meus frustra libantes & impingentes in vijs suis in semitis saculi vt ambula­rent per eas in itinere non trito. Ier. 18.15. Because my people hath forgotten mee in vaine sacrificing and stumbling in their waies in the pathes of this world that they might walke in them in a way not beaten. Wherefore it is in vaine for you Sir Humphrey to talke of Safety, Certainty, and I know not what els, till you can [Page 519] shew vs such a path as the Catholique Church, soe troden and beaten by the continual and neuer in­terrupted Succession of trauellers therein. Soe plai­ne and straight that noe foole can misse it as Esay the Prophet foretold that the way of Saluation should be vpon the coming of our B. Sauiour: which because it is most euident that neither you nor any man els can doe out of the Catholique church, I could hartily wish that you Sir Humphrey would consider the matter a little more se­riously with your selfe and laying aside all vai­ne and worldly respects, should betake your selfe to the onely true Safe and beaten Way of the Catholique Church: but because you I feare are soe farre gone & haue as I may say lost your selfe in your heretical fancies as that you are more like to laugh at mee for my paines for presuming to tell such a Doctour as you are the right way, then follow my Councell I will heere leaue to say more vnto you: and conclude onely in a word to the iudicious Reader who I hope vpon consideration of what hath beene hitherto said wilbe better aduised then to follow you farther and will rather leaue you to your ow­ne Way saying to you much in the same man­ner as did that famous Emperour Constantine to a certaine Nouatian haeretique called Acesius, vpon the knowledge of whose heresy he said thus to him. Acesi, Socrat lib. 1. cap. 21. erigito tibi Scalam & solus in caelum as­cendito, ô Acesius, rayse thy selfe a ladder and ascend alone into heauen. For soe may a man in like sort wel say to Sir Humphrey Linde ô Sir Humfrey find [Page 520] your self a way, and goe to heauen alone by it. For I will not goe that way with you which to speake with the learned and holy man Vincen­tius Lerinensis, Vincen. Le­rin in com­monit. cap. 33. If it be to bee followed then must the faith of our holy Fathers be violated either wholy or in great part; it must of necessity be said that all the faith­full of all nations, all the holy, all the chast, all the con­tinent, all Virgins, all clerks, Leuites, and Priests, soe many thowsands of Confessours, soe many armies of Martyrs, soe many cittyes and peoples soe great for re­nowne and multitude, soe many Islands, Prouinces, Kings, Nations, Kingdomes, Countries. Lastly almost all the whole world incorporated to Christ the head of the Catholique faith haue for soe many ages beene igno­rant, erred, blasphemed not knowing what they belei­ued. Which being soe faire and cleare a testimo­ny of soe holy a man I hope it wilbe farre from the hart of any indifferent and well minded man euer to condemne all our Forefathers for soe many foregoing ages of ignorance errour and blasphemy: ô what ignorance errour and blas­phemy were it soe to doe, and yet into such doe they fal whosoeuer approue this new found way of the poore errant Knight Sir Humphrey Linde. And with this I end commending the successe of my Labours to him for whose loue I vnder­tooke them, which is Almightie God, and sub­mitting my selfe and all I haue heere saied to the iudgement of the most holy Catholique Romane Church which neither hath, euer had, nor euer shal ha­ue any spot of haeresy, nor euen the least wrinckle of er­ror.

AN APPENDIX TO the Reader.

GENTLE READER.

AS this treatise was vnder the print, I came to vnderstand of some few thinges, whe­reof I could not omitt heere to giue thee notice. One is of another answeare newly come forth to this booke of Sir Humphrey Lind's which at first made me demurre whi­ther I should goe forward with this of mine or not, as well for sauinge of charge, as also because it might now seeme needlesse. Not­withstanding by the aduise of friends I resol­ued to goe thorough with it: for as they tould me, it being brought soe neere an end, the charge would be little more, and as for the needlednesse they said it was neither needlesse nor new, to haue seueral answeares to the same booke: for that the same thing might be an­sweared seueral wayes, and the iudgments and affections of men being very diuerse, one an­sweare might be more for one man's gust, and another for another's. Besides that this knight hauing soe triumphed with his seueral edi­tions, [Page 522] it could not seeme altogether needlesse for him, to haue seueral answeares: that men might see there haue not wanted many that could haue answeared him if they had thought him worthy of answeare. For these reasōs there­fore I haue beene induced notwithstāding that other answeare to lett this of myne see light.

Another thing is concerning a fourth edi­tion of Sir Humphrey's SAFE WAY, which I neuer heard of, till now that this answeare of myne was more then halfe printed; at the hea­ring whereof, I was in minde againe to let all alone. For hauing vsed onely the third edition, and a fourth coming out, reuised at it saith by the author, I presumed there would be some re­markable change or addition, the examination and answeare whereof, would require longer tyme then I was now willing to spare, & a fit­ter place then the end of a booke. But finding meanes to get this 4. edition & examining it, I found by the number of the pages of the whole booke, (there being but one onely more in the new then the old & the very lines of euery pa­ge in a manner agreeing) that there could be nothing of moment more in the later then in the former. Wherefore I resolued heere to add the answeare of whatsoeuer was added or chā ­ged, lest he might except that his last corrected edition was not answeared, or perhaps that he was falsely charged, if there were someting left out of the fourth which was in the third editiō.

The whole difference then of the two edi­tions [Page 523] is in these places following: first whereas in the third edition in his 9. sect. he had made 8. paragraphes, treating 8. particular points of doctrine in this 4. edition he hath made nine, diuiding the second, which was of the Sacra­ment of the Lord's supper (these are the words of his title) and the doctrine of transubstantiation into two §§. making this the title of the second §. The Sacrament of Baptisme and the Lord's supper; and this the title of the third Transubstantiation, though he haue not one word either more, or otherwise, in these two new §§. then he had before in that one wherein he playeth much like a man, that would change a shilling into two six-pences onely to seeme to haue more money, because he had more peeces. And as for his Baptisme why he should put it in the title at all I see not: for all that he saith of it in either place is onely this that he thinketh noe man soe blinde or stupid as to deny it to be the same substātially with that of the Primitiue church, which is a goodly catch to make soe faire a title for.

The second place is pag. 174. in the 5. §. of the third, and 6. §. of the fourth edition which is of communion in both kinds: where hauing said that a man would gladly know what the reasons were, why the Romane church did for­bid communion in both kinds, and withall cited Gerson's treatise in the margent, which as he there acknowledgeth shewes the cau­ses, I there reprehended him for it, as may be seene heere chap. 9. §. 5. n. 7. Now as it seemes [Page 524] reflecting vpon his owne absurdnes therein, in his 4. edition he doth not say that Gerson shewes the causes as he said before but declares them himself out of Gerson, saying they were these, to wit, The length of lay mens beards; the lothsomnesse to drinke after others; the cost­linesse and difficulty of getting wine; the frosts in winter; the flies in sommer; the burden of bearing; the daunger of spilling, and the peoples vnworthines to equall the Priests in receiuing in both kinds. Thus farre are Ger­son's words as he citeth them in a different letter, continuing the discourse himselfe in this manner. And thus for longe beards and vnsweet breathes, for a litle paines and noe great charges, for frosts in winter and flies in summer, I say for these and the like Catholique considerations pretended in the Councel of Constance, the church of Rome abolished Christ's institution, and laide Anathema vpon all that at this day maintaine the contrary. Soe Sir Humphrey prouing himself as imperti­nent in setting downe Gerson's discourse lame­ly and ridiculously, as he did before in not set­ting it downe at all: for better declaratiō whe­reof I shall heere put downe Gerson's words as they lye,Gers. tract. de com. laico. sub vtraque spe. which are these. Vnde dicunt plurimi Theologi &c. Wherefore very many diuines say, that the custome of not cōmunicating the layity vnder both kindes, especially since the multipli­cation of the faithfull hath beene lawfully and reasonably introduced, & this for the auoidind [Page 525] of manifold daunger of irreuerence, and scandal in the receiuing of this most blessed Sacrament. The first daunger is in spilling; the second in carriage from place to place; the third in the fowling of the vessels which ought to bee hal­lowed, & not handled or touched ordinarily by lay-people, and much lesse ought the consecra­ted wine to be sold in shops as it is said to be with such men (that is the Bohemians whoe stood for the vse of the chalice;) the fourth is in the longe beards of lay-men, the fifth in the kee­ping thereof for the sicke, because in the vessel it may become vinager, and soe the blood of Christ would cease to be there, being neither to be receiued nor to be consecrated a new with­out Masse, and soe it might come to passe that pure vinager may come to be giuen in steed of the blood of Christ: besids that in summer flies would breede, how close soeuer the vessel should be shut: some tymes also it would putri­fy, or become as it were noisome to drinke, and this reason is very efficacious; as also for an other reason, when many had drunke before. And we may aske in what vessel soe great a quātity of wine should be consecrated at Easter, for ten or twenty thousand persons? the sixt harme is in the costlinesse of wine, at lest in ma­ny places where there is scarce wine found to celebrate withall, & in other places where it is not to be had but at a deare rate: beside there would be daunger of congeling or turning to [...]ee. Againe there would be daunger of creduli­ty; [Page 526] and this many wayes. First that the dignity of the layity is as great in the receiuing of this Sa­crament as that of Priests. Secondly that soe to doe was euer, and is a matter of necessity, & soe all that haue done, and doe thinke, practise or teach otherwise haue perished and doe perish; and generally all, as well clarks, Doctors and Prelats whoe haue not opposed themselues a­gainst such a custome by word and writing, and that they haue peruerted the scripture: Thirdly that the vertue and force of this Sacrament is not more principally in the consecration then in the receiuing. Fourthly that the church of Ro­me doth not thinke rightly of the Sacraments, nor is heerein to be imitated. Fiftly that general Councels and particularly this of Constance haue erred in faith and good manners. Sixtly it would many wayes be occasion of sedition and shismes in our part of Christendome, as expe­rience sheweth in Bohemia. Hitherto are the words of Gerson: by the onely reading and com­paring whereof, it will easily appeare how badly Sir Humphrey hath delt as well in culling out some few reasons of least force, as also in de­liuering them not in the author's phrase as they lye, but in a certaine ridiculous fashion of his owne: for first he mentioneth not the two maine heads which containe all the rest and are chiefly to be reguarded in the administration of Sacra­ments to witt, irreuerence and scandall: then among the daungers of irreuerence he leaueth that, which may most easily happen, and cannot [Page 527] indeede be well auoided, to wit, that with longe keeping as when it is kept for the sicke, the spe­cies of wine would turne into vinager; that it would otherwise corrupt, & become noysome, which Gerson seemeth to count his chiefe reason for he saith of it that it is a very efficacious one Sir Humphrey also leaueth out that other rea­son, that either the vessels wherein it is kept must be let to grow very fowle, or be touched and handled by lay people: both which are contrary to the reuerence dew to this holy Sa­crament: he leaueth out that point of scandal in selling of the cōsecrated wine, to saue the credit of his bretheren of Bohemia, whoe vsed soe to doe. He leaueth out the manifold daungers of scandal by mis-beleif, to wit, that heereby men might come to beleeue that it were a matter of necessity; that heereby they might come to con­demne all that haue taught, or practised the con­trary or not opposed it, that heereby they might come to condemne the practise of the Romane church, and condemne general Councels of er­ror in faith; all which the Knight was pleased to passe ouer, putting downe onely those other, which he thought he might make better sport withall: for which purpose he also altereth Ger­son's words: for whereas he speaketh of a little paines, & noe great charges Gerson saith nothing of paines & for charges he saith the quite cōtra­ry; to witt, that the charge is very great in some places, and in others that there is not wine to be had sufficient for the people, but onely very little [Page 528] for the Priest to say Masse, withall and for alte­ring Christ's institution Gerson saith the expresse contrary, to wit, that it is an error to say that there is any such institution; and that there is noe more necessary by diuine institution, but that we doe not contemne it as, saith he, Doc­tors teach of Confirmation and Extreame Vnc­tion which are said to be Sacraments not of ne­cessity. Which truth being supposed, I see not but Gerson's reasons may be good and sufficient to proue his intent, which was to shew the ma­nifold irreuerence and scandal which might co­me by the vse of both kinds: for exāple is it not an vndecent thing to see the longe haire of a man's vpper lippe hange in the chalice, and to come out with a great quantity of the sacred blood hanging and dropping from it? likewise be there not many men and woemen in london, after whome Sir Humphrey himselfe might per­haps be vnwilling to drinke, not onely for nice­nesse, but for feare also of something els, which besids lothsomnesse may bring daunger of health? and why then for a great many such rea­sons concurring may not the church decree the ordinary vse of one kinde onely, in such case as Christ leaueth it in her power? for this authori­ty therefore of Gerson's I see not that the Knight hath any whit mended but rather made his mat­ters worse.V. sup. cap. 9. § 7. n. 14.

The third place is pag. 204. in his §. of ima­ges, where citing an authority of the ciuill law, he saith that the good Emperours Valens and [Page 529] Theodosius made proclamation &c. in the ans­weare of which place, beside other errors I ta­xed him for calling Valens a good Emperour; now in this 4. edition he leaueth out the word (good) whether by chance or vpon better con­sideration I know not: howsoeuer I thought fitt to note it as a thing wherein the edition dif­fereth.

The fourth and last place is pag. 319. in his 17. section where explicating what manner of Pa­pist it is that many be saued, he saith out of Hooker it must not be a Pope with the necke of an Em­perour vnder his feete, nor a Cardinal riding his horse to the bridle in the blood of saints, but a Pope, a Cardinal sorrowful, poenitent, disro­bed, stript, not onely of vsurped power, but also reclaimed and recalled from his error, whose proselytes must abiure all their heresies wher­with they haue any way peruerted the truth &c. All this and somewhat more of the same kind is added; which I doe not recite to answear: for I haue done that fully before, besids that any man may see the absurdity of it: for he may as well say any Iew, Turke, or heretique may be saued, to wit, by abiuring his errors, and being sory for his sinnes, and soe we say Sir Humphrey Linde himselfe may be saued in this manner. I doe not therefore note this to answeare but onely as I said before to shew the difference of the editions and how with the number of them the measure of the Knight's malice encreaseth: and soe much for that matter.

[Page 530]Now the third thing whereof I am to take notice heere, is another wise piece of worke of Sir Humphrey's called VIA DEVIA, which I also neuer saw till this answeare was vnderprint which now hauing seene, I finde it to be in a manner the same with his VIA TVTA, and indeede soe like as I see not why he should call the one VIA TVTA or DEVIA rather then the other: and therefore I presume there wilbe noe farther answeare expected thereunto: besi­des that whosoeuer shall attentiuely peruse this answeare to his VIA TVTA, will soone see that there will neuer neede more answeare to any thing, that he saith. And soe I end once mo­re with him.

FINIS.

Faults escaped in the Epistle dedicatory.

pag. 7. lin. 24. of the Gentlemen. cor. of the Gentleman. pag. 14. lin. 7. her for. cor. her. say for. pag. 20. lin. 12. these cor. those pag. 22. lin. 14. those cor. these pag. 34 lin. 9. some myre cor. the same myre

Faults escaped in the booke it selfe.

pag. 2. lin. 12. there cor. these pag. 5. lin. 5. against Sergius. cor. against Eutiches; the difference of his two wills against Sergius. pag. 6. lin. 1. whensoeuer cor. which whensoeuer pag. 6 lin. 15. words cor. worde pag. 11. lin. 3. out of dele out pag. 11. lin. 11. Doctour cor. Doctours pag. 11. lin. 32. theach which cor. teach that which pag. 13 lin. 3. that cor. that that pag. 15. lin. 17. before cor. before; pag. 17. lin. 17. in cor. is pag. 17. lin. [Page] 19. points cor. point pag. 17. lin. 21. they were cor. it were pag. 2 [...] [...] 23. that that cor. that pag. 24. lin. 7. nothinge cor. notinge pag. 24. lin. 7. occurre the cor. occurre in the pag. 29 lin 12. implicite cor. implicite faith pag. 35 lin. 25. and cor. are pag. 37. lin. 12 knighs cor. knight pag. 39. lin. 30 sume cor. some pag. 42. lin. 18. went. For the cor. went for the p. 45. lin. 1. thinge which cor. thinge to doe which pag. 45. lin. 15. wiolated cor. violated pag. 48. lin. 26. osten cor. often pag. 49. lin. 13. thimketh cor. thinketh pag. 50. lin. 9. Co­quus cor. Coquaeus pag. 54 lin. 16. would all cor. would haue all pag. 55. lin 1. not cor. noe pag. 55. lin. 13. contradiction cor. contradic­tions pag. 58. lin. 17. about cor. a bout pag. 61. lin. 10. Iou cor. you p. 61 lin. 21. it cor. them pag. 69. lin. 17. Prophest cor. Prophet pag. 69 lin. 22. shewed cor. sheweth pag. 84. lin. 8. great cor. great chur­ches. pag. 84. lin. 9. Marke heere &c. vnto those words of the Apos­tles. cor. making it a marginall note. pag. 85. lin. 15. ardelis cor. ardelio pag. 87. lin. 1 considereth cor. considered pag. 87. lin. 31. the 666 cor. the yeare 666. pag. 91. lin. 11. hee hath dele hee pag. 91. lin. 19. Heliesaitae cor. Helcesaitae pag. 92. lin. 19. the flesh cor. other flesh pag. 96. lin. 8 to wit cor. videlicet pag. 102. lin. 11. Church, his Tenets cor. Churches tenets pag. 106. lin. 8. to adore; cor. to adore him; pag. 109 lin. 20. saith the cor. saith he pag. 112. lin. 19. your cor. yours pag. 114. lin. 11. & 13. ingenious cor. ingenuous pag. 114 lin. 27 to cor. to to pag. 115 lin. 13 & 14 excused cor excuses pag. 116 lin. 6 which cor. with pag 116 lin. 26. 22. books. For cannonical, cor 22 books for canonical pag. 119 lin. 4 eight cor. eighth pag. 122 lin. 29 those bee cor. there be pag. 134. lin. 21. you cor. then pag. 136 lin. 2. translated cor. translateth pag. 142 l. 30 not cor. note pag. 145 lin. 12 we not cor. wee doe not pag. 152. lin. 22 whereas cor. for wheras pag. 156 lin. 16 to wit cor. videlicet p. 158 lin 27. your cor. our p. 159 lin. 18 others cor. other p. 159 lin. 27. aboud cor. about p. 167. lin. 12 vribarne cor. as vribarne pag. 167 lin. 24 acient cor. ancient p. 172 lin. 3 in cor. on p. 176 lin. 17 speaketh cor. speaketh p. 185 lin. 26 see cor. soe p. 188 lin. 3 bring cor. bringeth p. 188 lin. 24 priest cor. priests p. 189 lin. 12 sir cor. sir? p. 189. l. 12 is allowed dele is p. 189 l. 20 id cor. it p 193. lin 4 as of cor. as if p. 194 lin 9. imitation cor. inuitation p. 197 lin. 30 nor cor. not p. 198 lin. 29. 3. or 4. thousand cor. 3 or 4 hundred or 3. or 4. thousand. p. 205 lin. 3 is cor. it is pag. 212 lin. 32. &. dele &. pag 215 lin. 10. hat cor. hast p. 216 lin 1. putted cor. putteth p. 218 lin. 28 whereas cor. for whereas p. 228 lin. 25. anthentatiuely cor. authoritatiuely p. 233 lin. 16 hat [...] cor. that p. 235 lin. 1 hee dothe not cor. he cannot, p. 238 lin. 2. Fa­thers cor. Father p. 244 lin. 24 words cor. worde p. 244. lin. 26 [Page] as in cor. as if in p. 251 lin. 13 all which cor. which (all) p. 255 lin. 12 this cor. all this p. 256 lin. 12 aliquod cor. aliqua p. 256 lin. 13 iactum cor. iactura p. 258 lin. 23 wherein cor. where proued in pag. 259 lin. 8 lowd cor. low pag. 265 lin 32 firmatur cor. finiatur pag. 269 lin. 5. Bishops cor. Bishop pag. 276 lin. 24 appeare cor appea­res pag. 277. lin. 21. a good cor. a good one p 282. lin. 4. circum­stance cor. circumstances. pag. 283 lin. 26 as a thinge dele as pag. 290 lin. 14 your cor. yours p. 303 lin. 10 not cor. noe pag. 305. lin. 3 plessys cor. plessy p. 308 lin. 5 awne cor. owne p. 309 lin. 19. thing cor. things pag 310 lin. [...]1 disolute cor. dissolute pag 313. lin. 15. which cor. with pag. 514. lin. 9 iudment cor. iudgment pag. 315 lin 13. tis cor. this pag. 316 lin. 7. pillards cor. pillars p. 316 lin. 22. to the paragraph cor. to the end of this paragraph pag. 317. lin. 32 diuine cor. diuines pag. 318 lin. 4 may cor. it may pag. 319 lin. 4 you cor. yours pag. 319. lin. 11 is indulgences cor. is of indul­gences pag. 321 lin. 15. alleadged cor. you alleadge pag. 324. lin. 19 their cor. theirs pag. 326 lin. 1. Indulce cor. Indulgence pag. 325 lin. 2 Corithian cor Corinthian pag. 328 lin. 18 things cor. thinge pag. 330 lin. 11 thowsand cor. thowsands pag. 331. lin. 17 where cor. were pag. 333 lin. 11 thaught cor. taught pag 334 lin 9 vtrumque cor. vtrunque pag. 335 lin 11 sermons cor. ser­mons with pag. 335 lin. 14. is cor. it pag. 344. lin. 4 the cor. is the pag. 351 lin. 26 it any dele it pag 357 lin 21 way for dele way pag. 357 lin. 32 consequenty cor. consequently pag. 364 lin. 17 your cor. yours pag. 365 lin. 4 Angelis it a cor. angelis ita p 374 lin. 8 & you cor. & yet you p. 380 lin 12 which you say you cor. which say you p. 384 lin. 28 How are cor. How then are p 385 lin. 15 worke cor. works p. 390 lin. 6 forme cor. former p. 409 lin. 7 man cor. men p. 412 lin. 26 craftily cor. craftily p. 416 lin. 12 man's cor. men's p. 422 lin. 10 speake cor. speakes p. 425 lin. 6 Tertullian cor. is Tertullian p. 425 lin. 30 & 31 altogether cor. all together p. 449 l. 3 this is cor. it is p 4 [...]9 lin. 18 man cor. mans p 456 lin. 16 suppo­sitions cor. supposititious p. 458 lin. 9 vriting cor. writing p. 467 lin. 8. priests cor. priest p. 467 lin 12 priest cor. priests p. 478 lin. 25 sonne cor. sunne p. 466 lin. 33 Lozimus cor. Zozimus p. 487 lin. 1 Lozimus cor. Zozimus p. 487 lin. 15 & 16 confidence cor. confi­dence p. 495 lin 3. kind cor kinds p 498 lin. 30 at cor. a p. 504 lin. 19. inferiours cor. inferiour p. 510 lin. 18 our cor ours p. 513 lin. 26 he cor. the p. 519 lin. 19. Councell cor. Counsel p. 524 lin. 32 auoidind cor. auoiding.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.