The Ancient Doctrine of the Church of England, Part 1 · Response to body of book · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. The ſumme of his Anſwer to my Sixth Section.
THe Knight (ſaith he) ſeemes to acknowledge that he cannot aſſigne the time and perſons when and by whom the errors of the Roman Church came in. Good Phyſitians uſe to enquire of the cauſes, effects, and other circumſtances, and upon the circumſtance dependeth the knowledge of the diſeaſe. We pleade preſcription for our doctrine from the beginning. The difference betwixt Hereſie and Apoſtaſie. The Church cannot fall away, without ſome ſpeciall note and obſervation.
The Reply. I… is to be wondered what art and policie your Church doth uſe to put off the triall of her cauſe, when it ſhould come to hearing. If we ſpeake of a depravation of your Faith, you crie out it is blaſphemie; If we ſhew your owne mens complaints for a reformation of your doctrine, you ſay they meant a reformation onelyonly of Diſcipline; If we plainly prove the noveltie of your Trent Articles, by comparing them with the Tenets of ancient Religion, you threaten to bring an action of the Caſe againſt us for ſlandering and defaming of your Church, except we can aſſigne the preciſe time and perſon when thoſe errors came in. Let us uſe the words of your fellow Campian; Can I imagine any to be ſtuffed in the noſe, Camp. Rat. 2.that being forewarned cannot quickly ſmell out this ſubtle juggling? Why doe you not rather complaine of the Noveltie of our doctrine, and bid us ſhew the time when, and the Authors who firſt broached our two Sacraments, our Communion in both kindes, our Praier in a knowne tongue, our ſpirituall preſence, and the like; if I faile in theſe, then ſay, The Knight ſeemeth to acknowledge he cannot doe it.
The errors in your Church which wee complaine of, are negative Articles amongſt us, and the proofe lies on your ſide: If you cannot ſhew Apoſtolicall Authors for your owne doctrine, muſt we be therefore condemned, becauſe we doe not prove the Negative? Or otherwiſe it muſt needes follow by your Logick, that it is the ſame doctrine which was once delivered to the Saints, becauſe we cannot ſhew the firſt Author of it.
You cannot denie that there are many particular errors in the Church, whoſe firſt Authors cannot be named by you nor us, and therefore will you conclude they are no errors? The cuſtome of communicating little children in the Sacrament of the Lords bodie and bloud was an error, and continued long in the ancient Church, yet the firſt Author of it was not knowne. There were many did hold there was a mitigation and ſuſpenſion of the puniſhment of the damned in hell, by the ſuffrages of the living; this error was anciently received, yet the firſt Anthor was not knowne. The opinion that all Catholike Chriſtians, how wicked ſoever, ſhall in the end be ſaved, as by fire, was an ancient error, but the Author is not knowne. Againe,Alph. contr. haereſ. verbo Indulgentia. p. (mihi) 354. there are many things (ſaith your Alphonſus) knowne to later writers, which the Ancients were altogether ignorant of. There is ſeldome any mention of Tranſubſtantiation amongſt the Ancients; almoſt none of Purgatorie; what marvell if it ſo fall out with Indulg ences, that there ſhould bee no mention of them by the Ancients? If therefore ſuch errors crept into the Church in the firſt and beſt Ages, which are now condemned by your ſelves and us, without enquiring after the time, and Authors that firſt broached them. Nay more, if your points of Faith, as namely, Tranſubſtantiation, Purgatorie, and Indulgences, were altogether unknowne to the Ancients (as your men confeſſe) why ſhould you require us to ſhew the firſt Authors of your doctrines, which were utterlie unknowne to the ancient Fathers? Or rather, why do you not condemn them with us, as you do the errors which were received for true doctrines amongſt the Ancients? If St. Peter were at Rome, no doubt the Church received & beleeved his Propheſies; There ſhal be falſe Teachers among you, 2 Pet. 2.1.who (privily) ſhall bring in damnable hereſie. If the Apoſtle both forewarned you and us, that errors and hereſies muſt ſteale in privily, ſenſim ſine ſenſu, ſecretly and by degrees into the true Church, and yet would not reveale the Authors of the hereſies, what madneſſe were it in you or us to paſſe by thoſe damnable Hereſies, or rather to pleade for them, becauſe wee cannot learne the name of the falſe Teachers?
Vincentius Lyrinenſis, Vincent. Lyr. de haereſ. c. 15.who was living 400. yeeres after the Apoſtles time, complaines that certaine in his dayes did bring in errors ſecretly, which a man (ſaith he) cannot ſoone finde out, nor eaſily condemne. The Serpent hides himſelfe as much as hee can (ſaith Tertullian) and ſheweth his chiefe skill in wreathing himſelfe into folds, Tertull. adverſ. Valent. c. 3.and in thruſting himſelfe into dark and blinde holes: Such is the nature of falſe teachers, they ſeeke nothing more (ſaith the ſame Author) than to hide that which they preach, Idem c. 1.if yet they may be ſaid to preach that they hide.
But good Phyſicians (ſay you) uſe to enquire of the cauſes, effects, and circumstances; Pag. 73.for upon theſe circumſtances dependeth the knowledge whether it be a diſeaſe or no. It is moſt true that Phyſicians will enquire of the cauſes of the diſeaſe, but will they deny the Patient to be ſicke, or refuſe to miniſter Phyſicke to him, unleſſe he tell them preciſely how or when he firſt tooke his diſeaſe or infection? For this is our caſe, and the point in queſtion touching a reformation. Neither doth the knowledge of the diſeaſe of the body depend upon the circumſtances of time, place, and perſon. I thinke you never read ſuch Aphoriſmes either in Gallen or Hyppocrates; neither doth your knowledge of errors and hereſie in your Church depend on the circumſtances of time, place, and perſons: For ſome Authors, at the ſame time, and in the ſame place, might have broached truth, when another ſet his hereſie abroach; as namely, Saint Auſtin preciſely in the time and place, delivered the Orthodox Doctrine of grace, when and where Pelagius ſpread his hereſie.
From your Rules of Phyſicke you returne to the Rules of Divinity, and tell us from Saint Auſtin, that*Quod univerſa tenet Eccleſia, nec Conciliis inſtitutum, ſed ſemper retentum eſt, non niſi authoritate Apoſtolicâ traditū rectiſſimè creditur. De Baptiſ. contr. Donat. l. 5. c 24. in initio. Tom. 7. p. mihi 433. whatſoever the Catholike Church doth generally beleeve or practiſe, ſo as there can be no time aſsigned when it began, it is to be taken for an Apoſtolicall tradition. This place of Auſtin you neither quoted in your Anſwer, neither have you recited his words faithfully, for hee ſpeakes not of aſſigning the time when the Doctrine begins, but whatſoever the univerſall Church doth hold, not being ordained by Councels, but hath beene ever held, that is moſt rightly beleeved for an Apoſtolicall tradition. This is his Tenet, and this is ours: but you have put in the word (Catholike) in your ſenſe for univerſall, you have added (generall beleefe and practiſe) you have thruſt in theſe words (ſo as no time can be aſsigned when it began) and you have omitted the principall verb [that hath been ever held] which makes me ſuſpect you omitted the citing of this place, leſt your fraud ſhould be deſcried: But I pardon you; let us heare the reſt;P. 73. But ſuch (ſay you) are all thoſe things which you are pleaſed to call errors. If this were as eaſily proved as ſpoken, you ſhould not neede to put us to the ſearch of times and Authors for the firſt Founder of your Faith; For if your Popiſh Doctrines were alwayes held by the univerſall Church, and not ordained by Councels, we ſhould not need to looke into your Councell of Lateran for your Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, nor into your Councell of Conſtance for Communion in both kindes, nor into your Councell of Florence for your ſeven Sacraments, nor into your ſecond Councell of Nice for your worſhip of Images: for theſe and many ſuch traditions were firſt ordained by Councels, and were not the generall beliefe and practice of the Church. Againe, if the univerſall Church had alwayes held your Doctrines from the Apoſtles times, why doe you your ſelfe confeſſe, that your prayer in an unknowne tongue,Pag. praecedenti. your private Maſſe, your halfe Communion, were taught otherwiſe in the primitive Churches? Nay, if they be Apoſtolicall, how comes it that they are flat contrary to the Doctrine of the Apoſtles? And thus much of your two rules of Phyſicke and Divinity; let us he are the reſt of your authorities.
Tertullian (ſay you) hath this Rule for diſcerning hereſie from truth,Tertul. praeſcrip. 31. p. mihi 78. That which goeth before is truth, and that which commeth after is errour. This Rule is moſt true, but theſe words you cite by the halves; for hee ſaith expreſly,Id autem extraneum & falſum quod ſit poſterius immiſſum. Id Dominicum & verum quod ſit prius traditum: That was firſt delivered, which was true, and came from the God of truth; and this was the Doctrine of Chriſt and his Apoſtles; for that which commeth after (ſaith he) is ſarre different: where hee ſhewes likewiſe in theſe words following, that after Chriſts time, and in the dayes of the Apoſtles, there might be hereſies,Ut aliquem ex Apoſtolicis viris (qui tamen cum illis perſever averint) habent authorem. Ibid. for the myſtery of iniquitie began then to worke; and therefore hee will not have it enough to derive a Doctrine from a man which lived with the Apoſtles, unleſſe it can be proved that he continued with them: and the reaſon (as I conceive) was given by Nicephorus; After the ſacred company of the Apoſtles was come to an end; Niceph. l. 3. c. 16.and that their generation was wholly ſpent, which had heard with their eares the heavenly wiſdome of the Sonne of God, then that conſpiracie of deteſtable errour, through the deceipt of ſuch as delivered ſtrange Doctrine, tooke rooting; and becauſe that none of the Apoſtles ſurvived, they publiſhed boldly with all might poſsible the doctrine of falſhood, and impugned the manifeſt and knowne truth.
But wee plead (ſay you) preſcription from the beginning.] It is not ſufficient to plead it, you muſt prove it. The Mahometiſts at this day aſſume the name of Saracens (as your men doe the name of Catholikes) as if they came from Sara the free woman, Abrahams true and lawfull wife, when in truth they tooke their firſt beginning from Agar the bond-woman; neither can there be any preſcription againſt the ancient Records and Evidences of the Word written by Chriſt and his Apoſtles. Indeed you have found a right and eaſie way to claime a preſcription from the time of the Apoſtles; for you have razed many prime Evidences of the Fathers for the firſt 800. yeeres, which make for our Doctrine, and you have proſcribed many learned Authors and their Records (as I have ſhewed before) for the laſt 800. yeeres, which teſtified againſt your errors: And now I come to your Churches apoſtacie or falling from the truth, which occaſioned theſe errors.
Apoſtacie (ſay you) is a defection, or forſaking of the Name of Chriſt, and profeſsion of Chriſtianity, as all men underſtand it.
I ſhewed in this Section, that in the primitive Church, when any hereſie did ariſe that indangered the foundation (ſuch as was the hereſie of the Arrians, of the Pelagians, and the like) the Authors were obſerved, the times were knowne, the place was pointed at, and forthwith letters of Premonition were ſent to all the ſound members of the Catholike Church; by which publike advertiſement the ſteale-truth was diſcovered, and herein the Author, the time, and place was obſerved and knowne to all: but in the Church of Rome it was otherwiſe; there was firſt an Apoſtacie, a falling away from the truth, which was firſt cauſed by an error ſecretly ſtolne into the Church; and therefore it is ſometimes called a myſtery of iniquity, becauſe myſtically, covertly, ſecretly hee ſhall winde his abominations into the Church of God: and accordingly the Apoſtle gives Timothy to underſtand, that in the laſt times ſome ſhall depart from the faith, 1 Tim. 4.1.giving heed to ſeducing ſpirits, and doctrines of Devils, and ſuch as ſpeake falſhood in Hypocriſie: which place plainely ſhewes (ſaith a learned Divine) that Antichriſt himſelfe ſhall not profeſſedly renounce Chriſt,Mr. Bedel againſt Wadſworth. p. 40. and his Baptiſme; that his kingdome is a revolt, not from the outward profeſſion, but inward ſinceritie and power of the Goſpel. And therefore all doe not underſtand Apoſtacie, a forſaking of Chriſt and Chriſtianity: Not all, no not the ſame Apoſtle, where hee uſeth the ſame word Apoſtacie to the Theſſalonians: foreign, &c. 2 Theſſ. 2.3.Let no man deceive you by any meanes, for that day ſhall not come, except there come (an Apoſtacie) a falling away firſt: Hee ſpeakes of the departing from the orthodox Faith, not from Chriſtianitie. Not all, no not your Rhemiſts in their Annotations upon this place:Rhem. Annot. in 2 Theſſ. 2.3. For it is very like (ſay they) be it ſpoken under correction, that Gods Church, and all learned Catholikes, that this great defection and revolt ſhall not be onelyonly from the Roman Emperour, but eſpecially from the Roman Church, and withall from moſt points of Chriſtian Religion, or (as they interpret in their Margin) from moſt Articles of the Chriſtian faith. Not all, no not Campian your fellow Jeſuite, who termes Luther an Apoſtata, for falling from your Church, not from Chriſtianity. Not all, no not your Decretals, who terme a Monke, for leaving his Order, or a Clarke forſaking his habit, an Apoſtata. Not all, no not Gregory the Great, Greg. l. 6. Ep. 24.who called John Biſhop of Constantinople, an Apoſtata, for aſſuming the title of univerſall Biſhop. Laſtly, Not all, no not your Councell of Baſil, where 900. condemned and depoſed your Pope Eugenius for a Symoniſt, Concil. Baſil. ſeſſ. 34.a forſworn man, a man incorrigible, a Schiſmaticke (an Apoſtata) a man fallen from the faith, and a wilfull Hereticke. I ſay therefore, not all, nor any of theſe did underſtand an Apoſtacie to be a forſaking of the name of Chriſt and Chriſtianity; and therefore I hope you will confeſſe, that your aſſertion is neither Catholike nor univerſall.
When therfore we lay Apoſtacie to your Church, we doe not charge you with a totall falling from Chriſtian Religion, like that of Julian the Apoſtata, with an obſtinate pertinacie, in denying the principles of the faith neceſſarie to ſalvation, or a renouncing your Baptiſme, and conſequently the name of Chriſtianitie: Wee charge you not with Apoſtacie in ſuch a fearefull and horrible ſenſe, unleſſe you will aſſume it to your ſelves;Lyra in 2. Theſſ. 2. but wee thinke with Lyra, that as there was an Apoſtacie or revolt of many Kingdomes from the Roman Empire, and of many Churches from the Communion of the Roman Church; ſo there hath beene an Apoſtacie from the Catholike ſaith in the midſt of the Church, not for that all at any time did forſake the true Faith, but for that many fell from the ſinceritie of the Faith.
After your definition of Apoſtacie, you proceed in this manner; How then can we be Apoſtatas? in no wiſe certainely: but if wee erre, wee erre as heretikes, and if wee be heretikes, you confeſſe you muſt aſſigne the perſons, time and place.
I have cleared you from the hainous title of Apoſtata in your owne ſenſe, but not in ours;D. Potter p. 19. & 60. yet let me tell you (with griefe and pitty be it ſpoken) your profane and wicked application of the Apoſtles Creed, as you pretend, in jeſts, is a fearefull ſigne of falling from Chriſt and Chriſtianitie it ſelfe: and therfore, although I may free your Church in generall of that name, and in that ſenſe, yet it behoves you to acquit your ſelfe in that particular. But this by way of friendly admonition.
If we erre (ſay you) wee erre as heretikes] I ſhall eaſily condeſcend unto you in that: For the errors in the Roman Church cauſed an Apoſtacie at firſt, and was myſticall and ſecret; now after long practiſe and uſage in the Church, is become an hereſie; and ſo wee may truely aſſent unto you, that you erre as heretikes: And although I am not bound upon this acknowledgment, forthwith to aſſign you the Authors of your hereſies, becauſe they came in by degrees, and at ſeverall times, privily, and inſenſibly; yet becauſe you are ſo inquiſitive after you predeceſſors,Ecclefia ſua definitione non facit talem aſſertionem eſſe haereſin, cum etiamſi ipſa non deſniviſſet, eſſet haereſis; ſed id efficit Eccleſia, ut nobis perſuam cenſuram pateat illud eſſe hereſin. Alph. à Caſtr. l. 1. c. 8. D. Potter ſect. 4. p. 101. & 97. if you will have but patience, I will draw your pedigree in the next Section. In the meane time let me tell you, it is another errour in you to ſay, They come to have the name of hereſie, onelyonly by the condemnation of the Church. For the Church condemnes them, becauſe they are hereſies; contrariwiſe, they are not hereſies, becauſe the Church condemnes them. The Doctrines of Arrius, Macedonius, Neſtorius, Eutyches, Eunomius, and Dioſcurus, were themſelves hereticall, even before they were ſolemnly condemned in the foure generall Councels: but woe to us and all the reformed Churches, if this Tenet were true and Catholike, for then are wee condemned already. But I pray, what if your Pope (whom you Jeſuites now make the onelyonly Church) admit, I ſay, your Pope were an Heretike, ſuch as was your Pope Eugenius, or your John the 23. or Pope Vigilius, or Pope Honorius, were they able to judge of hereſies in others, that were tainted with them themſelves? or muſt their definitive ſentence in Cathedra ſtand for a Law,Si autem Papa erraret praecipien …o vitia vel prohibendo virtutes, &c. Bell. de Pont. l. 4. c. 5. Sand. de viſibili Monarch. l. 7. An. 1541. p. mihi 595. and make that hereſie which is no hereſie? Indeed your Cardinall ſayes, The Pope hath power to make that no ſinne which is ſinne, and accordingly he hath placed that Tenet amongſt the Heretikes, and by the ſame Law he makes that to be hereſie, which is no hereſie. Your learned Sanders tells us, it is hereſie to tranſlate the Scriptures into the vulgar Tongue, and accordingly he hath placed that Tenet amongſt the Heretikes. Your Chancellor of Paris and Director of the Councell of Conſtance tells us, it is hereſie to communicate in both kindes; and accordingly he hath wrote a Tract, De haereſi communicandi ſub utrâque ſpecie. And to paſſe by all the Trent Articles (the deniall of all or any of which makes a man an Heretike) your infallible Pope Nicholas proclaimeth,Qui Romanae Eccleſiae privilegium auferre conatur, hicproculdubio labitur in haereſin. that whoſoever goeth about to abrogate the priviledges of the Church of Rome, he is no doubt an Heretike.
If the deniall of all or any of theſe make an Heretike, there is no doubt, all the Reformed Churches ſtand guilty of that capitall crime, by the law of your Church, and your Popes doome. Yet let me tell you; the Scriptures were tranſlated into all Languages in the Primitive times, and Chriſt and his Apoſtles did communicate in both kindes; and your firſt foure generall Councels did bound and limit thoſe privile dges of the Church of Rome, which are now extended into all parts of the Chriſtian world; and were all theſe Heretikes? If you call this Hereſie, goe on, and fill up the meaſure of your wrath, untill the time come that Chriſt and his Saints acquit us, or condemne us of that imputation. In the meane time you ſhall doe well to reflect upon your ſelfe, and conſider rather the caſe at this day betwixt the Sorboniſts and the Jeſuites, which meerely toucheth your owne particular.Aurcl. in vindiciis, pag. 383. Idem in libro ſine titulo. Hermannus Laemelius, that is to ſay, John Floyd, termes the propoſitions of the Pariſians, deſtructive to the Church, and hereticall; on the other ſide, they accuſe him of hereſie, Hadier in ad m…ait. ad Lect. p. 8. 9. 16. 24.blaſphemie, and impietie, and the like. Are you all members of one Church, under one head the Pope, and are your propoſitions different and hereticall on both ſides, and muſt I ſay, that you and the reſt have the name of hereſie onelyonly by the condemnation of the Church? But you are ſure the Pope will not condemne his owne members, and without his judgment they are but words of courſe, or at beſt but courſe phraſes delivered in heate againſt an adverſary: For (ſay you) The Fathers did forbeare abſolutely to condemne things for hereſies, till they had acquainted the Biſhop of Rome, and had his judgement, as is cleere by St. Cyrill of Alexandria, in the caſe of Neſtorius. Neither doe we denie, that in this and the like caſe the Biſhop of Rome ought to be acquainted; For Neſtorius was Patriarch of Conſtantinople, and therefore good reaſon the Biſhop of Rome, as another Patriarch, ſhould be acquainted with it, that hee might be judged by his Peeres; but in other caſes they ſent Letters without acquainting the Biſhop of Rome: neither ought you to require or expect that we ſhould produce any ſuch letters of premonition againſt the points of Trent doctrine, for which we now condemne you, becauſe thoſe errors which then began to ſpring in the Church, by cuſtome and pertinacies became hereſies in many ages after. About that time, and in that very Age St. Auſtin condemned the ſuperſtition of ſome in worſhipping Sepulchers and Images (which at this day is an Article of your Faith:) but you anſwer that he condemned the heatheniſh and ſuperſtitious worſhip of dead, perhaps wicked mens tombs and pictures: and for a ſolution of this place you referre me to Bellarmine. It ſeems you could give me no ſatisfactory anſwer of your own, and therefore you returne me to your Cardinal; but I wonder why you do not recite his anſwer to this place. I conceived that you were aſhamed of it, or there was ſome miſpriſion that made you conceale it; & thereupon I have peruſed it, and find that he hath falſified both the place and meaning of it. As for inſtance: whereas Auſtin ſaith,Aug. de moribus Eccleſ. …a thot. l. 1.6.34. p. (mihi) 774. Tō. 1. Bell. de Reliquiis Sanct. l. 2. c. 4. I know many worſhippers of tombes and pictures, your Cardinall leaves out the word pistures, and ſaith, I know many worſhippers of tombes; and for his full ſolution he ſubjoyneth, Auſtin wrote this in the beginning of his firſt converſion. Again, he cites another place of S. Auſtan, as it were to illuſtrate the former, without any reſpect or mention of the worſhippers of pictures, and tells us,Ibid. that the Emperour did pray at the Sepulcher of St. Peter, yet proves not the point in queſtion, that he did worſhip the Sepulcher it ſelfe; for who doubts but that we alſo may worſhip God at St. Peters ſhrine, and yet not wo ſhip the ſhrine it ſelfe. Nay, hee goeth on further, and ſhe wes that Auſtin did not reprehend Chryſoſtome, and Hierome, but the ignorant ſort of people: for Chryſoſtome ſaith, Let us adore the Tombes of Martyrs; when as there are no ſuch words in Chryſoſtome, but rather, Let us adorne them.Ut Tumulos Martyrum de center cur ari. Chryſ. And whereas he ſaith further, that Hierome wiſheth Marcella, a Ladie, to worſhip the aſhes of the Prophets in Bethlem; ſo likewiſe I ſay, he doth wiſh her in the ſame place to lick their duſt; and therefore it was not to be underſtood as a thing ſpoken properly, but figuratively. For elſewhere he ſaith expreſly againſt Vigilantius, I ſay not, we worſhip not nor adore thereliques of Martyrs, but neither the Sunne, nor the Moone, nor Angels, nor Archangels, nor Cherubin, nor Seraphin. Neither did S. Auſtin ſpeak as you ſay of the heatheniſh and ſuperſtitious worſhipping of wicked mens Tombes,Andr. reſp. ad Card. Bell. pag. (mihi) 49. but of them which in ipſa vera Religione, in true Religion were worſhippers of pictures and ſhrines. For he ſhewes, that his owne mother Monica did uſually bring to the ſhrines of Saints certaine Bread and Wine, Auguſt. Confeſ. l. 6. c. 2.and other proviſion; but becauſe the celebrating after the manner of the memory of the dead, did very much reſemble the ſuperſtition of the heathen, ſhe was forbidden it by St. Ambroſe; which forbidding (ſaith he) ſhee did ſo piouſly and obediently embrace, as that my ſelfe did wonder to ſee her made (with ſuch eaſe) rather a condemner of her owne ancient cuſtome, than a queſtioner of the preſent prohibition. For a concluſion; whereas you would excuſe it, that St. Auſtin did condemne onelyonly the ſuperſtitious worſhip of wicked mens Tombes, your men are likewiſe guiltie of the ſame worſhip: For your owne Cardinall will tell you,Bell. de Sanct. Beat. l. 1. c. 7. that the people (of the Roman Church) did for a long time celebrate Sulpitius for a Martyr, who afterwards did appeare and told them, that he had heene a theefe and was damned; Idem, ibid.And that Alexander the third reprehended certaine men for worſhipping one as a Martyr, that was killed in his drunkenneſſe: and thus (to uſe your owne words) for theſe, I ſend you backe againe to Bellarmine for an anſwer.
I come to the reſt of your anſwers. Firſt I cited out of Ferus, that Maſſes, Monaſteries, Ceremonies, Feaſts, Images, are otherwiſe now uſed than they were in the beginning: I produced likewiſe Polydore Virgil, Eraſmus, Scotus, Agrippa, Caſſander, Gregorie de Valentia, in ſeverall points againſt your new doctrine; now let us heare your ſeverall anſwers to them. Touching Ferus, he is a Frier (ſay you) in your Bookes, but not in ours, ſave onelyonly in the Roman Index of forbidden Bookes. Touching Polydore, he ſaith as the Knight telleth us, and as much as any Heretike can ſay, but it booteth not, for his Booke is forbidden. Touching Eraſmus, he is no Authour for us to anſwer, he is branded in the Roman Index. Touching Scotus, you neither condemne him, nor anſwer him: he tells you plainly, that Tranſubſtantiation was not received for a point of Faith till the Councell of Lateran, above 1200. yeares after Chriſt; but of this paſſage Ne gry quidem: And yet you might have anſwered with Bellarmine, this opinion of his is no way to be allowed; or with Gregorie de Valentia, for this ſaying he ought to be corrected. As touching Agrippa and Caſſander, you will not vouchſafe them an anſwere, but reject them inter damnatos authores, as men to be caſt out of your Synagogue. Laſtly, touching Gregorie de Valentia, you ſav his authoritie doth make againſt the Knight, why elſe ſhould he corrupt and mangle it? But whether I or you have corrupted it, let the Reader judge; my words were theſe, The Communion in one kind, when it got firſt footing in the Church, minimè conſtat, it doth not appeare (ſaith Greg de Valentia:) Youto prove my corruption, cite the words in this manner; When that cuſtome began in ſome Churches, it appeareth not; but that there hath been ſome uſe of one kind ever from the beginning. I ſhewed before; ſo Valentia; and thus you.
But in truth, this is none of Valentia's own period, but one of your owne making, who cunningly joyne the latter words which follow in Valentia, 4. or 5. lines after, to the former, with a But, which is none of Valentia's; & the former part of the period is notably mangled by you: For thus it ſtands, When that cuſtome began in ſome Churches, Auguſtana Confeſsio.it appeares not, as is acknowledged by the Auguſtane Confeſsion. Now in that Confeſſion, the words are theſe, The cuſtome of both kindes remained long in the Church, neither doth it appeare when, or by what Author it was changed; ſo that he plainly ſpeaketh of the Church in general, & ſheweth the corruption here pretended by M. Floyd to be but a cavill, viz. That Valentia ſaith this, not of the Church in generall, but of ſome particular Churches. Thus either you blot & prohibit all Authors that make forus, although they be members of your own Church, or elſe you vouch ſafethem no anſwer, or elſe you quarrell without any juſt occaſion offred; and this wil prove an eaſie way for the weakeſt ſcholar in your Church to anſwer all that can be produced againſt your faith and doctrine.
Now as the Reader hath heard your anſwer in the generall, ſo let him ſee your exceptions to the particulars: For whereas I ſaid with St. Paul, Forbidding of marriage is a doctrine of Devils, you anſwer as if you were angrie with St. Paul, that he hath been anſwered more often than the Knight hath fingers and toes; and it ſeems, for that reaſon you will vouch ſafe him no anſwer at all. This puts me in minde of the ſaying of Ludovicus Vives, amember of your owne Church, who aſſures us,Lud. Vives de Civ. Dei. l. 13. c. 24. If St. Paul were living in theſe dayes, he would be held either a mad man, or an heretike. And ſince you will not reſolve me of St. Pauls meaning in that place, I will appeale to St. Bernard, an Abbot who was reſtrained from marriage by the law of your Church; who ſpeaking of that reſtraint, gives us the true ſenſe and expoſition of St. Paul in theſe words: All hereſies have an heretike for their founder; the Maniches had Manes,Bernard. in Cant. Serm. 66. the Sabellians had Sabellicus, the Arrians had Arrius, &c. ſo that we know the Authors of thoſe plagues; but by what name will you terme the Author of thoſe that forbid marriage? Surely it is not of man, or by man, and far be it from the ſpirit-of God, but it is foretold (by the Apoſtle St. Paul) to be the fraud & doctrine of devils.
But marriage (fay you) is not a thing evil in it ſelfe, but becauſe it leſſe agreeth with the holineſſe which is required for the exerciſe of Prieſtly function. I pray then what thinke you of a concubine? Doth companie with her better agree for exerciſe of your ſunction, than with a wife? Sure I am, this is the doctrine of your Church: nay more, your Pope Siricius would inferre by authoritie of Scripture, that martiage is unholy in it ſelfe, for he cites the Text for it, They that live in the fleſh cannot pleaſe God. Qui in carne ſunt Deoplacere non poſſunt.Now I pray you what difference is there betwixt the ancient heretikes, and the members of your Church? The Montaniſts, the Tatiani, the Eucratitae, did not prohibite marriage to all, no more than you doe, but onelyonly to their perfecti, as being a diſparagement to their perfect eſtate; or as you interpret, not agreeing to the holines of Prieſthood. Again, whereas I proved out of Polydore, that the marriage of Prieſts was not altogether forbidden till the time of Gregorie the 7. that is to ſay, above a thouſand yeares after Chriſt; you anſwer, that which Polydore cites is moſt evidently falſe, as appeareth particularly by a Canon of the firſt Councell of Nice, and the ſecond Councell of Carthage. Now if Polydore were miſtaken, it concernes not me, for I cited him truly, and he is a member of your Church; but the truth is, you are much miſtaken touching thoſe two Councels.Sozom. l. 1. c. 22. For the Councell of Nice (ſaith Sozomen) commended Paphnutius judgement, and touching this matter of mariage, made to decree an all, but left it to each mans owne will, without any force of neceſsity; And the Councell of Carthage forbiddeth not marriage in Prieſts, but commandeth abſtinence from marriage rites for a certaine time, as St. Paul doth, that they may more freely give themſelves to prayer, and the offices of their ſacred function. Which plainly ſhewes, that both Prieſts were married in thoſe dayes, and conſequently, that thoſe two Councels make flatly againſt you. But Marius (ſay you) cannot find the beginning of this prohibition; Polydore findeth it, and yet both make for the Knights purpoſe. And without doubt they doe, for they contradict not one the other: Polydore ſpeaketh of publike, abſolute, and reall prohibition; Marius of the firſt condemning it in any Prieſt; and theſe confeſſions may well ſtand together.