« PoprzedniaDalej »
had in them, and also to tender my suit, I shall here make an end, and trouble you no further, unless I see more comfort at your hand.
I had once made ready to be sent you another answer, which upon better advice I thought good to stay. I meant in both one thing; but my first was some deal sour, and would have been as bitter as a medicine, or in time of Lent penance. I strive with nature, the less to offend you; and so I trust you see cause to forgive me, if in any part of my writing I seem over eager.
THE ANSWER OF JOHN BISHOP OF SARUM UNTO DOCTOR COLE'S SECOND LETTER.
In your second letters I find many words to little purpose. It had been B better for you to have alleged one sufficient authority, whereby I might have learned that I looked for.
C For in my sermon at Paul's, and elsewhere, I required you to bring forth on your part either some scripture, or some old doctor, or some ancient council, or else some allowed example of the primitive church. For these are good grounds to build upon; and I would have marvelled that you brought nothing all this while, saving that I knew ye had nothing to bring.
But now forasmuch as you seek shifts, and will not come to answer, I count him unwise that knoweth not your meaning.
Ye ask why ye should be called obstinate. Doubtless I have a better opinion of you, and trust ye be not so. But if a man withstand an open truth, having nothing wherewith to defend himself, I remit him to your own judgment, whether he may be called obstinate or no.
You put me in remembrance of mine office, that, forasmuch as I am a bishop, I should be didaktikòs, that is, ready to yield account of such things as I teach: I thank God, so I do, and have done hitherto to my power, both privately and openly.
But if this be my duty, and required at my hands, what privilege have you, that you only may not allow one poor sentence to the confirmation of your learning? H You would have men think I fly answering because I am a bishop. This in logic is called Paralogismus, a non causa ut causa.
I alleged the place and audience where I spake, and not only mine office, for that I thought it might appear some want of discretion to call that doctrine into question which I knew was grounded upon God's word, and authorised and set forth by the queen's majesty, and by the assent of the whole realm.
But as touching my calling, I am not only ready to answer any man in any thing that I profess, but also upon sufficient allegation, as I have promised, very well content to yield unto you.
L But I beseech you, what reason of your faith in these matters gave you sometime when ye were in place? Scriptures, doctors, councils ye had none, as it now appeareth by your silence.
Therefore the ground of your persuasion must then needs be, Nos habemus legem, et secundum legem, &c.
N You know what followeth; for, as truly as God is God, if ye would have vouchsafed to follow either the scriptures, or the ancient doctors and councils, ye would never have restored again the supremacy of Rome after it was once abolished, or the private mass, or the communion under one kind, &c.
It grieveth you that I should rest upon the negative, and so put you to your proofs. Wherein notwithstanding ye allege against me the custom of the schools, yet ye know, Christ used the same kind of reasoning in his school. As when he said to the Pharisees: Hoc Abraham non fecit: "This thing Abraham never
did.” And again, when he answered them in the case of matrimony, A principio non fuit sic; “It was not so from the beginning;" he stood only upon the negative. Wherein if the Pharisees had been able to prove but one affirmative, either that Abraham had done so, or that the law of divorce had been so from the beginning, Christ with his negative might soon have been confounded.
Even so, when the bishop of Constantinople had taken upon him to be called the universal bishop of the whole church, (which title afterward the bishop of Rome began to usurp to himself, and for the maintenance of the same had' oftentimes disquieted and shaken the whole world; but, when the bishop of Constantinople first began to use this style,) Gregory, being then the bishop of Rome, confounded him only with the negative: Nemo, said he, decessorum meorum hoc profano vocabulo uti voluit2: "None of my predecessors would ever use this unchristian-like and lewd name." Lib. iv. Epist. 80. And again, Epist. 92: Sancti ante legem, sancti in lege, sancti sub gratia, omnes perficientes corpus Domini in membris sunt constituti; at nemo se universalem dici voluit3: "The holy men before the law, the holy men under the law, the holy men under the grace of the gospel, all together making up one body of the Lord, are placed amongst his members; but none of them would ever suffer himself to be called universal."
I have chosen especially these examples, because they seem to serve me to double purpose. Thus Gregory reasoned then as we do now, only upon negative1; and if then the bishop of Constantinople had been able to prove but one affirmative, that any bishop of Rome aforetime had used that style, or that ever any man, either before the law, or under the law, or under the gospel, had suffered himself to be called universal bishop, then had Gregory been confounded.
But as touching the custom of the schools, I trust ye have not yet forgotten, that Aristotle giveth order to the opponent in many cases to require an instant ; as I do now at your hand. And what is that else, but in the denial to defend the negative, and to drive the adversary to avouch the affirmative? But that will ye not do; and ye know why, although ye dissemble it. But sooner ye require to see our grounds.
And what better ground can we have on our side, than that doctor Cole, the chiefest man on the other side, can find no ground to stand against us?
He that will make any innovation, say you, must give a reason of his doings. O master doctor, this reason fighteth most against yourself; for you have misliked and put away the most part of the order of the primitive church, and yet ye never gave any good reason of your doings.
You say you are in possession. No; ye were sometimes, you are not now. And when you were, ye had no right title nor good evidence, no more than they that sometimes sat in Moses' chair, or they that said, Nos sumus filii Abraham ; "We are the children of Abraham," and thereby claimed their possession. Therefore ye were possessores malæ fidei, and for that cause ye are now justly removed.
Now, if ye think ye have wrong, shew your evidence out of the doctors, the councils, or scriptures, that ye may have your right and re-entry. I require you to no great pain: one good sentence shall be sufficient.
You would have your private mass, the bishop of Rome's supremacy, the common prayer in an unknown tongue; and for the defence of the same ye have made no small ado. Methinketh it reasonable ye bring some one authority beside your own, to avouch the same withal. Ye have made the unlearned people believe ye had all the doctors, all the councils, and fifteen hundred years on your side. For your credit's sake let not all these great vaunts come to nought.
Where ye say ye are in place of a learner, and gladly come to be taught, you must pardon me, it seemeth very hard to believe. For if you were desirous
['1 Hath, 1560.]
[ Gregor. Magni Papæ I. Op. Par. 1705. Epist. Lib. v. Indict. XIII. Ad Eulog. et Anastas. Epist. xliii. Tom. II. col. 771; where we find nullus umquam, tam profano, and consensit.]
[3 Id. ibid. Ad Johan. Episc. Constant. Epist. xviii. col. 743; where sub lege, omnes hi, sunt ecclesiæ, et nemo se umquam, and vocari are read.] [Upon the negative, 1560, 1609.] [s Other, 1560.]
["Sometime, 1560, 1609.]
to learn, as you would seem, ye would come to the church, ye would resort to the lessons, ye would abide to hear a sermon; for these are the schools, if a man list to learn: it is a token the scholar passeth little for his book, that will never be brought to school.
Ye desire ye may not be put off, but that your suit may be considered. And yet this half-year long I have desired of you, and of your brethren, but one sentence; and still, I know not how, I am cast off, and can get nothing at your hands. You call for the special proofs of our doctrine, which would require a whole book; whereas, if you of your part could vouchsafe to bring but two lines, the whole matter were concluded.
Ee Yet lest I should seem to fly reckoning, as ye do, or to follow you in discourtesy, I will perform some part of your request, although indeed it be unreasonable. Against your new device of transubstantiation, besides many others whom I will now pass by, ye have the old father and doctor Gelasius, whose judgment I believe ye will regard the more, because he was sometime bishop of Rome, which see, as you have taught, can never err.
Gg And is alleged in the decrees: his words be plain: Non desinit esse substantia panis et natura vini: "It leaveth not to be the substance of bread, and the nature of wine."
But, to avoid this authority, some men of your side have been forced to expound these words in this sort: Non desinit esse substantia, hoc est, non desinit esse accidens: "It leaveth not to be the substance of bread, that is to say, it leaveth not to be the accidence, or the form, or the shape of bread." A very miserable shift.
li Even as right as the scholy expoundeth the text, Dist. iv.: Statuimus, id est, abrogamus. Yet doctor Smith of Oxford took a wiser way; for his answer is, that Gelasius never wrote those words, and that they hang not together, and that there is no sense nor reason in them.
Kk Here have you, that after the consecration there remaineth the substance of bread and wine.
Now bring ye but one doctor that will say as ye say, that there remaineth only the accidents, or shapes of bread and wine; and I will yield.
As touching a private mass, Gregory saith in his dialogues, that, before the time of the communion, the deacon was wont in his time to cry unto the people: Qui non communicat, locum cedat alteri: "Whoso will not receive the communion, let him depart and give place to others."
To break the ordinance of Christ, and to communicate under one kind only, your own doctor Gelasius calleth it sacrilegium. And Theophilus Alexandrinus saith: Si Christus mortuus fuisset pro diabolo, non negaretur illi poculum sanguinis": "If Christ had died for the devil, the cup of the blood should not be denied him."
That the common prayers were used in the common tongue, you have St Basil, St Hierome, St Augustine, St Chrysostom, St Ambrose, and the emperor Justinian: the places be known.
You see I disadvantage myself of many things that might be spoken; for at this present I have no leisure to write books.
Now must I needs likewise desire you, forasmuch as I have followed your mind so far, either to bring me one old doctor of your side, or else to give us leave to think (as the truth is) ye have none to bring.
You desire us to leave talking against you, and no more to deal so unmercifully with you in the pulpits.
O master doctor, call you this unmerciful dealing? when you were in autho
[ Gelas. adv. Eutych. in Mag. Biblioth. Vet. Patr. Col. Agrip. 1618-22. Tom. V. Pars III. p. 671. See before, page 11, note 11.]
[Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugd. 1624. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Prima Pars, Dist. iv. Gloss. in can. 4. eol. 12.]
[ Gregor. Magni Papæ I. Op. Dialog. Lib. II. cap. xxiii. Tom. II. col. 253. See before, page 13,
[10 Si enim et pro dæmonibus crucifigetur...quod erit privilegium aut quæ ratio, ut soli homines corpori ejus sanguinique communicent, et non dæmones quoque, pro quibus in passione sanguinem fuderit ?— Theophil. Alex. in Mag. Biblioth. Vet. Patr. Epist. Pasch. ii. Tom. IV. p. 717.]
manner all the rest.
rity, ye never could call us other than traitors and heretics; and yet, besides all that, used our bodies as you know.
We only tell the people, as our duty is, that you withstand the manifest truth, and yet have neither doctor, nor council, nor scripture for you; and that you have shewed such extremity as the like hath not been seen, and now can give no reckoning why: or if ye can, let it appear.
You say our doctrine is yet in doubt. I answer you, to us it is most certain and out of all doubt. But if you for your part be yet in doubt, reason and charity would ye had been quite resolved and out of doubt before ye had dealt so unmercifully for it with your brethren.
You are bound, you say, and may not dispute; yet, God be thanked, you are not so bound as ye have bound others. But I would wish the queen's majesty would not only set you at liberty in that behalf, but also command you to shew your grounds. But when ye were at liberty, and a free disputation was offered you at Westminster before the queen's most honourable council and the whole estate of the realm, I pray you, whether part was it that then gave over? And yet then you know ye were not bound.
Ye say ye remain still in the faith ye were baptized in. O good master doctor, stand not too much in that point. You know ye have already forsaken a great number of such things as were thought necessary when ye were baptized; and yet, besides that, how many times have some of you altered your faith within the space of twenty years? Remember yourself, who wrote the book a De Vera Obedientia', against the supremacy of Rome? bWho commended it with his preface? Who set it forth with solemn sermons? Who confirmed it with open oath?
You have ecclesiam apostolicam, ye say; and we have none. Howbeit, in Bbb all these matters that we now entreat of, we have, as you know, and must needs confess, the old doctors' church, the ancient councils' church, the primitive church, St Peter's church, St Paul's church, and Christ's church; and this, I believe, ought of good right to be called the apostles' church. And I marvel much that you, knowing ye have none of all these, yet should say ye have ecclesiam apostolicam. Ссс Where ye say ye make no innovation, it is no marvel; for in manner all things were altered afore to your hands, as may most evidently appear by all these matters that be now in question between us, wherein ye have utterly changed and abolished the order of the old church, and do nothing but the contrary; and what evident profit the church of God hath gotten by it, I think it a hard matter to declare.
You would have the matter turned over to some general council as we would be content to stand by; howbeit, that you think will not be in your time. Eee
Notwithstanding, I dare boldly say, such a council will be a great while before ye shall be able to find any doctor, or old council to serve your purpose. But though there were never such a council, yet truth will be truth notwithstanding; for the council cannot make the falshood' truth, but the thing that is taken to be true, it certifieth only to be true. But what redress can there be looked for of such a council, whereas no man shall be judge, or suffered to speak one way or other, but only such as be openly and justly accused and found faulty, and whereas he, that is himself most out of order, shall be head and reformer of the whole ?
Both parties, ye say, have waded so far herein, that now they can go no further; and therefore ye would have either part let other alone. If you of your part would have done so when time was, many a godly man had now been alive.
Whereas you say, you would have the sayings of both parties weighed by the balance of the old doctors, ye see, that is our only request; and that in the matters ye write of I desire even so to be tried.
But why throw ye' away these balance, and, being so earnestly required, why be ye so loth to shew forth but one old doctor of your side? Ye make me believe ye would not have the matter come to trial, only ye set forth the empty
names of St Augustine, of St Hierome, of St Chrysostom, of St Basil, of St Cyprian, of Tertullian, of Irenæus, of Dionysius, of the councils, &c.; as the apothecaries oftentimes set forth their painted boxes, and nothing in them: you shew me only the names of the doctors, which I knew afore; but ye shew me not one word in them of the private mass, or of the rest of the matters that lie between us. If ye could have found any thing in them for your purpose, I believe you would not have brought them empty. But that is a policy in the time of siege, when the soldiers within begin to want victuals, to throw forth a few loaves over the walls, that the enemy without may think they have store enough, and so give over the siege.
Iii You say I slanderously misreport the late council of Constance. O sir, these words savour too much of your choler, and might better have been spared. I speak more favourably of that council than I might have done.
For the words of the council be these, speaking namely of the communion under both kinds: Pertinaciter asserentes oppositum, tamquam hæretici arcendi sunt; that is: "They that stubbornly defend and maintain the contrary," that is to say, they that stand in defence of that that Christ commanded to be done and the apostles, which all the old catholic doctors and the whole primitive church observed, "ought to be punished so as is meet for heretics." By these words they are called not schismatics, as I said, but stubborn heretics, which is a great deal more odious. You see therefore my report was more gentle than the council deserved.
Whereas you say we could never yet prove the error of one general council, I think your memory doth somewhat deceive you. For, to pass by all other matters, Albertus Pighius, the greatest learned man, as it is thought, of your side, hath found such errors to our hands; for in his Ecclesia' Hierarchia, speaking of the second council holden at Ephesus, which you cannot deny but it was general, and yet took part with the heretic abbat Eutyches against the catholic father Flavianus, he writeth thus: Concilia universalia etiam congregata legitime, ut bene, ita perperam, injuste, impieque judicare et definire possunt": "General councils," saith he, "yea, even such as be lawfully summoned, as they may conclude things well, so may they likewise judge and determine things rashly, unjustly, and wickedly."
And of the two councils holden of late years at Constance and at Basil, where as pope John and pope Eugenius were deposed, he saith plainly that they decreed both against reason, and against nature, and against all examples of antiquity, and against the word of God'; and yet both these councils were called general.
Ye press me sore that, if I write you not a book of my proofs, it will be thought I do it conscientia imbecillitatis, "for the distrust of the weakness" of my part. Belike you have forgotten wherefore you with all your company not long since openly refused to enter disputation with us at Westminster. Doubtless the greatest part thought it was (as it was indeed) conscientia imbecillitatis, even "for distrust of the weakness" of your part. And what think ye is there now judged of you, that, being so long time required, yet cannot be won to bring one sentence in your own defence?
I have afore alleged a few reasons of my part, which by order of disputation I was not bound to do: now let the world judge which of us two flieth conference. I protest before God, bring me but one sufficient authority in the matters I have required; and afterward I will gently and quietly confer with you farther at your pleasure.
Wherefore, forasmuch as it is God's cause, if ye mean simply, deal simply; betray not your right, if ye may save it by the speaking of one word.
[ Concil. Constant. in Concil. Stud. Labb. et Cossart. Lut. Par. 1671-2. Sess. XIII. Tom. XII. col. 100; where oppositum præmissorum.]
[ Ecclesiastica, 1560.]
[Testimonio insuper Ephesinum II. et ipsum universale..... Testimonio, inquam, hæc sunt errare posse etiam universalia concilia, etiam congregata legitime, &c.-Pigh. Hierarch. Eccles. Assert. Col.
1538. Lib. VI. cap. xiii. fol. 247. 2.]
[ Sibi ipsis...totius ecclesiæ caput...subjicientes, adversus rerum ordinem et naturam, contra clarissimam evangelicæ veritatis lucem, contra omnem antiquitatis auctoritatem, atque adeo ipsius orthodoxa ecclesiæ...indubitatam fidem et sententiam.-Id. ibid. cap. ii. fol. 213. 2.]