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 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 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 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 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 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
is the true explicacion of this Parable not according to my priuate sense but according to the sense of the holy Fathers and our Blessed Sauiour himself who voutsafed to explicate this Parable vnto vs wherein as you see the Goodman's seruaÌ„ts marke the growing of the cockle soe must you tell vs what Pastors or Doctors did euer note any such thing in any point of our doctrine But heere Sir Humphrey what is to be thought of you that take vpon you to interprete Scripture at your owne pleasure and for your owne ends euen then where our B. Sauiour himself doth explicate his owne parable and meaning thereof What I say may men thinke by this that you will doe els where soe your chiefe gappe or euasioÌ„ for not assigning the person tyme place when our Doctrine began is stopped and the exception remaineth still in full force to wit that you must assigne the tyme place persons or els we acknowledge noe error 7. But you say it is an vndeniable truth that some things were condemned in the primitiue Church for erroneous and superstitious which now are established for articles of Faith this you proue by a place of S. Aug. saying that he knew many worshippers of tombes and pictures whom the Church condemneth and seeketh to ameÌ„d Which yet you say is now established for an article of Faith But by your leaue Sir this your vndeniable truth is a most deniable vntruth For first S. Augustine's tyme was a good while that is about one hundred yeares after the primitiue church Secondly that which S. Aug. condemneth to wit the superstitions and heathenish worshipp of dead and perhaps wicked men's tombes and pictures vsed by some badd Christians is not approued by the Nicene and Trent Councels but the religious worshipp of Saint's images reliques which S. Aug. himself practized Bell. de reliq lib. 2. cap. 4. as you may see in Bellarmine with whoÌ„ alsoe you may find other good solutions of this place which I suppose you cannot but haue seene and consequently you cannot but know that your vndeniable truth is flatly denied by him and all Catholiques 8. Diuers other things as the Primacy of S. Peter Prayer for the dead Iustification Masses Monasteries Caeremonies Feasts Images You say are otherwise now vsed then at first instituted Which for these fiue last to wit Masses Monasteries c. You proue out of one Ioannes Ferus a fryer a man much in your bookes and the books of all your Ministers but not in any of ours but onely the Romane Index of forbidde books And therefore of noe authority or accouÌ„t with vs. For the rest of these points wee haue nothing but your bare word surmize which is but a bare proofe not worth the answearing 9. After this the knight thinketh to come vpon vs another way saying that our owne authors who haue sought the tymes and beginners of our errours as he is pleased to call them confesse an alteration though they doe not finde when it beganne For restraint of Priests marriage he saith that Marius cannot finde when it came in Yet after he bringeth Polidore Virgill saying that Priests marriage was not altogether forbiddeÌ„ till the tyme of Gregory the 7. And this doctrine our knight is pleased to make all one with that absolute forbiding of marriage which S. Paul reckoneth amoÌ„g the doctrines of Diuels For S. Paule's authority it hath beene answeared more ofteÌ„ then the knight hath fingars and toe's and euery child may see the difference betweene forbidding of Marriage generally to all sorts as a thing euill in it self and vnlawfull and forbidding marriage in one particular state or profession to which noe man is bound but is left free whither he will embrace it with this condition or not And this not because it is a thing euill in it selfe but because it lesse agreeth with the holinesse which is required for the exercize of Priestly function For Polydore Virgil it is true he saith as the Knight telleth vs and eueâ— as much more besides as any haeretique can say of that matter but it booteth not that worke of his de rerum inuâ—n â—oâ—â—â—â— being a forbidden booke Conc. Nic. can 3. Carthag 2. can 2. V. Bell. lib. 1. de cler cap. 19. and the thing which he saith most euidently false as appeareth by infinite testimonies but particularly by a Canon of that great Nicene Councel 800. yeares before Gregory the 7. his tyme. And the 2. Councel of Carthage which testifieth it as a thing taught by the Apostles and obserued by antiquity The Knight may find more in Bellarmine for proofe of this point Heere I onely aske how he maketh his authours hange together Marius cannot find the beginning Polydore findeth it and yet both for the Knights purpose forsooth But for Marius his authority it is nothing against vs but for vs. For it followeth by S. Augustines rule that because it is practized and taught in the Catholique Church with out being knowne when it beganne that therefore it is an Apostolicall tradition 10. Another errour as he saith is Prayer in an vnknowne tongue wherein it is to bee wondered saith Erasmus as the Knight citeth him how the Church is altered But Erasmus is noe author for vs to answeare he is branded in the Romane Index Neither neede I say more of the matter it self in this place A third error of ours as he pretendeth is Communion in one kinde for which he citeth Val. twice once saying it is not knowne when it first gott footing in the Church another tyme that Communion in one kinde began to be generally receiued but a little before the Councel of Constance Which I see not to what purpose they are if they were right cited as the former is not For Val. hath thus much When that custome beganne in some churches Val. de leg vsu Euch. cap. 16. it appeareth not but that there hath beene some vse of one kinde euer from the beginning I shewed before Soe Valencia What doth this make for the knight nay doth it not make against him why els should hee corrupt and mangle it Doth not Valencia say he made it appeare that this kind of Communion was somewhat vsed from the beginning and that which he saith of the not appearing when it beganne is not of the Church in general but of some particular Churches Besides for a final answeare I say it is noe matter of doctrine but practice the doctrine hauing euer beene and being still the same of the lawfulnes of one or both kinds as the Church shall ordaine though vpon good reasons the practize haue changed according to the diuersity and necessity of tyme. With all therefore that euer he can doe he can not refute that argumeÌ„t which wee make against him and his that our doctrine is not to be taxed of errour soe long as they cannot shew when where and by whom it beganne as wee can and doe euery day of
section soe are you not able to proue it Safe in this Wherein notwitstāding wee must heare a little what you say And first I wonder you talke still soe much of prouing the Safety and Comfort of your faith out of our authors when you cānot name that man that saith any such word For suppose you find one author or two of ours that saith something different from the common opinion in this or that particular point of doctrine doth hee presently say the Protestant faith is Safe For example one saith communion in both kinds of it selfe giueth more gtace doth he therefore say your faith is safe noe verily but the same man doth condemne your doctrine for most vnsafe and dangerous and leading to the very pitt of hell For euen those things which of themselues might perhaps seeme indifferent your disobedience and spirit of contradiction maketh them damnable to eate is a thing indifferent but yet to eate with offence of our neighbour is ill as S. Paul saith Rom 14.20 Malum est homini qui manducat per offendiculum It is ill for a man that eateth by giuing offence and if the offending and scandalizing of one of the little ones which our Sauiour shewed speaking of this matter of Scandal be able to make a thing indifferent to become so ill how much more is Scandalizing of the whole Church and rebellious stifnes able to make a thing otherwise indifferent or perhaps in some respect good to become not onely ill but damnable But leauing that I come to the point 2. You proue the Safety of your doctrine aboue ours because Bellarmine saith of the Scripture that it is a most certaine and safe rule of beleeuing and soe also say we but what then wherein is your faith more safe then ours wee rely vpon the same ground of Safety as much and more then you how then are we lesse safe You say we rely vpon the Pope and Church which is but the authority of Man Well grant for disputation sake it be but the authority of man if it were soe that we did leaue the authority of Scripture sticke onely to the Pope and Church it were somewhat then you might with some colour at least say your way is more safe but now that we acknowledge and reuerence the authority of Scripture as much nay much more then you and ioyne therewith the authority of the Pope and Church for exposition of the same though it should be but humane how doth that diminish the authority of the Scripture or make it lesse safe A man in his right witts would thinke it would rather helpe then hinder But what if this authority bee more then humane as indeede it is are we not then much more safe I say nothing of vnwritten traditions which come not short for authority euen of the written word it self and which in two resspects seeme euen to surpasse it One respect is that traditions extend themselues to more things then the written word and euen to the authorizing expounding of the same For by tradition we receiue both the books of Scripture vnderstand the sense thereof The other that they are lesse subiect to the cutting kniues of haeretiques which maketh them soe madde at them For they cannot soe corrupt them by putting in and out at their pleasure as they can do the writtē Word And this indeede seemed the Safest way in Vincentius Lerinensis his dayes for he being desirous to learne how he might discerne Catholique truth from haeretical falshood receiued this answeare from euery body as he saith that if he would auoide the deceits and snares of Haeretiques and remaine sound in faith he should strengthen his faith two wayes to wit by the authority of the diuine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholique Church Whereby you see the iudgment of antiquity concerning your Safety and Ours 3. Againe you say it is safer to adore Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father then to adore the Sacramental bread I aske how you proue it for say I againe it is as dangerous to deny adoration to Christ in the Sacrament as to Christ in heauen For hee is as surely in the Sacrament as in heauen the same Catholique faith teaching vs both verityes and to make you study a little I may say in some sort more sure For a man that would be contentious might deny Christ to sitt at the right hand of his Father because his Father hath neither right nor left hand Wherein for answeare you must fall to expound the Scripture and declare the meaning of that article which saieth it and therein you shall find as much to doe as we doe in expounding the words HOC EST CORPVS MEVM Besids doe not we adore him in heauen too as well as you How are you more safe then wee Yea but you will say that we adore him on the altar too It is true wee doe indeede and to suppose it doubtfull for the present whether hee be there or noe I aske wherein are you more safe then we if hee be not there we are in danger of adoring him where he is not if he be there then are you in danger by not adoring him where hee is and it is as much danger not to adore him there if he be there as not to adore him in heauen Wherein I say then are you more safe though there were noe more certainty of beleife on our side then yours 4. Thirdly you tell vs out of S. Aug. it is more safe to trust wholy in God then partly in God partly in our selues Soe we say also and soe we doe Wherein then are you more or we lesse safe you say we trust in our good works it is true thus farre that we teach that men by good worke may cooperate to iustification meriting grace and glory but that is but conditionally if a man doe such good works but yet we are farre from nourishing your confidence which you speake of which is not grounded soe much in that general principle of good works as in the particular that I for example doe these and these good works Wherefore I say it is false in your sense For we doe not teach any man to perswade himself that he is iust and holy but teach him to feare and doubt himself continually and in all his works according to the example of Iob. Verebar omnia opera mea I did feare all my works and if a man doe good works we teach that hee cannot be sure that they are good as they are done by him that is that he doth them with such a right intention and by helpe of supernatural grace and that therefore noe man can bee sure of his owne iustification according to that alsoe of Iob. Iob 9.28 Etsi fuero simplex hoc ipsum ignorabit anima mea Although I shal be simple that is good the selfe same shall my soule be ignorant of Iob 9.21 Againe we say
obscurely that posterity may reioyce at the cleare knowledge of that which antiquity did reuerence euen before it came to be soe knowne that in fine he must soe theach which he hath learned that though he deliuer it in a new manner yet hee deliuer not any new matter And then asking a question by way of obiectiō whether Christia religiō doe not receiue any increase or profit hee answeareth yes verily but in such manner as it may bee truely called increase not change For increase importeth an amplification or enlargement of a thing in it self Change importeth a turning of one thing into an other And soe he saith the vnderstanding knowledge and wisedome both of euery man in particular and of the whole Church in general may receiue increase but soe as to persist in same doctrine sense and iudgment which hee declareth by the similitude of a man's body which though it be greater when he comes to be a man then when hee was a chile yet all the parts and limbs are the same soe as though it receiue increase yet noe change the same hee declareth by another similitude of a graine of wheate cast into the ground which though it multiply in the growth yet it multiplieth onely in the same kind of graine Wherevpon he concludeth that the Church being a diligēt and wary keeper of the doctrines committed to her custody doth not adde diminish or any way change doth not cut of what is necessary nor adde any thing superfluous but with all industry soe handle all ancient doctrines as if any haue not receiued their full shape and perfection to polish and perfect them if any be throughly searched and expressed to cōsolidate and strengthen thē if any be cōfirmed and defined to keepe them adding withall that the Church hath neuer endeauoured any thing els by her decrees of Councels but onely that which was simply that is without questioning beleeued before should after bee more diligently beleeued that which before was preached more slackly should after bee preached more earnestly that wich before was more securely reuerenced should after be much more carefuly garnished or adorned and that the Church being excited by the nouelties of haeretiques hath done noe more but consigned to posterity in writing that which before she had receiued from her ancestours by tradition onely and for more cleare vnderstāding thereof many tymes expressed the ancient sense of faith by the propriety of a new appellacion that is by a new word then inuented to expresse the ancient beleife 11. This is the discourse of this Holy Father which I haue sett downe the more fully in reguard it containeth the cleare decision of this whole matter For out of it together with what hath beene hitherto said it may bee gathered first that the Church createth not any new articles of faith but onely that she deliuereth vnto vs those articles of ancient faith which she hath receiued from them by whom she was first plāted and taught that faith Much lesse doth she deliuer vnto vs any new faith For though she should haue new distinct reuelations yet would it not follow that the faith were new soe long as those it followeth that he that denieth the explication doth deny the article and consequently frame vnto himselfe a new beleefe 12. And that the absurdity of Sir Humphrey's argument may yet appeare more manifestly I add that any haeretique that euer was may by the very same maner of argument chalenge antiquity to himselfe and accuse vs of nouelty For he may say such a thing was not de fide before such a Councel ergo it is new and that he beleeues onely that which was beleeued before that Councel ergo he beleeueth the ancient Faith Which argumēt if it be good in Sir Humphrey is good in them and cōsequently he must disallow the decrees of all Councels as nouelties and approue all haeresies for the ancient beleefe Which being soe great and manifest an absurdity he will not sure for shame admitt and consequently must allow of Vincentiu's his authority and the answeare out of him to wit that Councels in defining matters of faith doe not coyne a new faith but declare explicate and define the old Which that Sir Humphrey may the better conceiue I shall heere in a word vrge him with an example of his owne Church thus The Church of England admitteth of diuers books of the new testament for canonical whereof there was doubt for three or fower hundred yeares togeather in the Church of God as the Epistle to the Hebrewes the second Epistle of S. Peter the Ep. of S. Iude the Apocalypse of S. Iohn and some others which were after admitted for Canonical Now I would know of him whether vpon the admittance of them there were any Change of faith in the Church or whether euen those books haue receiued any change in themselues hee cannot say they did and there by he may answeare himself and see plainly that the change which seemeth to be is not in the things to be beleeued but in vs that are to beleeue them because vpon such definition or declaration of the Church we are obliged to beleeue them which it may be we were not before And this may suffice for this matter of new articles of beleife which Sir Humphrey would faine father vpon vs. 13. Another thing which hee much buildeth vpon and whereby he thinketh to preuaile against vs in the authority of some particular Doctors or Schoolemen of the Church differing among themselues in some points not defined by the Church at such tyme as they did dispute thereof though afterwards they were But any man of iudgment will presently see that this is but to delude the simpler sort of people of his owne side whom he thinketh to make beleeue any thing For who doth not know that Catholiques binde themselues onely to defend the Catholique faith which neyther doth nor can depend vpon the iudgment of any one priuate Doctor how learned soeuer for neyther is any thinge counted faith till it bee taught by the authority of the Catholique church or common cōsent of Doctors Vinc. Lerin cap. 4. for soe saith Vincentius Lerinensis expressely that wee are to beleeue without doubt not what one or two Maisters teach but what all with common consent hold write and teach planely frequently and perseuerantly Vinc. Lerin cap. 39. And this as he saith els where Non in omnibus diuinae legis questiunculis sed quidem certe praecipuè in fidei regula Not in all small questiōs of the diuine Law but cheifely in the rule of faith Which Sir Humphrey cannot be ignorant of but onely that he lifteth still to be limping and wilfully dissembling the truth For if he had taken notice of this he would haue had lesse to say though he say not much euen now with all the dissembling he can deuise 14. Neyther will it serue his turne to say that we vrge him and his Ministers out of their
owne authors and why may not he doe the like to vs for the reason is cleane different They haue noe publique authority which can define what is Faith and what not but that is left not onely to euery priuate Doctour or Minister but to euery priuate Lay man and Woman And though it be true that it is noe conuincing proofe to vrge one particular Protestant Doctor 's authority against another there being not two among them of one opinion wholy much lesse one bound to answeare for the other Yet we are faine and may with good reason vse it because they haue noe certaine rule of Faith wherewith we may vrge them Authority of Church they haue none Scripture they haue indeede but soe mangled corrupted peruerted by translation and misinterpreted according to their owne fancies that as they haue it it is as good as nothing Traditions they haue none Councels they haue not any among themselues nor will stand to ours Consent of Fathers or Schoolemen they care not for Consent of Doctors they haue not among themselues nor can haue without an heade neyther if they had would any man thinke himself more bound by that then by consent of Fathers what then is left but to vrge them with the authority of such as they acknowledge for their brethren But with vs the case is farre different for we haue diuers infallible rules of faith though all with some reference to one principal rule As Scripture in the plaine and literal sense which is out of controuersy tradition or common beleefe and practize of the whole Church Councels either general or particular confirmed by the See Apostolique the authority of that Holy See it self defining ex cathedra though without either generall or particular Councel the common and vniforme Consent of ancient Fathers or moderne Doctours and Schoolemen deliuering any thing vnto vs as Matter of Faith 15. All these six rules of faith we acknowledge wherewith let this Knight or any Protestant in the world vrge vs we flinch not wee doe not deny the authority but are ready to make good whatsoeuer is taught anie of these wayes What folly then is it for a man to stand vrging vs with the authority of any one priuate man who may straggle out from the rest though to goe farther then we neede in such great liberty as wee giue Protestants wee giue them leaue to vrge vs with the authority of any one single Doctour in a point wherein hee is not contradicted by other Catholique Doctours or which other Catholiques doe not wholy disauow What more can a man desire And yet againe though the Knight or any other Protestant should bring such a single author for his opinion yet is there such a maine difference betweene him and them that noe Protestant can iustly pleade that single Catholique author to be wholy of his opinion or beleife in that point to say nothing of others wherein they differ For the Protestant holdeth his doctrine stifly not meaning in any case or for any authority to change or leaue it which is it that that maketh a man properly an Haeretique Whereas the Catholique euer holdeth it with indifferency ready to leaue it whensoeuer the Catholique Church shall determine otherwise Which if Sir Humphrey will be but content to doe wee will beare with all his errours because then they will be soone amended What little helpe then is hee like to haue from Catholique authors or what likelyhoode is there for him to make good his paradoxes or rather his most absurd heresies out of our owne Cardinals Bishops Doctors Schoolemen c. whom he putteth all in the plural number as if the number were to bee very great Whereas God knoweth they come very poore and single as shall appeare and some bee Cardinals of his owne creating only as I shall after shew but this hee doth for credit of his cause though it bee with losse of his owne 16. And all this which heere I say is to bee vnderstood supposing that indeede he cite Catholique authors and cite them truely as heere hee promiseth which promise for as much as concerneth true citing how hee performeth I shall afterwards make manifest heere onely I shall adde a word concerning his authors who he promiseth vs shal bee Catholiques Whereas indeede for the most part they are either knowne Haeretiques or some such men as though with much adoe they may passe for Catholiques as Erasmus Cornelius Agrippa Cassander and the like yet they gaue themselues soe much liberty in they writings as they came to bee noted for it and their works forbidden Of which I will not therefore make any account as noe other Catholique doth But when I come to such authorityes as there be many in this booke I meane to make noe other answeare but that the author is condemned or booke forbidden in the index librorum prohibitorum the table of forbidden bookes Wherein I cannot but note Sir Humphrey's ill fauoured and dishonest dealing in pretending to cite only our owne Doctors and Schoolemen and yet afterwards obtruding such as he knoweth to bee subiect to soe mayne exception and soe to bee by vs disauowed and reiected as incompetent Iudges or witnesses 17. But there is noe other to bee expected at such a man's hands and therefore I will neyther looke for better nor say more of it but by this occasion adde a word or two concerning the Index expurgatorius which soe much troubleth the consciences of these men Which being rightly vnderstood noe man of reason and iudgment can be offended with it For it is nothing but a continuance of the same care which hath beene euer obserued in the Church of God for preseruing of the Catholique fayth and integrity of life from the corruption of Haeretiques and other wicked men who by bookes bring great preiudice both to Faith and manners vnlesse special care be vsed for praeuenting thereof Of the necessity and iustnes of which course there be whole books written by diuers learned Catholique Doctors neyther can any body dislike thereof but onely Haeretiques who indeede find themselues mightily aggreiued therewith as being by this course depriued of a chiefe meanes of spreading their wicked doctrine by books though indeede they haue noe more cause to complaine then Necromancers Iudiciary Astrologers Southsayers Witches Magicians and euen bad Catholiques who publish naughty and lasciuious books for this care of the Church doth extend to all whatsoeuer may be offensiue or hurtfull eyther to faith or good manners 18. But because Sir Humphrey will needs haue it that the bible is also forbidden and the Father's writings appointed to bee corrected and rased I answeare that for the Bible indeede it is not permitted in the vulgar language to euery body without any reguard or distinction of persons as it neuer was nor ought to bee as is well proued by authority of Fathers and reason in the preface of the Rhemes testament But yet it is not soe forbidden but that it
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 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 wil be 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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