vincula reis profer lumeÌ„ caecis c which acts say they are peculiar to Christ And againe in the same Hymne they obiect those words Monstra te esse Matrem as implying a mother and awfull authority ouer Christ. In explication of the first we demaÌ„d that our Lady would loose our Sinnes and bring light to the blynd only by her impâ—tration and praying to her blessed Sonne not otherwyse and therfore in most of our set pâ—ayers to her we adioyne these words following Per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum Touching the second sentence We do not wish her to impose any command or Motherly authority ouer her Some But we only vnderstand hereby shew thy selfe a Mother by appeasing thy sonne in our behalfe this by the remembrance of all thy Motherly tender care and loue towards him in his Infancy through the whole course of his life that by thee he may receaue our prayers and therefore it immediatly followeth in the same Hymne sumat per te preces But now if these words be such an eye-sore to the ProtestaÌ„ts what will they say to those words of S. Paul Omnibus (p) 1. Cor. 9. omnia factus sum vt omnes facerem saluos J am become to all men all things that I may saue all Where the Apostle in words assumeth to himselfe the Saluation of others In like manner in that Antiphone in our Ladies office beginning Salue Regina c. Our Apuersaries insist in those words Et Iesum benedictum fructum ventris tui nobis post hoc exilium ostende And shew to vs after this our exile Jesus c. To which I answere That it is lesse to say To shew the Sauiour vnto men then to say To saue men And yet we read the Apostle thus to say Et teipsum (q) 1. Tim. 4. saluam facies eos quite auâ—iunt Thou shalt â—â—ue thy selfe and them that do heare thee Moreouer it is obiected out of that Antiphone that the B. Virgin is stiled Spes nostra Our Hope To this I say that these words are vsed because next after our Lord Iesus Christ being God and Man we chiefly place our confidence in the mediation of the Blâ—sâ—â—d Virgin Since our Hope is not to be placed only in the Authours of our Good but also in the Intercessours and ministers thereof And according hereto when our Loâ—d said to the Iewes It (r) Iohn 5. is Moyses who accusâ—s you in quo speratis in whom you hopâ— Our Sauiour did not reprehend the Iewes in that they hoped in Moyses but because they did not belieue Moyses Finally our Aduersaries cannot brooke our Lady to be called Mater misericordiae because say they God is the Father of Mercy therefore the B. Virgin cannot nor ought to be called so But this is no good consequence for we read that Christ is called Lux (s) Iohn 9. mundi and yet Christ sayth of his Apostles Vos (t) Math. 5. estis lux mundi Thus such titles may be giuen to God and men in a different relation without any dishonour to God Animaduersion XLVII THe puritans do most maliciously peruert seuerall texts of Scripture in dishonour of our B. Lady For example First they obiect as seeming at least to rest doubtfull of the continuance of our B. Ladyes Virginity that Text Et non (u) Math 1. cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium primogenitum which words say they seeme to afford a double Argument The first is taken from the word Donec inferring from thence that after the byrth of her Sonne she should carnally know Joseph The second from the words following Filium primogenitum seeing Primogenitus properly signifieth that sonne which is first borne in reference to those Sonnes or children which are after borne I answere first touching the word Donec which word as also the word vsque doth not euer signify an affirmation after the time expressed if a Negation did goe before neither alwayes do they signify a Negation when an affirmation did precede For example Sede a (x) Psal 109. dextris mâ—is donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pectum tuorum Sit at my right hand vntill J make thy Enemyes thy footestoole Now these words do not import that after he shall not fit at the right hand of his Father The like sentences to these are these following Donec (y) Math 5. transeat Caelum Terra iota vnum aut vnus apex non praeteribit á lege And againe Ego (z) Math. 28. vobiscum sum vsque ad consummationem mundi In all which locutions sentences of Scripture that which is doubtfull is expressed but that which is certaine is not expressed or spoken of Now touching the word Primogenitus Epiphanius (a) Haeres 78. denieth that Christ was called Primogenitus Mariae the first borne of Mary for the Euangelist sayth not Primogenitum suum but he sayth Fitium suum primogenitum signifying therby that he was the Sonne of the B Virgin but withall the first begotten Sonne of God Seing accordingly we thus read Ipse (b) Coloss 1. namque est primogenitus omnis Creaturae He to wit Christ was the first borne of all Creatures S. Ierome sayth that Christ was called (c) Adueâ—s Heluid Primogenitus Mariae not because she brought forth any other Sonne after him but because before him she brought forth no other Sonne For it is the phrase of Scripture that those who are Vnigeniti are called Primogeniti So S Paul calleth Christ Primogenitus (d) Heb. 6. Dei for the only-begotten sonne of God Lastly they vrge that sentence Jnter (e) Math. 11. natos mulicrum non surrexit maior Iohanne Baptista There hath not risen among the borne of women a greater then John the Baptist intimating hereby that the Blessed Virgin is inferiour in dignity to S. Iohn Baptist. This is easely answered First if the words as they lye be literally taken as our Aduersaries pretend then should John Baptist be greater then Christ Secondly because S. Iohn Baptist in those words spoken by Christ is compared only with the Holy men of the old Testament but Christ and his Mother as also the Apostles belong to the new Testament Animaduersion XLVIII DIuers Protestants as aboue is shewed do hould such bookes to be Scripture which other Protestants reiect as Apocryphall therefore it followeth that the Scripture it selfe cannot shew at least to vs which is the point controuerted which is Scripture which doubt is only to be referred to the Authority of the Church And therefore M. Hooker truly sayth Of things (f) Eccles Pol. lâ—â— 1 Sect. 14. p. 8â— necessâ—ry the very chiefest is to know what Bookes we are to esteeme Holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And againe It is (g) Ibidem l. 2. Sect. 4. p. 102 â—4â— and D. Couell in defence of M. Hooker art 4. pag. 31.
good prayers is so vehemâ—â—â—â—â—d vnaffected as that I earnestly beseech you euen 〈◊〉 the most precious Passion of our Lord and â—auiour suffered for the cancelling of our sinnes by â—ur owne charitable Disposition towards others for â—resume those words of the Apostle to be imprinted 〈◊〉 your soules (a) Rom. 5. Charitas Dei diffusa est in â—â—ordibus vestris Finally by what is most sacred and holy that yoâ— would vouchsafe now and then your particular remembrance of me either yet aliue or hereafter dead in that your most retired and Religious Memento vsed in the celebration of the most Blessed and Reuerend Sacrifice of the Masse for the expiating of my manyfold sinnes This I humbly beseech this in all prostration of soule I implore and begge aâ— your hands and in such your performance ech of yoâ— iustly may comfort your selues in those words of ouâ— Sauiour Beati (b) Matt. 5. misericordes quoniam ipsi misericordiam consequentur And thus in thâ— good hope thereof I cease referring you to the perusall of the Treatise it selfe Yours in our Lord Iesus N. N. P. MISCELLANIA Contayning certaine Controuersiall Animaduersions Animaduersion I. I WILL begin with the approuall or reiecting what is or hath beene accounted the Scripture or the written Word of God which point concernes the Bookes of Ecclesiasticus Toby Judith Hester Machabees c. Where we are to vnderstand that the Canonicall Scriptures are to vs at this day discerned and made knowne not by that which either the Iewes for a time or certaine Fathers do omit deny or doubt of in their Canon of Scripture but by that which many Fathers do constantly affirme Since otherwise and vpon the conâ—rary ground we might deny with the Lutherans the Epistle of Iames Iude the second of Peter the 2. and 3. of Iohn the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalyps seeing all these bookes (a) Ofiand in Epic. Cent. 4. p. 299. are denied by the Lutherans Now the reason of this Thesis or Proposition is because in the Primitiue Church the Canonicall Scriptures were not generally all at once receaued but in so great a variety of pretended Scriptures great care and search was requisite wherby to determine which Scriptures were Canonicall which not wherby it came to passe that sundry bookes were for the tyme misdoubted oâ— by some Fathers or Councells omitted oâ— not receaued which yet afterwards were vpon greater search and consideration generally acknowledged And according herto D. Bilson Bishop (b) In his suruey of â—hrists suffering printed 1604. pag. 664. of Winchester thus truly sayth The Scriptures were not receaued in all places at once no not in Eusebius his â—yme Animaduersion II. D. Whitakers (c) In his answ to M. Reynolds â—efut p. 2â— 23. and other of our Aduersaries do reiect the former bookes of the Old TestameÌ„t to wit Ecclesiasticus Toby c. because they were not first written in Hebrew and in that they had not for their knowne Authours those whom God had declared to be his Prophets This Argument is weake For it is a rash assertion so to measure the Scriptures by the tongue wherein they are written as to restrayne the Spirit of God to one only language The â—anity of which said assertion is sufficiently disproued by Example of Daniel a great part whereof to wit from cap. 2. vers 4. vâ—que ad â—â—em cap. 7. though not written in Hebrew is yet by our Aduersaries acknowledged for Canonicall And touching the second point of this Argument it cannot be proued that God would direct by his holy Spirit no Authors in their Writings but such as were knowne and also further declared by certaine testimonies to be Prophets For our Aduersaries cannot yet tell who writ the seuerall bookes of Judges the third and fourth of the Kings the two of Chronicles the booke of Ruth and Iob all which bookes neuerthelesse they admit for true and Canonicall Scripture And hereupon it is that D. Whitakers though crossing his former assertion thus writeth (d) L. de sacra Script â—ag 603. Multorum librorum authores ignorantur c. The authors of many bookes of Scripture are vnknowne as of Iosue Ruth Paralipomenon Hester c. Thus he To whose iudgment D. Willet subscribeth saying We (e) In his Synops p. 4. receaue many bokes in the Old Testament the Authours whereof are not perfectly knowne Animaduersion III. AGainst the writings of the Ancient Fathers the Protestants pretend seuerall difficultyes For example D. (f) Contra Duraeum l. 5. p. 300. Kâ—mpu in his Exam. part 1. p. â—4 Whitakers and others obiect against the Epistles of Ignatius that (g) Dial. â— Theodoreâ— and (h) Dial. 3. contra Pâ—lag Ierome do alledge certaine testimonies from Ignatius his Epistle ad Smirnenses which are not found in that or any other of Ignatius his Epistles Wherto I answere First that the Auncient (i) By Austin in Psalm 95. by Tertull. lib. adu Iudaeos versus finem By Iustin in Triphon circa medium Fathers haue in like maner cited this sentence reguauit a ligno Deus as the saying of Dauid in his Psalms which yet is at this day wanting in them And in like manner some Sentences are alledged from Tully and Plato and the same are not to be found in their wrytings now extant Therfore this former Obiection only argueth that certaine parts of Ignatius his Epistles may be lost but maketh nothing against those now remaining In like sort our Aduersaryes do reiect as counterfeyte the writings of Dionysius Arcopagita as confessed to make for our Catholike Doctrine their chiefe argument is in that these his writings are neuer mentioned by Eusebius and Ierome To this may be answered that (k) Euseb hist l. 5. c. 29. Ierom. in Catal. prope init Eusebius Ierome do confesse that there are many bookes and Authors which neuer came to their knowledge A thing not vnlike if we but remember as incident to those precedent tymes the knowne want of printing and great difficulty of Manuscripts through the violent persecutions which then raigned Finally touching the Lyturgies of Chrysostome they vrge it making altogether for seuerall poynts of our Catholike and Roman fayth that as M. Jewell obiecteth (l) Iewell in his repâ—y pag. 10. Chrysostomes Masse prayeth for Pope Nicolas who was Pope seuerall huÌ„dred yeres after Chrysostome that also it prayeth for the Emperour Alexius who liued in like manner many ages after Chrysostome These are but friuolous Cauils For in all ould Lyturgies or Bookes of CoÌ„mon prayer prayer is specially appointed to be made for Princes and Bishops for the names of whom are certayne places reserued which are subiect to alteration according to the change of succeeding tymes and persons The lyke course wherof for Princes we may discerne in the English Communion Booke composed in K. Edwards tyme where according to the change of succeeding gouerment are inserted the names of Queene Elizabeth
by his owne learned Brethrens Confessions or else he must rest silent And this is the reason why the Protestants are so loath to dispute of the Church Since this Question compreheÌ„deth in it selfe diuers points of fact as of its continuall Visibility Antiquity Succession Ordination and Mission of Pastours c. All which Questions receaue their proofes from particular Instances warranted from History by shewing the particular Tymes Persons and other circumstances concerning matter of Fact Animaduersion XXI WE Catholikes charge the Protestants with a vicious Circle of dispute between the Scripture and the spirit and in requitall hereof the Protestants do reciprocally insimulate vs Catholiks within the said vicious circular argumentation betweene the Scripture and the Church Now let vs see whether of vs stand truly chargeable herewith That the Catholikes are free from this kind of arguing I thus proue The Catholikes touching the Scripture and the Church do euer make their proofes in seuerall kinds of Causes and by a partiall manner of proofe and therby do still proue one thing by another more knowne to those persons to whom it is to be proued The actuall assent and beliefe it selfe is wrought wherby we infallibly belieue the Mysteries reuealed though we belieue the verity of the Scriptures reuelation by the authority of the Church propounding the Churches proposition for the authority of the Scriptures reuealing wherby the Scripture reuealing doth giue vs testimony of the Church propounding againe the Church propounding of the Scriptures reuealing Neuerthelesse this reciprocall testimony and proofe is not any proper vicious circle First because it is in diuerso genere causae in diuers kinds of causes for the testimonies of the Scriptures reuelation to the infallibility of the Churches proposition is causa formalis the formall cause by the which we assent to the Churches proposition But the Churches proposition is only Causa conditionalis or as we vse to speake Conditio fine qua non to know the Scriptures Reuelation and so they are reciprocall in a different manner of proofe the one that is Scripture à Priori as including diuine reuelation the other that is the Church à Posteriori required only as a condition The former as a formall precedent Cause the later as a subsequent annexed condition Secondly this reciprocall proofe is not adomnino idem as Aristotle requires to a Circle that is the one is not the totall and sole cause of knowing the other for the Churches proposition is not knowne only by the Scriptures reuelation and not otherwise but also by other proofes signes and testimoâ—ies to wit Miracles Consent Sanctity c. all which conuince that the Churches authority is necessary and infallible to distinguish the true sense of the Scripture from false and to end Controuersies about Scripture But now to cast our eye vpon the Protestants Circle prouing the Scripture by the priuate Spirit and the priuat Spirit from the Scripture it is euident that they proue the Scripture by the Spirit and Spirit by the Scripture in one the same kind of Cause and by one sole whole manner of proofe For demaund of a Protestant how and by what meanes he vnderstaÌ„deth the Scripture He answeres by the Spirit and so knowes the Scripture by the Spirit And aske him by what meanes he knowes he hath the true spirit he answeres the Scripture assures himselfe therof since he is one of the Elect. And thus this his proofe is truly Circular and vicious as being deliuered in eodem genere Causae and omnino ad idem Animaduersion XXII IT is most certaine that Protestants deny all Authorities of all affirmatiue heads making their last refuge to their owne priuaâ— Spirit and Iudgement For example if we insist in the affirmatiue Notes and Marks of the Church to wit vniuersality visibility vnity c. ouâ— aduersaryes as is aboue said discard the testimonyes of all these heads by erecting for Notes the preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments so reducing to their owne iudgment only when the word is truly preached and the Sacramâ—nts rightly administred Yf in matters of fact we recurre to History I meane concerning visibility Succession vocation c. they reiect this authority by saying Sufficit (g) Whitak contra Duraeum l. 7 p. 478. nobis c. To vs it is sufficient by comparing the Popish opinions with the Scrâ—pture to discouer the disparity of faith betweene them and vs. And as for Historiographers we giue them liberty to wryte what they will If we produce the testimonyes of particular Fathers of the Primitiue Church marke how Luther depresseth them (h) Luth. de seruo arbis 1551. pag. 434. The Fathers of so many ages haue beene plainly blind most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their life time vnlesse they were amended before their death they were neither Saincts nor pertayning to the Church If we produce Generall Councels they answere saying (i) Petâ—â— Martyr l. de votis pa. 476. As long as we insist in Generall Councels so long we shall continue in the Popish Errors If we passe to Apostolicall Traditions Cartwright in depressing Traditions maintained by S. Austin thus wryteth To (k) Sâ—â— Cartwright in whitgifts defence p. 103. allow S. Austins saying touching Traditions is to bring in popery If we alledge diuers passages of Scripture as out of Toby Ecclesiasticus the Machabees the Protestants with full voyce deny them to be Canonicall and style them only Apocriphal If we take our authorityes out of such books of Scripture as are acknoledged for Scripture on both sydes the Protestants deny the Translation of the Scripture to be true sincere which point appeareth both from the Protestants mutual condemning one anothers translation of Scripture as also from the most bitter censure giuen by our English Puritans against our English Translaiion whereof seuerall books writteÌ„ by them are yet extaÌ„t If we Catholikes proceed further in insisting in the Originall of both the Testaments the Protestants deny that the Originalis are at this present true Thus for example in Math c. 10. we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Peter Beza (l) Beza in Annotat noui Testam 1556 denyeth the Originall herein mantayning that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was inserted into the text by some one fauoring the Popes Primacy In like sort (m) Beza vâ—i supra Beza denyeth that the Greeke Originall in Math. 22. is at this present the same as it was penned by the Euangelist mantayning that it is corrupted in fauour of the Realâ— presence If we yet ascending further entrench our selfe in such books of Scripture whose Originals Translations are accepted on ech party as true and incorrupted and tel our Aduersaryes that the whole Church of God in her primitiue and purest tymes interpreted the passages of Scripture in that sense in which they are at this present by the Catholikes alledged the Protestants
Adoration or Jnuocation or in any other sort To this Peter (10) Peter Martyr lib. contra Gardin part 1. obiect 150. Martyr and others do answere that if any such reuerence was exhibited by the Fathers to the Eucharist this reuerence was not terminated in the Eucharist it selfe but directed to Christ signifyed therein and so by the mediation of those earthly elements transferred vnto him No otherwyse tâ—â— when the Papists for thus do they partâ—câ—larly instance praying before Jmages 〈◊〉 not their prayers to the Images but to Christ 〈◊〉 the Saint represented therein But against tâ— Euasion I first aske what secret intelligâ— haue our Aduersaryes with the Fathers â—tention herein since the Fathers words gâ— not the least intimation thereof Seconâ— I say that (11) L de Hierarch Eccles c. 3. part 3. saying O Diuinissimum Sacrosanctum Sacram. c. Dionysius doth inuoke 〈◊〉 Sacrament it selfe and not Christ only â—fore the Sacrament Thirdly this their â—sweare admitting it for true doth waâ— euen in their iudgements the Catholâ—â— praying before Images and the reuereâ—â— giuen to them which Doctrine the Proâ—stants do so much inueigh against Animaduersion CLXVII THe Scripture is most difficult for three â—spects First in regard of its multiplieâ— of the Senses of one and the same passage Scripture Secondly in respect of the phrâ—â— wherein the Scripture is deliuered Thirdâ— by reason of the height of the subiect wheâ— the Scripture intreateth To touch all tâ—â— briefly First concerning the Sense Tâ—â— are in diuers passages of Scripture three â—uerall senses besydes the literall all iâ—â—ded by the Holy Ghost The senses are â—led Allegoricus Tropologicus and Anagogâ— Now how shall an ignorant maÌ„ know 〈◊〉 texts of Scripture be capable of all these 〈◊〉 of them The Style of the Scripture is â—â—de difficult as being stored with figures 〈◊〉 Allegoryes and full of Hebrew phrazes 〈◊〉 Dialects as appeareth in perusing the â—â—lms and the Apocalyps The subiect of the â—â—â—ipture is most high as discoursing of the â—â—eation of the world of Nothing of the â—ysteryes of the Trinity and the Incarnatiâ—â— besides many other Dogmatical points 〈◊〉 transcending the light of mans naturall â—â—prehension And therefore S. Ambrose had â—â—od cause thus to pronounce of the holy â—â—â—ipture Mare (12) Ambros Ep. 44. ad Constantium est scriptura Diuina haâ—â—s in se sensus profundos Ad hereto that the â—â—â—ipture hath to an ignorant eye diuers seeâ—ng contrarietyes though in theÌ„selues they are most true and reconcileable For example these two texts (13) Ezec. 18. Filius non portabit iâ—quitatem patris anima quae peccauerit ipsa â—â—rietur And this other Visitans (14) Exod 10. iniâ—â—tatem patrum in filios in tertiam quartaÌ„â—â—nerationem how can an ignorant man or â—o man reconcile these passages And what â—â—ity then may one discerne in a Mechaniâ—â—l fellow or silly woman who can only â—t reade carrying the bible vnder their â—â—me to the Church and vaunting of the â—ines of the Scripture and auerring that â—â—emselues are able to vnfould expound â—e most abstrusest passages there O pride â—â—d ignorance Ad finally that in the Scripâ—â—e the plurall number is sometymes vsed for â—â—e singular number as Marc. 15. we read they that were crucifyed with him rayled at hiâ— and yet we know it was but only one of the theeues that did so the good thiefe honoring our Sauiour See the like hereto touching this kynd of phraze of the Scripture besydes other places in Hebr. 7. Againe the Scripture in diuers texts doth vnderstaÌ„â— by the word Omnis only quidam For example in Math. 27. we reade dicunt omnâ— vt crucifigatur and yet the B. Virgin S. Maâ— magdelen the Apostles and diuers others dâ— not so cry out against our Sauiour The liâ— phraze is in those words Omnes quae sâ— sunt querunt Philip. 2. yet the Apostles and many other good Christians were eâ—empted out of this sentence But now heâ—â— I demand how can an vnlearned man râ—concile these and the like sentences wâ—â— the true meaning of the Holy Ghost in tâ— Scripture Animaduersion CLXVIII THe Catholike Church deliuereth câ—taine Rules for the more perfect knoâ—ledg of true Traditions The first When 〈◊〉 vniuersall Church doth imbrace any doctriâ— as a point of fayth the which is not found in 〈◊〉 holy Scriptures it is necessary to say that thesâ— point proceedeth from the Tradition of the Aâ—â—stles The reason hereof is in that the vniuâ—â—sall Church as being the (1) 1. Timoth 3. pillar and fouâ—dation of truth cannot erre And therefâ— what the Church belieueth to be of fayâ— â—e same doubtlesly is of fayth But no â—int or Article is of fayth but what God â—th reuealed either by the Apostles or Proâ—ts since at this present the Church is not â—ouerned with new Reuelations The second When the vniuersall Church â—h obserue any thing which not any but only â—d had power to institute and yet which is not â—nd written in the Scripture the same we are â—resume to be deliuered from Christ and his â—ostles the reason hereof is like to the reaâ—n of the former Rule to wit in that the â—iuersall Church cannot erre either in belieâ—g or in working especially if the worâ—g doth concerne any rite of diuine worâ—â— And such is the Baptisme of Infants The third That which is obserued throughâ— the vniuersall Church and cannot fynd any 〈◊〉 institution thereof in the most ancient tymes same we are to belieue that it was first ordâ—yâ—â— by the Apostles though it be of that nature that the Church had power firct to ordayne it â—is is the rule of (2) Lib. 4 contra Donat. cap. 24. S. Austin The fast of â—t may be an example hereof For this fast â—ght haue been instituted by the Church Christ or his Apostles had not afore instiâ—ed it Yet we maintayne that it was instiâ—ed by Christ or his Apostles because asâ—ding vp to higher tymes and seeking afâ— the first Origen therof we find no beâ—ning thereof but only in the tyme of Apostles The fourth When all the Doctours of the Church being gathered together either in a generall Councell or in their seuerall writings and bookes do teach with a common consent that such or such a point descendeth from Apostolicall Tradition we are to belieue that it is an Apostolicall Tradition The reason of this rule is because if all the Doctors of the Church shold erre then followeth it that the whole Church should erre since she is obliged to follow her Pastours and Doctours Now where we speake of the Fathers touching any point in their seuerall writings here we are to vnderstand that we hould it not necessary that all the Fathers should write therof but it is sufficient if some Fathers of the chiefest note and eminency do expressely affirme the point in writing and that other Fathers do not contradict them therein taking notize of such their writings Here we say
it is most probable that such is the common iudgment of all the Fathers therein since it hath beene euer obserued that when any one of the ancient Fathers hath erred in a matter of weight and importance that the same Father was euer contradicted by diuers others The fifth That doubtlesly is to be belieued to descend from Apostolicall Tradition which hath beene houlden for such in those Churches in which Churches there hath beene an entyre and continuall succession from the Apostles This rule is deliuered by (4) Irenaeus l. 3. cap. 3. Jrenaeus and (5) Tertull lib. de praescript Tertullian The reason of this rule is because the Apostles did deliuer to their Successours with the Episcopall gouerment the true doctrine also of Religion Thus far touching the Rules for the better discerning of Apostolicall Traditions Animaduersion CLXIX TOuching Prayer in a strange tongue Caluin and other Sectaries wholy dislike it because that Prayer being not vnderstood by the Ignorant people no profit say they comes thereby to the people But this is false seeing the Prayer of the Church is not made to the people but to God for the people Therefore it is not necessarily conducing to the Spirituall profit of the people that they vnderstand the prayer but it is sufficient if God vnderstand it Euen as if one shold petition to the king in the Latin tongue in behalfe of some rustick and ignorant man doubtlesly this ignorant man might receaue profit thereby although he did not vnderstand the petition or Prayer of his Aduocate Furthermore the Church prayeth not in rayne for the faythfull being absent for other Sinners How much more then doth not the Church pray in vayne for the faithfull being present and desiring that they may be prayed for in their Necessities But to proceede The ignorant people may not only receaue profit from the Prayer of another though they do not vnderstand it but also euen from that Prayer whâ— themselues do powre out to God thoâ— they do not vnderstand it This poinâ— thus proued The Jewes according to 〈◊〉 opinion of (6) L 3. Doctrine Christian ca. 9. S. Austin did not in vayâ— worship God in Figures and diuers Cereâ—â—nies although diuers of the Iewes did 〈◊〉 vnderstand the signification and meanâ— of the said Figures and â—eremonies then 〈◊〉 ignorant people do vnderstaÌ„d Latin Prayâ—â— Againe it it be necessary for all those wâ— pray to Gâ—d or prayse and honour him 〈◊〉 Hymnes to vnderstand what they say thâ— very few or none at all would be fouâ— who should without sinne recite or singâ—â— Psalmes of Dauid and the Prophets or shoâ— read the Apostles in diuine prayer Since thâ— man cannot be named who vnderstandeâ— the true intended sense of the Psalmâ— Prophets and the Apostles Neither are the two places of Scripture so much vrged 〈◊〉 our Aduersaries repugnant to what is heâ— said Populus (7) Mat. 15. hic labijs me honorat c And againe Yff pray (8) 1. Cor. 14. with the tongue 〈◊〉 spirit prayeth but my vnderstanding is withâ—â— fruite Since the first of these texts is not vâ—derstood of Prayer or of reading diuine Seruice but it is meant of those who profeâ—â—â— piety with their tongue and in words saying they loue God but yet do the contrary in their Actions as (9) Ierome in c. 29. Isa Ierome and (10) Austin in lib. 22. contra Faustum cap. 25. Aâ—stin do expound But admitting the worâ—â— of this text to be vnderstood of Men praying theÌ„ may we answere that those are here â—rehended who praying in a knowne and â—gar tongue beare during the tyme of â—r praying no intention to what they 〈◊〉 but suffer at that present great distraâ—n and euagation of thoughts Concerâ—g this later passage of Scripture I ansâ—re that that Prayer is not reprehended â—ich is not vnderstood but only that â—ayer is preferred before it which is vnderâ—od For the Apostle sayth not that the â—ayer is without fruite but that the mind 〈◊〉 vnderstanding is without fruite in that 〈◊〉 is not instructed thereby Now that this â—nd of Praying is not reprehended by the â—postle as Euill or altogether fruitles and â—nprofitable appeareth from those words a â—tle after following For thou indeed giuest â—hanks well c. Animaduersion CLXX YF Christ and his Apostles had determined to restrayne the word of God only to â—he Scripture then it followeth that Christ would openly haue commanded a thing of so great moment and the Apostles would in some one place or other of Scripture haue testifyed that they did write by the commandement of our Lord as they taught throughout the world as is recorded in Scripture by the commandement of our Lord But this commandement of writing to be imposed by Christ vpon his Apostles we read not in any place of Scâ—â—pture Furthermore the Apostles did not â—â—pect or stay for any proffered occasion 〈◊〉 preach the Gospell viua voce but they 〈◊〉 vndertake the charge of preaching the waâ— freely and of their owne accord and dispâ—sition 2Whereas to write the Scripture thâ— were moued thereto through a certaâ—â— kind of Necessity and vrging occurrence Thus S. Mathew as Eusebius (11) Lib. 3 hist c. 24. recoâ—deth did write vpon occasion becauâ— when he had preached to the Iewes and dâ—termined to goe to the Gentills he deemed 〈◊〉 to be conuenient and profitable to leaâ— behind him to those some memoriall 〈◊〉 his doctrine and preaching from whom 〈◊〉 body and corporall presence he had depaâ—ted S. Marke as the same Eusebius (12) L. 2. histor cap. 15. reâ—â—teth did write his Gospell neither of 〈◊〉 owne accord nor by the commandemeâ— of S. Peter whose disciple he was but onâ— through the forcible persuasion of the Râ—mans S. Luke as also (13) Euseb l. 3. hist. c. 14. Eusebius shewetâ— was only moued to write his Gospell bâ—cause he saw many other men rashly presâ—ming to write the life and actions of Chriâ—â— which themselues did not perfectly knoâ— And therefore S. Luke did write thereby 〈◊〉 withdraw vs from the vncertaine relatioâ— of others S. Iohn as Eusebius (14) Euseb vbi suprà affirmeth dâ— preach the Ghospell without committing 〈◊〉 to wryting euen to his old decrepit agâ— (15) Ierome l. de Scripâ— Eccles S. Ierome sayth that at length he was â—pelled as it were by the Bishops of â—a to write his Ghospell by reason of Heresy of the Ebionites then begining â—erefore except the Heresy of the Ebionits 〈◊〉 not then begunne to spring vp perhaps 〈◊〉 should not at all haue had the Ghospell of â—ohn neither perhaps the other three â—ospels but in regard of the foresaid ocâ—ions in those tymes occuring Now from this it is is euident that the mayne inâ—tion of the Apostles was not to wryte 〈◊〉 Ghospell but to preach it Furthermore â—x professo they had determined to commit â—eir doctrine to wryting they would haue â—â—de some Catechisme therof or some such
â—e booke But they did wryte either a â—â—tory as the Euangelists did or Epistles â—on some speciall occasion as Peter Paul â—â—es Iudas Iohn and in the same did disâ—te or discourse of dogmaticall points of â—yth only obiter and as circumstances inâ—eed them Animaduersion CLXXI. â—He first Proposition touching Indulgences The foundation and groundworke of â—he Doctrine of Indulgences is that there reâ—ayneth in the Church of Christ a certaine â—pirituall Treasury of the satisfactions of â—hrist and his Saincts which may be applied â—o those who stand subiect to temporal puâ—ishment after the guilt of eternall punishment is remitted in the Sacrament of Penance for the better explicating of which doctrine these following propositions are to be deliuered The first proposition In one and the samâ— good action or worke of a iust man a double price or value is assigned to it the one of Merit the other of Satisfaction For example the one and same act of giuing of Almes is Satisfactory in that it is a laborious or penalâ— worke It is also Meritorious because it is a good worke proceeding from Charity Now the giuing of Almes proceeding from charity is not lesse good because it is laborious and penall vpon the same reason theâ— it followeth that the same prayer may be both impetratory and meritorious The second Proposition A good worke in that respect as it is meritorious cannot be applyed to another but it may be applyed as it iâ— Satisfactory The first part of this proposition is proued because it cannot come to passe that in respect that one doth worke well another should be said to worke well in the said Action The second part is proued because satisfaction is a compensation of the punishment or paying of what iâ— due but it is euident that one man may make compensation of punishment for another man or pay the debt of another man The third Proposition There remayneth in the Church an infinit Treasury of Christs satisfactions which can neuer be exhausted or dryed vp This is euident since the passion of Christ 〈◊〉 of an infinite worth price and dignity â—or it was the Passion of an infinite Person 〈◊〉 wit of the Word Incarnated for he was 〈◊〉 who shed his bloud for the Church â—ut did shee l it in Mans flesh Hypostaticalâ— assumpted Now the dignity of satisfaâ—ion receaues its measure from the dignity 〈◊〉 the person satisfying euen as the greatâ—es of the offence taketh its proportion â—om the dignity of the person offended â—herefore from hence it is inferred that â—â—ere is yet remayning a great part of the â—orth and price of the Passion of Christ â—â—ich may alwayes be applyed to Man The fourth proposition To this superaâ—â—dant Treasury of the satisfactions of Christ â—â—ng the passions or sufferings of the B. Virgin â—as a such other Saints who haue suffered more 〈◊〉 this world then their sins haue deserued For 〈◊〉 is euident not to speake of other Saints â—â—t the Blessed Virgin neuer committed any â—â—tuall Sinne yet it is said that the sword 〈◊〉 griefe pierced her soule Luc. 2. In like sort 〈◊〉 Iohn Baptist being sanctifyed in his moâ—ers wombe did lead a most innocent life â—â—d stood obnoxious to most few and most â—ght or small Sinnes and yet in defence of â—â—e truth hee was beheaded Therefore it â—â—nnot be doubted but that a great heape â—f passions and sufferings of the B. Virgin 〈◊〉 S. Iohn Baptist were vpon their deaths reâ—ayning of which themselues did not staÌ„d in need for the satisfying for any temporall punishment All which superabundanâ—â— of satisfactioÌ„s were layed vp in the Treasâ—â— house of the Church Thus farre of thâ— poynt only I add that so the person mâ—â— be capable of Jndulgences two things are required The first that he be in state of Grace the second that he performe all that whicâ— is inioyned to him for the obtayning of the Jndulgence Animaduersion CLXXII WHen it is said Indulgences do profit the soules of the departed only per moduâ— suffragij the meaning hereof is because Jndulgences do not profit the departed by way of Iuridicall absolution but by way of solution or payment that is by way of Satisfaction Thus when a Man giueth Almes or fasteth or goeth on pilgrimage to holy places for the reliefe of a soule departed he doth not absolue that soule from the guilt of punishment but he only offereth vp that satisfaction that God accepting thereof would free and deliuer it from the due punishment which otherwise it were to suffer Euen so the Pope doth not absolue the departed soule but out of the Treasury of satisfactions remayning in the Church offereth vp so much to God as is needfull to free and deliuer the soule For the close of these Animaduersions touching the Doctrine of Indulgences the Reader is to take particular notice and the rather through the wlilfull malitious mistaking of our Aduersaries â—ho do mightily calumniate vs in this question of Jndulgences that we teach the guilt of eternall damnation being remitted only by the Sacrament of Confession or by most perfect contrition in lieu therof when there is not oportunity of the other the subiect of an Indulgence is only a temporall punishment due to be suffered after the guilt of damnation is remitted which temporall punishment by meanes of Indulgences we hold may be either lessened or wholy taken away in a Man who is in state of Grace but not if he be in state of Mortall Sinne. Animaduersion CLXXIII IT is certaine that the English Translations of the New Testament made by the Protestants are most corrupt and in diuers places most different from the Greeke in which tongue either all or most of the New Testament was first written I will exemplify in two passages The New Testament makes mention of good or pious Traditions of wicked and Iewish Traditions expressing them both by one the same Greeke word to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifyeth Traditio Now the imposture here resteth For our English Protestant Translations in such Texts wherein are vnderstood Good and profitable Traditions as in 1. Cor. 2. and 2. Thess 2. do translate insteed of the word Traditions the word Ordinances But where the Texts speake of wicked and friuolous Traditions there our Aduersaries put downe most punctually as it Math. 15. in their Translation the right word Traditions Now this calumny is vsed in dislike of Apostolicall Traditions that so the ignorant Reader should neuer find the word Tradition in Scripture in a good sense but alwayes in a bad and disalowed though now in their last Translation but not in any former for the better saluing of their credit they put only in the Margent of such Texts speaking of godly Traditions the word Traditions The like course they hould in translating the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying dignus in English Worthy and the Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be made worthy For in those Texts which