enough not spared to say That what the B. would not acknowledge in this cause you would wring and extort from him then indeed you said as before that it had erred And this no man denyed But euerie Error denyes not Christ the Foundation or makes Christ denie it or thrust it from the Foundation F. The B. said That the Error was not in Point fundamentall B. The B. was not so peremptorie His speech was That diuers learned men and some of your owne were of opinion That as the Greekes expressed themselues it was a Question not simply Fundamentall The B. knowes and acknowledges that Error of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne to be a grieuous Error in Diuinitie And sure it would haue grated the Foundation if they had so denyed the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne as that they had made an inequalitie betweene the Persons But since their forme of speech is That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Sonne and is the Spirit of the Sonne without making any difference in the consubstantialitie of the Persons the B. dares not denie them to be a true Church for this though he confesses them an erroneous Church in this particular Now that diuers learned men were of opinion That à Filio per Filium in the sense of the Greeke Church was but a Question in modo loquendi in manner of speech and therefore not fundamentall is euident The Master and his Schollers agree vpon it The Greekes saith hee confesse the holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Sonne with the Apostle Galat. 4. and the Spirit of Truth S. Ioh. 16. And since Non est aliud It is not another thing to say The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and the Sonne then that he is or proceeds from the Father and the Sonne in this they seeme to agree with vs in eandem Fidei Sententiam vpon the same Sentence of Faith though they differ in words Now in this cause where the words differ but the sentence of Faith is the same 〈◊〉 eadem euen altogether the same Can the Point be fundamentall You may make them no Church as Bellarmine doth and so denie them saluation which cannot be had out of the true Church but the B. dares not It ought to be no easie thing to condemne a man of Heresie in foundation of Faith much lesse a Church least of all so ample and large a Church as the Greeke especially so as to make them no Church Heauen Gates were not so easily shut against multitudes when S. Peter wore the Keyes at his owne Girdle And it is good counsaile which Alphonsus à Castro one of your owne giues Let them consider that pronounce easily of Heresie how easie it is for themselues to erre Or if you will pronounce consider what it is that seperates from the Church simply and not in part onely I must needs professe that I wish heartily as well as others that those distressed men whose Crosse is heauie alreadie had beene more plainely and moderately dealt withall though they thinke a diuerse thing from vs than they haue beene by the Church of Rome But hereupon you say you were forced F. Whereupon I was forced to repeat what I had formerly brought against Dr. White concerning Points Fundamentall B. Hereupon it is true that you read a large discourse out of a Booke printed which you said was yours The particulars all of them at the least the B. tells me he doth not now remember and is sure he did not then approoue But if they be such as were formerly brought against 〈◊〉 White they are by him formerly answered The first thing you did was the righting of S. Augustine Which Sentence the B. doth not at all remember was so much as named in the third Conference much lesse was it stood vpon and then righted by you Another place of S. Augustine indeed was which you omit but the place of it comes after about Tradition to which I remit it But you tell vs of a great proofe made out of this place These words containe two Propositions One That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall The other That this is prooued out of this place of S. Augustine 1. For the first That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall It was not the least meanes by which Rome grew to her Greatnesse to blast euerie Opposer shee had with the name of Heretike or Schismatike for this serued to shriuell the credit of the persons and the persons once brought into contempt and ignominie all the good they desired in the Church fell to dust for want of creditable persons to backe and support it To make this proceeding good in these later yeeres this course it seemes was taken The Schoole that must maintaine and so they doe That all Points defined by the Church are thereby Fundamentall necessarie to be beleeued of the substance of the Faith and that though it be determined quite Extra Scripturam And then leaue the wise and actiue heads to take order that there be strength enough readie to determine what is fittest for them But since these men distinguish not nor you betweene the Church in generall and a Generall Councell which is but her Representation for determinations of the Faith the B. though he be very slow in sifting or opposing what is concluded by lawfull generall and consenting Authoritie though hee giue as much as can be giuen to the definitions of Councels truly generall nay suppose hee should graunt which hee doth not That Generall Councels cannot erre yet this cannot downe with him That all Points euen so defined are Fundamentall For Deductions are not prime and Natiue Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations That which is a Foundation for all cannot be one and another in different Christians for then it could be no constant Rule for any nor could the soules of men rest vpon a shaking Foundation No If it be a true Foundation it must be common to all and firme vnder all in which sense the Articles of Christian Faith are Fundamentall And Irenaeus layes this for a ground That the whole Church howsoeuer dispersed in place speakes this with one mouth Hee which among the Guides of the Church is best able to speake vtters no more than this and lesse than this the most simple doth not vtter Therefore the Creed of which hee speakes is a common is a constant Foundation and an Explicite Faith must be of this in them which haue the vse of Reason for both Guides and simple people all the Church vtter this Now many things are defined by the Church which are but Deductions out of this which suppose them deduced right mooue farre from the Foundation without which Deductions explicitely beleeued many millions of Christians goe to Heauen and cannot therefore be Fundamentall in the Faith True
onely Rule because it is not said to be sufficient for all men but for the man of God and it is not sufficient alone and by it selfe but being ioyned with Tradition I answere first That which is Sufficient in genere regulae as a Rule for the man of God either Minister 1. Tim. 6. 12. or other spirituall man 1. Cor. 2.15 is sufficient for all men because there is but one common Obiect and Rule of Faith for the whole Church and all the members thereof contayning strong Meat for the Learned and Milke or plaine Doctrine for Babes And therefore if the Scripture be a Rule and a sufficient Rule it is such in common and in respect of all people although the manner of applying and vsing the same may differ Secondly That which is Profitable to make the man of God perfect and throughly furnished to euerie good worke is both a sufficient Rule and an onely Rule First it is sufficient because it makes people which receiuc it by Faith and Obedience meet for the kingdome of God Secondly it is alone sufficient otherwise this effect of making the man of God perfect and throughly instructed could not be ascribed to it alone as it is manifestly done in the Apostles speech When two persons equally co-worke we cannot ascribe the whole worke to one of them alone but to both Bread alone being one part of Food is not sufficient to all kind of Nutriment The Apostle in the Text alledged affirming first That the Scripture is able to make wise vnto saluation secondly affirming That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Scripture as Dionysius Carthusian expoundeth it giuen by inspiration is profitable to teach confute instruct reproue and then declaring the greatnesse of the vtilitic which is to make the man of God perfect and throughly instructed to euerie good worke This effect cannot be ascribed to a partiall cause neither can the Apostle meane that the whole Scripture is profitable or sufficient onely as one part of Diuine Reuelation but because it containeth the whole Rule of Faith If any shall pretend That the Scripture is not sufficient of it selfe to these effects because Diuine Grace Ecclesiasticall Ministerie Docilitie in the Hearer or Reader are necessarie together with the Scripture to make the man of God perfect they must vnderstand that our question is Whether holy Scripture alone be a sufficient rule of Faith Not whether other adiuuant causes be necessarie for the receiuing and applying thereof that it may produce Faith The Earth is sufficient to bring forth food for man Gen. 1. 29. although Husbandmen and Grasiers be necessarie Manna Quailes and the water flowing from the Rocke were sufficient to feed the children of Israel in the Desart yet Bakers and Cookes were necessarie to prepare and dresse this food Exod. 16.6.24 Sap. 16.21 Euen so the holy Scripture is sufficient as a Rule to teach all Doctrine necessarie for our spirituall nourishment although the Ministerie of man and Diuine Grace be needfull also that wee rightly vse the same If the Obiection were good to wit Holy Scripture is not the onely Rule because by it alone without Diuine Grace and Ecclesiasticall Ministerie c. wee cannot beleeue then Tradition and holy Scripture being conioyned to make vp the Rule of Faith the same will yet be insufficient because without Diuine Grace Ecclesiasticall Ministerie and Docilitie in the people neither Scripture nor Tradition can produce Faith IESVIT Hence also we may conclude that the many allegations of Fathers which Protestants bring to prooue the Scripture to be cleere in all substantiall points are impertinent because the Fathers speake of men aforehand instructed in all substantiall points who may by the light of Tradition easily discouer in Scripture as they that heard Aristotle explicate himselfe by word of mouth may vnderstand his Booke of Nature most difficill to bee vnderstood of them that neuer heard his explication either out of his owne mouth or by Tradition of his schollers ANSWER Out of your owne fancies you may conclude what you please but from the Fathers nothing can be concluded repugnant to that which Protestants hold concerning the perspicuity of sacred Scripture euen in it selfe Ireneus saith All the Scriptures both Propheticall and Euangelicall are cleere without ambiguity and may indifferently bee heard of all men S. Hierom It is the manner of the Scripture to ioine that which is manifest to such things as are obscure S. Cyril That they may be knowne of all people both small and great they are profitably commended vnto vs in a familiar kind of speaking that they may exceed the capacitie of none S. Augustine Plaine places are found in them to expound and open the darke and hard S. Gregorie The Scripture hath so much in open 〈◊〉 as may feed little ones S. Chrysoft Scriptures are 〈◊〉 like mettals which haue need of workemen to digge them out but they deliuer a treasure readie at hand for them which seeke hidden riches in them It is sufficient to looke into them that you may depart replenished with all fruit it is sufficient onely to open them that you may presently behold the splendor of their pearles And although the antient Fathers do many times referre people to Tradition especially in three cases First For the testifying of the number and integritie of the Bookes of Canonical Scripture Secondly For the cleering of some hard or ambiguous Texts of Scripture from the new and forged expositions of Heretickes Thirdly For externall rites and ceremonies yet neither the Fathers nor the more learned Papists themselues do hold that there is a large and general Commentarie of all the Scriptures or of all the difficill places thereof receiued from the Apostles and preserued vntill our daies neither doe the Fathers hold that people cannot read the holy Scripture with profit or collect the true meaning of them in points substantiall and necessarie without such a Commentarie First If such a Commentarie were extant it must be found in the elder Fathers Tertullian Ireneus Origen c. But the Papists themselues will not alwaies be tied to their Expositions as appeareth by their forsaking of Tertullian in the Exposition of the wordes of the Gospell Hoc est corpus meum This is my bodie and by their forsaking of Origen in many of his Expositions and againe of Tertullian in his Exposition of Math. 16. 17. Secondly The Exposition of Scripture giuen by the Fathers is many times repugnant and different each of them from other as Sixtus Senensis in his Bibliotheca and Cardinall 〈◊〉 in his Commentaries and other Pontificians doe shew but if there had beene a large and generall Commentarie of Scripture or of all or most of the harder places of Scripture the antient Fathers 〈◊〉 nearest vpon the Apostles must haue knowne and followed that and so could neither haue
whole Councell depended vpon him and his confirmation was then vnknowne and I verily thinke at this day not beleeued by your selues 5. Fiftly it must be considered If a Generall Councell may erre Who shall iudge it S. Augustine is at priora à posterioribus Nothing sure that is lesse than a Generall Councell Why but this yet layes all open to vncertainties and makes way for a Whirlewind of a priuate spirit to ruffle the Church No neither of these First all is not open to Vncertainties For Generall Councels lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a great and an awfull Representation and cannot erre in matters of Faith if they keepe themselues to Gods Rule and attempt not to make a new of their owne and are with all submission to be obserued by euerie Christian where Scripture or euident Demonstration come not against it Nor doth it make way for the Whirlewind of a priuate spirit For priuate spirits are too giddie to rest vpon Scripture and too headie and shallow to be acquainted with demonstratiue Arguments And it were happie for the Church if shee might neuer be troubled with priuate spirits till they brought such Arguments I know this is hotely obiected against Hooker The Author calls him a wise Protestant yet turnes thus vpon him If a Councell must yeeld to a demonstratiue proofe Who shall iudge whether the Argument that is brought be a Demonstration or not For euerie man that will kicke against the Church will say the Scripture he vrges is euident and his Reason a Demonstration And what is this but to leaue all to the wildnesse of a priuate spirit Can any ingenuous man reade this passage in Hooker and dreame of a priuate spirit For to the Question Who shall iudge Hooker answers as if it had beene then made An Argument necessarie and demonstratiue is such saith hee as being proposed to any man and vnderstood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent vnto it So it is not enough to thinke or say it is demonstratiue The light then of a Demonstratiue Argument is the euidence which it selfe hath in it selfe to all that vnderstand it Well but because all vnderstand it not If a Quarrell be made who shall decide it No question but a Generall Councell not a priuate spirit first in the intent of the Author for Hooker in all that discourse makes the Sentence of the Councell binding and therefore that is made Iudge not a priuat spirit And then for the Iudge of the Argument it is as plaine For if it be euident to any man then to so many learned men as are in a Councell doubtlesse And if they cannot but assent it is hard to thinke them so impious that they will define against it And if that which is euident to any man is not euident to such a graue Assembly it is no Demonstration and the producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church Nor is this Hookers alone nor is it newly thought on by vs It is a ground in Nature which Grace doth euer set right neuer vndermine And S. Augustine hath it twice in one Chapter That S. Cyprian and that Councell at Carthage would haue presently yeelded to any one that would demonstrate Truth Nay it is a Rule with him Consent of Nations Authoritie confirmed by Miracles and Antiquitie S. Peters Chaire and Succession from it Motiues to keepe him in the Catholike Church must not hold him against Demonstration of Truth which if it be so clearely monstrated that it cannot come into doubt it is to be preferred before all those things by which a man is held in the Catholike Church Therefore an euident Scripture or Demonstration of Truth must take place euerie where but where these cannot be had there must be submission to Authoritie And doth not Bellarmine himselfe graunt this For speaking of Councels he deliuers this Proposition That Inferiors may not iudge whether their Superiors and that in a Councell doe proceed lawfully or not But then hauing bethought himselfe that Inferiors at all times and in all causes are not so to be cast off hee addes this Exception Vnlesse it manifestly appeare that an intollerable Error be committed So then if such an Error be and be manifest Inferiors may doe their dutie and a Councell must yeeld vnlesse you will accuse Bellarmine too of leaning to a priuate spirit for neither doth hee expresse who shall iudge whether the Error be intollerable This will not downe with you but the Definition of a Generall Councell is and must be infallible Your fellowes tell vs and you can affirme no more That the voyce of the Church determining in Councell is not Humane but Diuine That is well Diuine then sure infallible Yea but the Proposition stickes in the throat of them that would vtter it It is not Diuine simply but in a manner Diuine Why but then sure not infallible because it may speake loudest in that manner in which it is not Diuine Nay more The Church forsooth is an infallible Foundation of Faith in a higher kind than the Scripture For the Scripture is but a Foundation in testimonie and matter to be beleeued but the Church as the efficient cause of Faith and in some sort the verie formall Is not this Blasphemie Doth not this knocke against all euidence of Truth and his owne grounds that sayes it Against all euidence of Truth For in all ages all men that once admitted the Scripture to be the Word of God as all Christians doe doe with the same breath graunt it most vndoubted and infallible But all men haue not so iudged of the Churches Definitions though they haue in greatest obedience submitted to them And against his owne grounds that sayes it For the Scripture is absolutely and euerie way Diuine the Churches Definition is but suo modo in a sort or manner Diuine But that which is but in a sort can neuer be a Foundation in a higher degree than that which is absolute and euerie way such Therefore neyther can the Definition of the Church be so infallible as the Scripture much lesse in altiori genere in a higher kind than the Scripture But because when all other things faile you flye to this That the Churches Definition in a Generall Councell is by Inspiration and so Diuine and infallible my hast shall not carrie me from a little Consideration of that too 6. Sixtly then If the Definition of a Generall Councell be infallible then the infallibilitie of it is either in the Conclusion and in the Meanes that prooue it or in the Conclusion not the Meanes or in the Meanes not the Conclusion But it is infallible in none of these Not in the first The Conclusion and the Meanes For there are diuers deliberations in Generall Councels where the Conclusion is Catholike but the Meanes by which they prooue it not firme therefore not infallible Not
in respect of your exact Iudgement and excelse Dignitie yet in regard of the Author it is a free will Offering intended to the honour of God and of your sacred Maiestie and to confirme your Liege people in right Faith and true loue and obedience of your most iust and gracious Gouernment As an Angell of God so is my Lord the King to discerne good and bad therefore the Lord thy God will be with thee 2. Sam. 14. 17. Your Maiesties Chapleine and Seruant FRAN. WH TO THE READER IT is now two yeeres since I was first called by my Lord Duke of Buckingham to conferre with an Honourable Person who as then began to make Reuolt from the true Faith and Religion professed in our Church By this Occasion J entred into a Disputation with one Mr Iohn Fisher a Jesuit the same person which was the Author of the two Bookes against which my younger Brother Dr Iohn White wrote his Way to the true Church and the Defence of the same After my first Conference with the aforesaid Jesuit ensued not long after a Second at which his most excellent Maiestie himselfe was present The Cause as J afterwards perceiued of his Presence was a gracious desire to recouer the foresaid Honorable Person out of the Fishers Net Then there followed a Third Conference betweene a most Learned and Reuerend Bishop and the said Jesuit intended to the same purpose Lastly his Royall Maiestie in his deepe Judgement hauing obserued by the former Conferences and especially by the second that our Aduersaries are cunning and subtile in eluding our Arguments brought against them but of no strength especially in particular Questions when they come to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and confirmation of their owne Tenet He was pleased to haue Nine Questions of Controuersie propounded to the Jesuit that hee might in writing manifest the Grounds and Arguments whereupon the Popish Faith in those Points was builded For his Maiestie in his owne Judgement and Experience knew most certainely That Romists are not able to confirme 〈◊〉 Faith either by sacred Scripture or by antient Tradition And therefore their manner is when they dispute with Protestants viua voce to auoid other Controuersies and to set vp their rest vpon the Questions of the Visibilitie and Authoritie of the Church Therefore the better to discouer their weakenesse and to plucke them out of their Fox-hole of Personall Succession and Vistbilitie the King imposed this Taske of writing vpon the Nine Questions Besides his Maieftie had experience of the mfaithfull dealing of Pontificians when they make Relation of such things as passe by word of mouth onely in priuate Disputations and hee well vnderstood 〈◊〉 the Cretising Jesuit had dealt with a 〈◊〉 Bishop and with my selfe For had wee beene Schoole-Boyes of thirteene yeeres old he could not haue made vs seeme more childish and vnskilfull than hee did dispersing Hundreds of Papers to his owne prayse and our disgrace Wherefore it was necessarie that some publique Worke containing the Grounds and Arguments of his part and the Answere and Replie on ours might be extant wherein neither his nor our Yea and Nay should take place sed res cum re causa cum causa c. the weight of matter on each part might testifie for it selfe Now who could command this to be done but the King himselfe who therefore made the former proposition of Nine Questions to the Jesuit that the World might see the vttermost of his strength and againe they might haue meanes to iudge rightly of our Cause and of our proceedings in handling the same Mine owne purpose at the first was to haue published in Print a Narration of my two Disputations and as farre as my Memorie would serue me I had to that end collected in writing the summe of those Conferences But obseruing afterwards by another Disputation which was printed that our Aduersaries will perpetually tumultuate and accuse of falsitie all things which passe not vnder their owne hands knowing also that my selfe could not exactly remember all passages of the Jesuits Disputation and mine there being not a word written at the time when wee disputed J deferred the printing thereof vntill this greater Worke was finished The Aduersarie in this Answere which his Friend deliuered the King hath disputed Eight of the Questions propounded by his Maiestie and he declineth the Ninth for Reasons well knowne to the World and in stead of a Disputation he passeth ouer that Article of deposing Kings with a Rethoricall Declamation But before the Nine Questions hee placeth a large Disputation prouided no doubt aforehand and expecting onely a prosperous Wind of Occasion to send it abroad touching the Rule of Faith concerning Scripture and Tradition the Notes of the Church c. Then to counterpoise the Kings Nine Articles he chargeth our Church with Nine remarkable Errors as he accounteth them Jn the former part of his Tractate is contained the summe and substance of the first Conference betweene him and me before the Lord Keeper and the Lord Duke of Buckingham Jn the Questions of Jmages Transubstantiation Communion in both kinds is contained also the summe of the second Conference but there are many Additions in each Question and hee handleth matters more exactly in his written Worke than hee did in his priuate Disputations J haue examined his whole Treatise and answered euery passage thereof printing his Worke verbatim with mine owne The World must take notice that I am a constant Preacher in a Pastorall Charge and therefore J could not ose such expedition as other men may which imploy their whole time strength in writing Besides my Worke being finished before Michaelmas last bath bin long in Printing by reason of the number of Quotations in the Margen These Citations are for this cause word for word out of the Authors placed in my Booke that the Worke may be more vsefull especially to such persons as want the benefit of Libraries and much Reading themselues J haue with as much diligence as morally a Scholler can vse collected my Testimonies out of the very Authors themselues The Reader shall not need to feare or distrust vnlesse where the Printer hath made Escapes which cannot alwayes be auoided in a Worke of this nature And I must entreat the Reader where he obserueth any Error in the Print to correct the same with his Pen. Neither must the vnlearneder sort be offended if they light vpon some hard passages because the matter it selfe is many times very abstruse and disputing with Aduersaries which are Sophisters I am compelled to vse Schollasticke tearmes and to turne their owne Weapons vpon themselues But so farre as I am able I haue endeuored to be perspicuous Of my Aduersaries I request nothing at all for it is in vaine But if they reply it shall be for their greater honour to set downe my Text as I haue done theirs And they shall but beat the ayre vnlesse they confirme the maine Branches of their
Doctrine by Principles of Diuine Reuelation because Humane Testimonie is not sufficient to myse Articles of Faith And I rest assured that each intelligent person will obserue by reading this Worke that the Aduerfarie notwithstanding he is well verst in Controuersie and hath in substance said as much as his Cause will permit yet he is deficient of Diuine proofe in euery Article and farre more specious in eluding our Arguments than happie in confirming his owne But if it be certaine that Popish Faith wanteth the Suffrage of Diuine Testimonie then we haue sufficient cause to reiect their Doctrine And if wee could not demonstrate that the Articles which they maintaine against vs were contra verbum Dei contradictorie to the Word of God yet if by deficiencie of proofe on their side it appeare they be extra praeter without or besides the Word of God they cannot be the obiect of Diuine Faith Lastly I entreat all of our part to prayse God for the benefit of true Religion maintayned in our Church to auoid Contention among themselues for in all Ages the same hath proued pernicious and scandalous Also to be as deuout in the way of Pietie as Aduersaries seeme to be in the way of Superstition And because it hath euer beene an Honor to our Profession to be loyall and obedient to higher Powers let this be still an indelible Caracter of euery true Brittish Protestant to reioyce in the peaceable and happy Gouernment of his most sacred Maiestie let vs all so far as it is possible by our feruent votes and prayers striue to adde encrease to his dayes and happines Far be it from any of our part in their secret thoughts to misconster his actions or to entertaine the least iealousie of any abatement of his wonted loue to true Religion planted among vs for assuredly he vnderstands the Mysterie of Poperie too well to thinke any otherwise of it than formerly he hath done and no subiect can lay the Cause of Religion more neere their heart than his most Religious Maiestie doth And we haue all great cause to glorifie God who hath blessed our Church with such a wise and constant Defender of the Faith Now my Conscience vrgeth me to deliuer thus much concerning his Maiestie because the Aduersarie in some passages of his ensuing Treatise as by reading you shall obserue rhetoriseth suspitiously intending no doubt to raise some iealousie in credulous minds contrarie to this which I haue spoken My selfe therefore through the gracious Clemencie of his Maiestie being admitted to approach so neere as to be an eare-witnesse of his admirable Iudgement and constant Resolution in point of Religion and hereby certainely knowing that the Jesuit departing from the King added no improuement to his Popish Cause but vanished with foile and disgrace J trust J shall incurre no Censure from men iudicious and louers of Truth for certifying that which J obserued by mine owne experience And thus commending my Labors to the blessing of the Almightie to the examination of my Superiors in the Church and to the perusall of those which desire to read them I addresse my selfe to the ensuing Disputation April 10. 1624. THE CATALOGVE OF QVESTIONS DISPVTED in this Worke. 1. WHether of all other it be the most important Controuersie to vnderstand the Qualitie of the Romane Church Fol. 1. 2. Whether Diuine Faith be resolued finally into vnwritten Tradition or into Scripture 12 3. Touching the Visibilitie and Notes of the Church in generall 49 4. Whether the Romane Church is the Onely Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church 103 5. Whether Protestants erre fundamentally in the Faith 146 6. Whether Protestants erre fundamentally about Tradition 149 7. Whether they doe the like in their Doctrine about Generall Councels 152 8. Whether they erre by denying Papall Supremacie 157 9. Whether they erre in point of Iustification 161 10. Whether they erre in point of Merit of Good Works 169 11. Whether they doe the like concerning the Sacrament of Baptisme 175 12. Whether they erre in the Doctrine of Reall presence 178 13. Whether they doe the like about Penance and Absolution 185 14. Whether they erre about the Article of the Catholique Church 193 15. Touching Worship of Images 209 16. Concerning Inuocation of Saints departed 287 17. Touching prayer of the ignorant in an vnknowne Tongue 365 18. Concerning repetitions of Pater-Nosters Aues and Creeds with reference to Merit 384 19. Concerning Transubstantiation 390 20. Of Communion in one kind 459 21. Of workes of Supererogation and Popes Pardons 510 22. Of deposing Kings and giuing away of their Kingdomes by Papall power directly or indirectly 569 IESVIT TO THE KINGS MOST EXCELLENT MAIESTIE Most Gratious and dread Soueraigne A Conference about Religion betweene Doctour White and me was occasion that your Maiestie called mee to your Gratious presence not disdaining to dispute with one so meane and vnworthie as my selfe imitating his benignitie whose Vicegerent you are and according to the phrase of holy Scripture his Angell And as it is the propertie of the good Angell first to strike feare and terrour into them to whom hee appeares but in the end to leaue them full of comfort In like sort your Maiestie For though the first salutation carried a shew of seueritie yet your dismissing me was benigne and gratious not onely pardoning my earnestnesse in defending the part of the Catholike Church but also saying You liked me the better ANSVVER MIrum est si in facie hominis tantum interuallum inter frontem linguam vt frons non comprimat linguam It is strange saith St. Augustine that there should be such a great distance betweene the front of a man and his mouth that the shame of his forehead should not represse the impudencie of his tongue It is vntrue that his Royall Maiestie at the Cloase of the Conference whereof you speake gaue you any applause or the least occasion to coniecture That hee was taken with any passage of your Disputation For you propounded nothing to demonstrate your owne Tenet or to confute ours worthie of the great Presence to which you were admitted But you kept your selfe within your Trenches and sometimes you were driuen to dissemble your owne Tenet other-while according to the Romish manner by wyre-drawne distinctions and euasions to elude the waight of his Maiesties Arguments making good the saying of Maxentius Mens contentioni Indulgens non sanari sed vincere cupiens auersa ab eis quae rectè dicuntur tantum intenta est in hoc vt inueniat quod pro partibus suis loquatur A contentious mind desirous of victorie and not willing to be reformed but auerse from right sayings only deuiseth how to elude Truth and to speake for his owne part And as for those words of his royal Maiestie I like you the better they were vttered vpon this occasion When the Iesuit being pressed about the point of Temporall authoritie c. did at the first
though he lead vs to hell bring something euident and manifest out of the holy Scripture Si diuinarum Scripturarum earum scilicet quae canonicae in Ecclesia nominantur perspicua firmatur Authoritate sine vlla dubitatione credendum est 〈◊〉 vero testibus vel testimonijs quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur tibi credere vel non credere liceat c. If saith S. Augustine it be confirmed by the perspicuous authoritie of those diuine Scriptures which are Canonicall it must without all question be beleeued but as for other witnesses and testimonies by which any thing is persuaded to be beleeued it is lawfull for thee to beleeue or not beleeue them as thou shalt perceiue them to deserue credit IESVIT Fundamentall errours of the first kinde Protestants haue 〈◊〉 particularly these Nine ANSWER Malice alwayes fighteth against Vertue and laboureth to impose and rub off her owne faults vpon it and all they whose brests and minds are inhabited by Satan testifie their venemous rage with furious words If this Traducer be able to conuince the Protestants of Nine or of any one fundamentall errour wee must acknowledge that we are in a perillous state but if hee onely depraue and falsifie our doctrine or affirme that to be fundamentall errour which is diuine veritie then he prooueth himselfe to be one of his Ministers of whom S. Gregory speaketh Perfidious dealing is in the Tabernacle of Antichrist whereby he gainesayeth the faith of the Redeemer IESVIT First their Doctrine against Traditions vnwritten whereby the foundation is ouerthrowne on which wee beleeue all other substantiall and fundamentall points as hath beene shewed ANSVVER Either you wilfully falsifie or ignorantly mistake the Protestants Doctrine concerning vnwrttten Tradition First we admit in generall all vnwritten Traditions agreeing with the holy Scripture which are deriued from the Apostles and deliuered vnto vs by the manifest and perpetuall testimonie of the Primitiue Church and by the vniforme consent of succeeding Churches in all ages Secondly we beleeue in particular the historicall Traditions of the Primatiue and succeeding Churches concerning the dignitie authoritie perfection authors number and integritie of the bookes of Canonicall Scripture and also the Historicall Tradition of the said Church concerning the perpetuall virginitie of the blessed Virgin Marie and concerning the baptisme of infants and all other genuine Traditions which maintaine the Faith and Doctrine contained expressely or by consequent in the Scripture Thirdly we embrace such exposition of holy Scripture as being consonant to the rule of Faith and to the text of Scripture is affirmed by antient Tradition to haue descended from the holy Apostles Fourthly we beleeue the rule of Faith contained in the Apostles Creed both vpon the authoritie of Christs written word and also vpon the voice and testimonie of vnwritten Tradition If it shall then be demanded Wherefore do the Romists and you so eagrely contend about the question of Traditions and wherein lies your difference we answer as followeth First we yeeld the highest and most soueraigne authoritie to the sacred Scripture and make the voice and sentence thereof a supreame rule and iudge of supernaturall Veritie and we make Tradition vnwritten subordinate and ministeriall to holy Scripture admitting the same so farre forth only as it is conformable to the Scripture and reiecting the contrarie Secondly we affirme that the Canonicall Scriprure containeth all supernaturall Veritie necessarie to saluation and being receiued and vnderstood is a sufficient and perfect rule of Faith and the sole doctrine thereof is sufficient to instruct the whole Church and euery member thereof to saluation And that Tradition vnwritten maketh no addition or increase of new Articles of Faith but is only an helpe and instrument to deliuer applie and interpret the doctrine expresly deliuered or intended by the holy Ghost in the Scripture Thirdly we receiue no Tradition as diuine or apostolicall but such as hath the plaine manifest and vniforme testimonie and approbation of the Primatiue Church But our Aduersaries either equall or preferre vnwritten Tradition before the Scripture and they make Tradition a diuers and larger part of the rule of Faith containing many Articles which are neither expressely nor inuoluedly reuealed in the Scripture and they make the present Roman Church an infallible witnesse of such Tradition affirming that we are bound to beleeue euerie Article which the said Church deliuereth as a Tradition with the same assurance of Faith wherewith we beleeue any written testimonie of S. Paul or the holy Euangelists And many of them teach That it is not necessarie to deriue Tradition by a perpetuall descent and current through all ages but the voice of the present Church is sufficient to make any Article ctedible and authenticall to vs Lastly many particularopinions of antient Fathers which they deliuered coniecturally or probably onely and concerning which they haue not affirmed that they were diuine or apostolicall Traditions are ranked by latter Pontificians in the number of diuine 〈◊〉 and made parts of the vndoubted word of God And thus the present Roman doctrine concerning Traditions vnwritten is a Seminarie of Errour and by pretext hereof Pontificians obtrude vpon the Church many prophane fabulous and superstitious 〈◊〉 fansies and nouelties repugnant to holy Scripture and the antient Catholicke Faith Let therefore impartiall Readers consider whether this Romish doctrine debasing the sacred Scripture and aduancing humane Traditions tendeth not to the corrupting of Christian Faith and consequently whether the same be not rather a fundamentall Errour than an Orthodoxall Veritie And on the contrarie whether the doctrine of the Protestants maintaining the supreame authoritie of the sacred Scripture which is Gods vndoubted word and withall yeelding to genuine Tradition the credit and honour which the antient Church gaue thereunto is not fundamentall Veritie and a soueraigne meanes to preserue right Faith IESVIT Secondly their questioning the infallibe authoritie of lawfull generall Councels thereby casting downe the foundation of Vnitie in Gods Church ANSWER They which will not permit generall Councels to assemble or to proceed lawfully and which oppose the decrees of antient Councels are the Romists and not the Protestants First The moderne Popes vsurpe the whole right and authoritieof calling and conuocating Councells contrarie to the antient custome and practise of the Church Secondly They receiue and admit no Assessors and Iudges in Councels but onely their fast friends to wit men aforehand oblieged by solemne oath to proceed according to the will and purpose of the Pope Thirdly The Pope alone is appointed the authenticall Iudge of all causes and matters which are concluded in Councels he approoueth or refuseth whatsoeuer himselfe pleaseth and all other Iudges and Assessors are onely his shadowes and creatures Fourthly Whereas in words and tearmes they seeme to aduance
eloquij per suspitionum suarum abrupta praecipitari There is extant the sacred authoritie of diuine Scripture from whence wee may not deuiate nor forsaking the infallible ground of Gods word be carried into the precipicies of mens fancies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith great Athanasius The sacred Scriptures giuen by diuine inspiration are all-sufficient of themselues to the demonstration of sacred verity But a theefe saith Chrisostome entreth not into the sheepfould by the testimonie of the Scriptures which are called a doore that most iustly because they leade vs to God and manifest diuine knowledge to vs they make vs Christs sheep and preserue vs so as wolues cannot rush in vpon vs. But he that vseth not the holy Scripture but climeth in some other way that is a way not permitted the same is a theefe Now Protestants follow the Scriptures and Romists enterby humane Traditions THE THIRD PART OF THIS TREATISE Wherein the Iesuit disputeth Nine Questions propounded by his MAIESTIE IESVIT AN ANSWER TO THE Nine Points proposed by your most EXCELLENT MAIESTIE I Haue beene large in my former Proofes That the Roman is the onely true Catholike Church whose Traditions comming downe by perpetuall succession from Christ and his holy Apostles are so constantly and strongly to be beleeued that no proofes out of Scripture by priuate interpretation vnderstood though seeming most euident may stand to contest against them And this I haue done not without purpose assuring my selfe that if your Maiestie were thoroughly persuaded in this Point you would without any mans helpe most easily and fully satisfie your selfe in particular Controuersies out of your owne excellent Wisedome and Learning For as some that haue beene present at your Maiesties discourses casually incident about Religion report few of our Diuines though trayned vp continually in Academies and Exercises of Theologie are able to say more than your Maiestie in the defence of the Catholique cause for particular Controuersies when you please to vndertake the patronage thereof which I can easily beleeue out of my owne experience who could not but 〈◊〉 seeing your Maiestie so well acquainted with our Doctrines and so readie and prompt in Scholasticall subtleties Wherefore I most humbly beseech your most excellent Maiestie to honour these my poore Labours with a gracious perusall of them accepting of my Answeres when they may seeme reasonable being in defence of Doctrines receiued from Auncestors which deserue approbation when there is no euidencie against them And out of your abundant Clemencie pardon my prolixitie seeing the Questions by your Maiestie proposed were so difficill and obscure as I could hardly haue made any shorter full explication of them ANSVVER YOu haue beene large and prolixe Nam quid est loquacius vanitate for what is more wordie than Vanitie in depressing the sacred Scriptures which are the Oracles of God himselfe and aduancing the Customes and vsurped Authoritie of the Romane Sect. Sed quis tam vanus vt veritati consuetudinem praeferat Who will be so mad as to preferre Custome before Veritie And whereas you glorie of the Pedigree of Romish Traditions pretending that they are descended by perpetuall succession from Christ and his holy Apostles and that the same ought so strongly and constantly to be beleeued that no proofes out of Scripture interpreted against your Tenet though seeming to be most euident may stand to contest against them Surely there is hitherto nothing solid or euident produced by you to confirme this Assertion and therefore Quae ista obstinatio est quae ve praesumptio humanam traditionem Diuinae dispositioni anteponere What presumption and obstinacie is this to preferre humane Tradition before Diuine Ordinance Ipsam fidem quae in Scripturis manifesta est non vultis discere You will not learne the right Faith which is manifest in the Scripture Nec remanet vobis nisi sola infirmitas animositatis quae tanto est languidior quanto se maiores vires habere aestimat Your onely support is the infirmitie of an high or ouerweening stomacke which is so much the more feeble by how much it ouer-valueth its owne strength Hence proceedeth the assuring your selfe of successe in persuading no meaner a Person than his most excellent Maiestie to rellish your Superstition But Saint Basil saith Solo rore aluntur Cicadae Grassehoppers feede wholly vpon deaw and Ephraim feedeth vpon the Wind Hos. 12. 1. His Maiestie is a Cedar of Libanus grounded on Veritie established in the right Faith one which by reason of habit and long vse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath his senses exercised to discerne good and euill Heb. 5.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Captaine of the Host of the Lord Lex Dei in corde eius The Law of God is in his heart his foot can neuer slide It is therefore subtletie rather than hope which induceth you to vent these fond surmises of his propension or inclination towards your part For although such fancies are rediculous to prudent men yet they serue your turne in being baits to delude and intrap the credulous and incautelous who commonly regard not what indeed is but what in their owne fancie may be Lastly whereas vpon fame or hearesay which according to Tertullian Plurimum mendax ne tunc quidem cum veri 〈◊〉 adfert sine 〈◊〉 vicio est you report That his Maiestie doth at some times shew his excellent Wisdome and Learning in the patronage of your Catholike Pseudo-Catholike Cause you should rather haue made mention of that which is certaine How often and with what admirable soliditie his Maiestie vndertaketh by his Word and Penne the confusion and demolishing of your Babylonian Cause But were it so that his excellent Maiestie should sometimes propound and vrge your Obiections for the better resolution of Points in question there is as little reason to interprete this as a fauour to your Cause as to construe some passages of king Salomons Ecclesiastes vttered by way of tentation in the person of Epicures to haue beene spoken seriously in fauour of that wicked Sect. THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES IESVIT 〈◊〉 Haue more hope to giue your MAIESTIE satisfaction in this Article because all kinde of Theologicall Proofes stand for the same and nothing against it as I am persuaded which I declare by this Discourse ANSVVER YOu were no Loyalist if you could not promise golden Mountaines but the Worship of Images is a practise so absurd in reason and so repugnant to all diuine Authoritie that to speake in Saint Augustines phrase Non solum infideliter sed etiam infaeliciter impudenter c. The defence thereof cannot be vndertaken without infidelitie impudencie and vnluckie successe IESVIT If the custome of Worshipping Images bee grounded on the prime Principles of Nature and Christianitie If the same hath beene receiued in the Church vniuersally without any knowne time of beginning If places of Scripture that
of Christ crucified it did represent the Sampler and stand for it and by conceit and imagination of the faithfull beholder it was one with Christ to wit by Relation as a signe with the thing signified yet it being not appointed by God to bee worshipped nor being capable of worship according to the nature and qualitie of his kind the Israelites committed Idolatrie in worshipping and burning Incense to it OBIECTION III. There is the same motion of the minde into the Image and the Sampler as we may perceiue by the Image of the King There is not the same motion c. but a diuerse for the mind is fixed vpon the Image as vpon a Signe and as vpon an Obiect inferiour to the Sampler and if there bee the same Motion in any person towards the Image and the Sampler the same proceedeth vpon error and is a false imagination neither doth the Image of a King stand for a very King but for asigne and representation And if there were the same motion of the mind into the Image and the Samplar yet it is inconsequent to say there must be the same Adoration as Peresius Aiala hath obserued IESVIT With this Principle so receiued in Nature wee must ioyne another no lesse knowne and notorious in Christianitie to wit That God full of all honour and glorie to whom all Worship and Adoration is due became truely and verily man as visible and aspectable as any other man and consequently as imaginable that hee may bee figured by an Image no lesse truely and distinctly than another man ANSVVER When Christ liued vpon the earth and was conuersant with men Iohn 1. 14. hee might then perhaps if Diuine prouidence had permitted haue beene figured according to something which was visible in his humane Bodie I say if Diuine Prouidence had permitted because for preuention of Idolatrie and Superstition it fell out in this case as it did with the bodie of Moses And because this was not then performed either by his owne or by his Apostles appointment we can haue no certainetie that the after painting and figuring of him is a conuenient meanes whereby to honour him and to cause deuotion or that Pictures and Images whereby he hath beene figured in latter ages are agreeable to the sampler IESVIT In which Image the hands feet and other parts shall truely by imagination correspond vnto the feet bands and parts of the Prototype and our imaginations from 〈◊〉 passe directly vnto Christ and his parts proportionable to those we behold in the Image so that when we adore with an humble outward kisse the hands and feet of the Image by inward imagination conceipt and affection we kisse and adore the imagined true hands and feet of Christ. Neither are these imaginations false and erronious seeing as Philosophie teacheth no falshood is in meere apprehension or imagination without iudging the thing to be as we imagine As in contemplation men represent and imagine themselues as standing before Gods Throne in the Court of Heauen amidst the quires of Saints and Angels praising and honouring him in their societie not iudging themselues to be truely and really in Heauen that were a falshood and dotage but only 〈◊〉 in themselues such a presence and 〈◊〉 themselues outwardly and inwardly in prayer as if they were present to which kind of imaginations as pious and godly the Scriptures and Fathers exhort vs. In this sort beholding the Image of Christ we apprehend him as therein present not iudging the Image to be Christ but imagining and taking it as it were Christ that when wee outwardly honour the Jmage by kissing the hands and feet thereof mentally by imagination and humble affection of reuerence we adore and kisse the most venerable hands and feet of his pretious bodie ANSVVER It is possible for imagination to build castles in the aire and to conceiue the person of Christ as present to his Image yet if this imagination be fantasticall and if in adoration Christ and Images haue no agreement 2. Cor. 6.16 then worshipping of Images is not worshipping of Christ for it is possible to imagine God to be in the Sunne and to behold the Sunne as Gods Image yet they which vpon such an imagination should worship the Sunne which God hath not commanded must be ranked amongst false worshippers Deut. 4.19 17.3 Iob. 31.26 And whereas the Obiector addeth that according to Philosophie no falshood is in meere apprehension or imagination without iudging the thing to be as we imagine I answer That this being granted concerning fictions yet vpon such imagination there may follow or be inferred that which is false or morally euill to wit if one imagine the Sunne or a Lambe to be the figure of Christ and because in holy Scriptures he is compared to these creatures Mal. 4.2 Iohn 1.29 conceiue them as his image shall it hereupon be lawfull by one and the same motion of the cogitation and affection to worship the creatures with their Creator But that the solution of the former Argument may be more perspicuous I will present the same in forme and then applie mine answer If by imagination we may truely conioine Christ himselfe with his Image then vpon that imagination we may coworship Christ and his Image But the first may be done for he being incarnate may be figured in the Image of a man and being thus figured may be presented to the vnderstanding and people may imagine him as present in or by his Image Ergo Vpon that imagination we may worship Christ and his Image Both the assumpsition and also the sequel of this Argument are denied First taking truely for that which is really true we cannot by imagination so conioine Christ and his painted Image as that we may conceiue them to bee one terminatiue obiect of worship for the reasons formerly deliuered Neither is the Picture or Image of any other person the terminatiue obiect of Loue Reuerence or Worship but onely a motiue and signe of remembrance vpon aspect whereof followeth the former actions inward or outward of Loue Reuerence or Worship not towards the Image but towards the principall Secondly it is inconsequent to argue that because some people imagine the Image and the sampler as things conioined therefore they may coworship them for religious adoration primarie or secondarie is not founded vpon euerie kind of vnion as appeareth in mental Images but vpon certain kinds of vnion to wit First Personal as when the Humanitie of Christ is coupled with the Dietie Secondly Substantiall as where the parts are coupled with the whole Thirdly Causall Relatiue or Accidentall to wit when by diuine ordination things created are made instruments messengers signes or receptacles of diuine grace as the holy Sacraments and the Word and Gospell and the Ministers of the Church c. Christ himselfe is present assistant and operatiue in and by these instruments and hath commanded reuerence to
sufficiently 〈◊〉 ANSVVER Polydores words are Touching the beginning of Images wee haue treated before now here we will speake of their worship which not onely men of contrarie Religion but as Saint Hierom witnesseth almost all the antient holy Fathers condemned for feare of Idolatrie c. The Obiectour saith That this place is falsified and his reason is Polydore speaketh of the Fathers of the Old Testament to wit of Moses Daniel Ieremie and the Prophets and he saith That they condemned worship of Images because Christ was not as then incarnate c. But this is not all that Polydore speaketh for among those Fathers hee placeth Gregorie the Great writing to Serenus And although Christ was not made man in the dayes of the Prophets yet he had appeared in the similitude of man and Abraham Moses Elias and the Prophets being men their Pictures might haue beene worshipped if Adoration of Images had beene lawfull And besides Polydore Cassander and many other Pontificians affirme that the antient Fathers in the Primatiue Church abhorred or at least abstained from the hauing and worshipping of Images which is also confirmed by their Testimonies IESVIT Neither can our Aduersarie bring any cleare Testimonie of Antiquitie against this custome For the Decree of the councell of Eliberis that no Picture should be made in the Church least that which is worshipped or adored bee painted in walles which the Minister much vrgeth clearely signifieth the contrarie For may not Images painted on Tables be in Churches and yet neither made in the Church nor painted on walls which kinde of Images this Councell doth not forbid And why doth the Councell forbid Images to be made in the Church as pertinent to the fabrike thereof or to be painted on walls but out of reuerence vnto Images for they being holy things and so to be honoured for their Prototypes sake the Councell thought it vnworthy of their dignitie they should bee made on walls where they may easily be defaced and deformed and by persecutors for that Councell was held in time of persecution abused ANSWER No testimonies can be so cleere which Sophisters will not labour to peruert and elude Otherwise what is clearer against Image worship than the words of the Councell of Elliberis and Epiphanius It is lost labour to contest with men Qui sola pertinacia pugnaces neruos contra perspicuam veritatem intendunt as Saint Augustine speaketh which vpon sole pertinacie bend their vttermost force to gainesay perspicous veritie First the Councell of Elliberis is so cleere against Image worship that many Pontificians of great note acknowledge the same and therupon condemne or eleuate the authoritie of that Councell Secondly If that Councell forbad the being of Images in Churches then it did much more hold the worship of them to be vnlawfull but the beginning of the Canon apparently shewes that Placuit in Ecclesijs picturas esse non debere It 〈◊〉 vs of the Councell that Pictures may not be in Churches IESVIT He doth also much insist vpon Epiphanius but relates according to his fashion both his fact and words vnsincerely Epiphanius saith he finding an Image painted on a cloath hanging in a Church rent it do wne and said it was against the authority of the Scriptures that any image should be in the Church Thus he vnsincerely as I said not expressing what kind of Image that was that Epiphanius in peeces for Epiphanius saith Cum iuuenissem Imaginem hominis pendentem in Ecclesia tanquam Christi aut alicuius Sancti nescio enim cuius erat When I bad found an Image of a man hanging in the Church as of Christ or of some Saint for I know not of whom the image was Epiphanius doth by this relation more than insinuate that this was the Image of some prophane man hanging in the Church as if it had beene a sacred image of Christ or some Saint which is gathered by this reason When I saw saith he against the authoritie of Scriptures the image of a man hanging in the Church not absolutely any image as Mr. White citeth him for euen by Gods expresse command Images were placed in the Temple but the image of a man Why doth Epiphanius so much vrge the impietie of the fact in regard that it was the image of a man but that he vnderstood by the word Man a meere ordinarie prophane man not a blessed Saint For certainely it might seeme more against the authoritie of Scriptures to make and set vp in Churches the image of God than the image of holy men and the image of Christ according to his Godhead than as he is man so that there was no cause why Epiph. should put so much Emphasis in the word Man had he not vnderstood a prophane man For some Christians in those dayes being newly conuerted from Paganisme and so reteyning some relikes thereof did out of affection vnto their deceased friends and parents vse to paint their images and offer vnto them oblations of Frankincense and other the like heathenish honours specially on their Anniuersary dayes vpon their Sepulchre These men S. Augustine reprehends and not the worshippers of Saints Images vnder the title of Sepulchrorum picturarum Adoratores who to the Ghosts of their parents defunct did though Christians offer that heathenish worship which the Poet exhorteth vnto Non pigeat tumulis animas excire paternis Paucaque in extructos mittere thura rogos Parua petunt manes ANSVVER This place of Epiphanius is a thorne in the Papists sides and they are so distracted about the clearing of it that Vasques saith It is an irkesome thing to report what each of them hath spoken Some of them reiect the Epistle saying that it was a counterfeit worke But this opinion is reprooued and confuted by the learned of their owne part and what can be more improbable than that Saint Hierome would translate a counterfeit worke Others say that Epiphanius did this in a preposterous zeale Ferdinandus Velosillus or Velosius as Posseuine calleth him saith as followeth Epiphanius against the Colliridian haeresie inueigheth bitterly against Statues and Images of men and against their worship And againe in his Epistle to Iohn Bishop of Hierusalem he taunteth them currishly or despitefully dente canino mordet perhaps this man is excuseable by reason of ignorance and because he wrot against Idolaters wherefore he is not ranked among Haeretikes Others affirme that Epiphanius did this because of the abuse of superstitious people committed about that Picture Others say he did thus because the contrarie was not as then defined by the Church But Vasques himselfe and before him Marianus Victorius insist vpon this poore shift which our Aduersarie followeth in this place to wit that this vale or curtaine which Epiphanius defaced and rent asunder contayned an Image or Picture of some prophane man hanging in the Church as if
examples of this kinde yea so much as one example then you might iustly say Neither haue Protestants reason c. But you are and will be as mute as a fish in producing any one example to this purpose From the example of the Angell refusing to be worshipped Apoc. 19.10 22.8 9. we argue in this manner That which the Angel refused to admit when hee was present and came as an Ambassadour of Christ is not to be giuen to blessed Saints and Angels when they are absent But the Angel refused a lesser degree of adoration when hee was present and came as an Ambassadour of Christ than Papists yeeld to Angels and to blessed Saints being absent Ergo c. The Iesuit imagineth but he prooueth nothing either that Saint Iohn would haue exhibited diuine Adoration to the Angell and for this reason his worship was refused or that being modest and also feruent about his present imployment he esteemed such worship vnmeet to wit at that present rebus sic stantibus and in regard of the extraordinarie dignitie of Saint Iohn who was so great and glorious a friend of God The first solution is reiected by learned Papists themselues Ribera Alchasar Salmeron Viegas Mendoza c. and it is apparant by the Text of the Reuelation that St. Iohn knew it was an Angel which spake to him Apoc. 1.1 and Christ had many times reuealed so much to him The second Answere The Angel in modestie c. hath nothing at all in the Text to warrant it but is voluntarily faigned by the Iesuite First Let him giue vs any the like example of such modestie elsewhere in holy Scripture vsed by any Angel Secondly His comparison from a Preacher refusing to bee praised c. is altogether vnlike for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adoration are actions of a diuers kinde the one may be refufed in modestie by a Preacher a wayfaring man for feare of vaine-glorie But religious adoration is an vndue seruice for any creature and must be refused in right Neither doth any man when he praiseth a Preacher prostrate himselfe religiously Also if religious Adoration had beene due to the Angel why should he in modestie refuse it because he was an immediate Ambassadour of Iesus Christ and the admitting thereof would haue beene a leading case for posteritie to teach them their dutie to Angels if such dutie had belonged to them The third answere The Angel refused adoration from St. Iohn because of the dignitie of this great Apostle is confuted by the Text Apoc. 22.9 For the Angel yeelding a reason of his refusall assignes a cause which argueth that such adoration was not due to him from any other seruant of Iesus Christ saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. See thou doe it not for I am thy fellow seruant and of thy brethren the Prophets and of them which keepe the sayings of this Booke worship God Hence it is manifest that if the Angel refused religious worship because God alone is to bee worshipped in this manner and because he was the fellow seruant of all iust persons then he refused not this worship onely because of the speciall dignitie of St. Iohn but he would haue refused the like worship from any other Christian as well as he did from him Saint Ambrose vpon the Reuelation Chap. 19. saith The Redemption of Christs Blood brought this to the faithfull that they should be made the sonnes of God and companions of Angels Therefore the Angel feared to be worshipped of a man who worshipped one aboue him which was God and man To the like purpose also speaketh Ansbertus The Spirit of God no doubt foresaw the errours which would spring vp in future times and therefore hee left vpon Record this remarkeable example in the Reuelation to manifest his will and to be an Antidotarie against the superstitious worship of Saints and Angels And let men cauill and descant vpon this Scripture as they please It is euident from the same that the Angel would admit no worship of himselfe and hee draweth man to the immediate worshipping of Christ Hee doth not distinguish saying Worship me with religious worship as Gods friend or worship me not as the prime fountaine and principall doner or with Latria but simply and without all distinction he protesteth against this religious and sacred reuerence saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yeeld thy worship to God As for me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am thy fellow seruant and a fellow seruant c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See thou do it not let no other do it Lastly If our Aduersaries will haue vs regard their distinctions let them not like spiders spinne them out of their owne braines but let them yeeld vs any Text or example in the new Testament wherein holy Angels or blessed Saints or the blessed Virgin liuing or defunct did euer require or receiue or our Sauiour or any of his Apostles in their behalfe did euer appoint such religious worship to bee yeelded vnto them as Papists require IESVIT § 4. Praying vnto Saints not iniurious vnto Gods mercie but rather a commendation thereof THe fourth cause why Protestants out of their zeale vnto God refuse to inuocate Saints is the high conceit of Gods mercie for seeing he calleth all men immediately to himselfe Come vnto me all you that labour and I will refresh you We wrong his infinite goodnesse in not approaching vnto him by Prayer without the intercession of Saints This their zeale is not ioyned with science of the course of Gods mercifull prouidence whose Diuine wisedome prescribeth certaine bounds and as it were lawes to the infinitie of his mercies which orders and prescripts whosoeuer doth neglect and yet hopes to obtaine fauours hee doth not truely confide but erroniously presume God is infinitly mercifull and saith Come to me all that labour yet the man that should seeke to him for the remission of sinnes and would not submit himselfe to the Sacrament of water should hope in vaine and to no purpose challenge him of his promise Come to me all wherefore it imports vs verie much to know and to vse those meanes of approching vnto God that he hath appointed Now that the intercession of Saints is one meanes without which God will not bestow many graces and fauours as well spirituall as temporall Christian Tradition doth deliuer vnto vs which Tradition is suitable with the bountifull and noble disposition of God which is not onely to honour and glorifie those that haue beene zealous of his honour to the effusion of their bloud but also to make the world know and vnderstand that he doth honor them for this knowledge is both for his glorie and also for the good of men that seeing how highly God honoureth his constant friends they be prouoked to indeauour by pure life to gaine his fauours ANSWER First our doctrine and zeale are grounded vpon diuine reuelation for we are
Grace Mother of Mercie saying to her Ladie protect vs from the Diuell receiue vs in the houre of death giue light to the blind pardon the guiltie remooue from vs all euill c. A answer These speeches cannot iustly bee disliked because they are vnderstood in a pious sence knowne to a Catholicke a sence obuious and plaine according to the phrase of Scripture and which the words may well beare euen according to the common custome of speech The nature of things being various and the answerable conceits of men copious but words to expresse such conceits scant and in great paucitie Necessitie doth inforce to vse words applicable to diuers senses For example one man may deliuer another from death either by authoritie pardoning him as do Kings or by iustice defending him as do Aduocates by force taking him out of his enemies hands as do Souldiors or paying his ransome to them that keepe him captiue as Almoners finally by begging his life of them that haue power to take it away as Intercessors These be verie different wayes of reliefe yet haue we but one word to expresse them all to wit to saue a mans life which therefore is to be vnderstood according to the subiect it is applied and if men want vnderstanding or will to take our wordes according to the matter they are applied vnto there can neuer want cauills vnlesse we either speake not at all or when we speake euer vse long circumlocutions which were ridiculous and in verse impossible the meeter not permitting it And yet the aforesaid misliked phrases in the office of the blessed virgin are taken out of the hymnes and verses thereof If they that by begging obtaine of the King the life of one condemned to death may be and are commonly said to saue his life though they saued him by intercession not by their proper authoritie Why may not Saints bee said to giue vs the things which by their prayers they obtaine for vs Why may not the Church speake in hymnes and in verse as the learnedest Fathers speake euen in prose neuer imagining that any would mistake their meaning ANSVVER We condemne the verie substance of your prayers in this kind and not only some phrases c. For what Prophet or what Apostle or Euangelist did euer teach Gods people to pray in this manner And whereas some formes of your prayers to Saints being vnderstood according to the sound of words are blasphemous you labour to qualifie this by a fauourable exposition pretending that you say one thing and meane another and that herein you varie not from the Scripture You call the blessed Virgin Mother of Grace Mother of Mercie Queene of Heauen c. you say that all power is giuen her in heauen and in earth and because she outliued her sonne she was by naturall right heire of all the world Yea some of you go further teaching that as Christ redeemed man-kind by his flesh and bloud so she redeemed the same with her soule and that all grace and glorie comming from Christ the head passeth to the Church by the Virgin Marie as by the necke and she as his mother hath all right authoritie and dispensation of his mercie This lying doctrine is coloured with certaine distinctions and forced instances of holy Scripture which notwithstanding agree to the present question like Harpe and Harrow Men indeed which are instruments of preseruing life and sauing others may be said in largenesse of speech to giue life or to be sauiours Iud. 3. v. 9. 15. But the blessed Virgin and Saints deceased since their departure are not by any new actions instruments of spirituall life nor bestowers of grace and saluation vpon the liuing And when the Prophets and Apostles exercised their office and ministerie vpon earth Who euer stiled them Sauiours or prayed vnto them with such a conceit or by vsing such titles They themselues gaue all glorie to God and Christ and instructed the Church to do the like The Virgin Marie was neuer stiled a Redeemer Mediatour or Sauiour by the holy Ghost but she saith in her thankesgiuing My spirit reioiceth in God my Sauiour Some names are common and sometimes that which was common or typically giuen to certaine persons in the old Testament is appropriated in the new as we obserue in the names of Sauiour Iesus Redeemer Mediatour High Priest and the like Sometimes the effect of the principall cause is attributed to the instrumentall but in all these Regulam habemus praeter quam loqui fas non est We haue a rule beside which we may not speake And we are not so straighted for words that we must of necessitie applie or communicate the titles of Christ vnto the creatures Now to that which you adde by way of excuse for your improper or abusiue speaking saying in verse impossible the meeter not permitting I answer What an impudent and ridiculous plaster is this will not verse permit vs to implore benefits only at Gods hand by Christ or will not the measure and number of poeticall feet without pinching in the stockes be applied to direct and euident compellation of Saints to pray for vs without crauing the benefits we desire at their own hands Nay who so readeth the Papisticall poeticall Church hymnes shall in the most of them find versing laws most broken where the lawes of inuocation are most transgressed A reasonable Poet in lesse than a weekes worke would make so many hymns in exact verse and yet without ridiculous circumlocutions expres that which might better beseeme the triumphant Church to heare from the militant But that is verified in you which Arnobius said of the Gentiles Quod semel sinè ratione fecistis nè videamini aliquando nescisse defenditis meliusquè putatis non vinci quam confessae cedere atquè annuere veritati That which you haue once done vnreasonably you wil still persist in defending least you should seeme to haue beene ignorant and you rather desire to haue it appeare you are not ouercome than to submit your selues to euident truth IESVIT Saint Gregorie Nazianzen for his excellent learning tearmed by the Grecians The Diuine thus prayeth vnto Saint Cyprian Looke downe on vs from heauen with a propitious eye guide our words and wayes feed this holy flocke gouerne it with vs dispose some of them as farre as is possible to better state cast out importune and troublesome wolues that cauill aud catch at syllables vouchsafe vs the perfect and cleare splendor of the blessed Trinitie with whom thou art alreadie present ANSWER That Gregorie Nazianzen prayed vnto Saint Cyprian is more than you can prooue he vseth indeed an Oratoriall Apostrophe but your selues make a difference betweene a Prosopopeia or Apostrophe and Prayer you say you make an Apostrophe to the Crosse when you vse this Hymne All haile oh Crosse c. And I thinke you will not grant that the wodden Crosse heareth you So by
Mercie floweth into the admirable Vessell and Basin the Virgin Marie and the other part to wit of Iustice which was poured vpon the Altar he hath left vnto Christ. Thus writeth Benzonius a famous Romane both by birth and Religion in our dayes Blasius Viegas a moderne Iesuit applyeth also this absurd comparison of Assuerus and Esther to Christ and the Virgin Marie And these Authors with the rest whom they follow doe not intend onely to teach That the blessed Virgin is very gracious with Christ in respect of her intercession but that shee hath a right and authoritie as a Queene Regent to distribute mercie and benefits where shee pleaseth and to dispence with the Lawes of Iustice when there is cause as appeareth by the words of Ozorius the Iesuite citing out of Nunne Bridgets Reuelations Christs words following My mother in my Kingdome ruleth as a Queene c. and therefore shee may dispence with Lawes made by me when there is iust cause And by this speech Nunne Bridget intendeth to shew that Christ did vse the helpe of his mother Marie in ruling his Kingdome now this Osorius was a Iate Preacher in Portugall Our English Iesuits when they returne to vs dissemble and cloake this Superstition not because they dislike it for they and the rest are all Birds of a feather and feed their silly chicks with the same carraine but they prudently consider that such notorious blasphemies being published would appeare odious and hinder their successe in beguiling vnstable soules and minister greater aduantage to their Aduersaries therefore like the Steward in the Gospell commended for his craft but not for his honestie when their Tenet is an hundred they write downe fiftie and when their Doctrine is blasphemous they confesse a pettie ouersight or vnfitnesse in the phrase and manner of speaking But if in good earnest they disliked the former assertions why hath not the grand Senior of Rome siue cum Concilio siue sine Concilio condemned rased and purged out these sacrilegious blasphemies especially because in other Authours their expurgatorius Index hath Eagles eyes and a line or sentence cannot escape these Critickes if there appeare obloquitie or antipathie to their inueterate forgeries Now for a Conclusion of the former Question let it be obserued That the Aduersarie is deficient in the demonstration of his Popish Tenet concerning Inuocation of blessed Saints and Angels for he hath produced no Diuine Testimonie from sacred Scripture no Tradition from the Apostles no plaine and resolute definition of approoued Councels or Primatiue Fathers no sufficient argument of naturall reason yea the mayne Principles of his Doctrine are litigious and dubious amongst Pontificians themselues Hee hath strugled playing fast and loose with our Arguments and spent himselfe in soluing or rather in eluding of obiections but he confirmeth not his owne St. Augustine saith That in things diuine or which concerne saluation they offend grieuously Qui certis incerta preponunt which preferre vncertainties before that which is indubitate Nostra fides certa est ex Doctrina Apostolica nouo veteri Testamento confirmata Our faith concerning the direct inuocation of the deitie by Christ our Mediatour of intercession is right and a certaine Apostolicall Doctrine confirmed by the Old and New Testament The Popish Appendix concerning Inuocation of Saints wanteth all Scripture proofe and whatsoeuer else may be pretended for it is dubious and litigious therefore our Doctrine is of faith and the Popish Tenet of humane opinion or presumption THE FOVRTH POINT THE LITVRGIE AND PRIVATE PRAYERS FOR THE IGNORANT IN AN vnknowne Tongue IESVIT THe Custome of the Romane Church in this Point is agreeable to the Custome of the Churches in all ages and also of all Churches now in the world bearing the name of Christian though opposite vnto the Romane only those of the pretended reformation excepted which constāt concurrence is a great figne that the same is very conforme vnto reason and not any where forbidden in Gods Word which will easily appeare if we looke particularly vnto the same ANSVVER YOu lay your foundation of this Article vpon two apparant vntruths for the Doctrine and custome of the present Romane Church is not onely not agreeable but opposite both to the Doctrine and Practise of the antient Catholicke Church and also to the custome of other Churches which are not absolute Protestants First It is the common voyce of the Fathers That the Liturgie and Seruice of the Church was in their dayes and ought to be vsed in a knowne tongue Origen saith That in his dayes euery nation prayed to God in their owne Language the Grecians in Greeke the Romanes in Latine and all other people in their proper tongue Iustin Martyr Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus affirme That the Priest and the people prayed ioyntly and in common in the publicke Seruice which argueth that the people vnderstood the Prayers And St. Cyprian requires That peoples hearts and words agree and that they heare and vnderstand themselues when they pray to God Saint Basil saith When the words of Prayer are not vnderstood by them which are present the minde of the Precant is vnfruitfull neither doth any man hereby reape any profit St. Chrysostome St. Ambrose affirme the like And St. Augustine requireth people to vnderstand what they pray and sing for if there be onely sound of voyce without sence they may bee compared to Parrats Owsells or Popiniayes And some of the best learned Papists to wit Thomas Aquinas Lyra Cassander acknowledge That in the Primatiue Church the common Seruice was vsed in the vulgar tongue Secondly it is false according to the Tenet of Bellarmine himselfe that all other Churches which differ from the Protestants haue their publique seruice in Hebrew Greeke or Latine Bellonius and Aluares affirme the contrarie of the Armenians and Abissines and Eckius of the Indians and Sigismundus Baro and Hosius of the Russians and Ledesma of the Egyptians and Armenians And AEneus Syluius reporteth That when Cyrillus and Methodius had conuerted the Saluons vnto Christ were suitors that they might administer the common Prayers and Seruice among them in their vulgar tongue The Pope in the Conclaue consulting about this matter a voice was heard as it were from Heauen saying Let euerie Spirit praise the Lord and let euerie tongue acknowledge him and hereupon they were permitted to vse their owne tongue And it appeareth by the Decretals that the Roman Church in former times did ordinarily appoint this for the words of the Canon are For as much as in many places within one Citie and one Diocesse there be nations mingled together speaking diuers tongues c. We therefore commaund that the Bishops of such Cities and Diocesses prouide meet men to minister the holy Seruice according to the diuersitie of their
Sacrament about him permitted himselfe rather to bee bruised with stones to death than disclose it to the Persecutors who when they had crowned the Martyr searching seriously for the Sacrament in his cloathes and about his dead body found nothing God by miracle keeping the same out of their impious hands S. Cyprian records diuers miracles done in confirmation of this our Sauiours permanent presence in the Sacrament namely of a woman vnworthily approaching to the Chest where the same was kept that was frighted backe with fire that thence flashed out Tanta est Domini potentia saith S. Cyprian Tanta Maiestas And so fully were they persuaded in this opinion That Christs body is permanently in the Sacrament that Cyril dareth say Insaniant qui dicunt benedictionem a Sanctificatione cessare Si quae reliquiae remanserunt eius in sequentem diem non enim mutabitur sacrosanctum corpus Christi sed virtus benedictionis viuificatiua gratia iugis in eo est Now what reason could the Fathers haue thus constantly to defend this continuancy of our Sauiour in the Sacrament but that they beleeued Bread to be changed into his body remaining demonstrable by the formes and accidences thereof so long as they remained entire and were not changed into the accidences of some other substance ANSWER Your obiection reduced to forme of argument is All they which vsed reseruation of the Sacrament and maintained continuancie of Christs body therein beleeued Transubstantiation The antient Fathers vsed reseruation of the Sacrament and maintained continuancie of Christs body therein Ergo The ancient Fathers beleeued Transubstantiation If the argument be thus formed First the Maior Proposition is denyed for the Fathers might vse reseruation of the Sacrament and beleeue the permanencie of Christs body therein vpon the Tenet of reall Presence by Consubstantiation and not vpon beleefe of Transubstantiation Secondly the Primitiue Church and antient Fathers generally or vniuersally vsed not reseruation of the Sacramentall signes and Iustin Martyr and Ireneus speake onely of the sending of the Sacrament from the Church where it was administred to sick persons and strangers Some examples of reseruation proceeded vpon the ignorance and superstition of priuate persons in which case although some Fathers vsed conniuence yet these abuses were afterwards reformed The Minor therefore if it be generall is denyed and if it be particular then the Maior and Minor inferre not the conclusion because that which was done by some vpon priuate opinion and in another kind or manner than Romists doe at this day and was also opposed and corrected by others cannot be a matter of Catholike doctrine or practise But this question of Reseruation hath beene largely handled by many of our part and whatsoeuer Romists haue obiected concerning the same is fully answered and therefore because this Iesuit produceth no new matter but onely repeateth what wee haue formerly confuted and especially because Reseruation concludeth not Transubstantiation which is the matter now in question I forbeare further examination of the particular Testimonies produced by him IESVIT Against this consent of Fathers Protestants obiect the Testimonie of Theodoret and Gelasius who in plaine tearmes affirme That the substance of Bread and Wine remaines in this holy Eucharist bringing this as an example of the Incarnation where the Natures of God and man remaine in Christ Signa mystica saith Theodoret post sanctificationem non recedunt à sua natura And Gelasius Non esse desinit substantia vel natura Panis Vini I answer That these Fathers by the substance of Bread and Wine vnderstand the naturall qualities that flow from the nature and essence of Bread and Wine for ordinarily and in common speech the naturall accidents and proprieties of a thing are tearmed the nature of the thing Thus wee say That to be heauie and to fall downeward is the nature of the Stone to be hot and to burne is the nature of the Fire which yet are but naturall qualities and properties of Stone and Fire By this or rather by a more strange manner of speech S. Theodote Bishop of Ancyra to explicate against Nestorius and Eutyches the coniunction of two Natures in one Person by the example of the Water that Moses conuerted into Bloud saith That the Water was not changed in nature nor did cease to be Water which in rigor of speech taking the nature of Water for the substance thereof as condistinct from the naturall qualities is not true But because Water changed into Bloud remaines according to some naturall qualities and properties which it hath common with Bloud as Moisture Liquidnesse and the like he the better to sit and accommodate the similitude saith The Water remained according to the nature that is according to some naturall qualities thereof For these Fathers bring those similitudes to declare the Mysterie of the Incarnation against the Heresie of Eutyches who denied the naturall qualities and properties of the two Natures of God and man to remaine distinct in the Person of Christ which Error they reiected by the example of the Eucharist where the naturall qualities of Bread remaine together with the Bodie of Christ in the same Sacrament Which naturall qualities of Bread they tearme the nature of Bread as in some sense they may be tearmed to the end that the phrase of two distinct Natures remaining might seem common to the Mysteries of both the Incarnation and Eucharist and so the similitude seeme more fit and proper though the Fathers knew well that the phrase did not agree to both Mysteries equally in the same sense Which obscure vttering his mind is the lesse to be wondered at in Theodoret because he doth professe in that place not to speake plainely as fearing that some Infidels or Catechumes were present to whom the Mysterie of Transubstantiation was not to be reuealed Non oportet saith hee aperte dicere est enim veresimile adesse aliquos non initiatos Much lesse cause haue they to stand vpon the words of S. Augustine Quod videtur in Altari panis est quod etiam occuli renunciant Quod autem fides postulat panis est corpus Christi For the sense is That consecrated Bread is Bread in outward apparance and the naturall Accidences of Bread truly remaine as the eye doth witnesse but inwardly and according to the substance it is not Bread but the Bodie of Christ as Faith requireth we beleeue And it is to be noted that these words are not extant in the workes of S. Augustine but alledged by venerable Bede a follower of S. Augustines Doctrine and so it is not likely they are to be vnderstood but as Bede vnderstood them who sets downe his mind in these words The forme of Bread is seene but the substance of Bread is not there nor any other Bread but onely that Bread which came downe from Heauen ANSVVER Demonstration hath largely beene made by our part that
present and the Doctrine was personally pronounced to them alone Also Math. 18.9 15.22 the like is found concerning other doctrines and precepts and yet these doctrines and precepts are common to all Christians The Romists if they were not partiall could distinguish betweene personall precepts deliuered to the Apostles onely as they were by office Pastors of the Church and betweene common precepts deliuered vnto them as Christians and as they represented the whole body of the Church But the Obiectour addeth That we are not able to demonstrate that this Precept Drinke yee all of this was common I answere First if that which Christ said to the Apostles S. Paul spake to the whole multitude of Beleeuers then Christs words vttered to the Apostles were common But the first is true 1. Cor. 11. 28. And S. Hierome inferreth vpon the same Oportet Coenam dominicam esse communem quià ille omnibus Discipulis suis qui aderant equalitèr tradidit Sacramenta The Lords Supper ought to be common because Christ deliuered the Sacraments of his Bodie and Bloud equally to all the Disciples that were present Secondly If Communion in both kinds hath not foundation in Christs words vttered to the Apostles then Communion in one kind wanteth foundation in Christs words and institution and if it haue not foundation in Christs words then it wanteth all foundation for S. Paul grounds his whole Doctrine touching the holy Eucharist vpon our Sauiours words and institution 1. Cor. 11.23 Thirdly If the reason why the Apostles receiued the Cup was because they were Priests then all Priests being present at the communion ought to receiue in both kinds although they administer not but this is repugnant to the practise of the Romane Church Fourthly It is not certaine that the Apostles were Priests when Christ ordained and administred the Eucharist for that they were not Priests Math. 18. is affirmed by our Aduersaries and that they were made Priests Luke 22. by the words Hoc facite as Bellarmine Suares Henriques Hosius Canisius c. say can neuer be prooued for what force is there in Hoc facite to conclude Priestly Ordination and if Hoc facite prooueth Priesthood then Lay men are made Priests when the words Doe this in remembrance of mee are spoken to them in part or respectiuely Hitherto we haue found nothing in our Aduersaries but Sophistrie of words and Theomachie against Diuine Institution and Apostolicall Tradition But to hold correspondence with the rest the Iesuit addeth IESVIT Secondly These words Accipite manducate bibite Take eate drinke were certainely spoken vnto the same persons and they runne so together in rancke that no man can with probabilitie make the one outrunne the other But the command Accipite which signifies Take with your hands for it is a Precept distinct from Manducate which is take with your mouth was giuen to the Apostles onely not vnto all the faithfull else wee must say That all Communicants were bound to take the consecrated Bread and Cup with their hands who euer heard of such a Precept in the Christian Church ANSWER This Argument truely propounded is All persons commanded to eate were commanded to take None but the Apostles were commanded to take for if Lay men were commanded to take they must alwayes receiue the Eucharist in their hands Ergo None but the Apostles were commanded to eate This Obiection fighteth against Lay mens receiuing in one kinde which vntill 〈◊〉 we supposed Papists had permitted but it seemeth that they will haue the whole vse of the Sacrament depend vpon the Popes deuotion and pleasure But touching the Argument I denie the Assumption for Lay men were commanded to take that is to receiue at least into their mouthes and then to manducate that is to chew or swallow and to let the Element receiued passe into their stomack To take with the hand is agreeable to Christs manner of Administration and it was vsed in the Primitiue Church but the same is not of absolute necessitie for some Communicants may want hands or the naturall vse thereof but to receiue into the mouth and then to manducate or drinke is commanded The Iesuit imagineth that all taking is by the hand and thus he prooueth himselfe to be neither good Grammarian nor Diuine Virgill saith Illos porticibus rex accipiebat in amplis where accipio is to entertaine S. Paul saith Per quem accepimus gratiam Rom. 1. 5. By whom we haue receiued grace and Apostleship ca. 8.15 Ye haue receiued 〈◊〉 the spirit of Adoption The Angell said Ioseph thou sonne of Dauid feare not to take Mary thy wife Math. 1. 20. His Bishopricke let another man take Act. 1.20 IESVIT The third reason is because there was a peculiar and personall cause Why Christ should giue that particular Councellor Admonition for the imperatiue word doth not euer signifie a precept but often an aduise or a permission as your Maiestie well knowes to his Apostles at that time to wit because he would haue them all not onely drinke of his bloud but also would haue them drinke of the same Cup without filling and consecrating the same anew this is more manifest in the Protestants opinion who thinke the Chalice whereof Christ said in S. Mathew Bibite ex hoc omnes to be the same whereof he said in S. Luke Accipite diuidite inter vos non enim bibam amplius de hoc genimine vitis For this being supposed the words Drinke ye all of this imports the same as Diuide this Cup amongst you But Diuide this Cup amongst you was a personall precept giuen to all the Apostles importing that euery one should drinke but a part of that Cup and that also in such measure as the Cup without new filling and consecration might suffice for all to drinke therof What All men in the world Or all Christians that should succeede them to the Worlds end Christ neuer intended that one Cup for all nor is it indeed diuided or parted with vs but the Apostles dranke it vp amongst them Wherefore referring my saying to your Maiesties learned censure I conclude that to me it seemes cleere that the precept or rather direction Drinke ye all of this was but personall confined vnto the number of all there then present ANSWER The Precept Drinke ye all of this saith the Iesuit was personall and concerned the Apostles onely because our Sauiour commanded them All to drinke of the same Cup without filling and consecrating it anew But if Drinke ye all of this had imported a generall duty then Christ could not haue stinted them to one single Cup. This obiection is grounded vpon a false Principle which is all Precepts are Personall in regard of their substance wherein any circumstance is Personall Nothing can be more absurd and false than this Position for in the Decalogue it selfe some things were Personall as appeareth by the Preface Exod. 20.2 Likewise in many generall or common
Preepts of the old and new Testament some personall circumstances may be noted and yet the substance of the Commandement is generall 1. Cro. 28.9 Pro. 30.1.3 Math. 18.2.3 Ioh. 13.13 14. Also we may consider a twofold vnitie of the Cup Specifical and Indiuiduall to drinke of the same indiuiduall Cup euen as to eate of the same indiuiduall loase is an accidentall circumstance But to drinke and receiue the common kind to wit the fruit of the Wine this is the substance of the Commandement If we parallell the Obiection the defect is manifestly ridiculous It is not of the substance of Christs Commandement That lay People shall receiue consecrated Bread at the Communion because the Bread which Christ gaue his Disciples was of one Indiuiduall loafe but the bread of one indiuiduall loafe will not suffice all men in the world therefore the Precept of receiuing consecrated Bread was Personall and concerned the Apostles only Now if a man should vse this Argument which in substance is the same with the Iesuits he had in my opinion more cause to blush for shame than to glory before the Presence of a most iudicious and learned King as this vaine Boaster doth IESVIT Another text of Scripture some vrge to prooue That Communion vnder one kind is commanded to wit the famous place out of the sixt chapter of S. Iohn Except ye eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in you Where our Sauiour vnder the penaltie of loosing eternall life commands not onely eating but also drinking Perchance your Maiestie doth not stand much vpon this as not beleeuing that chapter of S. Iohn to concerne the Sacramentall sumption of our Sauiours Flesh as also some learned Catholikes hold Not withstanding though we grant that Chapter to concerne the eating and drinking in the Sacrament as most of the Fathers teach yet this obiection may be easily satisfied by the former Principles for as we distinguish in the Sacrament the substance and the manner The substance being to receiue the body of Christ the manner in both kinds by formall eating and drinking so the same distinction is to be made in our Sauiours Precept about this Sacrament For howsoeuer his words may sound of the manner of receiuing in both kinds yet his intention is to command no more than the substance to wit that we really receiue his body and bloud which may be done vnder one kind This is made cleere by the Precept by our Sauiour giuen about another Sacrament to wit Baptisme where though his words seeme to define the manner yet his mind was but to determine the substance He saith to his Apostles Baptise all nations in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost To baptise signifies the same that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not to wet or sprinkle with water but to put and plunge into the Water by immersion bathing them in water in which respect Baptisme is tearmed by the Apostle the Lauer or Bath of the renouation of the holy Ghost And yet because the Church teacheth Baptisme by 〈◊〉 or sprinkling to be sufficient and substantiall Baptisme no lesse than Baptisme by immersion Christians must and doe so interpret the words of Christ Baptize that is plunge into the water all Nations to command onely cleansing and washing in substance not the manner thereof by immersion as his words may seeme to import and the Primitiue Church did the first sixe hundred yeares practise Jn this like sort the words Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke of his bloud you shall not haue life in you be preceptiue no further than they signifie reall receiuing of his body and bloud not the manner of both kinds as may appeare by the intention of the Commaundement For as Christ gaue this Precept of Eating and Drinking onely to the end that wee might haue life in vs so likewise he meant to command the same no further than it was necessary to this end But eating formally the body of Christ vnder the forme of Bread and vertually and implicitly his bloud as contayned within his Sacred body suffiseth that we may haue life in vs as he promiseth in the same place He that eateth this Bread shall liue for euer What necessitie then is there to vnderstand this Precept of formall receiuing in both kinds But further I adde the coniunctiue particle and signifies disjunctiuely the same that vel or as Argentum aurum non est mihi and particularly of this Sacrament He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh damnation the sence is disjunctiue eateth or drinketh vnworthily In this sort the words of Christ Except you eate and drinke is to be vnderstood disjunctiuely Except you eate the flesh or drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in you Which disjunctiue sence to be the sence intended in this place may be prooued because else Christ should be contrary to himselfe for seeing in the ver 59. of this Chapter He promiseth life eternall to eating onely Qui manducat panem viuit in aeternum If in the foure and fiftie verse of the same Chapter he require vnto himselfe life euerlasting eating and drinking both he should in the space of a few lines speake contraries And because this is impossible wee interprete the place disiunctiuely vnlesse you eate or drinke c. ANSWER Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth that the Text of Saint Iohn cap. 6. is to be expounded of the holy Eucharist and not onely of spirituall receiuing but also of Sacramentall eating and drinking the Bodie and Blood of Christ And hee saith that although some Catholickes to wit Gabriel Biel Cusanus Caietan Ruard Tapper Hesselius and 〈◊〉 expound this Chapter of spirituall Receiuing yet other Pontificians hold as himselfe doth with Bellarmine also agree Suares Vasques Gregorie Valence Salmeron Barradius c. From this Exposition it followeth That Communicants when they partake the holy Eucharist ought to receiue in both kindes for our Sauiour saith Iohn 6.54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood c. 55. My flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke indeed 56. Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him 53. Except ye eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Sonne of man c. Our Aduersarie after some staggering about the place Ioh. 6. condescendeth at last to Bellarmines Tenet and admitting that Saint Iohn treateth of Sacramentall Receiuing answeres the former places by a distinction of substance and manner saying That howsoeuer Christs words may sound of the manner of Receiuing in both kinds yet his intention is to command no more than the substance and he prooueth this by the example of Baptisme wherein although according to the letter dipping and plunging
〈◊〉 sinne after Baptisme are renewed by the vertue of Repentance Luc. 22. 62. But it is erroneous that there are two distinct kinds of Repentance one before and the other after Baptisme the one a Vertue onely the other both a Sacrament and a Vertue For where there is the same definition there is also the same thing in kind But Repentance before and after Baptisme hath the same definition and integrall parts to wit Contrition for sinnes committed Confession to God and if need require Confession to men according to the qualitie of the fault Amendment of Life and humble Supplication by Prayer of Faith for reconciliation with God and for remission of sinnes Matth. 3.6 Luc. 3.10 Act. 3. 19. cap. 8.22 cap. 26.20 Also the Grace and promise of Remission is made to Repentance before and after Baptisme Act. 3. 19. 5.31 8.22 Apoc. 2. 5. 16. And if Repentance before Baptisme is no Sacrament What causeth it to be such after Baptisme For no visible Element or signe is added neyther is any promise of a different kind from the former annexed And although the Apostles 1. Cor. 5.3 2. Cor. 2 3. c. cap. 7.8 and also the Primitiue Church vrged a stricter manner and degree of Humiliation vpon notorious Delinquents after Baptisme than before yet this Discipline changed not the kind or substance of Repentance but encreased onely the quantitie and measure thereof IESVIT Fourthly the Romane Church holds That God by Penance forgiuing the eternall punishment doth in lieu thereof manie times appoint a Taske of temporall paine to be endured by the Penitent This reserued penaltie is greater or lesser according to the multitude and grieuousnesse of the sinnes committed and is that for which Penitents may and must satisfie And why may not the Penall Workes performed by the children of God beautified by so manyafore-named excellent Graces be sufficient to deserue of God the remission of this temporall Mulct and cancell the Debt of enduring transitorie paine I could bring Testimonies of the most antient Fathers in great number for the necessitie we haue of suffering these voluntarie afflictions for sinnes and of the efficacitie thereof to expiate sinne with the verie name of Satisfaction there being scarce anie antient Father that hath not taught both the thing and the word ANSWER When God pardons a sinner he doth it not by way of Exchange or Parcelling but remitteth all punishment of Malediction or pure Reuenge For that which is so forgiuen as that after pardon it is not mentioned or remembred and which is cast behind Gods backe and throwne into the bottome of the Sea and which can no where be found and is blotted out of the Debt-Booke of the Almightie is not taken away by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesse but by a free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment But the holy Scripture and the Primitiue Fathers teach such a remission of sinnes on Gods part to the Penitent Ezech. 18.22 Esa. 38. 17. ca. 43. 25. 44. 22. Mich. 7.19 Ier. 50.20 Heb. 8. 12. 10. 17. Col. 2. 14. Matth. 18.32 S. Augustine If God hath couered sinnes hee will not obserue hee will not thinke vpon them to punish them hee will not take knowledge but rather pardon Gregorie the Great Ignoscendo impunita relinquit By pardoning he leaueth them vnpunished Cassiodorus Remittere est debitum relaxare non causae alicuius interuentu sed pietatis intuitu To remit is to release the Debt not by entercourse of any cause on mans part but by aspect of Pietie Neuerthelesse after great and enormious offences committed by his people God doth chastise them with the Rod of Correction Psal. 89. 33. 1. Cor. 11. 31 32. And this Correction is a paine of Castigation Lament Ierem. 3.39 but not a punishment of Malediction Galath 3. 13. a worke of Gods Mercie rather than of his Iustice. The difference betweene Pontificians and vs in this Doctrine is That we beleeue a remainder of Temporall affliction after remission of the guilt of sinne in this life onely and that for chastisement erudition and probation They maintaine a remainder of temporall punishment after sinne remitted not onely in this present life but after the same in Purgatorie Further we beleeue That the affliction or paine of Chastisement inflicted vpon penitent sinners may by prayer of Faith exercise of Vertue Humiliation and Mortification be eyther remooued or else mitigated and conuerted to the encrease of grace and glorie in those which with patience and holinesse endure the same in this life But wee denie eyther that any paine followeth iust persons after their decease or that in this life they can by Prayer Mortification or any good workes merit release of any Temporall Mulct or satisfie the Diuine Iustice for the least fault or guilt of any sinne on their owne behalfe much lesse for others And whereas the Iesuit affirmeth That he can produce Testimonies of the antient Fathers in great number both for our necessitie of suffering voluntarie afflictions and also for the efficacitie thereof to expiate sinne and to satisfie I answer First That the Fathers and holy Scriptures require workes of Humiliation and Mortification not as meritorious but onely as meanes and causes impetrant or deprecant to appease Gods wrath for sinne Secondly The Fathers vnderstand not the word Satisfaction strictly and in rigor for satisfaction of condignitie as Romists doe but improperly and largely to wit for satisfaction of deprecation congruitie or impetration And according to their acceptation and vse the word Satisfaction comprehendeth Contrition and Confession and not Sacramentall Satisfaction onely Also they require Satisfaction as a remedie against the guilt of Mortall sinne and not onely as a Purgatiue of Veniall sinne or as a remedie against Temporall paine onely But to the end the Reader may euidently perceiue the Popish fraud in peruerting the Sentences of the Fathers concerning Satisfaction I will in this place distinctly compare their Doctrine with the present Romish Tenet First It is consessed That many Fathers vse the word Satisfaction and require penitent Persons to performe the same to God and men Secondly Within the name of Satisfaction they include and comprehend contrition to God confession and amendment of life Thirdly they require satisfaction for the fault and eternall guilt of sinne and not onely for remoouall of temporall punishment Fourthly the word Satisfaction is taken in two notions First strictly for a iust and equall compensation of the iniurie committed against God which Schoolemen tearme Satisfaction of condignitie Secondly for an interpretatiue compensation as Durand tearmeth it grounded vpon Diuine fauour and acceptation and not vpon the compleat dignity of the action The Schoolemen tearme this latter satisfaction of 〈◊〉 and Impetration because God in his fauourable indulgence 〈◊〉 more on mans part as necessarie to
the matter by Scripture onely that Protestants may seeme to haue the vpper hand yet Charitie will mooue this Question Whether the Testimonies and Arguments they bring from Scripture are so vndeniably cleare and so vnauoidably strong that no answere or euasion may bee found but the Romane Church must bee refused notwithstanding so much discord and dissention so much inconstancie and incertainetie about Religion which as reason prooueth must and as experience sheweth doth thereupon ensue ANSWER First Protestants doe not onely bring Arguments and Testimonies of Scripture against the Roman faith but also the testimonie of Antiquitie and all other grounds of veritie Secondly their arguments from Scripture are such as cannot be auoided but onely by Sophistrie and in this manner the very arguments of Christ for the resurrection Matth. 22. 32. and the testimonies which Councells and Fathers vse 〈◊〉 Arrians Pelagians and sundry other Heretikes may receiue appearing and seeming solutions Thirdly if the Scripture it selfe and the doctrine of the Primitiue Church with other grounds of learning cannot as our Aduersarie obiecteth de facto or presupposing the malice of some persons 〈◊〉 all discord and inconstancie of Religion much lesse can the determination of the Roman Church effect this For if men will not regard Moses and the Prophets c. If an Angell come from heauen or if one rise from the dead they may still cauill and refuse to beleeue But for the externall repressing of petulant Spirits a free and lawfull Councell were to be desired and a disposition of heart in Christian Princes and in other worthy members of the Church to submit themselues to a Tryall by the holy Scripture and the doctrine of the Primitiue Church and vpon the same to conclude a common Peace in Christianitie and to represse by Discipline and Authoritie factious and turbulent Incendiaries either of the Romish or Protestant part IESVIT For if you cast away the Roman Church and her authoritie no Church is left in the World that can with reason or dares for shame challenge to be infallible in her definitions and if such a Church be wanting What meanes is left either to keepe the learned certainly in peace or to giue vnto the ignorant assurance what is the Doctrine of saluation the Apostles first preached ANSWER You doe well to name Daring and 〈◊〉 for if the Papall faction had not passed all shame they had not to their vsurpations of iurisdiction added the forgerie and vaunt of absolute intallibilitie a priuiledge which I make no doubt no Pope without or with his Papall Councells euer in his inward conscience thought himselfe to haue But as for Ecclesiasticke decisions and determinations we say that although the absolute authoritie of the Roman Church be refused and although no other Church in the world can truely challenge absolute infallibilitie of iudgement but conditionall onely or restrictiue so farre as it propoundeth and confirmeth doctrine out of the Sacred Scriptures yet the learned may be preserued in peace and the ignorant in assurance of veritie First The Holy Ghost hath already determined all questions of faith necessary for the Church to vnderstand by his owne immediate decisiue voice deliuered in Sacred Scripture expresly or deriuatiuely Secondly if any other question arise touching History matter of Fact naturall or morall Veritie Ceremonies and externall Policie c. the same may bee sufficiently decided by Christian prudence working vpon the principles of Reason humane Historie rules of Art and by the examples of former times and principally by the generall rules of holy Scripture and many questions are raysed by the curiositie and subtletie of men wherein if the Church be ignorant and vnresolued there ensueth no preiudice in respect of faith Thirdly if contentious persons lust to continue such the determination of the Roman Church or Councell cannot quell or stifle contention but onely as an humane Iudge and by the same authoritie with other Churches It is also remarkeable that the definitions of the Roman Church it selfe are vncertaine ambiguous mutable and such as Defacto leaue matter of strife among those persons which submit themselues to the resolution thereof The Dominicans and Iesuits contend egerly at this day concerning the sence and Exposition of the Trent Councell in the question of Grace and Free-will Suares and Vasques two prime Iesuits are diuided about the sence of that Councell in the matter of Merit and Satisfaction the like differences are found among many moderne Schoolemen touching the manner of worshipping Images and concerning the presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist whether the same be there by adduction or production wherein Bellarmine holdeth the first and Suares the latter opinion And if our Aduersarie eleuate these dissentions pretending them to be small surely they are as waightie as the differences amongst Protestants And lastly whatsoeuer Romists pretend to the contrarie the transcendent Authority of Popes is no sufficient or Soueraigne means to preserue vnitie either of faith or charitie in the Christian world for when the Papacie was most predominant the Christian world was distracted with contentions about Religion to wit between the Romans Graecians and other Churches and it was imbroyled with bloudy wars betweene Popes and other Princes and Emperours and the Roman See it selfe was rant into Factions by occasion of Antipopes Neither was the transcendent authority of the Roman Church any effectuall meanes to promote common vnitie but the Ambition and Oppression thereof was a perpetuall Seminarie and incentiue of mischiefe and discord therefore the meanes for his most excellent Maiestie to cause vnitie in the Christian world is not the aduancing of Papall Supremacie which is a firebrand of contention but the maintaining of the Supreame authoritie of the Scripture and the procuring if it might be of a free and lawfull Councell wherein the word of Christ may haue Preheminence and wherein the Pope may be a Subiect as well as other Pastours IESVIT A Church fallible in her teaching is by the learned to be trusted no further than they doe see her Doctrine consonant vnto Scripture and so they may neglect her Iudgement when they seeme to haue euidences of Scripture against her and if this libertie of Contradiction be granted What hope of vnitie remaines when a priuate man may wrangle eternally with the whole Church and neuer be conuinced apparently of teaching against the Scriptures whereof we haue too many examples ANSWER A Church fallible in Iudgement is to be trusted when it confirmeth her doctrine by the word of God which is an infallible witnesse And although a Church be subiect to possibilitie of Errour and although the doctrine thereof wanting Diuine proofe is not to be receiued of the learned as matter of Faith yet no libertie of contesting the lawfull authoritie of the same when it confirmeth her sayings by Gods word is hereby permitted to contentious Spirits and it is more probable That Pastors of the
should be fully and sufficiently knowne as by Diuine and infallible Testimonie Lumine proprio by the resplendencie of that Light which it hath in it selfe onely and by the witnesse that it can so giue it selfe I could neuer yet see cause to allow For as there is no place in Scripture that tells vs such Bookes containing such and such particulars are the Canon and the infallible Will and Word of God so if there were any such place that were no sufficient proofe for a man might iustly aske another Booke to beare witnesse of that and againe of that another and where euer it were written in Scripture that must be a part of the whole And no created thing can alone giue witnesse to it selfe and make it euident nor one part testifie for another and satisfie where Reason will but offer to contest Besides if it were so cleare by 〈◊〉 and in giuen Light What should hinder but that all which heare it and doe but vnderstand the Tearmes should presently assent vnto it as men vse to doe to Principles euident in themselues which dayly experience teacheth vs they doe not And this though I cannot approoue yet me thinkes you may and vpon probable grounds at least For I hope no Romanist will denie but that there is as much Light in Scripture to manifest and make ostension of it selfe to be infallibly the written Word of God as there is in any Tradition of the Church that it is Diuine and infallibly the vnwritten Word of God And the Scriptures saying from the mouths of the Prophets Thus saith the Lord and from the mouths of the Apostles That the Holy Ghost spake by them are at least as able and as fit to beare witnesse to their owne Veritie as the Church is to beare witnesse to her owne Traditions by bare saying they come from the Apostles And your selues would neuer goe to the Scripture to prooue that there are Traditions as you doe if you did not thinke the Scripture as easie to be discouered by inbred Light in it selfe as Traditions by their Light And if this be so then it is as probable at the least which some of ours affirme That Scripture may be knowne to be the Word of God by the Light and Lustre which it hath in it selfe as it is which you affirme That a Tradition may be knowne to be such by the Light which it hath in it selfe If this Argument were in ieast this were an excellent Proposition to make sport withall 3. For the third Either some thinke that there is no sufficient warrant for this vnlesse they fetch it from the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost and so looke in vaine after speciall Reuelations and make themselues by thisvery conceit obnoxious and easie to be led by all the whisperings of a seducing priuate Spirit or else you would faine haue them thinke so For your side both vpon this and other occasions doe often challenge that wee resolue all our Faith into the Dictats of a priuate Spirit from which wee shall euer prooue our selues as free if not freer than you To the Question in hand then Suppose it agreed vpon that there must be a Diuine Faith Cui subesse non potest falsum vnder which can rest no possible error That the Bookes of Scripture are the written Word of God If they which goe to the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost for proofe of this doe meane by Faith Obiectum Fidei The Obiect of Faith that is to be beleeued then no question they are out of the ordinarie way for God neuer sent vs by any word or warrant of his to looke for any such speciall and priuate Testimonie to prooue which that Booke is that wee must beleeue But if by Faith they meane the Habite or Act of Diuine infused Faith by which vertue they doe beleeue the Credible Obiect and thing to be beleeued then their speech is true and confessed by all Diuines of all sorts For Faith is the gift of God of God alone and an infased Habite in respect whereof the Soule is meerely recipient And therefore the sole Infuser the Holy Ghost must not be excluded from that worke which none can doe but he For the Holy Ghost as hee first dictated the Scripture to the Apostles so did he not leaue the Church in generall nor the true members of it in particular without grace to beleeue what himselfe had reuealed and made credible So that Faith as it is taken for the vertue of Faith whether it be of this or any other Article though it receiue a kind of preparation or occasion of beginning from the Testimonie of the Church as it proposes and induceth to the Faith yet it ends in God reuealing within and teaching within that which the Church preached without For till the Spirit of God mooue the heart of man he cannot beleeue be the Obiect neuer so eredible The speech is true then but quite out of the state of this Question which enquires onely after a sufficient meanes to make this Obiect credible and fit to be beleeued against all impeachment of follic and temeritie in beleefe whether men doe actually beleeue it or not For which no man may expect inward priuate reuelation without the externall meanes of the Church vnlesse perhaps the case of necessitie be excepted when a man liues in such a Time and Place as excludes him from all ordinarie meanes in which I dare not offer to shut vp God from the soules of men nor to tye him to those ordinarie wayes and meanes to which yet in great wisedome and prouidence hee hath tyed and bound all mankind Priuate Reuelation then hath nothing ordinarily to doe to make the Obiect credible in this That Scripture is the Word of God or in any other Article For the Question is of such outward and euident meanes as other men may take notice of as well as our selues By which if there arise any doubting or infirmitie in the Faith others may strengthen vs or we affoord meanes to support them whereas the Testimonie of the Spirit and all priuate Reuelation is within nor felt nor seene of any but him that hath it so that hence can be drawne no proofe to others Miracles are not sufficient alone to prooue it 〈◊〉 both they and the Reuelation too agree with the Rule of Scripture which is now an vnalterable Rule by Man or Angell 4. The last which giues Reason leaue to come in and prooue what it can may not iustly be denyed by any reasonable man For though Reason without Grace cannot see the way to Heauen nor beleeue this Booke in which God hath written the way yet Grace is neuer placed but in a reasonable creature and prooues by the verie seat which it hath taken vp that the end it hath is to be spirituall eye-water to make Reason see what by Nature onely it cannot but neuer to blemish Reason in that
in the second The Conclusion and not the Meanes For the Conclusion must follow the nature of the premisses or Principles out of which it is deduced therefore if they be sometimes vncertaine as is prooued before the Conclusion cannot be infallible Not in the third The Meanes and not the Conclusion For that cannot but be true and necessarie if the Meanes be so And this I am sure you will neuer graunt because if you should you must denie the infallibilitie which you seeke to establish To this for I confesse the Argument is old but can neuer be worne out nor shifted off your great Maister Stapleton who is miserably hampered in it and indeed so are yee all answers That the infallibilitie of a Councell is in the second course that is It is infallible in the Conclusion though it be vncertaine and fallible in the Meanes and proofe of it How comes this to passe It is a thing altogether vnknowne in Nature and Art too That fallible Principles can either father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion Well that is graunted in Nature and in all Argumentation that causes knowledge But wee shall haue Reasons for it First because the Church is discursiue and vses the weights and moments of Reason in the Meanes but is Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Reuelation from the Spirit of God in deliuering the Conclusion It is but the making of this appeare and all Controuersie is at an end Well I will not discourse here to what end there is any vse of Meanes if the Conclusion be Propheticall which yet is iustly vrged for no good cause can be assigned of it If it be Propheticall in the Conclusion I speake still of the present Church for that which included the Apostles which had the Spirit of Prophesie and immediate Reuelation was euer propheticke in the Definition Then since it deliuers the Conclusion not according to Nature and Art that is out of Principles which can beare it there must be some supernaturall Authoritie which must deliuer this Truth That say I must be the Scripture For if you flye to immediate Reuelation now the Enthusiasme must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the verie Exposition of all the Primitiue Church neyther say it nor inforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your Prophesie in the Conclusion I know no other thing can warrant it If you thinke the Tradition of the Church can make the World beholding to you Produce any Father of the Church that sayes this is an vniuersall Tradition of the Church That her Definitions in a Generall Councell are Propheticall and by immediate Reuelation Produce any one Father that sayes it of his owne authoritie That he thinkes so Nay make it appeare that euer any Prophet in that which he deliuered from God as infallible Truth was euer discursiue at all in the Meanes Nay make it but probable in the ordinarie course of Prophesie and I hope you goe no higher nor will I offer at Gods absolute Power That that which is discursiue in the Meanes can be Propheticke in the Conclusion and you shall be my great Apollo for euer In the meane time I haue learned this from yours That all Prophesie is by Vision Inspiration c. and that no Vision admits discourse That all Prophesie is an Illumination not alwayes present but when the Word of the Lord came to them and that was not by discourse And yet you say againe That this Propheticke infallibilitie of the Church is not gotten without studie and Industrie You should doe well to tell vs too why God would put his Church to studie for the Spirit of Prophesie which neuer anie particular Prophet was put vnto And whosoeuer shall studie for it shall doe itin vaine since Prophesie is a Gift and can neuer be an acquired Habite And there is somewhat in it that Bellarmine in all his Dispute for the Authoritie of Generall Councels dares not come at this Rocke He preferres the Conclusion and the Canon before the Acts and the deliberations of Councels and so doe wee but I doe not remember that euer he speakes out That the Conclusion is deliuered by Prophesie or Reuelation Sure he sounded the Shore and found danger here He did sound it For a little before he speakes plainely Would his bad cause let him be constant Councels doe deduce their Conclusions What from Inspiration No But out of the Word of God and that per ratiocinationem by Argumentation Neyther haue they nor doe they write any immediate Reuelations The second Reason why hee will haue it propheticke in the Conclusion is Because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Faith not of Knowledge And that therefore the Church proposing it to be beleeued though it vse Meanes yet it stands not vpon Art or Meanes or Argument but the Reuelation of the Holy Ghost Else when we embrace the Conclusion proposed it should not be an Assent of Faith but a Habit of Knowledge This for the first part That the Church vses the Meanes but followes them not is all one in substance with the former Reason And for the latter part That then our admitting the Decree ofa Councell would be no Assent of Faith but a Habit of Knowledge What great inconuenience is there if it be graunted For I thinke it is vndoubted Truth That one and the same Conclusion may be Faith to the Beleeuer that cannot prooue and Knowledge to the Learned that can And S. Augustine I am sure in regard of one and the same thing euen this the verie Wisedome of the Church in her Doctrine ascribes Vnderstanding to one sort of men and Beleefe to another weaker sort And Thomas goes with him And for further satisfaction if not of you of others this may be considered too Man lost by sinne the Integritie of his Nature and cannot haue Light enough to see the way to Heauen but by Grace This Grace was first merited after giuen by Christ. This Grace is first kindled in Faith by which if wee agree not to some supernaturall Principles which no Reason can demonstrate simply wee can neuer see our way But this Light when it hath made Reason submit it selfe cleares the Eye of Reason it neuer puts it out In which sense it may be is that of Optatus That the verie Catholike Church it selfe is reasonable as well as diffused euerie where By which Reason enlightned which is stronger than Reason the Church in all Ages hath beene able either to conuert or conuince or stop the mouthes at least of Philosophers and the great men of Reason in the verie point of Faith where it is at highest To the present occasion then The first immediate Fundamentall Points of Faith without which there is no saluation they as they cannot be prooued by Reason so neither need they be determined by any Councell nor euer were they attempted they are