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
conclusion you giue vs that which is worst Iohn 2. 8. The Antecedent or leading part of your Argument is dubious and the Consequence also is infirme First you are not able to prooue out of the Texts Act. 2.42 or Luk. 24.30 that Christ and his Apostles in those places administred the holy Communion for there may be Prayer and breaking of Bread and yet no Sacrament 1. Tim. 4. v. 3.4.5 Also the place Act. 2. 42. may be vnderstood of dealing bread by Eleemosinarie dole to the poore And although some of the Fathers apply these Scriptures to the Eucharist according to the mysticall sence yet other Fathers are contrarie yea many Pontificians expound these Texts of common food or bread and not of the Eucharist But if the first Exposition were true yet Communion in one kinde cannot be hence inferred for either the words are proper or figuratiue If Romists will presse them according to the letter then no wine at all was then vsed by Christ Luc. 24. or by the Apostles Act. 2. and consequently it followeth 〈◊〉 If they will yeeld that there is a 〈◊〉 in the words then euen as when wee reade in sundrie places of Scripture That people meet together to 31.34 〈◊〉 2.10 wee vnderstand by a part of the 〈◊〉 the whole not 〈◊〉 wine or other in the 〈◊〉 Texts making literall mention of bread onely must be vnderstood as mentioning a part of the spirituall Feast for the whole Neither is there any force in the Argument ensuing which is Their eyes were opened to know Christ Ergo They 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread for the eyes may be opened by Miracle Grace and by Donation of Faith Act. 10. 14. without receiuing Eucharisticall Bread The holy Eucharist is not a sole or 〈◊〉 cause of grace 〈◊〉 there are other caufes and meanes besides and therefore the Illation is inconsequent 〈◊〉 an effect which may proceed from diuers and fundrie 〈◊〉 to one speciall and determinate efficient cause But the Aduersarie proceedeth saying That after breaking of bread Christ straight way vanished out of their sight and they hastened to Hierusalem with all speed Therefore there was no space after receiuing the Bread for the sumption of Wine The Reader may perceiue by these and other such like writhings of the Text vpon what foundation Popish Faith is builded First The word Straight wayes is not in the Narration Luke 24. Secondly The receiuing a small quantitie of Wine could neither hinder our Sauiours expedition nor the Apostles iourney to Ierusalem Thirdly How appeareth it that receiuing Eucharisticall Bread made the Disciples more agile in bodie and prompter in minde to trauell to Hierusalem for two Disciples ranne to the Sepulchre with as much allacritie and expedition as was possible 〈◊〉 20. 4 and yet they had at that present time receiued no Eucharisticall Bread Yea on the contrarie the Apostles of Christ after the receiuing of the holy Eucharist doe all of them flie away and forsake their Master Math. 26.58 This collection therefore The Disciples hasted to Hierusalem Ergo They receiued the Eucharist is dissolute and not much vnlike that of Pope Boniface the eight God said Let vs make two great lights Ergo The Pope is greater than the Emperour IESVIT These bee the Warrants that Communion vnder one kinde hath being the greatest that may bee whereby appeares that the Roman Church is furnisht with all kinde of proofe in this point in which she doth seeme to her Aduersaries to be most forsaken of Antiquitie Now supposing Communion vnder one kinde to be good and lawfull That the Church could preseribe it and That shee had iust reasons to prescribe it J will let passe without proofe as a thing not doubted of by your Maiesties excellent wisedome ANSVVER All your warrants for halfe Communions are meere Impostures and audacious words and figments Commota semel excussa mens ei seruit à quo impellitur saith Seneca The mind which is disordered and put out of frame becomes a slaue to that which impells it This is verified in you you want all kinds of iust defence for your Sacriledge in mangling and dismembring the holy Communion yet hauing once ouershot your selues and become slaues to your owne conceit of not being subiect to errour Litigare magis quam sanari vultis you chuse rather to make warre with heauen than to retract your errour for they warre with heauen which oppose the Testament of the Sonne of God the Tradition of the holy Apostles and the practise of the Primitiue Church and this is your case although you list not to see it or rather seeing to acknowledge it THE EIGHT POINT WORKES OF SVPERERROGATION SPECIALLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE TREASVRE OF THE CHVRCH IESVIT IT is hard if not impossible to giue satisfaction in this point vnto any that is not aforehand persuaded of the Catholicke Doctrine of Merit ANSVVER THe word or name of merit is taken in two notions First properly strictly and vniuocally Ro. 4.4 Deu. 7.10 Secondly improperly largely and equiuocally Eccle. 16.15 The first is tearmed by Schoolemen Merit of Condignitie and the latter Merit of Impetration or of Congruitie If the Iesuit maintaine Merit according to the first acceptation then out of all question the Doctrine of Merit is not Catholicke If he maintaine Merit according to the second notion then Popes pardons and workes of Supererogation cannot be inferred or concluded from the doctrine of Merit for how can that action bee applied to other persons as satisfactorie which is rewarded by God of his free fauour and grace aboue the desert of the person himselfe which hath wrought it IESVITS §. 1. The Doctrine of Merit declared THis Doctrine is much misliked by Protestants as proud and arrogant yet not so much misliked as misunderstood their dislike growing from misconstruction thereof For Catholickes hold that no worke is meritorious with God of it owne nature but to make the same meritorious many graces are required and those most diuine and excellent particularly these seuen ANSVVER CAn any thing be more arrogant and foolish than for a miserable begger and sinner whose iustice is rather in remission of sinnes than in perfection of vertues to maintaine that God should be vniust if he rendred not heauen to mans good workes And yet this proud Doctrine is deliuered by the Rhemists and by some other Romists But our Aduersarie laboureth by distinction to salue this Pharisaisme saying Good workes are not meritorious by their nature but by many graces c. I answer If he should maintaine that Good workes merit iustification or perseuerance not by their Nature but by Grace this distinction would not free his Tenet from error so likewise it is erroneus to maintaine that Good works merit glorie by Grace for that which is of Merit is not of Grace but of debt And diuine grace doth not eleuate vertuous actions by adding vnto them a force of meriting but
haue vs reade touching his owne sayings and workes this hee commanded the Euangelists as it were his owne hands to write And in another place Although Christ spake and wrought some things which are not written yet those things which seemed vnto him sufficient to the saluation of beleeuers were selected to be written Saint Cyrill also affirmeth that all things which Christ did are not written but so much as holy writers iudged sufficient both for good manners and godly faith to the end that we shining in right faith good workes and vertue may attaine the heauenly Kingdome By the iudgement of these Fathers the holy Euangelists committed to writing so much of our Sauiours Doctrine and deeds as is sufficient for people to know that they may bee illustrious in faith and vertue and by the light whereof they may come to saluation In these things therefore the Euangelists did not cursorily touch matters but largely and fully deliuer them Secondly if the Scriptures containe all things sufficient to saluation yea more than is sufficient then the Apostles in their Scriptures did not cursorily or by the way onely touch matters But the first is affirmed both by the Fathers and confessed by some learned Papists Vincent 〈◊〉 The Canon of the Scripture is perfit and in it selfe sufficient for all matters yea more than sufficient Antonius Perez Pentateuch fidei vol. 4. c. 21. If the Scripture be compared and applied with things which faith teacheth as necessarie to saluation the same is apparently redundant and superfluous according to the nature of a rule because there be many things yea most things in the same the knowledge whereof is vnnecessarie But if the Scripture containe many 〈◊〉 superfluous and more than is needfull it is improbable 〈◊〉 thinke that it is imperfect in Principals or deliuereth them 〈◊〉 onely or by the way Thirdly the variety and multitude of points and doctrines of faith and good manners and the often repeating and declaring of them in the holy Scriptures prooueth that the Apostles 〈◊〉 fully and perfectly deliuer in their writings the whole 〈◊〉 of Christian faith and not onely cursorily touch them For all supernaturall veritie concerning the sacred Deitie Trinitie diuine Attributes and Operations Creation of the world c. is taught in holy Scripture In like manner the whole doctrine of faith concerning the Incarnation Person and Office of Christ is reuealed vnto vs by holy Scripture And for this cause Saint Cyrill calleth the Scriptures Solos fontes veritatis The sole fountaines of veritie All things concerning Iustification Charitie and good workes being meerely supernaturall are taught in Scripture The doctrine of the Law Gospell Sacraments resurrection of the dead finall iudgement c. is intirely and fully reuealed in the holy Scriptures and the Church according to Saint Augustine hath onely two brests wherewith shee feedeth her children to wit the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament And that he alwayes vnderstandeth by the Old and New Testament the Scriptures of both appeareth by his words vpon Psal. 22. Aperi legamus c. Let vs open our Fathers last Testament and reade it And 〈◊〉 the great 〈◊〉 Apostolice 〈◊〉 nec non antiquorum Prophetarum 〈◊〉 plane 〈◊〉 de sensu Numinis The Euangelicall and Apostolicall bookes together with the Oracles of the antient Prophets doe plainely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euidently instruct vs concerning the minde of God And from all the former it is manifest that the Apostles writings are not patches and shreds onely of Apostolicall Doctrine as our 〈◊〉 against all antiquitie presumeth to affirme but the very substance and marrow of their whole Preaching containing the summe of the Gospell by faith and obedience whereof wee receiue euerlasting life And thus much touching the Antecedent of the Iesuits Argument The sequel of the former Argument which is Because without precedent instruction by vnwritten Tradition wee cannot be firmely assured that wee haue the right sence of the Scripture therefore the last and finall resolution is made vnto vnwritten Tradition and not into Scripture is inconsequent and the Antecedent proueth not the Consequent for precedent Tradition may bee necessarie to deliuer vnto vs the text of holy Scripture and Precpts how to expound and vse the same and by Tradition wee may receiue a Commentarie of some texts of holy Scripture yet euen as a Schollar although hee receiue the bookes of Euclid and Aristotle from a Master and precepts in what sort hee shall proceed in his studie and withall a Commentary declaring the meaning of these Authours yet hee doth not finally being made learned himselfe resolue his knowledge into the former but into the principles of these Arts themselues so likewise a nouice in faith receiueth the holy Scripture by Ministerie and Tradition of the Church and Precepts and Commentaries whereby hee is first inabled and afterwards holpen in the right exposition thereof yet after this Introduction by further studie and diligence hee collecteth Arguments from the Scripture it selfe and being instructed in the sence thereof he doth not finally resolue his beleefe into the Commentarie and Introduction but into the text or Doctrine of holy Scripture it selfe IESVIT Hence I may further inferre that Protestants haue not throughly pondered the place of the Apostle vnto Timothie which they 〈◊〉 vehemently vrge to prooue the sufficiencie of sole Scripture for euery man as though he had said absolutely that the Scriptures are able to instruct or make men wise vnto Saluation which he saith not but speaking particularly vnto Timothie saith They are able to instruct or make thee wise vnto saluation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hast been aforehand instructed by word of mouth and doost thereupon firmely beleeue all substantiall Doctrines and knowest all the necessarie practise of Christian Discipline ANSWER The Aduersarie in this passage vseth certaine Arguments to prooue that Protestants misunderstand the Text of S. Paul 2. Timoth. 3.15 16. when they vrge the same to maintaine the sufficiencie of sole Scripture to be a ground for all Christians finally to rest their faith vpon His first Argument is The Apostle saith not absolutely that the Scriptures are able to make all men wise vnto Saluation but particularly to Timothie a man instructed aforehand and formerly 〈◊〉 all substantiall grounds of Doctrine and Discipline they are able 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make thee being such a one and so prepared wise c. To this I answere 1. That although sentences of holy Scripture are sometimes restrained to the personall or particular subiect of which they are first spoken yet this is not generall and when the same happeneth it must be prooued by better Arguments than by the bare Emphasis of a word For God said to Ioshua a man qualified aboue the ordinarie ranke I will not leaue thee nor forsake thee Ioshua 1. 5. yet the promise implied in this Text is generall and common to all iust
part onely is immediately the Word of God and the other part is a collection arising vpon reflection and obseruation of a mans owne qualities and actions and the conclusion is more or lesse certaine according to the condition of the second Proposition Fourthly The certaintie and assurance of their owne particular Iustification which iust persons attaine vnto is reduced by vs to certaintie and assurance of Faith because one ground thereof is a Proposition or Sentence mediately Diuine the other is inferred and concluded from that which is Diuine for the Rule by which a man discerneth himselfe to beleeue and repent is the Doctrine of Gods Word declaring the qualitie of Faith and Repentance Many Pontificians maintaine That this Proposition to wit Pope Gregorie the fifteenth is S. Peters Successor is of Faith and yet the same is not an immediate Diuine Reuelation and the collection thereof from that which is reuealed is lesse euident and certaine than that which a iust person maketh concerning his owne particular Faith and Charitie Fiftly The difference betweene some learned Papists who liued since the Trident Councell and vs concerning this Question is very small if it be any at all for they maintaine That iust persons may haue a true and certaine assurance without distrustfull doubting of their Iustification and that infused Faith enclineth and leadeth immediately to this certaintie and assurance And it is worthie obseruation which Andreas Vega deliuereth concerning the Trident Councell saying Non negat sciri hoc posse per fidem sed tantum negat sciri hoc posse certitudine fidei The Councell denyeth not that one may be able to know by Faith that he is in the state of Grace but it denyeth onely that this can be knowne by certaintie of Faith It is also remarkable That whiles the Romists accuse vs about the definition of iustifying Faith they forget the Beame which is in their owne eye for they make such a Faith the foundation of true Iustification as is common with Deuils Iam. 2. 19. and which according to their owne Doctrine is no true Vertue It is saith Michael Palacius a great Question and as yet vndecided among vs Whether Faith be a true Vertue or not and Albertus thinketh it is not properly a Vertue but onely improperly Aquinas It hath not a perfect Act and therefore it cannot be a Vertue The like is affirmed by Bonauenture Durand Archangelus Rubeo c. And the same is manifest by reason For Vertue is a good qualitie making the person in whom it is seated and his actions good and the Faith which the holy Scripture and the antient Fathers require to Iustification purifieth the heart Acts 15.9 and impelleth vnto righteousnesse Heb. 11. 33. But informed Catholike Faith performeth none of these things Iam. 2. 17. And therefore the Romists depart from the Scripture and from Antiquitie when they appoint a dead and informed Faith which is no Vertue to be the foundation of true Iustification Lastly Our Doctrine concerning the forme and manner of Iustification is the same which Peter Lombard the Maister of the Schoole affirmed to be Orthodoxall in his dayes His words are these Wee are said also to be iustified by the death of Christ because by the Faith of his Death wee are cleansed from our sinnes Whereupon the Apostle saith The righteousnesse of God is by the Faith of Iesus Christ Rom. 3. 22. whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his bloud Verse 25. that is through Faith of his Passion euen as in times past they which were bitten of fierie Serpents were made whole by looking vpon the Brazen Serpent which was raysed vpon a peece of Wood. If therefore wee by the aspect of Faith rightly behold him who was hanged vpon a Tree for vs wee are loosed from the bonds of Sathan to wit from our sinnes 〈◊〉 Vega affirmeth That many Romane Doctors in former dayes denyed that men were formally iustified by any created qualitie inhaerent but onely by the free grace and fauour of God accepting man and imparting the righteousnesse of Christ vnto him And that vntill the Trident Councell the present Doctrine of Pontificians concerning the formall cause of Iustification was onely receiued as probable And before the said Councell many learned Papists to wit Albertus Pighius the Councell of Colen set forth by Gropper Antididagma Coloniense Conradus Clingius c. maintained our Doctrine concerning the formall cause of Iustification and were not condemned of Heresie by the Romane Church Wherefore the same cannot in these dayes be a fundamentall Error in vs. IESVIT FIftly Their extenuating the value of the price of our Redemption not making it sufficient to giue inward sanctitie and puritie to mens soules nor to rayse the good Workes of Gods children to a due proportion with their reward ANSWER NO Christian Church euer prised the oblation and merits of Christ more highly and religiously than wee Heb. 10. 14. Eph. 5.2 Acts 4. 12. Ioh. 1.29 and wee firmely beleeue the inestimable price and vertue thereof for mans Redemption Sanctification Iustification and Glorification 1. Cor. 1. 30. And in particular wee beleeue expressely and contrarie to our Aduersaries accusation That the same is all-sufficient to iustifie a sinner in the sight of God and to giue true and inhaerent sanctitie and puritie to mens soules and actions first in this life sanctitie and puritie secundum statum viae according to the condition of mans wayfaring state secondly in the life to come sanctitie and puritie of perfect righteousnesse without error or sinne And we beleeue that the Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse effecteth all this both by way of merit and influence Rom. 6. 3 4 5. Ioh. 15. 1. c. What then doth this Popish Momus accuse in our Doctrine I suppose his owne fancie for it is ordinarie with Papals to calumniate saying That wee hold Good workes to be mortall sinnes and that they are Vertues onely by extrinsecall denomination and hee is also offended that wee make not Good workes properly and condignely meritorious Concerning the first I referre my Reader to the words of Melancthon and Beza who treating of this Question speake as followeth Although the workes of regenerate persons are not so perfect and good as that they are able to merit eternall life yet they are truly good because they proceed from the Holy Ghost who purisieth the heart by Faith and because God is glorified by them and wee our selues receiue excellent fruit by them c. The same are good in regard of their obiect forme efficient and end Psal. 119. 167. Galath 5.22 Phil. 2.13 1. Cor. 10.31 They are good fruits opposed to euill fruits Matth. 7.17 workes of Light opposed to workes of Darknesse Eph. 5.9 a spirituall Sacrifice acceptable to God Phil. 4.18 And the same are truly good non comparatione scelerum not
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
and dutifull respect towards the King how commeth it to passe that Roman Priests and Iesuits haue had their singer in euerie treason intended against his Maiestie yea formerly against Queene Elizabeth and the state and wherefore doe you your selfe decline the Oath of Allegeance and persecute some of your owne part because they persuade and maintaine the lawfulnesse of this Oath Thirdly If you be vnwilling for feare of afterclaps to dispute or deliuer your iudgement concerning this question this feare of danger becommeth not a Diuine of resolution And S. Bernards rule is Melius est vt scandalum oriatur quam vt veritas relinquatur It is better that scandall happen than that Veritie be forsaken which is most to be obserued in matter of Faith such as this is made by your faction and tending by the denying thereof to the ruine of soules as yee pretend IESVIT But seeing that those of our Societie are odiously traduced as maintainers of Doctrine extolling the Popes authoritie to the preiudice of Princes more than any other Diuines of the Roman Religion J sinceerely in the sight of Almightie God protest vnto your Maiestie that I neuer knew any Iesuit who was permitted either by word or writing to hold any singular opinion in this point but such as are ordinarily held by other Diuines secular and religious ANSWER There be three opinions maintained respectiuely by Roman Diuines concerning the present question 1. The first is negatiue to wit the Pope by vertue of his office hath not any power or authoritie to depose Princes or to dispose of their crownes or liues for any cause crime end or good whatsoeuer 2. The second is affirmatiue That the Romane Pope hath a direct power to depose and vnstate them and that Romish Catholiques are obliged to assist the Pope in the execution of his sentence of decrowning Princes and translating their crownes 3. The third is pendulous with shew of Limitation and Mitigation to wit The Pope hath an indirect Power limitted and circumscribed by many Cautions and Prouisoes in deposing Princes c. The first Tenet is Orthodoxall grounded vpon holy Scripture and the Testimonie of the Primitiue Fathers and the consent of many famous Doctors in all Ages whose mouthes the malice and tyrannie of Popes was neuer able to stop but they freely and successiuely to this Age haue propugned this Diuine Veritie The second Opinion is falsely fathered vpon Pope Zacharie the first but indeed no elder than Pope Gregorie the seuenth a Brand of Hell and it was ripened by many of his Successors and fomented by sundrie Parasites and Assassines of Rome and is by many Modernes defended The third Opinion maintained by Bellarmine may seeme for manner of speaking to be more moderate than the former but in weight and consequence it is equally false and pernitious for it hath the same effects yeelding Authoritie to Popes to depose Princes when the same appeareth to themselues reasonable and for the benefit of the Roman Cause it armeth subiects to Rebellion and enemies to mischiefe and it prouideth that Regall Maiestie shall depend vpon Papall discretion and deuotion But the Iesuit our Aduersarie washeth his hands like Pilate Matth. 27. 24. pretending That he and his fellowes good men are cleare from shedding Royall Bloud or treading Scepters in the myre hee neuer knew any Iesuit who was permitted either by word or writing to hold any singular Opinion in this Point approoue and receiue the Oath of Allegeance and wee shall be more readie to credit Protestations concerning their fidelitie to his Royall Maiestie and the State IESVIT For my owne particular as I reuerence the Pope as Christ his Vicar on earth yet I doe vtterly disclaime from enlarging his power ouer the temporalties of Princes by any singular opinions of mine or more than definitions of Councells and consent of Diuines doth force me to hold and Popish Diuines are not farre to seeke which haue exalted the Popes Temporall Soueraigntie as farre ouer Princes as Heauen is aboue the Earth And therefore saying That you hold no singular Opinions more than Definitions and consent of Diuines you leaue a libertie to your selfe to close in your Opinion with Pope Hildebrand Pope Boniface the eight and with Baronius and Bosius Aluares Pelagius Augustinus ab Anchona Panormitan yea and with the Deuill himselfe IESVIT In Points where there is libertie of Opinion I shall still encline to that part which doth most fauour the quiet tranquilitie honour and temporall independencie of my Prince Wherefore I humbly craue of your most gracious Maiestie to be content with this my answer and reuerent silence springing as well from respect vnto your sacred Person and Authoritie as also from vowed obedience vnto the Generall of our Order who hath particularly forbidden vs all to treat of this odious Argument not to giue your Maiestie any cause of iust offence as appeareth by what I here insert out of his owne Letters Praecipitur in virtute Sanctae Obedientiae sub poena Excommunicationis inhabilitatis ad quaeuis officia suspensionis à Diuinis alijs Praepositi Generalis arbitrio reseruatis ne quis nostrae Societatis publicé aut priuatim praelegendo seu consulendo multo etiam minus libros conscribendo affirmare praesumat licitum esse cuiquam personae quocunque praetextu Tyrannidis Reges aut Principes occidere seu mortem eis machinari Prouinciales autem qui aliquid eorum resciuerint nec emandarint aut non praeuenerint incommoda quae ex contraria opinione sequi possunt efficiendo vt hoc Decretum Sancte obseruetur non modo praedictas poenas incurrere sed etiam Officio priuari voluit Pub. Claudius Epist. Dat. 1614. 1. Augusti In virtute Obedientiae commendatur Prouincialibus ne in sua Prouincia quidquam quacunque occasione aut lingua euulgari patiantur à nostris in quo de potestate summi Pontificis supra Reges Principesque aut de Tyrannicidio agatur c. Ex Epist. P. Claudij Dat. 1614. 2. August ANSWER There is touching the maine no libertie of Opinion in this case Your Great Master must be aut Caesar aut nullus eyther all or nothing And that which you adde concerning the Generall of your Order is a meere Illusion For may not yea must not the Generall of your Order if the Lord Pope require it vntie this fast knot of Iesuiticall fidelitie to the temporall state and what safetie can Princes inioy by relying vpon those seruants which stand Centinell at an houres warning to follow their greater Master And what if the next moneth after the Generall of your Order will send to you and your fellowes the like Mandatorie Letters to the contrarie To say the truth your answere hath made the whole matter more suspitious For what need you and your brood be thus curbed
Ibid. cap. 2. Quas oues quem Gregem non solum tune Beatus 〈◊〉 Petrus sed nobiscum eas suscepit cumillo cas nos suscepimus omnes b Iren. lib. 4. cap. 43. Eis qui in Ecclesia sunt Presbyteris obaudire oporter his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatus successione Charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt Ibid. cap. 44. Qui Apostolorum Doctrinam custodiunt Greg. Nazian Orat. 21. d. laud. Basil. Qui eandem Fidei doctrinam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quoque throni particeps est c. a Bellarm. d. Pontif Rom. praef Extrauag com l. 1. tit 9. d. Maior obed ca. vnam sanctam Subesse Rom. Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus dicimus definimus pronunciam ' omnino esse de necessitate salutis Paul Cararia sum mor. Canon q. 2. ar 4. p. 4. n. 26. Non solum omnis fidelis populus verum etiam infidelis omnis rationalis creatura Papae imperio subiacet b Canus loc l. 6. c. 8. Romanum Pontif. Petrosucoedere non est perse quidem in Sacris literis Reuelatum Dried d. Ecclesia Dogm l. 4. c. 3. c Soto 4. Sent. Dist. 24. q. 2. ar 5. Nulli particulari Ecclesiae addixit neque aliunde institutio Christi circa hoc constat c. Cusan Concord Cath. l. 2. c. 34. pa. 599. Non 〈◊〉 probari Rom. Pontif. perpetuum Principem 〈◊〉 esse Succession in loco non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 AEneus Sylu. d. gest Basil. Concil l. 1. Ioannes 〈◊〉 The 〈◊〉 peritissimus glossam illam singularem quae Rom. Ecclesiam orbi praeponeret dixitse omnino contemnere beneque singularem esse quae tam fatua diceret indignumque fore vt illam quispiam 〈◊〉 c. a Chrys in Act. Apost Hom. 3. Petrus egit omnia ex communi Discipulorum 〈◊〉 nihil ex 〈◊〉 nihil cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b Saint 〈◊〉 liued 30. yeeres after Saint Peter Baron annual to 1. An. 69. n. 1. to 2. Anno. 101. n. 2. 〈◊〉 Haer. 66. Praeterijt generatio Apostolorum à Petro inquam vsque ad 〈◊〉 Ioannem qui etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in mundo vsque ad 〈◊〉 tempora c Eusebius in his 〈◊〉 Historie speaketh no word of it Bulenger c. 〈◊〉 Si quando apud Eusebium aliosque nonnullos de potestate sedis Apostolicae Paulo obscurius agi videris Sic 〈◊〉 ante be 〈◊〉 illud 〈◊〉 seculum c. d 〈◊〉 apud Cypr. Ep. 75. Atque ego in hac parte 〈◊〉 indignor ad hanc tam apertam manifestam Stephani stultitiam quod qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloriatur se successionem Petri tenere contendit Tertul. d. pud c. 21. De tua nunc sententia quero vndè hoc 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae vsurpes Si quia dixerit Petro. Dominus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam tibi dedi claues Regni caelorum velquaecunque alligaueris c. Qualis es euertens atque commutans manifestam Domini intenrionem personaliter hoc Petro conferentem super te inquit aedificabo Ecclesiam meam e Euseb. Hist. l. 5. c. 26. f Chalced. Concil Act. 16. ca. 28. Centum quinquaginta Dei amantiss Episc. sanctiss noua Roma throno 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aequalia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recte iudicantes vrbem quae imperio senatu honorata sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aequalibus 〈◊〉 antiquiss Regina Roma priuilegijs fruatur etiam in rebus Ecclesiast non secus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ac illa extolli magni fieri secundam post illam existentem g Greg. li. 4. Epist. 31. 32. 34. 38. 39. li. 6. Epist. 24. Cusan Concord Cath. li. 2. c. 34. h Graeci Asiani c. Nilus Archiepisc. 〈◊〉 l. c. d. Primat Papae a 〈◊〉 d. Spir. sanct ca. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Damas. lib. 4. ca. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Cyril in Iohan. li. 4. ca. 9. Ianua via in vitamsides est recursus quidam atquè reductio à corruptione in immortalitatem Aug. d. Temp. Serm. 181. Fides omnium bonorum est 〈◊〉 humanae salutis initium Sine hac nemo ad numerum 〈◊〉 Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sine 〈◊〉 in hoc seculo nec iustificationis consequitur gratiam nec in futuro possidebit vitam 〈◊〉 Fulgent d. Incarn Grat. c. 20. Vita nostra à fide sumit initium quia justus ex fide viuit 〈◊〉 Sum. li. 3. 〈◊〉 12. q. 2. Nos sequentes authoritatem Apostoli expositiones Sanctorum dicimus quod fides formata praecedit omnem aliam 〈◊〉 Origen sup c. 4. ep ad Rom. Aug. sup Psal. 31. Et d. Verb. Apost serm 22. b Meisner Anthrop Dec. 3. p. 329. Credimus peccata nobis esse remissa sed haec fides formalitèr non iustificat verum 〈◊〉 sequitur c Musculus loc com d. Remiss pecc sect 6. Discernendum est intèr eam gratiam Dei quae nullas habet adiectas conditiones qualis est quod Solem suum producit supèr bonos 〈◊〉 c. Et cam quae conditionaliter confertur ad quem modum remissio peccatorum nobis contingit d Beza Colloq Mompelgard pa. 471. Edit Tubing Consolatio quod adoptati sumus petenda est ex effectis spiritus sancti quandò videlicet sentimus in nobis eiusmodi motus spiritus sancti qui testificantur nos vetè regeneratos e Aug. d. Cor. Grat. c. 13. Quis ex multitudine fidelium quamdiu in hac mortalitate viuitur in numero 〈◊〉 se esse praesumat quià id occultari opus est in hoc loco vbi cauenda est elatio a Ioh. Ferus sup Math. 8. v. 8. Vera fides fiducialitèr accedit nòn dubitat Deū posse aut velle ca. 9. v. 2. Fides haec nihil aliud fuit quā fiducia in misericordiā Christi b The manner of this 〈◊〉 assent is Being humbled with sence of mine owne iniustice I beleeue that God will be mercifull vnto me and pardō all my sinnes for the merits of Christ my Sauior and I depend and relie only vpon the merits of my Rodeemer as vpon the prime cause of my iustification c Iansen Conc. Euang. c. 32 p. 206. Nomine fidei in Euangelijs cùm ei tribuitur salus aut consecutio omniū 〈◊〉 volumus compleri vtrumque nempè assensum illū firmum in credendis de Deo ac Christo fiduciam ex illius omnipotente bonitare conceptam Bernard ser. 3. d. Annunciat Nèc oleum misericordiae nisi in vase fiduciae ponis d 〈◊〉 Dicimus Fidem in disputatione Paudi de iustificatione accipi vt complectatur non solum 〈◊〉 verùm etià m 〈◊〉 in Christum propitiatorem e Ferus sup Math. c. 8. citatur à Sixto Senensi Biblioth lib. 6. 〈◊〉 48. Non sempèr Fides est quod nos Fidem dicimus Fidem nos dicimus 〈◊〉