Church then it is not necessarie that because God will haue all men to be saued by his antecedent will therefore the true Church must in all ages be visibly vniuersall A contingent cause vndetermined doth not produce or argue a constant certaine and necessarie effect The antecedent will of God is a contingent cause in respect of the perpetuall visible vniuersalitie of the Church Ergo The antecedent will of God doth not produce or argue a perpetuall visible vniuersalitie of the Church For if notwithstanding the antecedent will of God many singular persons and whole nations may be for some space of time destitute of outward calling by the ministerie of the Church and of all morall possibilitie for that space of time of the hauing thereof and are not guiltie of the sinne of infidelitie because without any speciall demerit of their owne they are destitute of the word of Faith as it is maintained by Aquinas and his followers then the antecedent will of God is only a contingent cause in respect of producing arguing outward calling by the ministerie of the Church and consequently of the perpetuall visible vniuersalitie of the true Church But the first is true as appeareth by the Indies before Columbus arriuing in their coasts and by many barbarous people and nations liuing in remote regions and hauing no preachers of the Gospell sent vnto them before the two hundred fiue hundred or six hundred yeare after Christ Ergo The latter is also true IESVIT Sixtly this Church is holy both in life and doctrine holy for life shining in all excellent and wonderfull sanctitie such as the Apostles gaue example of as Pouertie Chastitie Obedience Virginitie Charitie in vndergoing labours for the helpe of Soules Fortitude in suffering heroicall Martyredomes Zeale and Patience in the rigorous treatie of their bodies by miraculous Fasting and other austerities ANSVVER Sanctitie is a propertie and inseperable qualitie of the true Church in respect of all the liuing members thereof Cant. 4. 7. Eph. 5.26 27. 1. Cor. 14.33 Rom. 1.7 Eph. 1.18 c. 4.12 Phil. 4.21 Coll. 1.12 1. Cor. 6.11 1. Iohn 3.18 And the same is called holy First Because it is clensed and washed from the guiltinesse of sinne by the immaculate blood of Christ Apoc. 1.5 Heb. 10.10 c. 13.12 Secondly Because it is pertaker of the holinesse of Christ the head thereof by Grace 1. Cor. 1.30 Ephes. 5.30 Iohn 17.19 Heb. 12.10 and because of the speciall inhabitation and operation of the holy Ghost Ephes. 1.13 1. Cor. 3.17 1. Thessal 4.8 2. Tim. 1. 14. Thirdly Because it is called and consecrated vnto holinesse 2. Tim. 1.9 1. Pet. 2.9 1. Thessal 4.7 Apoc. 1.6 Fourthly Because the Faith Doctrine Lawes Sacraments and Religion thereof are holy Iud. v. 20. 2. Pet. 2.20 Tit. 3.5 Fiftly Because the vertues and actions thereof are truely and indeed holy whereas the vertues of Infidels which liue out of the Church are prophane and vnholy as bearing the image of vertue but wanting the true forme and fruit thereof But our Aduersarie passeth by these causes and reasons of the sanctitie of the Church being proper and essentiall which are deliuered in the holy Scripture and will haue the same to be reputed holy because of monasticall vowes of Pouertie Obedience and Chastitie and for externall Fastings Whippings wearing of Haire-cloth and other bodily exercises which some Heremites and Cloysterers performe in the Roman Church Touching this Assertion we are to obserue First that the Iesuit doth onely affirme these things but bringeth no proofe and therefore it were sufficient for me to say with S. Hierom Quod de Scripturis non habet authoritatem eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur That which wanteth authoritie from the Scriptures may as well bee despised as receiued Secondly when the principall Doctors of the Romish Church deliuer the causes why the true Church is stiled Holy they either omit these externall exercises or else onely mention them as accessarie Turrccrem sum d. Eccles. l. 1. c. 9. Cordub Arma. fid q. 1. propos 2. Bannes 22. q. 1. ar 10. Bellarm. d. Eccles l. 4. c. 11. Greg. Val. to 3. Disp. 1. punct 7. Thirdly these exercises are common to hypocrites and heretickes and they make not people holy and good which vse them and the Church may bee holy without them and therefore they are no constitutiue parts or essentiall properties of the sanctitie of the Church That the same are common appeareth by the example of the Pharisees and of many Heretickes which vsed these exercises with great austeritie and yet they were no sound parts of the holy Catholicke Church And that the Church may be holy without these exercises is manifest by reason and example The Church which wanteth these things may haue all the causes of sanctitie to wit Faith Hope Charitie Regeneration remission of sinnes c. Therefore it may bee holy without them And the Church of the Hebrews to which Saint Paul wrote his Epistle was an holy Church yet Saint Chrysostome saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There was not so much as any footstep of a Monke c. Fourthly these monasticall vowes haue many times distained and corrupted the Church and therefore they are no mayne or proper actions of holinesse Aluares Pelagius saith of the Monkes and Cloysterers of his age that they were Paupertatis professores sed haereditatum successores Professours of pouertie and heires apparant to euerie mans land Mathew Paris saith That the Mendicants in England raised stately buildings equall to Princes palaces and they hoorded vp inualuable treasure c. And Papirius Masson saith Pouertie which religious Orders seeme to professe is more hatefull to them than to any other sort of men The vow of Chastitie made the most of them more impure than dogs and to stinke before God and men That many of them were Sodomites is affirmed by no meaner man than Saint Bernard who saith Besides fornication adulterie and incest the deedes of ignominie and turpitude for which the cities of Sodome and Gomorrha were predamned are not wanting c. Rodericus a famous Bishop saith That Votaries and Regulars were not satisfied with one woman but kept Concubines and young Damosells sans number Alphonsus Castro saith The incontinencie of Priests is in these dayes so frequent that if but one of them be knowne to liue chastly although many other necessarie 〈◊〉 lities be wanting in him he is esteemed a holy man by the people for this one qualitie Aluares Pelagius saith That the Cells of Anchorites were dayly visited by women And in another place Priests for many yeeres together doe arise euerie day from their Concubines sides and without going to Confession say Masse And in another place Quis Clericorum intra sanctam Ecclesiam Castitatem seruat What Clerke is there within the holy Church which obserueth
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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those things which are behind or wanting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the afflictions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ in my flesh 〈◊〉 his body which is the Church The first part of these words prooueth that S. Paul suffered for the Collossians But because he might suffer for the confirmation of their faith or as an example of patience or by way of persecution because he preached the Gospell to them and other Churches it cannot be concluded that hee suffered to make satisfaction for their sinnes Secondly The next words conclude not Satisfaction for Christs Afflictions and Passions are of two kinds Some Personall and in his owne flesh Some By Sympathie and compassion in his members The first are satisfactorie the second are exemplarie purgatiue probatiue or for the edifying of the Church S. Paul supplyed not or perfected not the first Esa. 63.3 for then Christs sufferings vpon the Crosse were imperfect but both S. Paul and all other iust persons which patiently beare affliction and indure the Crosse supply and accomplish that which is yet wanting in Christ as he is considered in a mysticall vnion to his Church Christ saith to Saul Act. 9.4 Saul Saul Why persecutest thou me and v. 5. I am Iesus whom thou persecutest S. Augustine and S. Gregorie say That Christ and the Church are one mysticall Body Therefore when the members suffer the head suffers and the afflictions of the members are the afflictions of Christ 2. Cor. 1. 5. 1. Cor. 12. 12. It is also remarkeable that not onely the Fathers but the maior part of Popish Doctors expound this Scripture in such sort that it serueth not at all to maintaine Papall Indulgences And Estius a moderne Pontifician saith That whereas 〈◊〉 of his part straine the Text of S. Paul to prooue Satisfactions and Indulgences himselfe is of mind that the said Doctrine cannot effectually be prooued by this place The other place 2. Cor. 12. 15. I wil verie gladly spend and be spent for you or as the Rhemists translate I most gladly will bestow and will my selfe moreouer be bestowed for your soules affoordeth no argument for Satisfactions and Pardons Caietan Estius Iustinian and other Popish expositors themselues deliuer the sence of this Text in manner following S. Paul manifesteth his paternall affection to the Corinthians saying I am readie not only as a Father to bestow all that I haue vpon you so farre am I from seeking any thing of yours but also to spend my life for you Now by what Art or Engine can Papists extort Pardons or Satisfactions out of this Text doth it follow that if Saint Paul be readie to spend himselfe life and state for the good of his flocke therefore there is a rich stocke and treasure of superabundant Passions and Satisfactions laid vp by S. Paul to bee spent by the Corinthians at their need Surely our Aduersarie intended rather to deride the world than to giue men satisfaction when he presented vs with such inconsequent stuffe But the Iesuit secondeth his former inference by a testimonie of Origen I answer Origen in the place obiected speaketh of purging sinne it selfe by the passions of Martyres and not of the temporall mulct or paine of sinne onely But the bloud of Martyres purgeth not sinne it selfe by way of condigne Satisfaction our Aduersaries being witnesses but at the vttermost by way of Deprecation now Deprecation and Satisfaction properly taken are of diuers natures The place of S. Augustine is strained against his meaning for this Father speaketh of all the members of Christ which suffer for their Masters cause But in our Aduersaries Tenet all that suffer for Christ haue not superabundant Satisfactions but onely some And this Father is so farre from maintaining workes of Supererogation as that he saith Pro modulo nostro exoluimus quod debemus pro posse virium nostrarum quasi canonem passionum inferimus c. According to our small measure we pay that which we are obliged vnto and according to our power we cast in as it were the stint of our passions but they which pay a stint and render that whereunto of right they are obliged haue not superaboundant Passions or workes of Supererogation IESVIT This was the practise of the Primitiue Church which at the petition of constant confessours in prison did release the penalties that sinners were inioined to performe to satisfie non onely the discipline of the Church but also the wrath of God after the remission of sinne still continuing vnto the infliction of temporall paine as appeareth by the testimonie of S. Cyprian And that this relaxation of temporall paine was done by applying the abundant satisfaction of holy Confessours and designed Martyres vnto the poenitents that receiued indulgence at their intercessions appeares by Tertullian For hee falling from the Church into the errours of Montanus whereof one was That for Christians sinning after Baptisme there was no remission of sinne refutes the Catholique custome of remitting penalties vnto sinners for the merits of Martyres speaking thus Let it suffice the Martirs that they haue cancelled and satisfied their owne sinnes Jt is ingratitude or pride for one prodigally to cast abroad vpon others that which as a great benefit was bestowed vpon him And speaking vnto the Martir saith Jf thou bee a sinner how can the oyle of thy lampe suffice both for thee and mee By which haereticall impugnation appeares that the Catholicke Doctrine then was that men might satisfie one for another and that the abundant satisfactions of some that suffered exceedingly as Martirs were applied for the Redemption of some others more remisse and negligent not from eternall but onely temporall punishment ANSWER You are an vnfaithfull Relatour of the practise of the Primitiue Church which was as followeth After foule and enormous knowne offences committed by Christians and especially after denying the Faith or Sacrificing to Idols offendours were put to a grieuous and long Penance It fell out sometimes that there was iust reason why the rigour of Penance should be mittigated either in respect of the kinde of duresse imposed or in regard of the length and continuance Which fauour the Bishops and Pastours of each Church not the Romane onely had authoritie by the Canons to grant as they saw iust cause This mitigation and relaxation of Penance was called by the name of Pardon and Indulgence and in the same there was no buying or selling no reference to Purgatorie Secondly Whereas you pretend that Popes Pardons were in vse in the Primitiue Church many of your owne part controll your impudencie to wit Durand Antonine Maior Roffensis Angelus de Clauasio Cassander And 〈◊〉 denyes That the Church hath any Treasurie 〈◊〉 of the merits of Christ and of the Saints The 〈◊〉 is maintained by Angelus de Clauasio
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
miscarriage hath power to represent her selfe in another Bodie or Councell and to take order for what was amisse eyther practised or concluded So here is a meanes without infringing any lawfull Authoritie of the Church to preserue or reduce Vnitie and yet graunt as the B. did and as the Church of England doth That a Generall Councell may erre And this course the Church tooke did call and represent her selfe in a new Councell and define against the Hereticall Conclusions of the former as in the case at Ariminum and the second of Ephesus is euident 4. The next thing I consider is Suppose a Generall Councell infallible in all things which are of Faith If it prooue not so but that an Error in the Faith be concluded the same erring Opinion that makes it thinke it selfe infallible makes the Error of it seeme irreuocable And when Truth which lay hid shall be brought to light the Church who was lulled asleepe by the Opinion of Infallibilitie is left open to all manner of Distractions as it appeares at this day And that a Councell may erre besides all other instances which are not few appeares by that Error of the Councell of Constance And one instance is enough to ouerthrow a Generall be it a Councell Christ instituted the Sacrament of his Bodie and Bloud in both kinds To breake Christs Institution is a damnable Error and so confessed by Stapleton The Councell is bold and defines peremptorily That to communicate in both kinds is not necessarie with a Non obstante to the Institution of Christ. Consider with me Is this an Error or not Bellarmine and Stapleton and you too say it is not because to receiue vnder both kinds is not by Diuine Right No no sure For it was not Christs Precept but his Example Why but I had thought Christs Institution of a Sacrament had beene more than his Example onely and as binding for the Necessaries of a Sacrament the Matter and Forme as a Precept Therefore speake out and denie it to be Christs Institution or else graunt with Stapleton It is a damnable Error to goe against it If you can prooue that Christs Institution is not as binding to vs as a Precept which you shall neuer be able take the Precept with it Drinke yee All of this which though you shift as you can yet you can neuer make it other than it is A Binding Precept But Bellarmine hath yet one better Deuice than this to saue the Councell Hee saith it is a meere Calumnie and that the Councell hath no such thing That the Non obstante hath no reference to Receiuing vnder both kinds but to the time of Receiuing it after Supper in which the Councell saith the Custome of the Church is to be obserued Non obstante notwithstanding Christs Example How foule Bellarmine is in this must appeare by the words of the Councell which are these Though Christ instituted this venerable Sacrament and gaue it his Disciples after Supper vnder both kinds of Bread and Wine yet Non obstante notwithstanding this it ought not to be consecrated after Supper nor receiued but fasting And likewise that though in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued by the faithfull vnder both kinds yet this Custome that it should be receiued by Lay-men onely vnder the kind of Bread is to be held for a Law which may not be refused And to say this is an vnlawfull Custome of Receiuing vnder one kind is erroneous and they which persist in saying so are to be punished and driuen out as Heretikes Now where is here any slander of the Councell The words are plaine and the Non obstante must necessarily for ought I can yet see be referred to both Clauses in the words following because both Clauses went before it and hath as much force against Receiuing vnder both kinds as against Receiuing after Supper Yea and the after-words of the Councell couple both together in this reference for it followes Et similiter And so likewise that though in the Primitiue Church c. And a man by the Definition of this Councell may be an Heretike for standing to Christs Institution in the very matter of the Sacrament And the Churches Law for One kind may not be refused but Christs Institution vnder Both kinds may And yet this Councell did not erre No take heed of it But your Opinion is yet more vnreasonable than this For consider any Bodie Collectiue be it more or lesse vniuersall whensoeuer it assembles it selfe Did it euer giue more power to the Representing Bodie of it than binding power vpon all particulars and it selfe too And did it euer giue this power any otherwise than with this Reseruation in Nature That it would call againe and reforme yea and if need were abrogate any Law or Ordinance vpon iust cause made euident to it And this Power no Bodie Collectiue Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill can put out of it selfe or giue away to a Parliament or Councell or call it what you will that represents it And in my Consideration it holds strongest in the Church For a Councell hath power to order settle and define Differences arisen concerning the Faith This Power the Councell hath not by any immediate Institution from Christ but it was prudently taken vp in the Church from the Apostles Example So that to hold Councels to this end is apparant Apostolicall Tradition written but the Power which Councels so held haue is from the whole Catholike Church whose members they are and the Churches Power from God And this Power the Church cannot further giue away to a Generall Councell than that the Decrees of it shall bind all particulars and it selfe but not bind the Church from calling againe and in the after calls vpon iust cause to order yea and if need be to abrogate former Acts I say vpon iust cause For if the Councell be lawfully called and proceed orderly and conclude according to the Rule the Scripture the whole Church cannot but approoue the Councell and then the Definitions of it can neuer be questioned after And the Power of the Church hath no wrong in this so long as no Power but her owne may meddle or offer to infringe any Definition of hers made in her representatiue Bodie a lawfull Generall Councell And certaine it is no Power but her owne may doe this Nor doth this open any gappe to priuate spirits For all Decisions in such a Councell are binding And because the whole Church can meet no other way the Councell shall remaine the Supreame Externall Liuing Temporarie Ecclesiasticall Iudge of all Controuersies Onely the whole Church and shee alone hath power when Scripture or Demonstration is found and peaceably tendered to her to represent her selfe againe in a new Councell and in it to order what was amisse Nay your Opinion is yet more vnreasonable For you doe not onely make the Definition of a Generall Councell but the Sentence
EFFIGIES DOCTISSIMI UIRI D NI FRANCISCI WHITE S. T. PROFESSORIS ET ECCLESIAE CATHIS CARLEOLENSIS DECANI Aº AETA 59 ANNO 1624 Wisdome and grace see in that modest looke Trueth 's 〈◊〉 errors downfall in this booke Maerebunt piscatores Isa. 19. 8. HONI SOIT QVI MAL Y PENSE BEATI PACIFICI Bv Francis WHITE D. of Div Deane of Carlile Chaplaine to his Matie Hereunto is annexed a Conference of the right R B of St Dauids wth the same Iesuit Cirprianus de lapsis Nec Ecclesiae iungitur qui ab Euāgelio seperatur VERITAS VNIVOCA VERITATE APERIT DIES MENDACIV̄ AEQUIVOCŪ ERROR CAECUS ET FALLAX PISCATORIS RETE HABET RANAS LONDON Printed by Adam Islip 1624. TO THE MOST HIGH AND POTENT MONARCH JAMES OF GREAT BRITTAINE FRANCE and IRELAND King Defender of the Faith my Soueraigne Lord and Maister MOST GRACIOVS and Religious Soueraine it is apparent that the externall Tuition and Projection of Orthodoxall Veritie and Religion next vnder the Almightie doth principally belong to Christian Princes which are by Office and Vocation the Lords Annointed Sonnes of the most High and supreme Regents of this inferior World vnder God The Donates in times past denyed the lawfull Authoritie of Christian Princes in superuising and externall gouerning Ecclesiasticall Causes saying Quid est Imperatori cum Ecclesia What hath Imperiall or Regall Maiestie to doe with the Church But Optatus stileth this a braine-sick Error saying Ille Parmenio furore succensus c. And S. Augustine contesting with these malepart Heretikes saith Jn hoc Reges Deo seruiunt c. Kings according to the Diuine Precept serue the Lord as they be Kings when they command good and prohibite euill not in Ciuile Affaires onely but in Matters which concerne Diuine Religion Jsiodor Hispal saith Secular Princes sometimes that is when they are Christians haue eminent Authoritie intra Ecclesiam within the Church to fortifie Ecclesiasticall Discipline Princes of the Earth saith S. Augustine serue Christ by making Lawes for Christ. And againe Ciuile Vertues in higher Powers auaile them not for eternall Beatitude vnlesse withall they gouerne their People in true Religion And in another Epistle Jt appertaines to Religious Princes to represse by iust seueritie not onely Adulterie Homicide and other hainous Crimes against men but also Sacrilegious Jmpietie against God The Euangelicall Prophet fore-tells that Kings should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nursing or Foster-Fathers of the Christian Church Esa. 49.23 Also they are Shepheards of the Almightie and concurrents for the building of his House Esa. 44.28 King Josiah reformed the Iewish Church suppressed Impietie restored true Religion 2. King 23. And hee was herein so farre from transcending the bounds of Regall Authoritie that the Holy Ghost faith of him Like him was there no King before him neither after him arose there any like Constantine the Great by Imperiall Lawes established true Religion Hee appointeth Festiuall Dayes prescribeth what Bishops shall doe for the Churches auaile Hee 〈◊〉 Synods is himselfe an Assessor and Agent among the Nicene Fathers Hee 〈◊〉 and directeth the Bishops Hee confirmeth the Decrees of the Great Councell of Nice and compelleth his Christian subjects to professe the Faith determined in that Synod Now of this Grand Patron of Christian Faith and the true Professors thereof S. Augustine affirmeth The God of Heauen enriched him with such large Blessings in this World Quanta optare nullus auderet as one could not haue presumed to wish S. Cyrill of Alexandria writing to Christian Princes which did the like sayth The Orient Pearles and bright-shining Diamonds of Jndia doe not so much adorne your Royall Heads as your care and protection of true Pietie maketh your sacred Persons venerable and glorious Your most excellent Maiestie walketh in the Religious wayes of those renowned Princes and their example hath euer been the President of the exercising your Royall Authoritie in sacred Causes and of your constant resolution in professing and protecting true Religion The Almightie hath placed you within your Dominions his supreme Vicegerent He hath made you greater than Joseph ouer his House and a Joshua ouer his People you are a Signet vpon the Lords right hand neuer to be plucked off He hath exalted you in Hominem a Deo secundum quicquid est a Deo consecutum solo Deo minorem as Tertullian speaketh the immediate visible person within your Kingdomes vnder himselfe receiuing all your Authoritie and Maiestie from his owne hand and hee hath made you inferior to none but himselfe and to vse S. Cyrils words vttered to Theodosius Vestrae serenitati nullus status est aequalis No State is equall much lesse may ouer-top your serene Maiesties But together with your Regall Power and Authoritie the Almightie hath enriched your heart aboue many other Princes of the World with incomparable Wisdome and Iudgement in matters Religious and Diuine as not onely your owne subiects but euen Forrainers haue obserued and that is fulfilled in you which S. Athanasius once vttered in an Epistle to Jouianus the Emperour Decora eximia res est in principe mens discendi auida rerum Coelestium cupido inde enim fit vt cor tuum vere sie in manu Dei It is a gracious and excellent qualitie in a great Prince to haue a mind desirous of knowledge and affecting the intelligence of Coelestiall things for hereby it commeth to passe that your heart is indeed in the hand of God It is the happinesse therefore of your loyall and Orthodoxall subiects which answere for Veritie against Error that they may defend the same before a King expert in the Questions whereof they dispute and whose cleare-seeing Iudgement like the fining Furnace is able to make difference betweene Gold and Drosse And this hath animated me to present my Replie To a Jesuits Answere of certaine Questions controuerted betweene Papals and vs to your most sacred Maiestie I receiued the Aduersaries Disputation by my Lord Duke of Buckingham who enioyned me in your Maiesties Name to examine and answere the same I could not but admire your Princely zeale to haue true Religion maintained as well by Disputation as by your iust Lawes And although I was conscious to my selfe of the want of those more eminent Graces which are found in greater Diuines yet hauing sensibly obserued your owne vnfained and 〈◊〉 loue to the Religion which we professe and being greatly encouraged by the Noble Duke who is your Maiesties very Image in the constant profession and maintenance of Orthodoxall Veritie I became obedient to your sacred Commandement And now concluding I most humbly desire you who resemble him that dwelling on high despiseth not things below accepting euen the poore Widowes Mite and Goats hayre where greater substance is wanting to giue me leaue to consecrate this my Reply to your most serene Maiestie I confesse this Worke to be ouermeane
Granting that some vulgar people and nouices in Faith may attaine beleefe concerning such verities of Christian Doctrine as are absolutely necessarie to Saluation by the Tradition of their Ancestors and Teachers without distinct and explicit resoluing their Faith into the Text of holy Scripture or the particular Bookes or Sections thereof But withall I deny that they can haue sauing Faith without resoluing the same into the doctrine of the Scriptures For example It is an Article of Faith necessarie to be beleeued by all Christians of riper yeres that Iesus Christ is the 〈◊〉 of the World and the same Article is reuealed and taught in many Texts of holy Scripture If a simple rurall person beleeue this Article taught him by his parents and other teachers he beleeueth the Doctrine of the Scripture and vertually grounds his Faith vpon the Scripture although hee know not the Bookes of the Scripture or the particular sentences contained in the same A man which drinketh water flowing from a fountaine or seeth day light although he haue no distinct knowledge of the fountaine or sight of the Sunne which is the cause of light yet hee receiueth water mediatly from the fountaine it selfe and his light principally from the Sunne so likewise rude and illiterate Christians reape the benefit and fruit of the Scriptures and vertually ground their Faith vpon them although they be not able distinctly to looke into them or to resolue their Faith into the seuerall parts and testimonies contained in them OBIECTION Vulgar andilliterate persons do not know or vnderstand the Scriptures neither can they be certaine by their owne knowledge that the same are truely translated in such points as the y are bound to beleeue therefore they cannot ground their Faith finally and lastly vpon the Scriptures ANSVVER 1. If this Obiection were good vulgar people could not ground their diuine Faith vpon Tradition because they haue not distinct knowledge of Tradition or of the qualitie or deriuation thereof Therefore I distinguish of Knowledge out of Bonauenture that the same is two fold to wit either confused and generall or distinct and speciall and a thing may be knowne two waies either in it selfe or in another If vulgar and illiterate people could know and vnderstand the Scriptures neither confusedly nor distinctly neither in themselues nor in any other thing then it were impossible that they should resolue their Faith into them but if they may know them by teaching of others and vnderstand the Doctrine of the Scriptures to be diuine by the light of heauenly veritie resplendent in the same and by the inward testimonie of the holy Spirit co-working with that Doctrine then it is possible for them to resolue their Faith into the Scripture because they which actually resolue their Faith into the Doctrine of the Scripture doe virtually and mediatly resolue the same into the verie Scripture euen as he that actually beleeueth the kings proclamation doth virtually beleeue the kings authoritie although he know the king or his authoritie confusedly and in generall only The Text of holy Scripture and the distinct sayings and sentences thereof are the principall and finall externall ground whereupon the whole bodie of the Church must ground their Faith But as there is a diuersitie of the members of the Church 1. Cor. 12.20 so likewise there is a difference betweene them in the manner of resoluing Faith for the stronger and firmer members are able to resolue their Faith distinctly into Scripture but the weaker members whose Faith as Bonauenture speaketh is diminuta seeble and imperfect in respect of the distinct apprehension of the obiect of Faith are guided by the stronger as children by a nurse And these little ones are taught the truth of heauenly Doctrine 1. By their parents or ecclesiasticall teachers and they know the Scriptures to be truely translated not by their owne skill but by crediting others which are able to iudge But being thus farre directed and persuaded by humane meanes then the light of Gods word it selfe by the power of Grace persuadeth them as a diuine cause to yeeld full assent to all such verities as are necessarie to be beleeued by them to saluation IESVIT And this is that which Protestants must meane if they haue any true meaning when they say that the common people knew Scriptures to be truely translated by the light of the Doctrine shining in true Translations to wit by the light of Doctrine receiued by Tradition of Ancestors and thereupon so firmely beleeue as they will acknowledge Scriptures to be truely translated so farre and no farther than they perceiue them consonant with the Faith deliuered vnto them so that their last and finall resolution for substantiall points is not into Scripture truly translated into their vulgar tongue but into Tradition by the light whereof they discerne that their Translations are true more or lesse according to the measure of knowledge they haue by Tradition ANSVVER The summe of the former obiection is Vnlearned people are not able without the helpe and instruction of others to resolue their Faith into the Scriptures Therefore the Scripture is not the finall and greatest stay and ground of Faith The Argument is denied for as in Arts and Sciences an vnskilfull person cannot resolue his knowledge into the first principles vntill he be taught the meaning of words and the sence of rules and precepts but when he is taught and vnderstandeth these then he maketh resolution into the very first principles themselues So likewise in beleeuing the Obiect of Faith must be taught the sence of the words and matter declared the grounds and reasons of credibilitie deliuered and then the beleeuer principally and immediately settles the resolution of his Faith not vpon these helps and instruments which are only dispofitiue and adiuuant causes but vpon the first principles themselues expressely or deriuatiuely contained in holy Scripture And whereas Dr. Ioh. Wh. is produced affirming in the behalfe of all Protestants that common people know Scriptures to be truely translated by the light of the Doctrine shining in true Translations First Dr. Wh. in the place assigned speaketh not in particular of common people but of the true Church in which are found many persons skilfull and learned Secondly he deliuereth other meanes besides the light of Doctrine whereby the Church may know that Translations are true to wit knowledge of Tongues rules of Art ministerie of the Word to which I adde analogie of Faith the testimonie of the 〈◊〉 Church and best learned in all ages All these are helpes and instruments of right Translations and when the Scriptures are translated they manifest their Author and sacred authoritie to such as in a right manner are conuersant in hearing or reading them And this is not only the Tenet of Protestants but besides the antient Fathers of moderate Papists themselues There is saieth one of them
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
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
and be deceiued then the later Church may vpon their reports deliuer some errours together with truth and yet the Tradition thereof concerning matters which are grounded vpon diuine Testimonie is infallible The Church may speake of it selfe and vpon report of them whose Testimonie is humane and fallible And it speaketh also vpon the authoritie of Gods word In the first it may erre and bee deceiued and consequently the Testimonie thereof absolutely bindeth not people to beleeue But when it confirmeth her doctrine and Tradition by diuine Testimonie the Tradition thereof is the Tradition and voyce of God himselfe worthy of all acceptation Neither is her Testimonie fallible and doubtfull in this latter kinde because of errour in the first any more than the Prophesie of Nathan was fallible when he spake by inspiration to Dauid 2. Sam. 7.5 Although when he formerly answered by a humane spirit he was deceiued Balaam is a credible witnesse in all those verities which God put into his mouth Numb 23.5 18. 24. 1. And yet in other matters which proceeded from himselfe he was fallible And Iosephus a Iew is credited in the Testimonie which hee gaue of Christ Antiq. lib. 18. c. 4 although in many other reports he was deceiued The antient Fathers Iustin Martyr Ireneus Origen St. Cyprian erred in some things and yet their authoritie in other matters which they deliuered consonantly to holy Scripture is credible Our Aduersaries confesse that their Popes may erre personally and that their Popes and Councels may erre in the Premises and Arguments from which they deduce conclusions of Faith and yet they will haue their definitiue sentences to be of infallible authoritie Cardinall Iacobatius speaking in the Popes defence saith That it followeth not because one hath erred that therefore his testimonie is altogether inualid and to be refused And hee confirmeth this assertion by diuers Texts of the Canon Law IESVIT And whereas some Protestants affirme that the Church cannot erre in fundamentall points but onely in things of lesse moment The truth is that in her perpetuall Traditions she cannot erre at all If the Tradition of the Church deliuering a small thing as receiued from the Apostles may be false one may call into question her Traditions of moment especially if he please to thinke them not to be of moment for like as if we admit in the Scriptures errours in small matters wee cannot be sure of its infallibitie in substantiall matters So likewise if we grant Tradition perpetuall to be false in things of lesse importance we haue no solid ground to defend her Traditions as assured in other of moment wherefore as he that should say That Gods written word is false in some lesser matters as when it sayes That S. Paul left his cloake at Troas erreth fundamentally by reason of the consequence which giueth occasion to doubt of the truth of euery thing in Scripture Euen so hee that granteth that some part of Traditions or of the word of God vnwritten may bee false erreth substantially because he giueth cause to doubt of any Tradition which yet as I haue shewed is the prime originall ground of Faith more fundamentall than the verie Scripture which is not knowne to be Apostolicall but by Tradition whereas a perpetuall Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by its owne light For what more euident than that that is from the Apostles which is deliuered as Apostolicall by perpetuall succession of Bishops consenting therein ANSWER The true Church in her sounder members erreth not in points fundamentall nor yet in matters of lesse moment maliciously or with pertinacie But the same may be ignorant and also erre in secondarie Articles The reason of the first is because the same should then cease to bee the true Church by corrupting the substance of right faith expresly or vertually and consequently there should remaine no true Church vpon earth which is impossible The reason of the second is because the Church since the Apostles is not guided by immediate inspiration or by Propheticall reuelation but by an ordinarie assistance of grace accompanying the vse of right meanes which remooueth not possibilitie of errour but leaueth space for humane iudgement being regenerate onely in part Heb. 5.2 Gal. 5.17 Aug. Enchir. c. 63. to worke by his proper force and power Secondly the Church hath no perpetuall Traditions but such as are either contained in holy Scripture or which are subseruient to maintaine the faith veritie and authoritie of the holy Scriptures and the doctrine thereof Thirdly whereas the Iesuit saith That euen as no vntruth can be admitted in the holy Scripture in regard of such things as are of the least moment without ouerthrowing the totall authoritie thereof so likewise no errour great or small can bee admitted in the doctrine and Tradition of the present Church because vpon the same will follow the subuersion of all her Tradition euen in matters essentiall I answere That there is not the same reason of the Scripture and the Church for the Scripture is totally and perfectly diuine and must alwayes bee so esteemed and to admit any errour or possibilitie thereof in Scripture were to make God a lyar and consequently to ouerthrow all faith But the present Church is onely the seruant of God and of his word Iohn 10.27 and hath no credit or authoritie but from it and although the same may erre in some things yet there remaineth alwaies a higher and more soueraigne Iudge to wit the holy Ghost speaking in and by the Scriptures to whom Christians desirous of truth may appeale and by whose sentence the Doctrine and Traditions of the present Church are to bee iudged Whosoeuer admitteth any errour or vntruth in the holy Scripture taketh away all authoritie from that which is the prime foundation of supernaturall veritie But he that admitteth error or fallibilitie of iudgement in some Traditions and Doctrines of the Pastours of the present Church doth onely make the credit of a secondarie and inferior witnesse subiect to triall and examination of an higher Iudge And euen as in building the rule and measure of proportion must alwaies be euen and right in it selfe but the workemans hand may possibly leane or shake and applie his rule amisse so likewise the holy Scriptures which are the principles of Theologie and the most exact ballance and measure of diuine Veritie as S. Chrysostome speaketh must be free from all obliquitie of error and to admit the least error in the Scripture ouerthroweth the foundation of Faith But the Ministerie and Tradition of the Church is like an Artificers hand which may sometimes leane and goe awrie and yet the foundation of Veritie abideth firme in the prime authenticall rule and by the same the errour of mens Tradition and Doctrine may be corrected Fourthly the Iesuit affirmeth That Tradition to wit of the
the sonne of God by adoption but not as verie God and the prime Author of the benefits which Christian people craue IESVIT Seconly that Angels are not to be honoured as Gods nor by sacrifices in the Heathenish manner ANSWER This answer is vnsufficient for the Fathers not only when they answer Heathens but when they instruct Christians deliuer the like speeches And how appeareth it that Christians were so rude in those ages as to Imagine that Angels were Gods or that sacrifices after the Pagan manner were due to them IESVIT Thirdly the Priest doth not inuocate Saints by direct prayer in the Liturgie of the Masse which being a Sacrifice the deuotion thereof is to be directed to God only ANSVVER Papists inuocate Saints in the Liturgie of their Masse which the Antients did not and the Iesuit perceiuing this endeauoreth to cloud the matter saying The Priest doth not inuocate Saints by direct prayer c. But S. Augustines words exclude all inuocation of Saints both direct and indirect in the administration of the Eucharist saying At which sacrifice the Martyres are named in their place and order as men of God which haue ouercome the world in the confession of him but yet notwithstanding they are not inuocated by the Priest which sacrificeth S. Augustine in these words saith expressely That Martyres were named at the Communion Table but not inuocated IESVIT Fourthly that the deceased do not know what is done in this world to wit by their naturall forces ANSVVER Neither did they hold as an infallible truth that the Saints deceased do vnderstand by reuelation the affaires and qualities of the liuing but say only that the same is possible And S. Augustine dares not define whether the Martyres heare our prayers or not or pray in particular for the liuing but affirmeth That it may be that they pray onely in generall and that God himselfe by the ministerie of Angels effecteth those merueiles which were performed at their tombes And S. Hieroms place alledged formerly is generall IESVIT Fiftly speaking vnto some deceased persons they make an If whether they heare them because they speake vnto such as they know not certainely to be Saints as may be cleerely shewed in particulars if need be ANSWER They knew they were Saints vpon better grounds than Papists know Thomas Becket Dominicke Francis Ignatius Loiola Christopher George Catherine c. to be Saints And did they not reckon Constantine to be in ioy and glorie with Christ yet Greg. Nazianzene vsing an Apostrophe to him saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heare O thou spirit of great Constantine if thou hast any sence or notion of these things And if holy persons deceased are not knowne to be Saints vntill they be canonized by Popes the antient Fathers could not inuocate Saints by Faith because the canonizing of Saints by Popes is of a latter hatch and being a matter of fact some Papists question the Popes Iudgement whether it be infallible or not in canonizing of Saints IESVIT This Truth supposed I cannot but conceiue Hope that your Maiestie professing so much loue of the first Primitiue ages may receiue satisfaction about this custome the causes of Protestants dislike being weake and not to be opposed against the strength of so long continued an authoritie as J shall endeauour to demonstrate in their eight vsuall exceptions ANSVVER The foundation of your structure is dubious and in it selfe ouer weake to carrie your heauie vast roofe For custome and long continued practise of men in ciuile affaires may be of force but in matters of Faith although it may sometimes be an hand-maid yet it can neuer be a Principle or foundation It is not iust saith S. Basil to make custome a law and rule of right Doctrine the holy Scripture giuen by diuine inspiration must be appointed Iudge And Saint Cyprian Wee may not follow the custome of men but the veritie of God because the Lord saith by his Prophet In vaine doe they worship me teaching the Precepts and Doctrines of men IESVIT §. 4. Inuocation of Saints not to be disliked because not expressed in Scripture ANd first J must satisfie the transcendentall cause of their dislike which is That Worship and Jnuocation of Saints deceased is no where expresly set downe in Scripture without expesse warrant whereof nothing may lawfully bee done that belongs to Religion But this though carrying a shew of deuotion in the conceit of common people is altogether vnworthie of the erudition of any learned Protestant for howsoeuer in the beginning of their separation they did crie for expresse Scripture expresse commands of the written Word yet now they are so gone from that Principle as they are exceeding angrie with vs that we should thinke that any of theirs were at any time broachers of such an absurditie wherefore in their written Bookes what they teach in Pulpits I know not they disclaime from expresse Scripture and thinke it a sufficient warrant of a Christan Custome that the same bee grounded on Scripture that is may bee deduced by good Discourse from Truths reuealed therein or bee prooued consonant vnto the rules and principles thereof according to which ample extent of Scriptures vnto things deducible from them or consonant vnto them there is no Catholicke Custome that hath not warrant in Gods word as wee are able to shew ANSWER One principall argument which Protestants make against inuocation of Saints is that this seruice and deuotion hath no foundation in the holy Scripture To this the Iesuit an swereth First It is vnworthy the erudition of any learned Protestant c. But that which was worthy in the Fathers cannot be vnworthy in vs. Epiphanius argueth in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What Scripture did euer require this Which of the Prophets did euer permit a man much lesse anie woman to be adored S. Hierome As we deny nothing that is written so we refuse things which are vnwritten we beleeue God to haue beene borne of a Virgin because we reade it we beleeue not Mary to haue liued a wedded woman after her childbirth because we doe not reade this S. Ambrose How can we vse those things which wee find not in holy Scripture A learned Papist saith Because it is not read in Scripture That Christ during the time of his preaching was a Mendicant therefore it followeth that he did not begge The sequele saith the Authour is good Quia in sacra Scriptura tenet locus ab authoritate negatiue because in holy Scripiure the argument which concludeth negatiuely from authoritie is of force Secondly the Iesuit addeth that Protestants are varied from their first doctrine concerning expresse Scripture c. But he must not ranke men exorbitant such as are headie opposers and rigide exceptors against Ecclesiasticall gouernment and ceremonies in the number of well aduised Protestants Those
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
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
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
of your Quarter shew me any one Father of the Church Greeke or Latine that euer said Wee are to resolue our Faith that Scripture is the Word of God into the Tradition of the present Church And againe when they say wee are to relye vpon Scripture onely they are neuer to be vnderstood with exclusion of Tradition in what causes soeuer it may be had Not but that the Scripture is abundantly sufficient to it selfe for all things but because it is deepe and may be drawne into different senses I haue said thus much vpon this great occasion because this Argument is so much pressed without due respect to Scripture I will not say to the weakening our beleefe of it Now out of this I will weigh the B. his Answer and your Exception taken against it F. The B. said That the Bookes of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and needed not to be prooued B. Why but did the B. say That this Principle The Bookes of Scripture are the Word of God is to be supposed as needing no proofe at all to a naturall man or to a man newly entring vpon the Faith yea or perhaps to a doubter or weakeling in the Faith Can you thinke the B. so weake It seemes you doe But sure hee knowes that there is a great deale of difference betweene Ethnicks that denie and deride the Scripture and men that are borne in the Church The first haue a farther way about to this Principle the other in their very Christian education sucke in this Principle and are taught so soone as they are apt to learne it That the Bookes commonly called the Bible or Scripture are the Word of God The B. dealt with you as with a Christian though in Error while you call Catholike The words before spoken by the B. were That the Scripture onely not any vnwritten Tradition was the Foundation of Faith The Question betweene vs and you is Whether the Scripture doe containe all such necessarie things of Faith Now in this Question as in all Nature and Art the Subiect the Scripture is and must be supposed the Quaere betweene the Romane Catholikes and the Church of England being onely of the Predicate the thing vttered of it namely Whether it containe all Fundamentalls of Faith all necessaries for Saluation within it Now since the Question proposed in verie forme of Art prooues not but supposes the subiect I thinke the B. gaue a satisfying answere That to you and him and in this Question Scripture was a supposed Principle and needed no proofe And I must tell you that in this Question of the Scriptures perfect continent it is against all Art yea and Equitie too in reasoning to call for a proofe of that here which must goe vnauoidably supposed in this Question And if any man will 〈◊〉 familiar with Impietie to question it it must be tryed in a preceding Question and Dispute by it selfe Yet here not you onely but Bellarmine and others run quite out of the way to snatch at aduantage F. Against this I read what I had formerly written in my Replie against Mr Iohn White wherein I plainely shewed that this answere was not good and that no other answere could be made but by admitting some Word of God vnwritten to assure vs of this Point B. Indeed here you read out of a Booke which you called your owne a large discourse vpon this Argument but some bodie told me the B. vntyed the Knot of the Argument and set you to your Booke againe Besides you doe a great deale of wrong to Mr Hooker and the B. that because they call it a supposed or presumed Principle among Christians you should fall by and by into such a Metaphysicall discourse as the B. tells me you did to prooue That that which is praecognitum foreknowne in Science must be of such Light that it must be knowne of and by it selfe alone and that the Scripture cannot be so knowne to be the Word of God Well I will not now enter into that discourse more than I haue how farre the Beame which is verie glorious especially in some parts of Scripture giues Light to prooue it selfe You see neither Hooker nor the B. nor the Church of England for ought I know leaue the Scripture alone to manifest it selfe by the Light which it hath in it selfe but when the present Church hath prepared and led the way like a preparing Morning-Light to Sunne-shine and then indeed wee settle not but in that Light Nor will I make needlesse enquirie how farre or in what manner a praecognitum or supposed Principle in any Science may be prooued in a higher to which that is subordinate or accepted in a Prime nor how it may in Diuinitie where prae as well as post cognita things fore as after-knowne are matters and vnder the manner of Faith and not of Science strictly nor whether a praecognitum a presupposed Principle in Faith which rests vpon Diuine Authoritie must needs haue as much and equall Light to Naturall Reason which prime Principles haue in Nature while thy rest vpon Reason Nor whether it may iustly be denyed to haue sufficient Light be cause not equall Your owne Schoole grants That in vs which are the subiects both of Faith and Knowledge and in regard of the Euidence giuen in vnto vs there is lesse Light lesse Euidence in the Principles of Faith than in the Principles of Knowledge vpon which there can be no doubt But I thinke the Schoole will neuer grant that the Principles of Faith euen this in question haue not sufficient euidence And you ought not to doe as you did without any distinction or any limitation denie a Praecognitum or prime Principle in the Faith because it answers not in all things to the prime Principles in Science in their Light and Euidence a thing in it selfe directly against Reason Well though I doe none of this yet I must follow you a little for I would faine make it appeare as plainely as such a difficultie can what wrong you doe Truth and your selfe in this case When the Protestants therefore answere to this Argument which as I haue shewed can properly haue no place in the Question betweene vs about Tradition they which grant this as a Praecognitum and thing fore-knowne as the B. did were neither ignorant nor forgetfull That things presupposed as alreadie knowne in a Science are of two sorts Either they are plaine and fully manifest intheir owne Light or they are prooued and granted alreadie some former knowledge hauing made them euident This Principle then The Scriptures are the Oracles of God wee cannot say is cleare and fully manifest to all men simply and in selfe-Light For as is formerly said if it were so euident then all that heare it reade it and doe but vnderstand 〈◊〉 tearmes could not but presently assent vnto it as they doe to Principles euident in themselues which hourely experience tells vs is not so
yeere when nor the Pope vnder whom this Addition was made A particular Church then if you iudge it by the Schoole of Rome or the Practise of Rome may publish any thing that is Catholike where the whole Church is silent and may therefore reforme any thing that is not Catholike where the whole Church is negligent or will not But you are as iealous of the honour of Rome as Capellus is who is angrie with Baronius about certaine Canons in the second Mileuitan Councell and saith That he considered not of what consequence it was to graunt to particular Churches the power of making Canons of Faith without consulting the Romane See which as hee saith and you with him was neuer lawfull nor euer done But suppose this were so the B. his speech was not Not consulting but in case of neglecting or refusing Besides you must be put in remembrance too that the B. spake at that time and so must all that will speake of that Exigent of the Generall Church as it was for the most part forced vnder the Gouernment of the Romane See and this you vnderstand well enough for in your verie next words you call it the Romane Church Now I make no doubt but that as the vniuersall Catholike Church would haue reformed her selfe had shee beene freed of the 〈◊〉 yoake so while shee was vnder that yoake the Church of Rome was if 〈◊〉 the onely yet the chiefe hinderance of Reformation And then in this sense it is more than cleare That if the Romane Church will neither reforme nor suffer Reformation it is lawfull for any particular Church to reforme it selfe so long as it doth it peaceably and keepes it selfe to the Foundation F. Which Question I asked as not thinking it equitie that Protestants in their owne Cause should be Accusers Witnesses and Judges of the Romane Church B. You doe well to tell the reason now why you asked this Question the B. sayes you did not 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conference if you had you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 receiued your Answere It is most true No man in common 〈◊〉 ought to be suffered to be Accuser Witnesse and 〈◊〉 in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But is there not 〈◊〉 little 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 too that any man that is accused should be the Accused and yet Witnesse and Iudge in his owne Cause 〈◊〉 If the first may hold no man shall be Innocent and if the last none will be Nocent And what doe we here with in their owne Cause against the Roman Church Why is it not your owne too against the Protestant Church And if it be a cause common to both as certaine it is then neither part alone may be Iudge If neither alone may iudge then either they must be iudged by a Third which stands indifferent to both and that is the Scripture Or if there be a iealousie or doubt of the sense of Scripture they must either both repaire to the Exposition of the Primitiue Church and submit to that or both call and submit to a Generall Councell which fhall be lawfully called and fairely and freely held to iudge the difference according to Scripture which must be their Rule as well as priuate mens F. I also asked Who ought to iudge in this case The B. said a Generall Councell B. And surely What greater or surer Iudgement you can haue where sense of Scripture is doubted than a Generall Councell I doe not see Nor doe you doubt for you adde F. I told him That a Generall Councell to wit of Trent had alreadie iudged not the Romane Church but the Protestants to hold Errors That saith the B. was not a lawfull Councell B. It is true that you replyed for the Councell of Trent And the B. his answere was not onely That that Councell was not Legall in the necessarie conditions to be obserued in a Generall Councell but that it was no Generall Councell which againe you are content to omit Consider it well First Is that Councell Legall the Abettors whereof maintaine publikely That it is lawfull for them to conclude any Controuersie and make it be de Fide and so in your iudgement Fundamentall though it haue not I doe not say now the written Word of God for warrant either in expresse Letter or necessarie sense and deduction as all vnerring Councels haue had and as all must haue that will not erre but not so much as probable Testimonie from it nay quite Extra without the Scripture Nay more Is that Councell Legall where the Pope the chiefe person to be reformed shall sit President in it and be chiefe Iudge in his owne Cause against all Law Diuine Naturall and Humane In a place not free but in or too neere his owne Dominion To which all were not called that had deliberatiue or 〈◊〉 voyce In which none had Suffrage but such as were sworne to the Pope and the Church of Rome and professed Enemies to all that called for Reformation or a free Councell And the Pope himselfe to shew his Charitie had declared and pronounced the Appellants Heretikes before they were condemned by the Councell I hope an Assembly of Enemies are no lawfull Councell And I thinke the Decrees of such a One are omni iure nulla and carrie their nullitie with them through all Law And againe Is that Councell Generall that hath none of the Easterne Churches consent nor presence there Are all the Greekes so become non Ecclesia no Church that they haue no interest in Generall Councels It numbers indeed among the Subscribers sixe Greekes they might be so by Nation or by Title purposely giuen them but dare you say they were actually Bishops of and sent from the Greeke Church to the Councell Or is it to be accounted a Generall Councell that in many Sessions had scarce ten Archbishops or fortie or fiftie Bishops present And for the West of Christendome neerer home it reckons one English S. Asaph but Cardinall Poole was there too English indeed he was by birth but not sent to that Councell by the King and Church of England but as one of the Popes Legats for at the beginning of the Councell he was not Bishop in the Church of England and after he was Archbishop of Canterburie hee neuer went ouer to the Councell And can you prooue that S. Asaph went thither by Authoritie There were but few of other Nations and it may be some of them reckoned with no more truth than the Greekes In all the Sessions vnder Paul the third but two Frenchmen and sometimes none as in the Sixt vnder Iulius the third when Henry the second of France protested against that Councell And in the end it is well knowne how all the French which were then a good partie held off till the Cardinall of Lorraine was got to Rome As for the Spaniards they laboured for many things vpon good grounds and were most vnworthily ouer-borne F. So said I would Arrians say of the Councell of Nice The B. would not