kernell of an Apple a great tree may bee made and nourished by the force and vigour proceeding from the same did not we see by daily experience the same to be true that ashes may be made of glasse that stones in the stomacke of a Doue yron in the belly of an Ostridge be turned into flesh that of a rotten barke of a tree falling into the water should be bred and produced a perfect bird to me seemes more incredible than that God should make the accidents of Bread separated from their substance to nourish mans body for the dead barke of a tree may seeme to haue no more efficacie of it selfe to produce a liuing creature specially so perfect a bird as Barnacles than haue the accidents of Bread to feede and breede the flesh of a liuing man Yea many Philosophers teach and in my iudgement conuince that in substantiall generations where no cause coequall in perfection to the effect produced is present God by his Omnipotencie doth supplie deficiencie of naturall causes Why then should any man so much mislike our Doctrine that in this Mysterie where the substance of Bread wants God by the secret operation of his power supplies the defect thereof seeing by the opinion of many learned Philosophers his prouidence by the like secret speciall working doth ordinarily daily and hourely supply the manifold defects of substantiall secondarie Agents Neither is the manner how God can doe this difsicile to explicate For he may inable the quantitie of Bread to receiue and sustaine the working of mans nutritiue power and when in that quantitie there is the last accidentall disposition to the forme of flesh he can secretly produce againe Materiam primam that was of the Bread and combine the same with the prepared quantitie and the substantiall forme of Flesh What reason is there why God may not doe this yea doe it sooner than we speake it Wherefore the seeming absurdities of this mysterie being as J haue shewed meerely imaginarie and not like those against the Trinitie and the Incarnation wherein not so much imagination as reason findes difficultie it is the part not onely of sincere Christian faith but also of a cleere excellent wit to conceiue them and not to permit wandring vnruly fancie destitute of reason to controll our beleefe about the literall sence of Christs words so many waies by the grauest testimonies of Antiquitie recommended vnto vs. ANSVVER That Accidents may subsist and haue their naturall force and operation without a subiect of support or inhaerencie implies a contradiction for it is of the being and definition of Accidents to be in another or to be in their subiect And none of the Examples taken from a Kernell Ashes Iron in the belly of an Ostridge the barke of a tree c. are ad idem for these are not Accidents without a substance but reall bodies hauing by nature a proportion and propension to produce their owne effects either as seminall causes or true materials conuerted by heate fire and art or things putrescent formed and animated by the heate of the Sunne and other secret and naturall causes That an Akorne should become an Oake is wonderfull as the workes of God are yet it is as naturall as that a Lyon begets a Lyon nay as that the Sunne or fire shineth That of ashes is made glasse what is it but that a transparent bodie is made of a bodie not transparent so Yee of Snow c. And concerning Stones Iron c. I doe not thinke that these feed or nourish Doues Hawkes Struthiocameles c. but onely coole or cleanse them and this I count not impossible in nature that vegetatiue heate should in short time dissolue stones The Barnacles are generatio ex putri as are Mice Frogs and Serpents but what is this to accidents nourishing without matter and substance Now for all the former wee know the truth and certaintie by naturall reason and by experience of our sences but there is no naturall or supernaturall rule or Law no manifest demonstration either to sence or reason no reuelation of Faith that the abstracted formes of bread and wine subsist without a subiect and haue power to nourish and may bee tasted and felt and also putrifie but Romists presumptuously forme these Chimera's and Idols in the forge of their owne deceiued brest and they deserue to bee fed onely with accidents like Birds that pecked at the painted grapes which thinke to feed any intelligent Reader with such improper and extrauagant accidents IESVITS 3. Consideration Thirdly to make Christians incline to 〈◊〉 this Mysterie so difficile to carnall imagination this Consideration may be very potent to wit that in beleeuing the same on the one side there may be great merit and excellent faith if it be a truth and on the other side though which is impossible it should be false yet in beleeuing it we shall not fall into any damnable errour For although we suppose this an vnpossible case yet what can be laid to our charge which wee may not defend and iustifie by all the rules of equitie and reason if we be accused that we tooke Bread to be the body of Christ adoring the same as God so committing Idolatry we may defend that both for soule and body we are innocent herein For seeing the body is not made guiltie but by a guiltie mind euen our body may pleade not guilty seeing our mind our thoughts or deuotion were fully and totally referred vnto Christ whom we truely apprehend by faith as vailed with the Accidents of Bread and so may repell the reproach of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bread Worshippers with saying Quae nouit mens est pani nil vouimus illa Neither did we beleeue that the Bread was changed into Christs body vpon sleight reasons or mooued by the fancies of our owne head but contrary to our fancies out of Reuerence to the expresse words of Christ This is my body A sense declared by most antient Fathers defined by many generall Councells deliuered by full consent of our Ancestors so practised in the Church for many ages without any knowne beginning finally confirmed with the most credible and constant report of innumerable most euident miracles Can a Christian beleeue any points of Religion vpon surer grounds And if God at the day of iudgement will condemne none but such as liuing in this world wronged him in his honour Why should Catholikes feare any hard sentence in respect of their prompt Credulitie of Transubstantiation that is of Gods Word taken in the plaine proper sense Js it an 〈◊〉 to his veritie that they denie their senses correct their imaginations reforme their discourses abnegate their iudgements rather than not to beleeue what to them seemeth his Word Js it an iniury to his power to be persuaded he can doe things incomprehensible without number put the same body in innumerable places at once Make a body occupy no place and yet remaine a quantitatiue substance
into the water is required yet according to the Intention sprinckling is sufficient But heere I demand of the Romist Whether any thing touching the manner of receiuing the Eucharist is deliuered in Christs words or not And if nothing then our Sauiour treateth not either of Spirituall or Sacramentall eating or drinking for both these belong to the manner and if hee speake about the manner then the Blood of Christ must be Sacramentally receiued as well as his Bodie but it is not receiued Sacramentally vnder bread alone because to receiue Sacramentally is to receiue vnder the proper and indiuiduall signe representing the Blood receiued which is Wine And implicite and vertuall receiuing of Christs Blood is spirituall drinking and this is performed out of the Sacrament and not onely in the same The last euasion is That in the words of Christ Et is taken for Aut that is vnlesse you eate the flesh or drinke the blood of the Sonne of man ye haue no life c. This poore Cauill borrowed from Claudius de Saincts is against the letter of the Text and if it be admitted then it will follow That it is not necessarie to drinke the blood of the Sonne of man implicitely and vertually and the reason why Christ nameth bread alone vers 51. is in opposition to Manna for the Sonne of God descended from heauen by incarnation and propounded himselfe incarnate as an obiect of Faith and because he was the spirituall Life and food of mans soule by donation of his Word and Grace and heerein excelled Manna which was onely corporall bread But in the sacred Eucharist Christ is represented as hauing perfected mans saluation and this representation is made by two sensible signes wherein his suffering of death by separation of bodie and soule and of bodie and blood is visibly proposed and whosoeuer receiueth him Sacramentally as he was sacrificed on the Crosse must receiue him by both the signes because in both and not in one alone there is a representation of his Passion and of the effusion of his blood As for the Iesuites instance in the manner of Baptising whether by plunging or by sprinckling the same is not to purpose For in our Question the Dispute is about taking away one of the Elements and materiall parts of a Sacrament in Baptisme onely a circumstance in the manner of applying and vsing the Element was altered by the Church But from alteration of a thing accidentall or of circumstance to inferre a libertie to defalcate a substantiall part is sophisticall IESVIT §. 5. Communion vnder one kinde not against the Practise of the Primitiue CHVRCH CErtaine it is that the Primitiue Church did very often and frequently vse Communion vnder both kindes so that Lay men had by prescription a right to receiue in both kindes yea they were bound thereunto by the Obligation of custome not by Diuine Precept ANSWER THe Primitiue Church in all her publicke Assemblies and congregations administred the holy Eucharist to the people in both kinds perpetually and not frequently onely or often as the Iesait minseth And Iustin Martir saith That the Apostles prescribed this as commanded by Christ and Saint Cyprian hath these words Lex esum sanguinis prohibet Euangelium precipit vt bibatur Whereas the old Law forbade the eating of blood the Gospell commandeth to drinke the blood and in his 63 Epistle Many Bishops c. depart not from that which our Master Christ commanded and performed Praecepit iussit but others of ignorance and simplicitie In Calice Dominico sanctificando 〈◊〉 ministrando In consecrating and ministring the Cup to the people doe not that which Christ our Lord and God performed and taught Petrus de Occhagauia saith that the words Et plebi ministrando Deliuering it to the people are not St. Cyprians But this man went by heare-say as appeareth both by the elder later Edition of Cyprian And that this was the constant Doctrine of this Father is manifest by other places cited in the Margen Therefore it is palpably vntrue which the Iesuit venteth They were bound thereunto by Obligation of Custome and not by Diuine Precept IESVIT Also because the Manichees being impiously per suaded that wine was the gall of the prince of darknesse did superstitiously abstaine from the Chalice The Church in detestation of this errour commaunded for a time Communion vnder both kinds Vpon which ocasion Gelasius Pope made the decree recorded by Gratian aut integra Sacramenta suscipiant aut ab integris arceantur And why because such Abstinents 〈◊〉 qua superstitione docentur astringi that is were superstitious not abstaining out of any deuotion but out of impious persuasion of the impuritie of Gods creature Wherefore the crime with which some Protestants charge vs That our receiuing vnder the sole forme of Bread is to iumpe in opinion with the Manichees we may as Doctor Morton confesseth reiect as injurious saying That it was not the Manichees 〈◊〉 from wine but the reason of their for 〈◊〉 that was iudged hereticall This custome was the cause that Cyprian saieth That the Law 〈◊〉 the eating of bloud but the 〈◊〉 commaunds the same should be drunke not only because some Christians to wit Priests are bound to 〈◊〉 the Bloud of Christ but also because Christ in his 〈◊〉 did 〈◊〉 the Sacrament of his Bodie and Bloud in both kinds Whence grew the custome of the Primitiue Church to receiue in both kinds and by custome there grew further an Oligation to drinke of the 〈◊〉 there were some iust cause of 〈◊〉 as in the sicke and in some that by nature loathed wine ANSVVER One errour begets another It was formerly said that Communion in both kinds was vsed by the Fathers as a matter of custome onely and not because of precept now it is added that this was done only because of the errour of the Manichees I answere First before euer the Manichees appeared in any number Communion in both kinds was in practise as appeareth by the Apostles and by Ignatius Dionysius Iustin Martyr Ireneus Tertullian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Saint Cyprian Secondly although Pope 〈◊〉 in his Sermon speaketh of the Manichees yet Vasques the Iesuit saith That he commanded not the vse of the Cup because of them but required that these Heretickes which feigned themselues Catholickes and came to the holy Communion receiuing the Bread and taking the Cup into their hands pretending that they drunke the Wine and yet did not should carefully be obserued Thirdly touching the place of Pope Gelasius the same Author saith That whereas some of his part applie the same to the Manichees yet this exposition agreeth not with the last branch of the Canon for therein Gelasius teacheth that the mysterie of the Eucharist is of that nature in regard of it selfe that without grieuous sacriledge it cannot be diuided and seuered
iustifie their departure How could he say this since he did not graunt that they did depart There is difference betweene departure and causelesse thrusting from you for out of the Church is not in your power to thrust vs Thinke on that And so much the B. said expressely then That which the B. did ingenuously confesse was this That Corruption in Manners onely is no sufficient cause to make a seperation in the Church Nor is it It is a truth agreed on by the Fathers and receiued by Diuines of all sorts saue by the Cathari to whom came the Donatist and the Anabaptist against which Caluin disputes it strongly And Saint Augustine is plaine There are bad Fish in the Net of the Lord from which there must be euer a seperation in heart and in manners but a corporall seperation must be expected at the Sea shore that is the end of the World And the best Fish that are must not teare and breake the Net because the bad are with them And this is as ingenuously confessed for you as by the B. For if Corruption in Manners were a iust cause of actuall seperation of one Church from another in that Catholike Bodie of Christ the Church of Rome hath giuen as great cause as any since as Stapleton graunts there is scarce any sinne that can be thought by man Heresie onely excepted with which that Sea hath not beene foulely stayned especially from eight hundred yeeres after Christ. And he need not except Heresie into which Biel grants it possible the Bishops of that Sea may fall And Stella and Almain grants it freely that some of them did fall and so ceased to be Heads of the Church and left Christ God be thanked at that time of his Vicars Defection to looke to his Cure himselfe F. But saith he beside Corruption of Manners there were also Errors in Doctrine B. This the B. spake indeed And can you prooue that he spake not true in this But the B. added though here againe you are pleased to omit That some of her Errors were dangerous to saluation For it is not euerie light Error in disputable Doctrine and Points of curious Speculation that can be a iust cause of seperation in that admirable Bodie of Christ which is his Church for which he gaue his Naturall Bodie to be rent and torne vpon the Crosse that this Mysticall Bodie of his might be One. And S. Augustine inferres vpon it That he is no way partaker of Diuine Charitie that is an enemie to this Vnitie Now what Errors in Doctrine may giue iust cause of seperation in this Bodie were it neuer so easie to determine as I thinke it is most difficult I would not venture to set it downe least in these times of Discord I might be thought to open a Doore for Schisme which I will neuer doe vnlesse it be to let it out But that there are Errors in Doctrine and some of them such as endanger saluation in the Church of Rome is euident to them that will not shut their eyes The proofe whereof runs through the particular Points that are betweene vs and so it is too long for this discourse which is growne too bigge alreadie F. Which when the generall Church would not reforme it was lawfull for particular Churches to reforme themselues I asked Quo Iudice Did this appeare to be so B. Is it then such a strange thing that a particular Church may reforme it selfe if the generall will not I had thought and doe so still That in point of Reformation of either Manners or Doctrine it is lawfull for the Church since Christ to doe as the Church before Christ did and might doe The Church before Christ consisted of Iewes and Proselytes this Church came to haue a seperation vpon a most vngodly Policie of 〈◊〉 so that it neuer pieced together againe To a Common Councell to reforme all they would not come Was it not lawfull for Iudah to reforme her selfe when Israel would not ioyne Sure it was or else the Prophet deceiues me that sayes exactly Though Israel transgresse yet letnot Iudah sinne And S. Hierome expresses it in this verie patticular sinne of Heresie and Error in Religion Nor can you say that Israel from the time of the seperation was not a Church for there were true Prophets in it Elias and Elizaeus and others and thousands that had not bowed knees to Baal And there was saluation for these which cannot be where there is no Church And God threatens to cast them away to wander among the Nations and be no Congregation no Church therefore he had not yet cast them away into Non Ecclesiam into no Church And they are expressely called the people of the Lord in Iehu's time and so continued long after Nor can you plead that Iudah is your part and the Ten Tribes ours as some of you doe for if that be true you must graunt that the Multitude and greater number is ours And where then is Multitude your numerous Note of the Church But you cannot plead it For certainely if any Calues be set vp they are in Dan and Bethel they are not ours Besides to reforme what is amisse in Doctrine or Manners is as lawfull for a particular Church as it is to publish and promulgate any thing that is Catholike in either And your Question Quo iudice lyes alike against both And yet I thinke it may be prooued that the Church of Rome and that as a particular Church did promulgate an Orthodoxe Truth which was not then Catholikely admitted in the Church namely The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne If shee erred in this Fact confesse her Error if shee erred not Why may not another Church doe as shee did A learned Schooleman of yours saith she may The Church of Rome needed not to call the Grecians to agree vpon this Truth since the Authoritie of publishing it was in the Church of Rome especially since it is lawfull for euerie particular Church to promulgate that which is Catholike Nor can you say he meanes Catholike as fore-determined by the Church in generall for so this Point when Rome added Filioque to the Creed of a Generall Councell was nor And how the Grecians were vsed in the after Councell such as it was of Florence is not to trouble this Dispute but Catholike stands there for that which is so in the 〈◊〉 of it and fundamentally Nor can you iustly say That the Church of Rome did or might doe this by the Popes Authoritie 〈◊〉 the Church For suppose he haue that and that his Sentence be infallible I say suppose both but I giue neither yet neither his Authoritie nor his 〈◊〉 can belong vnto him as the particular Bishop of that See but as the 〈◊〉 Head of the whole Church And you are all so lodged in this that Bellarmine professes he can neither tell the
Israelites formed and worshipped a Golden Calfe they might by conceit and imagination apprehend and worship the true God but this imagination and apprehension was not sufficient to iustifie their Action Men may in their owne wisedome and intention conceiue and worship Images and other Signes as if they were one and the same thing with that which is the proper obiect of Worship but when they conioyne that which God hath diuided their foolish and erroneous fancie and imagination maketh not their Actions lawfull or pleasing to God Aristotle in the place obiected d. Memor cap. 1. in fine affirmeth not either verbally or in sense that there is the same motion of the Conceit and Affection into the externall Image and the Sampler for hee speaketh not of painted or carued Images but of the mentall Image and impression which remayneth in the memorie after the knowledge of things past And many Schoolemen denie that Aristotles testimonie is truly applyed to Aquinas his manner of worshipping Images among which are Durand Picus Mirandula 〈◊〉 Vasques c. It is also apparantly false that there is the same motion of the mind and will into the Image and the Sampler for these are euerie way two distinct Obiects and the one is a signe and the other a thing signified the one is the cause the other the thing caused and in some Images the Sampler is a nature increate the Image considered as an Image and in relation to the Prototype is a thing created the one is adored because of it selfe the other respectiuely because of the Sampler And therefore for as much as the Obiect is diuers and the manner of the Action is diuers the motion of mans heart towards the Image and the Sampler cannot be one motion but diuers euen as when I desire the meanes because of the end here are two distinct Actions and motions to wit Election and Intention IESVIT This Axiome of Philosophie that no man thinke it disauowed in Theologie the antient Fathers vniformely teach as a prime truth euident in reason S. Damascen S. Augustine S. Ambrose S. Basil S. Athanasius who writes An Image of the King is nothing else but the forme and shape of the King which could it speake would and might say J and the King are one the King is in me and I in him so that who adoreth me his Image doth therein adore the verie King Thus he shewing that the Kings Image is to be imagined and by imagination conceiued and honoured as the verie King ANSWER You affirme That the antient Fathers vniformely teach and that as a prime truth That the Image may and ought to stand for the Prototype and is by imagination to be taken as if it were the very Person and consequently that it is ioyntly to be worshipped First you say the antient Fathers teach this Doctrine vniformely secondly you adde That they teach this as a prime Truth But to prooue the first you produce onely fiue Testimonies of Fathers of which one is not very antient and touching the latter you bring nothing The Testimonies of the Fathers examined First Damascene d. Fid. lib. 4. cap. 12. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where his signe is there is Christ to wit by operation and grace First this Author liued 740 yeeres after Christ and is none of the antient Fathers Secondly it is confessed by your selues that hee was not Orthodoxall in all points For as Cardinall Bellarmine saith hee denyed the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne and in the matter of Images hee differeth from the antient which were before him Secondly Saint Augustine d. Doctr. Christ. l. 3. c. 9. saith Hee which vseth or worshippeth any profitable signe being of diuine Institution vnderstanding the vertue and signification thereof worshippeth not that which is visible and transeunt but that rather whereunto all such things are referred But Popish Images appointed for Worship are no Sacraments or Ceremonies or Signes of Diuine Institution but humane Traditions condemned by Saint Augustine both among Christians and Pagans Thirdly Saint Ambros. d. Dom. Incarn Sacram. c. 7. saith When we adore his Diuinitie and his flesh doe we diuide Christ When wee worship in him the Image of God and the Crosse doe wee diuide him This Father speaketh not of any Painted Image of God but of the inuisible Image Col. 1.15 Heb. 1.3 And by the Crosse he vnderstandeth the Passion of Christ as appeareth in his next words Etsi crucifixus est c. Saint Basil and Saint Athanasius spake by way of similitude not of all Images but of the Images of Kings which sometimes not alwayes in Ciuile vse and custome not in Religion may be taken and reuerenced for the principall But from a particular and from a similitude which halteth in many things you cannot conclude generally and absolutely Where is now the vniforme consent of Fathers which the Aduersarie glorieth in Damascene is not antient Saint Augustine speaketh of signes which haue diuine institution Saint Ambrose of Christ his Passion and not of Statues or Pictures Saint Basil and Athanasius speake by similitude obiter and by the way But which of these affirmes that Image Worship is a prime veritie But that the Reader may the better conceiue the weight of the Aduersaries Disputation for Worship of Images I will exhibit the same in a Logicall Resolution The Theme or Question is Whether artificiall Images of Christ and of the Saints are to be worshipped The first ground and Argument for the Affirmatiue is If the Samplers themselues are to be worshipped then the Images being liuely Portraitures and representations of those Samplers are to be worshipped The Consequence is denied for besides that all Images and among the rest the Images of Christ are not liuely Portraitures of Christ but dead shaddowes and imperfect and confuled delineations of his humanitie yet whatsoeuer they are artificially and by humane constitution they are not to be worshipped Religiously because no diuine Institution or Authoritie permitteth man so to doe and on the contrary part diuine Precept extant in the Morall Law prohibiteth the doing heereof OBIECTION II. If the Image represent the Sampler and stand for it and by conceit and imagination is one with it then it may and ought to bee worshipped c. But the first is true c. If the Argument be thus resolued the sequel is false for that which representeth another and standeth for another and is by imagination another partaketh not all the Rites and duties of that which it representeth but such onely as by lawfull ordination and by the nature of his kinde it is capable of but Painted and Carued Images neither by the nature of their kinde being things sencelesse liuelesse and destitute of Grace nor yet by any diuine Ordination are capable of Adoration The brasen Serpent was a figure and Image
of Christ crucified it did represent the Sampler and stand for it and by conceit and imagination of the faithfull beholder it was one with Christ to wit by Relation as a signe with the thing signified yet it being not appointed by God to bee worshipped nor being capable of worship according to the nature and qualitie of his kind the Israelites committed Idolatrie in worshipping and burning Incense to it OBIECTION III. There is the same motion of the minde into the Image and the Sampler as we may perceiue by the Image of the King There is not the same motion c. but a diuerse for the mind is fixed vpon the Image as vpon a Signe and as vpon an Obiect inferiour to the Sampler and if there bee the same Motion in any person towards the Image and the Sampler the same proceedeth vpon error and is a false imagination neither doth the Image of a King stand for a very King but for asigne and representation And if there were the same motion of the mind into the Image and the Samplar yet it is inconsequent to say there must be the same Adoration as Peresius Aiala hath obserued IESVIT With this Principle so receiued in Nature wee must ioyne another no lesse knowne and notorious in Christianitie to wit That God full of all honour and glorie to whom all Worship and Adoration is due became truely and verily man as visible and aspectable as any other man and consequently as imaginable that hee may bee figured by an Image no lesse truely and distinctly than another man ANSVVER When Christ liued vpon the earth and was conuersant with men Iohn 1. 14. hee might then perhaps if Diuine prouidence had permitted haue beene figured according to something which was visible in his humane Bodie I say if Diuine Prouidence had permitted because for preuention of Idolatrie and Superstition it fell out in this case as it did with the bodie of Moses And because this was not then performed either by his owne or by his Apostles appointment we can haue no certainetie that the after painting and figuring of him is a conuenient meanes whereby to honour him and to cause deuotion or that Pictures and Images whereby he hath beene figured in latter ages are agreeable to the sampler IESVIT In which Image the hands feet and other parts shall truely by imagination correspond vnto the feet bands and parts of the Prototype and our imaginations from 〈◊〉 passe directly vnto Christ and his parts proportionable to those we behold in the Image so that when we adore with an humble outward kisse the hands and feet of the Image by inward imagination conceipt and affection we kisse and adore the imagined true hands and feet of Christ. Neither are these imaginations false and erronious seeing as Philosophie teacheth no falshood is in meere apprehension or imagination without iudging the thing to be as we imagine As in contemplation men represent and imagine themselues as standing before Gods Throne in the Court of Heauen amidst the quires of Saints and Angels praising and honouring him in their societie not iudging themselues to be truely and really in Heauen that were a falshood and dotage but only 〈◊〉 in themselues such a presence and 〈◊〉 themselues outwardly and inwardly in prayer as if they were present to which kind of imaginations as pious and godly the Scriptures and Fathers exhort vs. In this sort beholding the Image of Christ we apprehend him as therein present not iudging the Image to be Christ but imagining and taking it as it were Christ that when wee outwardly honour the Jmage by kissing the hands and feet thereof mentally by imagination and humble affection of reuerence we adore and kisse the most venerable hands and feet of his pretious bodie ANSVVER It is possible for imagination to build castles in the aire and to conceiue the person of Christ as present to his Image yet if this imagination be fantasticall and if in adoration Christ and Images haue no agreement 2. Cor. 6.16 then worshipping of Images is not worshipping of Christ for it is possible to imagine God to be in the Sunne and to behold the Sunne as Gods Image yet they which vpon such an imagination should worship the Sunne which God hath not commanded must be ranked amongst false worshippers Deut. 4.19 17.3 Iob. 31.26 And whereas the Obiector addeth that according to Philosophie no falshood is in meere apprehension or imagination without iudging the thing to be as we imagine I answer That this being granted concerning fictions yet vpon such imagination there may follow or be inferred that which is false or morally euill to wit if one imagine the Sunne or a Lambe to be the figure of Christ and because in holy Scriptures he is compared to these creatures Mal. 4.2 Iohn 1.29 conceiue them as his image shall it hereupon be lawfull by one and the same motion of the cogitation and affection to worship the creatures with their Creator But that the solution of the former Argument may be more perspicuous I will present the same in forme and then applie mine answer If by imagination we may truely conioine Christ himselfe with his Image then vpon that imagination we may coworship Christ and his Image But the first may be done for he being incarnate may be figured in the Image of a man and being thus figured may be presented to the vnderstanding and people may imagine him as present in or by his Image Ergo Vpon that imagination we may worship Christ and his Image Both the assumpsition and also the sequel of this Argument are denied First taking truely for that which is really true we cannot by imagination so conioine Christ and his painted Image as that we may conceiue them to bee one terminatiue obiect of worship for the reasons formerly deliuered Neither is the Picture or Image of any other person the terminatiue obiect of Loue Reuerence or Worship but onely a motiue and signe of remembrance vpon aspect whereof followeth the former actions inward or outward of Loue Reuerence or Worship not towards the Image but towards the principall Secondly it is inconsequent to argue that because some people imagine the Image and the sampler as things conioined therefore they may coworship them for religious adoration primarie or secondarie is not founded vpon euerie kind of vnion as appeareth in mental Images but vpon certain kinds of vnion to wit First Personal as when the Humanitie of Christ is coupled with the Dietie Secondly Substantiall as where the parts are coupled with the whole Thirdly Causall Relatiue or Accidentall to wit when by diuine ordination things created are made instruments messengers signes or receptacles of diuine grace as the holy Sacraments and the Word and Gospell and the Ministers of the Church c. Christ himselfe is present assistant and operatiue in and by these instruments and hath commanded reuerence to
still sollicitous though secure of their owne as S. Cyprian writes ANSVVER The blessed Saints in Heauen can desire that only which is according to the will of God Math. 6. 10. But that it pleaseth God they shall desire to know and vnderstand all the particular actions and occurrents of people on earth or that they shall desire to know the honour which is done to them in the inferiour world must be beleeued as a matter of Faith when the Papals prooue it by diuine Reuelation And although according to S. Cyprian blessed Saints are sollicitous of the Saluation of the Chucrh militant yet it followeth not Ergo they heare the petitions of the liuing for a father dwelling in London which hath his sonne at Constantinople is sollicitous of his sonnes safetie and yet he vnderstandeth not all the particulars about him IESVIT Wherefore our Doctrine that Saints see our prayers being deliuered so constantly by the antient Fathers so conformable to the principles of Christian beleefe about the blessednesse of Saints so consonant vnto expresse passages of Scripture we may easily expect that vnto Protestants it would not be displeasing did they looke on it with vnpartiall eyes specially they hauing no Text of Scripture that may make so much shew of direct opposition against it ANSWER Your insinuations are coniecturall and at the best seemingly plausible but your disputation is weake wherefore we admire your confidence in a case so groundlesse and intreat you either to argue more soundly or else to be lesse vaineglorious in your conclusions IESVIT The place continually obiected out of the Prophet Esay Abraham knew vs not Israell was ignorant of vs thou O Lord art our Father thou our Redeemer hath this sence that Abraham and Iacob when they did liue vpon earth and carnally beget children did not know particularly their posterities and so could not beare them such particular affection whereas God can and doth distinctly see and know their necessities and prouides against them deliuering his children out of them And therefore he is the onely Father the onely Redeemer Abraham and Iacob not deseruing the name of Father in comparison with God What makes this against the Saints hearing our prayers ANSVVER We receiued our exposition of this place of Esay cap. 63.16 out of S. Augustine and I marueile why the Iesuit reiecteth the same and chuseth a worse because his owne party confesseth that Abraham and the Patriarkes liuing in the darke lake of Limbus did not heare the prayers of their posteritie nor behold and vnderstand the affaires of their children liuing vpon earth IESVIT §. 3. The worship of Spirit and Truth with outward prostration of the bodie due vnto Saints THe third cause of their dislike is That we giue the honor of the Creator vnto the creature honoring Saints with religious worship with worship of Spirit and Truth euen to the prostrating of our bodies before them whereby we giue them honor due to God only and bring in many Gods as the Heathens do To this Obiection made long ago by Faustus the Manichee S. Austine answereth in these words The Christian people doth celebrate with religious solemnitie the memories of Martyrs to the end to stirre vp themselues to their imitation and that they may be assisted with their prayers and associated vnto their merits c. but with the worship tearmed in Greeke Latria and which the Latine language cannot expresse in one word being a certaine subiection and seruitude due properly to the Deitie only wee do not honour any but onely God nor thinke that this honour ought to be giuen but only to him These words of S. Augustine shew the worship of Saints to be on the one side more than ciuile and on the other side lesse than diuine more than ciuile as proceeding out of acknowledgement of the excellencie Saints haue superior vnto all naturall by which they be partakers of diuine perfection in that high degree as no substance can by natureparticipate therof and therfore S. Austine with good reason tearmes it religious Lesse than diuine as proceeding from persuasion of excellency though superhumane yet infinitely inferiour vnto the increate and immence excellencie of God yea depending essentially thereof So that honor is giuen them dependently of God as being superexcellent participants of his perfection and his singular friends ANSVVER Our Argument is All religious worship is due to God onely Papists yeeld to Saints some religious worship Ergo Papists yeeld to Saints some worship due to God onely The Iesuit pretendeth to answere by distinction out of St. Augustine saying That religious worship is either simply Diuine and founded vpon infinite and increate excellencie called Latria or else superhumane founded vpon Grace and Glorie which is an excellencie finite and created Papists yeeld the latter kinde of religious worship to blessed Saints and Angels but not the former To this Answere Protestants replie saying That there are no other kindes of worship than there be Tables of the Morall Law But there are onely two Tables of the Morall Law the former whereof teacheth Diuine Worship and the second humane ciuile or of speciall obseruance And if there be a mixt worship partly Diuine and partly humane so much thereof as is Diuine is proper to God and may not be imparted to any Creature Esay 42.8 But against this they obiect That to euery kinde and degree of excellencie there is a worship due proportionall to that excellencie But blessed Saints and Angels haue a speciall kinde and degree of excellencie superiour to theirs which liue vpon earth Therefore a speciall honour proportioned to their excellencie and superiour to humane is due vnto them It is answered That granting in blessed Saints and Angels an excellencie of Grace and Glorie and Honour due in respect of the same this prooueth not that they are to bee adored with religious worship for then holy persons vpon earth may bee worshipped with religious worship But the vertue of Religion according to the Tenet of the Schoole respecteth immedately increated excellencie and Latria and Religion are all one and if Saints and Angels may be worshipped with religious worship they may bee serued with the worship of Latria And if they answer that worship of Saints is a materiall action of religion this answer is confuted by the schoolemen themselues who also affirme that the worship of Saints c. is an act of Dulia and not of Religion or Latria The place obiected out of S. Augustin c. Faust. Manich. li. 20. c. 2 1 is made to speake that by the Aduersarie which the holy father intendeth not for he tearmeth not the honour exhibited by the true Church to the persons of Martyrs religious but he saith onely Populus Christianus memorias martyrum religiosa solemnitate concelebrat Christian people celebrate the memorials of Martyrs with religious solemnitie And then expounding himselfe in the progresse of the chapter
in the bodies of St. Peter and the three yong men St. Luke c. 4.30 affirmeth not that our Sauiours bodie was inuisible but that he passed thorow the midst of the people and yet admitting that he was then inuisible the cause might be in the peoples eyes Luke 24. 16. or in the Aire and not in his bodie Genes 19. 11. Neither is actuall grauitie or actuall combustibilitie or visibilitie so inseparable from a bodie as circumscription and distinction of parts Lastly For a bodie to bee resplendent and to shine as the Sunne in glorie is not repugnant to the nature of the bodie but is of the perfection and happinesse thereof Matth. 13. 43. But that an indiuiduall bodie may bee in many places at once and in diuers formes and according to diuers actions and haue no reference to place nor any properties inward or outward of a true bodie is not Diuine veritie but an audacious fiction or rather an incongruous dreame and contradictorie Chymera But that is verified in this Question of the Romists which Ireneus saith Multa male oportet interpretari eos qui vnum non volunt rectè intelligere They are compelled to expound many things amisse which will not vnderstand one thing aright IESVIT § 2. Transubstantiation belongs to the substance of the Reall Presence THis J prooue That belongs to the substance of this Mysterie of the reall Presence which being denied and taken away the words of Christ This is my Bodie cannot be true taken in the literall sence in which sence they are to be taken as hath beene shewed But without granting Transubstantiation the words of Christ cannot be true taken in the literall sence Ergo Transubstantiation belongs to the substance of this Mysterie of the reall Presence The Minor is prooued Because these words This is my Bodie signifie that the thing the Priest holds in his hand is truely really and substantially the bodie of Christ for in this Proposition This is my Bodie the Verb est signifies a coniunction betweene this in the Priests hand and the bodie of Christ and being a Verb substantiue taken in his proper signification it signifies a substantiall Identitie betweene this in the Priests hands and the bodie of Christ. But this in the Priests hands being before Consecration bread a thing substantially distinct from the bodie of Christ cannot by consecration bee made substantially the bodie of Christ as the Fathers teach it is without some substantiall alteration or change and what other substantiall change can make bread to become truely the bodie of Christ beside substantiall conuersion of the same into his Bodie ANSVVER You cannot demonstrate that our Sauiours words must be expounded literally for the Instance of the cup Luke 22.20 besides other Arguments choakes you and therefore the mayne ground of your Doctrine being sandie the Arguments inferred vpon the same are infirme The waight of the first Argument lyeth in this Proposition Our Sauiours words cannot bee expounded literally vnlesse the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation bee granted I answere First if Transubstantiation were admitted the words of Christ This is my bodie This Cup is the New Testament in my blood cannot bee litterall for where there is any figure or trope the speech is not literall but in the Sacramentall words there is some figure or trope by our Aduersaries confession Secondly If the said words be vnderstood litterally then the bodie of Christ is properly broken and his blood properly shed in the Eucharist for Saint Paul saith This is my bodie which is broken for you 1. Cor. 11.24 Saint Luke This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you But the bodie of Christ is not properly broken nor his blood properly shed in the holy Eucharist Thirdly It is an improper speech to say This is my bodie that is the thing contained vnder these formes is by conuersion and substantiall Transmutation my bodie but Papists maintaining Transubstantiation expound Christs words in this or in some other manner whereby they depart from the proprietie of the letter therefore in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation they depart from the letter of the words and consequently they make the same figuratiue IESVIT But some may obiect That as a man shewing a leather purse full of gold may truely say this is gold or a paper wrapt vp full of siluer may say this is siluer so the bodie of Christ being vnder consecrated bread wee may truely say This is the bodie of Christ though the substance of bread remaine ANSWER Many famous scholemen teach that the doctrine of Consubstantiation to wit such a presence as maintaineth the substance of Bread and Wine to remaine together with the Bodie and Bloud of Christ is in it selfe more probable and were rather to be followed than the doctrine of Transubstantiation but onely because of the contrarie definition of the Romane Church and some of these Doctors hold that the opinion of Transubstantiation is not verie antient And Card. Caietan affirmeth that secluding the authoritie of the Roman Church there is nothing in the Scripture which may compell one to vnderstand the words properly IESVIT I answer that when substances are apt of their nature and ordained by vse to containe other substances then shewing the substance that containes we may signifie the substance contained as in the former examples The reason is because their naturall aptitude to containe other things being vulgarly knowne mans vnderstanding straight passes from the consideration of the substances containing to thinke of the thing contained therein But when substances are not by nature and custome ordained to containe others we cannot by shewing them demonstrate another because their outward forme signifies immediately the substance contained in them For example one puts a peece of gold in an apple and shewing it cries this is gold in rigor of speech he sayes not true because the sence of his word is that the thing demonstrated immediately by the formes and accidents of that apple is gold Yea put the case that one should say this is gold shewing a peece of paper vnfolded in a manner not apt to containe any thing in it he should not say true though by some deuise hee had put secretly into it a peece of gold because when the paper is shewed displaied and not as containing something in it and yet is tearmed gold the proper sence of that speech is that the substance immediatly contained vnder the accidents of paper is gold although it be couered with other accidents than those that vsually accompanie the nature of gold Wherefore the proposition of Christ This is my Bodie being spoken of a thing that naturally is not apt nor by custome ordained to containe an humane bodie it cannot be vnderstood litterally but of the subiect immediately contained vnder and demonstrated by the accidents and outward semblance of Bread Now the thing that lyes hidden immediately vnder the accidents
Heb. 7.23.27.28 ca. 10. 21. Neither is there any word or sentence in our Sauiours Doctrine concerning any reall sacrifice but only of himselfe vpon the Crosse neither was any altar vsed and ordained by Christ and his Apostles And if in all reall sacrifices the matter of the oblation must be really destroyed and changed and no physicall destruction or change is made in the bodie of Christ or in the elements of Bread and Wine by Transubstantiation then Romists haue deuised a reall sacrifice in the new Testament which hath no diuine Institution Secondly There is no created vertue inhaerent in the Sacramentall words as they are pronounced by a Priest to make the bodie of Christ locally present in the holy Eucharist but when all the words and all the actions are lawfully performed which Christ commanded the holy Ghost is assistant to his owne ordinance and deliuereth vnto faithfull people the crucified Bodie of Christ and the Bloud of Christ shed for our sinnes vpon the crosse And although the crucified bodie of our Sauiour was seuered from the soule yet the deitie euen then remained vnited to that bodie which then was not dead in regard of merit and satisfaction and all they which receiue that bodie by operatiue faith are made partakers of the merit and satisfaction thereof and by this receiuing are more and more ingraffed into Christ. IESVIT Thirdly If vnder the forme of bread were onely the bodie of Christ and his soule and bloud were not by concomitancie there the communicants should receiue the body of Christ but not truely Christ as our Aduersaries grant Caluin specially saying Quis sanus sobrius Christi corpus Christum esse sibi persuadeat And againe Ne fando quidem auditum est corpus Christi aut sanguinem Deum hominem appellari But Fathers affirme most constantly that not onely the bodie of Christ but also Christ himselfe is in the Sacrament that we take in the Dominicall refection The word made flesh that by the consecration of the Mysteries wee receiue the verie Sonne of God that vnder the forme of Bread we lodge within vs the Soueraigne King and that we see Christ feele Christ eate Christ Non regium puerum sed ipsum vnigenitum Dei filium An hundred other places might be brought where the Fathers call the consecrated Bread Christ and consequently they did not thinke there was the meere Bodie without Blood and Soule seeing as Caluin doth confesse Jt is an absurd manner of speech to terme Christ the meere bodie of Christ and such a forme of speech was neuer heard of hitherto in the world Ergo Concomitancie that is Christs reall and entire Bodie Soule Flesh Blood to be vnder the forme of Bread was acknowledged by the Fathers ANSVVER It is granted that worthie Communicants in the holy Eucharist receiue Christ Ioh. 6. 33 35 48. but Sacramentall eating his flesh and drinking his blood is the meanes by which they are vnited and incorporated with Christ himselfe therefore the Obiection to wit if the soule and blood were not in Christs bodie by Concomitancie Communicants should receiue the bodie of Christ but not truely Christ is inconsequent because by receiuing the one they receiue the other and the former is the instrumentall cause of the latter So in this kinde of spirituall Concomitancie neither the Fathers nor Caluin nor we nor you need be at any difference IESVIT This Principle which is no lesse certaine than the true reall Presence supposed I inferre the lawfulnesse of Communion vnder one kinde to wit vnder the sole forme of Bread by this Argument If Communion vnder one kinde be not against the substance either of Christs Institution or of his Sacrament or his Precept or of the Practise of the Primitiue Church it is lawfull iustifiable and for iust Reasons may be commanded by the Church This Proposition is true because there neither are other causes of dislike that may not be reduced to these foure neither doe Christs Institution or Sacrament or Precept or the Primitiue practise bind vs to keepe them further than in substance the accidentall Circumstances of Institutions Sacraments Precepts Primitiue Customes being variable according to the variable disposition of things vnto which the Church Militant in this life is subiect Now I assume Concomitancie being supposed it may be made euident that Communion vnder one kind is not against the substance either of Christs Institution or of the Sacrament or of his Precept or of his Primitiue practise For the substance of these foure Obligations is one and the same to wit that we be truly and really partakers of the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour which is fully done by Communion vnder one kind as I will shew in the foure consequent Sections ANSWER If Concomitancie which is stiled in this place by the name of a Principle were graunted yet Communion in one kind is not iustifiable For although it depriue not people of Christs Bloud as it is a bodily part contained in the veines yet it depriueth them of the Bloud of Christ as it was shed and poured out and offered in Sacrifice for them To the maine Argument I answer denying the Assumption For Communion in one kind is repugnant to the first Institution of the Eucharist by Christ who hallowed two materiall Elements Bread and Wine appointed them a distinct signification deliuered them indifferently to all the Communicants and annexed a Promise to the reception of the one as well as to the sumption of the other Secondly It is repugnant to the expresse Precept of Christ saying Drinke yee all of this and to S. Pauls Precept 1. Cor. 11. 28. Thirdly The practise of the holy Apostles and of the Primitiue Church is against it Fourthly The people which receiue in one kind receiue onely a Moitie and piece but not the whole and entire Sacrament IESVIT § 2. Communion vnder one kind not against the substance of the Institution of Christ. DIuine Institution is an Action of God whereby hee giues being vnto things with reference vnto some speciall end This end is twofold the one corporall and temporall for which God hath instituted agreeable 〈◊〉 meanes that men may be borne into this world he did institute marriage and for maintenance of the said life being had hee or dained many sorts of meate The other end is spirituall for which God hath instituted Sacraments as for the first obtaining of grace and spirituall life the Sacrament of Baptisme and Penance and for the preseruing of grace and increasing therein particularly the Sacrament of the Eucharist That a man bee bound to vse the Jnstitution of God two things are required First that the end thereof bee necessarie and hee bound to indeuour the attaining thereof Hence it is that though marriage bee the Jnstitution of God appointed to propagate mankinde yet euery man is not bound to marry because he is not bound to propagate
spirituall manducation alone without Sacramentall If the former illation of Romists were good it will follow likewise from thence that receiuing of Bread in the Eucharist is not of the substance of Christs Institution for whole and intire Christ according to bodie and soule and infinite person is in the blood alone if the Popish Doctrine of Concomitancie be true and if this be granted as of necessitie it must then Romists may mangle and transforme the holy Sacrament at their pleasure Secondly The end and fruit of the Sacrament is either common to the holy Eucharist with other meanes of Grace or else proper to it onely To eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Sonne of God by recognition of Christs Passion and by Faith in the same may be an effect of the Gospell preached Ioh. 6. 54. But to eate the same flesh and blood communicated more distinctly and effectually by visible seales of the couenant of the new Testament is an end and fruit peculiar and proper to the holy Eucharist 1. Cor. 10. 16. A man may haue the same inheritance bestowed on him by the word and writing of the Donor yet when the same is confirmed by the seale of the Donor the donation is of greater validitie and if by Law or custome two seales should be appointed the apposition of one is not of equall force and validitie to the apposition of both so likewise because the Sonne of God made choyce of two outward signes namely Bread and Wine to represent and apply his Passion and Oblation and withall commanded the common vse and reception of both saying Drinke ye all of this and also annexed a speciall promise and blessing to both these outward signes ioyntly vsed therefore the vse sumption of one of these without the other cannot haue so great force to apply the effect fruit of the Sacrament as the vse reception of both And as in concauses or partiall causes the action of the one cannot produce the effect without the other and as when two keyes are prouided to open a locke the same is not opened by one of them onely so likewise Christ Iesus hauing instituted and sanctified two signes for the more proportionable and effectuall application of his Bodie and Blood it is grosse presumption in man to mutilate and cut off a part of that bodie which the wisedome of Christ hath framed in due and beautifull proportion and to diuide that which God hath ioyned together and without warrant from Gods reuealed word to attribute a totall effect to a partiall meanes and cause IESVIT Hence it is apparent that without any iust cause some Protestants inueigh against the Councell of Constance as professing to contradict the Precept of Christ because it decreed That the Sacrament may bee lawfully giuen vnder one kind Non obstante quod Christus in vtraque specie illud instituerit Apostolis administrauerit Notwithstanding Christs Institution and Administration thereof in both kinds to his Disciples This their bitternesse proceeds from zeale without knowledge not distinguishing the Jnstitution of God from his Precept which are very distinct for the Precept of both kinds if Christ gaue any doth bind whether both kinds be necessarie for the maintenance of mans soule in grace or no but the Jnstitution in both kinds doth not binde further than the thing instituted to wit Communion vnder both kinds is necessarie for the maintaining of spirituall life for which one kind being sufficient as I haue shewed Christs Institution of both kinds doth not inforce the vse of both If God should haue commanded the vse both of meate and drinke euery man should be bound not onely to eate but also to drinke though he had no necessitie thereof but now seeing God hath not giuen such a Precept a man that can liue by meate without euer drinking is not bound to drinke non obstante that God did institute both eating and drinking for the preseruation of life in euerie man ANSWER The Councell of Constance is iustly censured for presuming to alter and disanull the ordinance of Christ for if it be flagitious amongst men to alter and contradict the lawfull Will of a Testator Galat. 3.15 shall it not be much more vnlawfall to alter the Testament of the Sonne of God who disposed to the common people his Bloud as well as his Bodie saying Drinke ye all of this Math. 26 27. and except yee eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the man c. Ioh. 6.53 And the words of the said Synod are most presumptious for this they pronounce Although Christ after supper instituted and administred to his Disciples vnder both kindes c. And although in the Primitiue Chruch this Sacrament was receiued of Beleeuers in both kinds yet notwithstanding the contrarie custome for Laicks to receiue in one kind is with good reason brought in and they are Heretickes which hold this sacrilegious or vnlawfull But what are these men in comparison of Christ and his Apostles and of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church If men may thus twit Christ and his Apostles what shall become of all religion The sole and totall rule to guide the Church in the matter of the holy Eucharist is Christs Institution and practise recorded by the Euangelists and testified by the Apostles and the Primitiue Church in their doctrine and practise followed this rule as some of our learned Aduersaries ingeniously confesse If therefore Christ Iesus and his Apostles and after these the Primitiue Church administred the Communion to lay people in both kinds as this Synod confesseth and on the contraie nothing is extant in holy Writ or in the monuments of the Fathers to testifie that Christ and his Apostles retracted or altered this first practise What audacious sacriledge was it in the Prelates of Constance vpon their owne priuate and childish reasons to cancell Christs last Will and Testament and to violate the sacred precept and ordinance of the Sonne of God But our Aduersarie laboureth by a distinction of Institution and Precept to plaister the vlcerous Doctrine of the 〈◊〉 of Constance saying or implying That although Christ did institute the holy Eucharist in two kinds yet he gaue no precept for the vse of it in two kinds But this plaister of sig-leaues healeth not the wound for there is both an institution and a precept for both kinds and more expressely for the cup than for the bread for Christ said expressely and literally Drinke yee all of this whereas he said not so literally and expressely eat yee all of this Besides his institution is a vertuall and interpretatiue precept as appeareth by S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.23 And Christ did institute the Eucharist in two kinds that people might receiue and vfe it in two kinds Also if the manner of the institution prooueth not the manner of the vse then the Eucharist may be vsed in another manner I meane in things substantiall than
onely by making them susceptible of a free and liberall reward and by placing them in the state and order of causes impetrant or dispositiue conditions S. Paul saith Rom. 8.18 I thinke that the Passions of this time are not condigne to the glorie to come that shall be reuealed in vs. First the passions here expressed were Martyredomes sanctified by grace Phil. 1.29 and spirituall sacrifices of a sweete smelling sauour 2. Tim. 4. 6. most pretious in Gods sight Psalm 116.15 Secondly Condignitie or Worthinesse equall in desert or value to the reward of glorie is denyed vnto them but where there is inequalitie betweene the worke and the reward and where the reward is of Grace and the worke of debt there is found no proportion of Condignitie Origen saith I can hardly persuade my selfe that there can be any good worke deseruing as a debt the reward of God S. Augustine Thou shall not receiue eternall life for thy Merit but only for Grace Andreas Vega saith That many Schoole-men to wit Gregorie Arimine Durand Marsilius Waldensis Burgensis Eckius c. reiect the Romish doctrine of merit of Condignitie Dionisius Cistertiensis doth the like Brulifer saith It is a verie deuout opinion established by many authorities that no man in this life how pure and perfect soeuer can merit coelestial glorie by 〈◊〉 but that by 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 And 〈◊〉 the Iesuit 〈◊〉 That the Roman Church hath not hitherto determined expressely the question of 〈◊〉 of condignitie and the same author with others 〈◊〉 That Merit of congruitie is not truly properly simply Merit but 〈◊〉 quid nomine tenus comparatiuely and in appellation only And they deliuer a good reason of this assertion for if for a small labour and seruice or if for a seruice and obedience due of right by other titles a liberall and immense gift shall be bestowed there is no Merit in the receiuer but the reward is meerely of 〈◊〉 in the bestower So likewise when God Almightie bestoweth vpon his children an incomparable weight of glorie for a small and imperfect seruice and for that which is due vnto himselfe in right by many other titles this reward is not a wages of debt neither is God obliged in iustice to bestow it but it is a reward of Grace and bountie and man is indebted to God for promising and bestowing the same Now from hence it is apparent that the doctrine of Merit taken properly is not Catholicke or infallible and therefore if Popes pardons depend vpon the same a worme-eaten post is made the pillar and supporter of this moath-eaten rag of supererogation wherwith the Romists would gayly cloath their children IESVIT The first grace is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because God out of his owne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his actions 〈◊〉 a without which Ordination no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or correspondencie with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ANSWER By Diuine preordination vertuous actions haue reference not of desert but of disposition and instrumentall efficiencie or manuduction to beatitude or the last supernaturall 〈◊〉 and according to Saint Bernard they are Via regni non causa regnandi The way to the heauenly Kingdome but not the meritorious cause of raigning IESVIT The second is the Grace of Redemption by Christ Iesus without whom wee and our workes are defiled wee being by nature the children of wrath and should bee so still had not hee by his Passion and Death appeased God 〈◊〉 vs the inestimable treasure of his merits so that In illo benedixit nos Deus omni benedictione spirituali in caelestibus in quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem eius secundum diuitias gratiae suae quae superabundauit in nobis ANSVVER The grace of Redemption appeaseth God and purchased for vs the fruit and inestimable benefit of Christs Merits both for remission of our sinnes and for our Sanctification But that Christs Merits make mans actions meritorious and that his satisfaction inableth man to satisfie Gods Iustice is all one as if one would inferre saying Christ Iesus hath redeemed vs by his Passion and he communicates to vs the grace of Redemption Ergo Christ Iesus hath made vs Redeemers IESVIT The third is grace of Adoption in Baptisme whereby soules are supernaturally beautified by participation of the diuine nature whence a triple dignity redounds vnto Works one by the grace of Adoption from God the Father who in respect of this Adoption regards good works as the works of his children Another is from God the holy Ghost dwelling in vs by whom Good workes are honoured as by the principall Author of them so that he rather than we doth the works who therefore is said to pray for vs with vnspeakable groanes The last dignitie is from God the Son Christ Iefus whose members we are made by Grace so that the works we doe be reputed not so much ours as his as the worke of the particular members is attributed principally vnto the head ANSWER By the grace of Regeneration and Adoption the diuine Image is imprinted in the soule 2. Pet. 1. 4. Ephes. 4.24 and a dignitie of goodnesse redounds to vertuous actions from the three persons of the Trinity But hence it followeth not Ergo Good workes merit in condignitie for although Christ Iesus and the holy Ghost worke in righteous People and the vertuous deedes of these Persons are in some sort reputed the works of Christ yet because the diuine Persons worke in them according to a certaine degree and measure of grace and not according to the fullnesse of Power and the vertuous deeds of men are attributed to Christ not as the cause Elicitiue or as immediately producing them it is inconsequent to say Good workes are produced originally by the holy Ghost and they are reputed Christs works in regard of Influence Approbation and Acceptation Ergo they haue the totall Perfection to wit of meriting and satisfying which Christs owne Personall workes had The foot of man is vnited to the head and the head maketh influence into it neuerthelesse the whole perfection of the head is not in the foot and the foot doth not vnderstand because the head vnderstandeth nor seeth heareth or smelleth although these senses are 〈◊〉 in the head So likewise euery iust person is vnited to Christ and is spiritually sanctified by the Grace of the holy Ghost but this motion and influence is finite in it selfe and limited to the estate of our weakenesse 〈◊〉 distributed according to the necessitie of the Receiuer and the wisedome and good pleasure of the moouer and therefore it imparteth not the whole vertue of the moouer but so much onely as is necessarie and conuenient for the Subiect to receiue but it is not necessary for men to receiue power of meriting properly and it is most honourable for God to bestow life eternall
in the second The Conclusion and not the Meanes For the Conclusion must follow the nature of the premisses or Principles out of which it is deduced therefore if they be sometimes vncertaine as is prooued before the Conclusion cannot be infallible Not in the third The Meanes and not the Conclusion For that cannot but be true and necessarie if the Meanes be so And this I am sure you will neuer graunt because if you should you must denie the infallibilitie which you seeke to establish To this for I confesse the Argument is old but can neuer be worne out nor shifted off your great Maister Stapleton who is miserably hampered in it and indeed so are yee all answers That the infallibilitie of a Councell is in the second course that is It is infallible in the Conclusion though it be vncertaine and fallible in the Meanes and proofe of it How comes this to passe It is a thing altogether vnknowne in Nature and Art too That fallible Principles can either father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion Well that is graunted in Nature and in all Argumentation that causes knowledge But wee shall haue Reasons for it First because the Church is discursiue and vses the weights and moments of Reason in the Meanes but is Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Reuelation from the Spirit of God in deliuering the Conclusion It is but the making of this appeare and all Controuersie is at an end Well I will not discourse here to what end there is any vse of Meanes if the Conclusion be Propheticall which yet is iustly vrged for no good cause can be assigned of it If it be Propheticall in the Conclusion I speake still of the present Church for that which included the Apostles which had the Spirit of Prophesie and immediate Reuelation was euer propheticke in the Definition Then since it deliuers the Conclusion not according to Nature and Art that is out of Principles which can beare it there must be some supernaturall Authoritie which must deliuer this Truth That say I must be the Scripture For if you flye to immediate Reuelation now the Enthusiasme must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the verie Exposition of all the Primitiue Church neyther say it nor inforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your Prophesie in the Conclusion I know no other thing can warrant it If you thinke the Tradition of the Church can make the World beholding to you Produce any Father of the Church that sayes this is an vniuersall Tradition of the Church That her Definitions in a Generall Councell are Propheticall and by immediate Reuelation Produce any one Father that sayes it of his owne authoritie That he thinkes so Nay make it appeare that euer any Prophet in that which he deliuered from God as infallible Truth was euer discursiue at all in the Meanes Nay make it but probable in the ordinarie course of Prophesie and I hope you goe no higher nor will I offer at Gods absolute Power That that which is discursiue in the Meanes can be Propheticke in the Conclusion and you shall be my great Apollo for euer In the meane time I haue learned this from yours That all Prophesie is by Vision Inspiration c. and that no Vision admits discourse That all Prophesie is an Illumination not alwayes present but when the Word of the Lord came to them and that was not by discourse And yet you say againe That this Propheticke infallibilitie of the Church is not gotten without studie and Industrie You should doe well to tell vs too why God would put his Church to studie for the Spirit of Prophesie which neuer anie particular Prophet was put vnto And whosoeuer shall studie for it shall doe itin vaine since Prophesie is a Gift and can neuer be an acquired Habite And there is somewhat in it that Bellarmine in all his Dispute for the Authoritie of Generall Councels dares not come at this Rocke He preferres the Conclusion and the Canon before the Acts and the deliberations of Councels and so doe wee but I doe not remember that euer he speakes out That the Conclusion is deliuered by Prophesie or Reuelation Sure he sounded the Shore and found danger here He did sound it For a little before he speakes plainely Would his bad cause let him be constant Councels doe deduce their Conclusions What from Inspiration No But out of the Word of God and that per ratiocinationem by Argumentation Neyther haue they nor doe they write any immediate Reuelations The second Reason why hee will haue it propheticke in the Conclusion is Because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Faith not of Knowledge And that therefore the Church proposing it to be beleeued though it vse Meanes yet it stands not vpon Art or Meanes or Argument but the Reuelation of the Holy Ghost Else when we embrace the Conclusion proposed it should not be an Assent of Faith but a Habit of Knowledge This for the first part That the Church vses the Meanes but followes them not is all one in substance with the former Reason And for the latter part That then our admitting the Decree ofa Councell would be no Assent of Faith but a Habit of Knowledge What great inconuenience is there if it be graunted For I thinke it is vndoubted Truth That one and the same Conclusion may be Faith to the Beleeuer that cannot prooue and Knowledge to the Learned that can And S. Augustine I am sure in regard of one and the same thing euen this the verie Wisedome of the Church in her Doctrine ascribes Vnderstanding to one sort of men and Beleefe to another weaker sort And Thomas goes with him And for further satisfaction if not of you of others this may be considered too Man lost by sinne the Integritie of his Nature and cannot haue Light enough to see the way to Heauen but by Grace This Grace was first merited after giuen by Christ. This Grace is first kindled in Faith by which if wee agree not to some supernaturall Principles which no Reason can demonstrate simply wee can neuer see our way But this Light when it hath made Reason submit it selfe cleares the Eye of Reason it neuer puts it out In which sense it may be is that of Optatus That the verie Catholike Church it selfe is reasonable as well as diffused euerie where By which Reason enlightned which is stronger than Reason the Church in all Ages hath beene able either to conuert or conuince or stop the mouthes at least of Philosophers and the great men of Reason in the verie point of Faith where it is at highest To the present occasion then The first immediate Fundamentall Points of Faith without which there is no saluation they as they cannot be prooued by Reason so neither need they be determined by any Councell nor euer were they attempted they are
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