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
Heathen or Publicane but euery one which opposeth against the true Church inordinately and without iust cause is onely so to be accounted First there is opposition by way of counsell and aduice and this maketh no man an Hereticke as appeareth by Paphnutius opposing the Councell of Nice Secondly there is opposition by way of reprehension and true confutation of errour by authoritie of the holy Scriptures And this also maketh no man an Hereticke because he that in a lawfull manner propugneth the faith of the Scriptures maintaineth the Law and veritie of God and fulfilleth the Diuine Precept requiring man to contend for the truth 1. Tim. 6. 11. 2. Tim. 4. 7. And also performeth a worke of charitie in labouring to conuert people from errour Iam. 5. 19 20. Saint Augustines place Epist. 118. c. 5. ad Ianuar. is vnderstood of outward ceremonies and adiaphorous rites in respect of their vse vnblameable and not of matters of faith and therefore it appertaineth not to the question in hand IESVITS 4th Argument That doctrine which Tradition hath deliuered as the doctrine of all Ancestours without deliuering any Orthodox opposition against it that is opposition made by any confessed Catholicke Doctours or Fathers is doctrine deriued from the Apostles without change ANSWER This Proposition is denied for new Doctrine may bee brought in after the decease of the antient Fathers and because the same was vnheard of in their dayes they could make no such plaine and direct opposition against it as that either Historians might take notice thereof or the maintainers of such Doctrine haue no euasion by distinctions and sophisticall slights to elude their Testimonies IESVIT But such is the Doctrine of the Roman Church which Consent and Tradition of Ancestors doth deliuer and doth not together deliuer that any confessed Orthodox Father opposed against it ANSVVER Some Doctrines of the later Roman Church were opposed by the antient Roman Bishops themselues to wit Adoration of Images by Gregorie the Great Communion in one kind by Leo the first Transubstantiation by Gelasius the first The temporall dominion of Popes and Bishops ouer Princes by S. Chrysostome Optatus Mileuitanus and Gregorie the first The dignitie and title of vniuersall Bishop by the same Gregorie And the Doctrine of Papals preferring the old Translation before the originall Text making Apocriphall bookes Canonicall prohibiting lay people to read the Scriptures and exalting the authoritie of the present Church aboue the Scriptures are condemned by many antient Fathers IESVIT We know indeed by Tradition that some in former times stood against many points of the Roman Doctrine as Arrius Pelagius Waldo the Albigenses Wiclife Husse and some others but they are not confessed 〈◊〉 Fathers but were noted for nouelty and singularity and for such by Tradition described vnto vs which kind of opposition doth not discredit the Doctrine of the Church but rather makes the same to appeare more cleerely and famously Apostolicall ANSVVER 〈◊〉 opposed the Doctrine of the holy 〈◊〉 and of the 〈◊〉 Church and was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 and the Fathers of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that by the Scriptures and the Pelagians were 〈◊〉 conuicted by S. Augustine and his Scholers out of the holy Scripture And although Pope Celestine approoued S. Augustines Faith and condemned these Hereticks yet that was not the principall reason whereupon they were reputed Heretickes by the Christian world but the falshood of their Doctrine prooued such by repugnancie with the Scriptures made them to be so esteemed And how many Heretickes were discouered and confuted by the Fathers of the first three hundred yeares out of the Scriptures before the Roman Church ascended to the height of authoritie The Waldenses were no Hereticks as I haue formerly prooued but were only branded with that aspersion by Papals whose pride and tyrrannie they did oppose and had S. Paul himselfe beene aliue and reprooued the errour and wickednesse of the Babilonian Harlot he must not haue escaped her censure and malice Wicliffe and Husse were blessed instruments of Christ vindicating and defending Gods Truth withheld in Iniquitie neither did they hold such blasphemies as the Romists cast vpon them They might haue some opinions in points lesse materiall wherein perhaps they concurre not with our Doctrine as likewise the Waldenses but as for those vile reports which Romists make of their Doctrine no indifferent person will regard it for euen at this day when things are in present view and action you calumniate the persons and falsifie the Doctrine of all your Opposites as grosly as euer Pagans traduced the Primitiue Christians And many of the Bookes and Writings of Wicliffe and Husse are extant wherein are found no such Doctrines as Papists haue charged them with IESVIT Seeing as euen Doctor Field doth confesse when a Doctrine is in any age constantly deliuered as a matter of Faith and as receiued from Ancestors in such sort as the Contradictors thereof were in the beginning noted for Noueltie and if they persisted in contradiction in the end charged with 〈◊〉 it is not possible but such a Doctrine should come by Succession from the Apostles What more euident signe of a perpetuall Apostolicall Tradition than this ANSWER You mistake the Doctors meaning for he speaketh of the most famous and eminent of euery age in sensu composito that is of the most famous and eminent of euery age which consent and agree the latter with the former But he affirmeth not in sensu 〈◊〉 that whatsoeuer the most famous in any one particular age constantly deliuered c. is descended from the Apostles Whiles this reuerend Diuine was liuing such passages of his booke were obiected against him by Papists which caused him to explane himselfe and among other things he saith I neuer make the judgement and opinion of present Bishops of Apostolicall Churches to be the rule to know Traditions by but denie it c. And make onely the Pastors of Apostolicall Churches successiuely from the beginning witnessing the same things to be a rule in this kind IESVIT Protestants answer that it is sufficient that the Roman Doctrine was contradicted by Orthodox Fathers and that this may be prooued by their writings which they haue left vnto posteritie though their opposition was not noted by Antiquitie nor by fame of Tradition deliuered vnto posteritie But this answere leaues no meanes whereby common people may know certainely the perpetuall Tradition of Gods Church without exact examining and looking into their workes which common people cannot do J prooue it if against euery Tradition of the Church difficill and obscure passages of the Fathers may be brought and this doth suffice to make the same questionable then no Tradition can be certainely knowne without exact reading and examining and looking into the holy Fathers But no Tradition or Doctrine is so constantly and cleerely deliuered
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
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
giue the sicke only the Bread Secondly if Paulinus of whom Erasmus saith it is the same Craftsman which hath corrupted so many things in the writings of S. Hierome and S. Augustine report truely touching S. Ambrose this prooueth not That Communion in one kind was in ordinary vfe but that S. Ambrose being speechlesse and without vnderstanding and deceasing instantly after the Bread was put into his mouth and consequently being preuented by death receiued by reason of this accident one materiall part of the Sacrament onely IESVIT Secondly it was an antient custome in the Church to giue the Sacrament vnto Lay men especially vnto Eremites to be carryed in most pure linnen corporalls home to their houses to be taken in the morning before all other meates but there is no signe or token in Antiquity That the Faithfull together with the consecrated Bread did carry away with them consecrated Wine yea diuers Histories shew the onely forme of Bread was carryed away and consequently that the Church did not then esteeme of Communion 〈◊〉 one kind as of a Sacrilegious mayming of the Sacrament as Protestants now doe ANSVVER It was an antient custome to send the Communion to Persons absent in both kinds as appeareth by the Historie of Exuperius in S. Hierome And Gregorie Nazianzen saith of his sister Gorgonia if her hand had laid vp any Portion of the types or tokens of the pretious body and of the bloud c. And as touching sicke persons Why should we not iudge that the same order and proportion was kept in sending the Sacrament to them at their houses as was obserued when sicke persons came to the Communion Table or Altar in the Church IESVIT Thirdly it was an antient custome in the Graecian Church to consecrate the holy Eucharist on Saturdayes and Sundayes and on the other dayes of the weeke to communicate Ex praesanctificatis of the praesanctified forme st hat is consecrated on the Saturday or Sunday before Now it is not probable that they did consecrate Wine to indure fiue or sixe dayes long for feare specially in such hot Countreyes the same should grow sower Wherefore for the most part they did communicate vnder one kind ANSWER The Office of the Greeke Church making mention of the Sacramentall signes consecrated or sanctified before they were vsed nameth Bread and Wine For thus wee reade in the same That after the Priest hath sanctified the Bread hee powreth Wine and Water into the sacred Cup and rehearseth the accustomed words c. And the Liturgie Praesanctificatorum of the Presanctified signes according to Genebrards 〈◊〉 speaketh both of the body and of the bloud presented in the mysticall signes It appeareth also by Balsamon vpon the 52 Canon of the Synod in Trullo that both the Elements were consecrated at least vpon two seuerall dayes in the weeke and Baronius acknowledgeth That in antient times the Eucharist was reserued in both the kinds now if it was consecrated and reserued in both kinds Why should we imagine that it was not deliuered and receiued in both kinds IESVIT Fourthly the Manichees liued in Rome and other places shrouding themselues among Catholikes went to their Churches receiued the Sacrament publikely with them vnder the sole forme of Bread and yet they were not noted nor there discerned from Catholikes A manifest signe that Communion vnder one kind was publikely in the Church permitted at the least vpon some iust causes that might be pretended For how could the Manichees still refusing the Cup haue beene hidden among these antient Christians if they had beene persuaded as now Protestants that receiuing vnder one kind only is a Sacriledge If one in the Church of England should refuse the Cup but once in a publike Communion in the Church would he not be incontinently noted ANSWER The holy Eucharist in the dayes of Pope Leo the first was administred in both kinds and Romists could neuer as yet produce any one sufficient testimonie or example that so much as any one congregation of Christians in antient times receiued in the open Church vnder one kind And although the place obiected out of Leo doth in speciall concerne the Manichees yet it sheweth plainely that the present doctrine and practise of the Roman Church is not consonant to the antient practise of the same Church Neuerthelesse our peruerse Aduersary argueth against vs out of this place of Leo saying That if the Communion had not sometimes beene administred vnder one kind the Manichees practise in refusing the Cup could not haue passed vnmarked but must necessarily haue beene obserued I answer First The Manichees were espied and discouered otherwise how could the Pope reprooue their practise Secondly Vasques the Iesuit saith That these Heretikes receiued the Cup into their hand but dranke no Wine and among a multitude of Communicants some few might hold the Cup to their mouth and make shew of drinking and yet receiue no Wine IESVIT The last Argument is practise of the Apostles that is of the first Christians vnder them of whom wee reade in the Acts of the Apostles Erant perseuerantes in Doctrina Apostolorum communicatione fractionis Panis Orationibus speaking of sucred Eucharisticall Bread the taking whereof was ioyned with Prayer which vnto the newly baptised was straight giuen after Baptisme and yet there is no mention of Wine So that Protestants if they will haue these Christians to haue Wine they must out of their owne liberalitie by way of interpretation bestow it vpon them seeing the words of the Text doe not affoord it them To this Apostolicall practise wee may adde the example of Christ who gaue to his two Disciples in Emaus the Sacrament vnder the sole forme of Bread That the Bread Christ gaue was Eucharisticall and consecrated the words of the Text insinuate some learned Fathers affirme and the miraculous effect of opening their eyes to know Christ and their returne to Hierusalem and the Church of the Apostles in all hast confirmes it That they receiued at the hands of Christ the Sacrament vnder one onely kind of Bread is euident by the context of the Holy Narration which saith That vpon our Sauiours breaking and giuing them Bread they knew him and bee straight vanished out of their sight So that here also if Protestants will haue Wine giuen to these Disciples they must by the superabundance thereof in their Expositions supply 〈◊〉 want thereof in Scripture yea the Scripture in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 capable of that Exposition the Apostles acknowledging of Christ in the verie fraction and giuing of Bread and our 〈◊〉 departing in the same moment leaues not-time for him to giue them Wine after the Bread ANSWER Your last Argument is poore and drowsie and perhaps you imagine that at this your Feast if yet we may be said to drinke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sine Calice we haue drunke well before and therefore in 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
present Church to be the first inducing motiue to embrace this Principle onely wee cannot goe so farre in this way as you to make the present Tradition alwayes an infallible Word of God for this is to goe so farre in till you be out of the way For Tradition is but a Lane in the Church it hath an end not onely to receiue vs in but another after to let vs out into more open and richer ground And a better way than you Because after we are mooued and prepared and induced by Tradition wee resolue our Faith into that written Word and God deliuering it in which wee find the Tradition which led vs thither And so wee are sure by Diuine Authoritie that wee are in the way because at the end wee find the way prooued And doe what can be done you can neuer settle the Faith of man about this great Principle till you rise to greater assurance than the present Church alone can giue And therefore once againe to that knowne place of S. Augustine The words of the Father are Nisi commoueret Vnlesse the Authoritie of the Church mooued me but not alone but with other motiues else it were not commouere to mooue together And the other motiues are Resoluers though this be Leader Now since wee goe the same way with you so farre as you goe right and a better way than you where you goe wrong wee need not admit any other Word of God than wee doe And this ought to remaine as a presupposed Principle among all Christians and not so much as come into this Question about the sufficiencie of Scripture betweene you and vs. F. From this the Person doubting called vs and desiring to heare Whether the B. would graunt the Romane Church to be the Right Church The B. graunted that it was B. One occasion which mooued Tertullian to write his Booke de Praescrip aduersus Haereticos was That he saw little or no profit come by Disputations Sure the ground was the same then and now It was not to denie that Disputation is an opening of the Vnderstanding a sifting out of Truth it was not to affirme that any such Disquisition is in and of it selfe vnprofitable If it had S. Stephen would not haue disputed with the Cyrenians nor S. Paul with the Grecians first and then with the Iewes and all Commers No sure it was some abuse in the Disputants that frustrated the good of the Disputation And one abuse in the Disputants is a Resolution to hold their owne though it be by vnworthie meanes and disparagement of Truth The B. finds it here For as it is true that this Question was asked so it is altogether false that it was asked in this forme or so answered There is a great deale of difference especially as Romanists handle the Question of the Church betweene The Church and A Church and there is some betweene a True Church and a Right Church which is the word you vse but no man else that I know I am sure not the B. The Church may import in our Language The onely true Church and perhaps as some of you seeme to make it the Root and the Ground of the Catholike This the B. neuer did neuer meanes to graunt A Church can imply no more than that it is a member of the whole This the B. neuer did nor euer will denie if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church he graunted also but not a Right as you impose vpon him For Ens and Verum Being and True are conuertible one with another and euerie thing which hath a Being is truly that Being which it is in truth of substance But this word Right is not so vsed but is referred more properly to perfection in Conditions And in this sense euerie thing that hath a true and reall being is not by and by right in the Conditions of it A man that is most dishonest and vnworthie the name a verie Theefe if you will is a True man in the veritie of his essence as he is a Creature endued with Reason for this none can steale from him nor hee from himselfe but Death but hee is not therefore a right or an vpright man And a Church that is exceeding corrupt both in Manners and Doctrine and so a dishonour to the name is yet a True Church in the veritie of essence as a Church is a companie of men which professe the Faith of Christ and are baptised into his Name but yet it is not therefore a Right Church eyther in Doctrine or Manners It may be by this word Right you meant cunningly to slip it in that the B. should graunt it Orthodoxe This hee neuer graunted you For Orthodoxe Christians are keepers of integritie and followers of right things so Saint Augustine of which the Church of Rome is neyther In this sence then no Right that is Orthodoxe Church at Rome And yet no newes that the B. graunted the Romane Church to be a True Church For so much verie learned Protestants haue acknowledged before him and the Truth cannot denie it For that Church which receiues the Scripture as a Rule of Faith though but as a partiall and imperfect Rule and both the Sacraments as instrumentall Causes and Seales of Grace though they adde more and misuse these yet cannot but be a True Church in essence How it is in Manners and Doctrine I would you would looke to it with a single eye For if Pietie and a peaceable minde be not ioyned to a good vnderstanding nothing can be knowne in these great things F. Further he confessed That Protestants had made a Rent and Diuision from it B. The B. I know from himselfe could here be heartily angrie but that he hath resolued in handling matters of Religion to leaue all gall out of his Inke and makes me straine it out of mine There is a miserable Rent in the Church and I make no question but the best men doe most bemoane it Nor is hee a Christian that would not haue vnitie might hee haue it with Truth But the B. neuer said nor thought that the Protestants made this Rent The cause of the Schisme is yours for you thrust vs from you because wee called for Truth and redresse of Abuses For a Schisme must needs be theirs whose the cause of it is The Woe runs full out of the mouth of Christ euer against him that giues the offence not against him that takes it euer But you haue giuen the B. iust cause neuer to treat with you or your like but before a Iudge or a Iurie F. Moreouer hee said hee would ingenuously acknowledge That the Corruption of Manners in the Romish Church was not a sufficient cause to iustifie their departing from it B. I would the B. could say you did as ingenuously repeat as hee did confesse Hee neuer said That Corruption of Manners was not a sufficient cause to
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
in respect of your exact Iudgement and excelse Dignitie yet in regard of the Author it is a free will Offering intended to the honour of God and of your sacred Maiestie and to confirme your Liege people in right Faith and true loue and obedience of your most iust and gracious Gouernment As an Angell of God so is my Lord the King to discerne good and bad therefore the Lord thy God will be with thee 2. Sam. 14. 17. Your Maiesties Chapleine and Seruant FRAN. WH TO THE READER IT is now two yeeres since I was first called by my Lord Duke of Buckingham to conferre with an Honourable Person who as then began to make Reuolt from the true Faith and Religion professed in our Church By this Occasion J entred into a Disputation with one Mr Iohn Fisher a Jesuit the same person which was the Author of the two Bookes against which my younger Brother Dr Iohn White wrote his Way to the true Church and the Defence of the same After my first Conference with the aforesaid Jesuit ensued not long after a Second at which his most excellent Maiestie himselfe was present The Cause as J afterwards perceiued of his Presence was a gracious desire to recouer the foresaid Honorable Person out of the Fishers Net Then there followed a Third Conference betweene a most Learned and Reuerend Bishop and the said Jesuit intended to the same purpose Lastly his Royall Maiestie in his deepe Judgement hauing obserued by the former Conferences and especially by the second that our Aduersaries are cunning and subtile in eluding our Arguments brought against them but of no strength especially in particular Questions when they come to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and confirmation of their owne Tenet He was pleased to haue Nine Questions of Controuersie propounded to the Jesuit that hee might in writing manifest the Grounds and Arguments whereupon the Popish Faith in those Points was builded For his Maiestie in his owne Judgement and Experience knew most certainely That Romists are not able to confirme 〈◊〉 Faith either by sacred Scripture or by antient Tradition And therefore their manner is when they dispute with Protestants viua voce to auoid other Controuersies and to set vp their rest vpon the Questions of the Visibilitie and Authoritie of the Church Therefore the better to discouer their weakenesse and to plucke them out of their Fox-hole of Personall Succession and Vistbilitie the King imposed this Taske of writing vpon the Nine Questions Besides his Maieftie had experience of the mfaithfull dealing of Pontificians when they make Relation of such things as passe by word of mouth onely in priuate Disputations and hee well vnderstood 〈◊〉 the Cretising Jesuit had dealt with a 〈◊〉 Bishop and with my selfe For had wee beene Schoole-Boyes of thirteene yeeres old he could not haue made vs seeme more childish and vnskilfull than hee did dispersing Hundreds of Papers to his owne prayse and our disgrace Wherefore it was necessarie that some publique Worke containing the Grounds and Arguments of his part and the Answere and Replie on ours might be extant wherein neither his nor our Yea and Nay should take place sed res cum re causa cum causa c. the weight of matter on each part might testifie for it selfe Now who could command this to be done but the King himselfe who therefore made the former proposition of Nine Questions to the Jesuit that the World might see the vttermost of his strength and againe they might haue meanes to iudge rightly of our Cause and of our proceedings in handling the same Mine owne purpose at the first was to haue published in Print a Narration of my two Disputations and as farre as my Memorie would serue me I had to that end collected in writing the summe of those Conferences But obseruing afterwards by another Disputation which was printed that our Aduersaries will perpetually tumultuate and accuse of falsitie all things which passe not vnder their owne hands knowing also that my selfe could not exactly remember all passages of the Jesuits Disputation and mine there being not a word written at the time when wee disputed J deferred the printing thereof vntill this greater Worke was finished The Aduersarie in this Answere which his Friend deliuered the King hath disputed Eight of the Questions propounded by his Maiestie and he declineth the Ninth for Reasons well knowne to the World and in stead of a Disputation he passeth ouer that Article of deposing Kings with a Rethoricall Declamation But before the Nine Questions hee placeth a large Disputation prouided no doubt aforehand and expecting onely a prosperous Wind of Occasion to send it abroad touching the Rule of Faith concerning Scripture and Tradition the Notes of the Church c. Then to counterpoise the Kings Nine Articles he chargeth our Church with Nine remarkable Errors as he accounteth them Jn the former part of his Tractate is contained the summe and substance of the first Conference betweene him and me before the Lord Keeper and the Lord Duke of Buckingham Jn the Questions of Jmages Transubstantiation Communion in both kinds is contained also the summe of the second Conference but there are many Additions in each Question and hee handleth matters more exactly in his written Worke than hee did in his priuate Disputations J haue examined his whole Treatise and answered euery passage thereof printing his Worke verbatim with mine owne The World must take notice that I am a constant Preacher in a Pastorall Charge and therefore J could not ose such expedition as other men may which imploy their whole time strength in writing Besides my Worke being finished before Michaelmas last bath bin long in Printing by reason of the number of Quotations in the Margen These Citations are for this cause word for word out of the Authors placed in my Booke that the Worke may be more vsefull especially to such persons as want the benefit of Libraries and much Reading themselues J haue with as much diligence as morally a Scholler can vse collected my Testimonies out of the very Authors themselues The Reader shall not need to feare or distrust vnlesse where the Printer hath made Escapes which cannot alwayes be auoided in a Worke of this nature And I must entreat the Reader where he obserueth any Error in the Print to correct the same with his Pen. Neither must the vnlearneder sort be offended if they light vpon some hard passages because the matter it selfe is many times very abstruse and disputing with Aduersaries which are Sophisters I am compelled to vse Schollasticke tearmes and to turne their owne Weapons vpon themselues But so farre as I am able I haue endeuored to be perspicuous Of my Aduersaries I request nothing at all for it is in vaine But if they reply it shall be for their greater honour to set downe my Text as I haue done theirs And they shall but beat the ayre vnlesse they confirme the maine Branches of their
Satan may be Infidels at least a great part of them as well as Christians and although Satan possessed deceiued them before yet now when he is loosed he doth in a new manner and by a greater efficacie of errour deceiue them 2. The true Church may be persecuted vniuersally by multitudes of enemies dispersed euery where and yet remaine it selfe in one or in few places and it may also be persecuted when it professeth and exerciseth religion in secret Apoc. 12.14 15. 3. Many learned Papists affirme that in the dayes of Antichrist true beleeuers shall cease to bee in many places and the number of orthodoxall people shall be small and the same shall professe their faith in secret August Triumph sum d. Eccles. pot q. 21. ar 4. At that time particular Churches diffused farre and neere ouer the world shall withdraw themselwes from the obedience of the Romane Pope and few shall obey him and the Pope himselfe at that time shall with a few keepe himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 others being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his 〈◊〉 The like is affirmed by Occham 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Barradias Now this former affertion which is the common Tener of Papists agreeth not with the speech of our Aduersarie when he saith That in the dayes of Antichrist the Church shall be euerie where visible and conspicuous euen to the wicked and he must reuoke his bold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his first words A truth so cleare that it may euidently be prooued c. IESVIT The reason of this perpetuall visible vniuersalitie is because the Tradition of the Church is as I haue prooued the sole ordinarie meanes to ground faith on for substantiall points Wherefore this Tradition must bee so deliuered as that it may bee knowne to all men seeing God will haue all men without any exception of nation to bee saued and to come to the knowledge of Truth 1. Timothie 2. 4. But if the Church were not still so diffused in the world that all knowne nations may take notice of her all men could not be saued ANSWER Although the teaching and Tradition of the Church is the first Introduction to leade people vnto the knowledge of the grounds of saluation and the ordinarie meanes whereby they receiue the holy Scriptures and rule of Faith contained in the same which is all you haue or can prooue yet hence it followeth not that the true Church is visibly vniuersall in all places of the world First you are reprooued by the example of the Indians and people inhabiting the New found World who are Gods creatures and reasonable men formed 〈◊〉 his image capable of grace and 〈◊〉 as well as other men and included within the latitude of 〈◊〉 promises Math. 28.19 Marc. 16.15 Call 2.28 Call 3.11 and the Apostles speech 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. God will 〈◊〉 all men to be 〈◊〉 c 〈◊〉 them as well as others And yet notwithstanding the true Church whose Tradition according to your position is the sole ordinarie meanes to ground Faith on was not for many ages either Actually or Moraily visible vniuersall or any waies made knowne to them It seemes by the conclusion of your Argument wherein you insert these words That all knowne nations c. that you obserued this but you are no way able to cleere the difficultie for if because S. Paul saith God wil haue all men to be saued and come to the knowledge of the Truth the true Church must in all age be visibly vniuersall then the same must be so in regard of the nations inhabiting the New found world because S. Pauls words God will haue all men to be saued and come to the knowledge of the Truth are vniuersall according to your exposition and must be vnderstood without limitation or respect of persons Secondly when S. Paul saith God wil haue all men to be saued c. He 〈◊〉 according to the antecedent wil of God as learned Papists commonly maintaine But this antecedent Will according to some learned Papists is no formall Will in God but is only improperly and metaphorically so called and according to others which say it is a formall Will the same produceth not vniuersally either grace of outward calling to Saluation or inward grace in them that are externally called and therefore it is inconsequent to argue from this manner of Gods willing all men to be saued That the true Church is in all ages visibly vniuersall 1. Aquinas and others say that the antecedent will of God is only a velleitie or wishing that the thing might be a complacencie in a thing considered abstractiuely and without other circumstances and that vpon it alone the Saluation of no man followeth 2. The same is generall in respect of all and euery singular and indiuiduall person and God by his antecedent will wisheth the Saluation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by experience that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Will all 〈◊〉 and singular persons by the ministerie of the true Church and that whole countries and nations for 〈◊〉 ages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same and some countries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preaching of the Gospell sooner and others latter some haue been 〈◊〉 in one age and some in another 4. Gods antecedent Will is alwaies the same and 〈◊〉 to it he 〈◊〉 the Saluation of all men in the time of the Old Testament Ezek. 33.11 Now from the former positions it followeth that S. Pauls words 1. Tim. 2.4 God will haue all men to be saued c. do not 〈◊〉 that the true Church is visibly vniuersall in all ages since the Ascension of Christ and the preaching of the Apostles For if the antecedent will of God of which S. Paul speaketh 1. Tim. 2.4 be onely a velleitie and complacencie about mans Saluation abstractiuely considered and if it respect singular and indiuiduall persons as well as whole nations and notwithstanding the same many singular persons and whole nations haue beene destitute and that for a long space of time of all meanes of conuersion and outward calling to Christianitie and if the same Will for some large tract of time produceth no external effect sufficient to conuert Infidels then it followeth that the true Church which is the onely ordinarie teacher of sauing veritie is not visibly vniuersall in all places of the world in euery age The minor is prooued from the foure propositions formerly deliuered The sequell is euident by the exposition which our Aduersaries deliuer of S. Pauls text vnderstanding the same of the antecedent will of God and from the position of the 〈◊〉 deliuered in this section which is That the Tradition and Preaching of the true visible Church is the sole ordinarie meanes to leade people to the knowledge of sauing Truth For if the antecedent will of God is not a certaine and infallible cause that all people shal at all times haue the preaching of sauing Veritie by the ministerie of the true visible
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
grieuous penaltie to depart out of Babylon and spirituall Sodome Apoc. 18.4 and Chap. 11.8 Saint Paul speaking of such as teach diuerse doctrine from the Apostles saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Depart from such from their assembly and Church Reade Acts 19. 8. 1. Corinth 10. 14. 2. Cor. 6. 14 15 17. Hos. 10. 17. The Roman Church in those things wherein wee departed from it was shamefully corrupted it did not onely forsake bur depraue and persecute the truth of God the leprosie thereof was incurable for it would not iudge it selfe nor bee reprooued by others nor reforme the least errour but desperately followed the Canon Si Papa c And none might inioy life and breath within her Precincts which would not obey her Traditions These Romuleans vnlesse they were blinded like Elymas could not be ignorant at least of some of their errours and corruptions but they chose rather in their Tridentine Synode to proclaime and propugne apertly or couertly all their antient forgeries than to compassionate the distressed and 〈◊〉 Christian world by mittigating or condescending according to truth in the smallest matters It had beene most facile for them without any preiudice or dammage to themselues to haue permitted the Communion of the holy Eucharist in both kindes the publicke 〈◊〉 of God in a knowne and vnderstood Language to haue abolished the adoration of Images c. But their Luciferian pride and mallice was so transcendent that they rather presumed to obtrude new Scandalls vpon the Christian World than to vse the least Moderation for the peace of the Church And euer since that Synod they haue proceeded from euill to worse obscuring and out-facing the Truth with Forgerie and Sophistrie They haue conspired against Kingdomes and States they haue surpassed professed Infidels in perfidious Stratagemes and immane Crueltie Lastly whereas they expelled vs by Excommunication and chased vs away from them by Persecution yet this Romane Aduocate taxeth vs of Schisme and Apostasie neuer remembring what S. Augustine long since deliuered The Sacriledge of Schisme is then committed when there is no iust cause of separation Or what some of his owne part haue said The Sheepe are not bound to be subiect to any Shepheard which is become a Wolfe or is aduerse to the saluation of the Flocke IESVIT Which also plainely will appeare to any man of vnderstanding that casts vpon her an impartiall eye For is she not conspicuously one the professors thereof agreeing in all points of Faith howsoeuer they differ about small vndefined Questions ANSVVER Externall Vnitie is found amongst Infidels and the Turkes being more in number than Papists neuer disagree amongst themselues touching matters of their Religion Shall wee then say as the Iesuit doth It will plainely appeare to any man of vnderstanding that casts his eye vpon Turkie that the same hath Veritie because it is conspicuously one Saint Augustine saith That Iewes Heretikes and Infidels obserue Vnitie against Vnitie S. Bernard Alia est vnitas Sanctorum alia facinorosorum The Vnitie of Saints is one thing and the Vnitie of wicked men Deceiuers another S. Hilarie Vnitas fidei vnitas perfidiae There is Vnitie of Faith and there is likewise perfidious and faithlesse Vnitie S. Gregorie saith That the ministers of Antichrist shall cleaue together like the skales of Leuiathan Therefore because externall Vnitie is in it selfe a thing common and Iewes and Mahometists enioy the same more apparently than many Christians our Aduersarie must prooue that his Church hath Veritie before his argument taken from externall Vnitie can be of any force Neither is Papisticall Vnitie so entire and absolute as this man gloryeth for Papalls disagree both in Doctrine and Manners They differ concerning the supreame Authoritie of the Church Whether it be in the Pope or in the Generall Councell They differ in the matter of Free-will and Grace They differ concerning the manner of the Conception of the Virgin Marie There are three Opinions among them concerning the Temporall dominion of Popes Some say he hath direct Temporall power some say indirect some say hee hath none but by the free Donation of Princes and that Princes were euill aduised in yeelding him so much And moderne Popes disagree with the antient concerning the Dignitie of vniuerfall Bishop adoration of Images Transubstantiation Communion in both kinds and the merit of Good workes Also they themselues complaine of grieuous hatred and discord reigning generally among them and some of them say There is greater Concord among Gentiles And when they colour these palpable Dissentions pretending that they are readie to submit themselues to the iudgement of the Pope First this Iudge and Vmpire is many times a Peace-breaker and no Peace-maker an Ismael in the Christian World whose hand is against euerie man and euerie mans hand is against him Secondly Vnitie which is founded on blind Obedience is onely an Vnitie of Pollicie and not of true Faith Thirdly this submission maketh not actuall Concord and miserable Dissention both intestine and forraine at home and abroad rageth betweene Popes and Princes and betweene one Popish Faction and another The Guelphes and Gibellines the Papalls and Imperialls are as famous in Histories for their Discord as the sonnes of Cadmus and when Papistrie was most potent the Christian World was most distracted IESVIT Apparently vniuersall so spread ouer the World with Credit and Authoritie that whole Mankind may take sufficient notice of her and her Doctrine for the embracing thereof ANSWER The Roman is a particular Church and not vniuersall it is onely an vnsound member of the whole and not the whole Rom. 1. 6. S. Paul saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Among whom are yee also But a Church which is but one amongst the rest cannot be the whole and vniuersall Church It is as absurd to say that the Romane Church is the vniuersall Church as to affirme that England is the vniuersall World If the vniuersall Church be taken properly or absolutely it comprehendeth both the Triumphant and Militant Church Augustine Enchir. cap. 56. and 61. Couaruuias Resol Lib. 4. cap. 14. If it be taken restrictiuely it is the whole Church Militant of each Age. If Catholike be taken for that which is Orthodoxall in Faith and which holdeth no diuision with the common Bodie of Christianitie according to which notion the Fathers tearme particular Churches Catholike then neyther is this Title proper to the Romane Church alone neyther can Papists iustly assume the name of Catholike vntill they haue proued their Faith to be Orthodoxall and iustified themselues from being the Authors of Discord in the Christian World And to answere that which followeth although the Romane Church is spread ouer sundrie parts of the World because some people professing the Romane Faith trauaile or reside in many Countreyes and exercise their Religion where they trauaile or liue yet this
Vertue Deut. 31. 21. Secondly Their doctrine of Pardons ministred daily occasion of intollerable wickednesse For although their Scholemen plastered the same with subtle distinctions yet the people entertained them according to the outward letter and practised accordingly Thirdly By some part of their doctrine they 〈◊〉 people to commit sinne Equiuocation is a doctrine of Periurie To affirme that it is lawfull to depose Princes and take away their 〈◊〉 in case of Heresie is a plaine doctrine of 〈◊〉 worse than murder and if the Pope may command murder why may he not also command adulterie theft and blasphemie The doctrine of the Popes authoritie to dispence with oathes is perilous and pernitio us to the safetie of mankind making way to all kind of fraud and iniustice If the Roman Church be so apparantly and infinitly holy why doth it openly maintaine Stewes and receiue yearely tribute and part stake with Harlots and wherefore are Sanctuaries the harbours and dennes of Assisines and other enormous delinquents tollerated and supported by this Church It is a monstrous doctrine which was hatched by Pope Vrban and approoued by Baronius That they are not to be iudged murtherers which slay excommunicate persons The exemption of 〈◊〉 from being tried in Causes Criminall before Christian Magistrates is a doctrine which maketh way to most outragious offences Gulielmus Nubrigensis lib. 2. cap. 16. The Iudges complained that there were many robberies and rapes and murthers to the number of an hundred then presently committed within the realme by Ecclesiasticall persons vpon presumption of exemption from the censure of the lawes We cannot be persuaded that the Roman Church is holy in such high and extrordinarie manner as our Aduersarie boasteth because the greatest Clerkes of that societie vndertake the defence of such impieties as are detestable in Nature and condemned by the light of common Reason Garnets Powder-plot hath many Patrons Cardinall Baronius commendeth to the skies yong Henrie the Emperors sonne for rebelling against his naturall father for deposing imprisoning and bringing him with sorrow to the graue what Turke or Sauage would be the encomiast of such vnnaturall and enormous villanie IESVIT Most 〈◊〉 Apostolicall 〈◊〉 a most glorious succession of Bishops and Pastors from the Apostles famous in all monuments of Historie and Antiquitie who were neuer noted as deliuering 〈◊〉 doctrines the one to the other In which proofe that these properties agree to the Roman and be wanting in the Protestant Church J will not inlarge my selfe as I otherwise might as well not to wearie your Maiestie as also not to seeme to diffide the matter being most cleere of your Maiesties judgement wherefore it is more than cleere That the Roman Church is the One Holy Catholicke Apostolicke Church by whose Tradition Christian Religion hath beene is and shall be euer continued from the Apostles to the worlds end ANSVVER First If the present Roman Church do want the life and soule of Apostolicall Succession to wit Apostolicall Doctrine locall and titular Succession is only a Pharisaicall cloake or a painted wall Acts 23.3 and common to Caiaphas Paul Samosaten Nestorius and to many other notorious Heretickes Secondly The visible Succession of the Bishops and Pastors of the said Church from the Apostles is not most glorious and famous by the report of all monuments of Historie and Antiquitie but the same hath beene notoriously distained in latter times by Simoniacall entrance of Popes and Prelats by Schysmaticall intrusions and by commutation of the forme of election of Pastors appointed by the Apostles and exercised in the Primatiue Church And whereas the Aduersarie contendeth that Roman Bishops and Pastours hane Succession of doctrine because Ecclesiasticall Historie is silent in noting latter Popes for deliuering contrarie doctrines the one to the other both the Illation it selfe and the antecedent or ground of the Illation are false First it is inconsequent to inserre negatiuely from humane Historie and to say Histories are silent and therefore no such matter was Our Sauiour prooueth the Pharisees and Sadduces to be errants because their present doctrine was repugnant to the Scripture and had the Pharisees or Sadduces replied That their doctrine was the same which Moses the Prophets taught because they had Snccession and Histories were silent when they changed the antient Faith they had iustified themselues vpon as good grounds as Papals do Secondly it is false which this disputer venteth so confidently That Histories and antient Monuments are altogether silent of the Innouations which were made by latter Popes and we are able as in due place it shall appeare to produce testimonies of Historie to the contrarie IESVITS 2. Argument Protestants haue the holy Scriptures deliuered vnto them by and from the One Holy Catholicke and Apostolical Church but they receiued them from no other Church than the Roman Ergo the Roman is the One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church ANSVVER This Sillogisme is peccant in forme and both the propositions are affirmatiue in the second figure which I note the rather because the Aduersarie at the end of his Argument cryeth Victoria saying An Argument conuicting and vnanswerable I must therefore reduce the same to a lawfull forme and then answer That Church by and from which the Protestants receiue the Scriptures is the Only Holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church The Protestants receiue the Scriptures from the Roman Church Ergo The Roman Church to the Only Holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church First If this Argument be conuicting and vnanswerable as the Iesuit boasteth then these which follow are such That from which the Russians receiued the Scriptures is the Only Holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church The Russians receiued the Scriptures from the Greeke Church Ergo The Greeke Church is the Only Holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church Also that Church from which the Apostles receiued the Scriptures was the true Church The Apostles receiued the Scriptures from the Sinagogue of the Iewes gouerned by the Pharisees Ergo The Synagogue of the Iewes gouerned by the Pharisees was the true Church The deliuerie of the Text of the holy Scriptures is common to the true and corrupt Church and not proper to the Only Holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church as appeareth by the Synagogue which being a corrupt Church at the time of our Sauiours Aduent yet by the speciall prouidence of God preserued and deliuered the Text of the old Testament Rom. 3.2 And S. Agustine testifieth of the Iewes That they were Librarie keepers to Christians of the Bookes of the Law and Prophets And S. Hierom saith That the Hebrews did not corrupt the Text of the old Testament Also the Donatists and Nouatians deliuered the incorrupt Text of holy Scripture to their followers Secondly the proposition of the former Argument hath another defect The Text of holy Scriptures may be deliuered by a particular Church which is but a member of the vniuersall and therefore it is
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
surely this Captiue should be redeemed and deliuered through the ransome paid by the King not by the merits of the Noble man interceding for him whose merits concurred thereunto onely remotely and afarre off To apply this similitude Christ Iesus hath paid an abundant price for mans Redemption yet none inioy the benefit thereof but they to whom by especiall grace he applyeth the same Sinners beseech him by the merits of Saints that made them gracious in his sight that he will vouchsafe to apply the merit of his Passion vnto them for the obtaining of fanours conducing vnto eternall life Christ grants their Petition and request and thereupon applies his merits vnto them These men cannot be properly said to be saued through the merits of Saints but only through the merits of Christ specially because euen the merits of Saints that concurred thereunto proceed originally from the merits of Christ. ANSWER First You are ignorant of the manner and particular matter of Saintly Intercession and it is more than you can prooue that blessed Saints pray expresly and distinctly for the remission of mens particular sinnes Secondly Blessed Saints by their Intercession in heauen can merit nothing for themselues or others for they are not in the state of meriting but of possessing the full reward promised to their labours neither can they apply their former merits to other men because they themselues haue reaped the full reward of them and how can the merits of a creature being finite and already requited beyond their desert and dignitie be imputed to others Your similitude of a King is nothing to the purpose because the ground whereupon you build it is false Kings grant fauours and pardons for the merits and intreatie of such as are gracious in their sight but God bestoweth his graces and pardons for the sole merit and intercession of Christ and we are sufficiently qualified on our owne part to receiue his benefits when we performe that which himselfe requireth and vse the meanes which he appointeth But it is not yet prooued that Inuocation of Saints is in the number of those meanes IESVIT §. 6. How it is lawfull to appropriate the obtaining of Graces and Cures vnto Saints OVr Aduersaries finding our inuocation of Saints for substance practised in Gods Church euer since the primatiue times take exceptions at some circumstances thereof which they thinke new and not iustisiable by antiquitie which are principally three whereon are grounded other three causes of Protestants dislike ANSWER IF inuocation of Saints hath not beene practised vniuersally in Gods Church euer since the Apostles times then the same is not Catholicke or originally diuine therefore you trifle and beg the question when you declame saying Our Aduersaries finding our inuocation of Saints for substance practised in Gods Church euer since the Primatiue times First you dare not say euer since the Apostles times but you equiuocate in the tearme of Primatiue Secondly you leaue out Vniuersally for you cannot demonstrate that the same was practised in all Churches or maintained generally by the Fathers Thirdly you seeke an euasion by a distinction of Substance Circumstance and acquaint vs not what shall be of the one and what of the other publicke and priuate freely and of necessitie may be circumstances yet they are such circumstances as varie the state of the question and Protestants dispute against your present doctrine and manner of inuocation which hath neither ground in the Apostles doctrine nor in the Tradition of the antient Church IESVIT The first of these circumstances whereupon they ground the sixt reason of their dislike is that we distribute amongst Saints offices of curing diseases and seeke some kind of fauour of one some of another of which practise there is no example in Antiquitie yea it seemes to resemble the leuity of Heathenish superstition who did multiplie gods according to the multitude of the things they thought to obtaine of them I answer that to seeke some fauours by the intercession rather of one Saint than another was the iudgement of the Fathers in S. Austines time which he himselfe did practise vpon this occasion In the towne of Hippo one of the familie of S. Augustine accused a Priest of an hainous crime making his accusation good by oath which the other did reiect in like manner purging himselfe by oath The fact being open and scandalous seeing of necessitie the one of them was periured S. Augustine sent them both into Jtalie to the Shrine of S. Foelix at Nola at whose reliques periured persons were vsually discouered In defence of which fact he writes an Epistle to his people of Hippo allowing of this proceeding to seeke recourse rather to one Saint than another wondring at the secret prouidence of God therein Although saith he men by experience see this to be true yet who is able to discouer the counsell of God why in some place such miracles are done in others they are not For is not Africa stored with shrines of blessed Martyres and yet do we not know any such myracles to be done here by their intercessions For seeing as the Apostle saith all Saints haue not the gift of curing diseases nor all the knowledge to discerne Spirits so likewise at the shrines of all Martyres these things are not done because He will not haue them euery where done who giueth to euery one particular gifts according to his pleasure ANSVVER To impose offices vpon Saints deceased and to attribute cures deliuerances opitulations power and actions to them vpon mans owne imagination and to persuade people which ought to seeke vnto God Psal. 121.2 Esa. 8.17 1. Sam. 17.37 to depend vpon creatures in their perils and aduersitie changing the names onely is Heathenish superstition And what doe Papists else in substance when they make Saints yea some perhaps which are in Hell particular regents of countries cities religious orders yea of the elements fire water c. and of beasts c. when they appoint vnto them distinctly and by name seuerall opitulations Apollonia is for the tooth ach Otilia for bleared eyes S. Rochus for the poxe Erasmus for the iliake passion Blasius for the quinsie Petronella for feauers S. Wendeline is for sheepe and oxen S. Antonie for hogs S. Gertrudis for mice and rats S. Nicholas is the patrone of sailers S. Clement of bakers S. George of horsemen S. Eulogius of smiths S. Luke of painters S. Cosmas of physitians c. There is no doubt but that this base superstition was deriued from the Pagans although it be now varnished and mantled by Papals with the habit of deuotion for S. Augustine d. Ciuit. Dei lib. 4. cap. 22. saith That Varro maintained it was profitable to know the power and working of euerie god in particular that men might be able to sue vnto them according to their seueral offices for euerie distinct or particular benefit least otherwise they might aske water of Bacchus the god of
Sacrifices were offered to God onely Exod 22.20 Iud. 13.16.2 Chron. 34.25 so likewise oblations and vowes Deut. 23.21 Leuit. 24.5.6 and as the Lord condemned people of Idolatrie for sacrificing to creatures so the Israelites are reprooued for burning incense to the brasen Serpent 2. Kings 18.4 and to the queene of heauen Ierem. 44.25 This law in respect of the substance is morall and consequently obligeth Christian people as well in case of Oblations as of Sacrifices Now by what authoritie and right the Roman Church can abrogate this law in whole or in part and appropriating Sacrifices to God make prayer vowes Incense and oblations common to God and Saints our aduersaries haue not as yet made remonstrance and the Iesuit in this place alleadgeth no diuine authoritie to giue his Maiestie satisfaction but produceth onely an historicall narration out of S. Augustine and 〈◊〉 who report certaine miracles wrought by God Almightie at the Sepulchres of Martyrs IESVIT I answer if any Catholike should offer to the blessed mother of God by way of sacrifice any the least thing he were seuerely to be rebuked and better instructed for sacrifice is a religious homage due to God onely in which respect the sacrifice of the holy Eucharist is neuer offered vnto any but vnto God in memorie and honour of Saints herein the Collyridians women Priests did erre who did sacrifice a wafer cake vnto the blessed Virgin which kind of worship vnder the title of adoration S. Epiphanius reprooues allowing the Catholike worship as thereby tearming her honourable not for humane or ciuill but for diuine and supernaturall respects True it is that in Catholike countryes people offer vnto Saints lights flowers and cheynes not as sacrifices but as ornaments to set foorth their tombes and shrines wherein they doe not dissent from antiquitie nor from Gods holy will who hath confirmed such deuotions by miracle as diuers Authours worthy of all credit relate particularly S. Augustine by Protestants allowed as the most faithfull witnesse of antiquitie He tells that a woman starke blind recouered her sight by laying to her eyes flowers which had touched the shrine wherein were carried about the Relikes of the most glorious Martyr S. Stephan A more wonderfull example in the same kind he relateth done vpon an old man of good note who being sicke and readie to die did yet very obstinately refuse to beleeue in Christ and leaue his Idolatrie although he was very earnestly mooued thereunto by his children that were zealous Christians His son in law despairing to preuaile by persuasion resolued to goe and pray at the tombe of S. Stephan and hauing performed his deuotions with burning affection with many groanes and 〈◊〉 being to depart tooke with him some flowers that were on the shrine and laid them secretly vnder his father in law his head the night as he went to sleepe Behold the next morning the old man awaking outof his sleepe cryeth out desiring them to come to call the Bishop to baptise him He had his desire he was baptised afterwards as long as he liued he had this prayer in his mouth Lord Iesu receiue my spirit being altogether ignorant that that prayer was the last speech of S. Stephan when he was stoned to death by the Iewes which also were the last words of this happy old man for not long after pronouncing these words be gaue vp his soule Other oblations also Catholikes vse to offer vnto Saints not as sacrifices but as memories and monuments of benefits receiued as pictures of limmes by Saints prayers miraculously cured that therein they doe not deflect from antient Christian deuotion and that the Christian Church in her best times vsed vniuersally to make such oblations Theodoret is a sufficient witnesse who writing against the Gentiles alleadgeth as a manifest signe of Christs Godhead and omnipotencie that Idols being excluded he brought in Martyrs to be honoured in their roome not superstitiously as Gods but Religiously as diuine men inuocating and beseeching them to be Intercessours for them vnto God And those that piously and faithfully pray obtaine what they desire as testifie the oblations which they being therevnto bound by their vowes present in the Chappels of the Saints as tokens of health recouered for some hang vp images of eyes others of eares others of hands some made of gold some of siluer Thus he So generall and so notorious euen vnto Infidells was this Christian deuotion ANSWER Touching the Collyridians I answer that notwithstanding there is some difference in the materiall act betweene Romists and them yet because Epiphanius condemneth not onely externall sacrifice but all Oblation to the blessed virgin and alloweth onely that honour and not adoration shal be yeelded vnto her therefore Prayers incense-offerings and presents to Saints deceased were held vnlawfull in this Fathers dayes Secondly Saint Augustine de Ciuit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. doth not mention any Prayers Oblations Vowes or donatiues offered to Saints and Martyrs but he reporteth what miraculous cures were performed at the toombes of some Martyrs now because these things were extraordinarie and the credit of diuers of them dependeth vpon fame which is many times vncertaine and St. Augustine himselfe saith They are not commended vnto vs by such waightie authoritie as that without all doubt they must needs be credited they cannot be sufficient grounds or foundations of Catholicke Doctrine or Practise Thirdly Theoderit d. cur Graec. Affect lib. 8. saith Wee Oh Grecians neither offer sacrifice to Martirs nor drinke offerings but honour them as holy men and as the friends of God And whereas he further saith That some hang vp the shapes of eyes others of eares c. he meaneth that these were monuments of miraculous cures wrought in those dayes extraordinarily by God at the Sepulchres of Martyrs but he affirmeth not that they were oblations offered to Martyrs And yet the particular practise of some people in those dayes whatsoeuer it was if it haue not ground in Diuine Reuelation cannot raise an Article of Faith or necessarie dutie IESVIT § 8. The Romane Church set formes of Prayer without cause misliked FInally Protestants dislike the circumstance of praying in a set forme vnto Saints and that we appoint a particular office to the blessed Virgin Mary which cannot be proued to haue been vsed in the Primatiue Church ANSVVER THe Romish set formes of Prayers to the Virgin Marie and other Saints deceased are iustly condemned by vs not meerely because they are exercised in a set forme which is accidentall but in respect of the matter and substance of them neither can our Aduersaries demonstrate that such Prayers either in a set forme or by sudden inspiration were vsed in the Primatiue Church for the holy Apostles which are the prime Fathers and founders of that Church prescribed and practised no other forme of Prayer than such as was consonant to their Scriptures and the Churches which
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
no dispencer of Grace 357 360. Halfe Christs Kingdome 361 362 Visibilitie of the Church 7 50 60 96 Vniuersalitie 74 101 W The Waldenses and Leonists 105 130 139 Wicked persons no true Members of the Catholike Church 53 200 The wicked eat not Christs flesh 407 Wine as necessarie as Bread in the Eucharist 471 Worship of Images 209 228 241 FINIS Escapes in Printing FOl. 3. D. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fol. 31. E. for immediately read mediately fol. 50. D. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fol. 49. C. for Pastres read Pastors fol 50. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. D. after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insert 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fol 62 A. for Damascen read 〈◊〉 fol. 62. B. for canta read cauta fol. 63. E. for innisible read inuisible fol. 70. for desensoris read Aug. c. Petil. d. 〈◊〉 fol. 106 B. for redargurere read redarguere fol. 109 for vnde read Otho Frising b. inde fol. 117. C for Agustine read Augustine fol. 127. Theoderit A. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fol. 132 E. to lawfulnesse adde whereof fol. 138. Gregorie F. for commissi read commisi fol. 150. Tho. Wald. F. for centia read sentio fol. 281. Vasq F. for contemplat read contemplati fol. 291. B. for first read fift vniuersall Councell fol. 300. A. for is expressely read is not expressely fol. 327. B. Alchasar for ille read illi fol. 360. E. Stel. Cor. Mar. for animas read animam fol. 524. August B. for praefect read de perfectione Ibid. Arausican Concil C. for gratiae read gratia Ibid. Bernard d. for Notal read Natal Dom. fol. 527. August C. for inuenire read inuenies fol. 557. F. for owards read towards fol. 559. Theoderit D. for solutis read salutis fol. 560. A. for Guilliandus read Guilliaudus fol. 563. for Scoto read Soto m. fol. 564. A. Enchir. Sarisb for vndecima read vndecem AN ANSVVERE TO Mr FISHERS Relation of a Third Conference betweene a certaine B. as he stiles him and himselfe The Conference was very priuate till Mr FISHER spread certaine Papers of it which in many respects deserued an Answere Which is here giuen by R. B. Chapleine to the B. that was imployed in the Conference LONDON Printed by ADAM ISLIP 1624. TO THE READER THis which followes though it needeth Patronage as great as may be had yet it is such as may not presume to aske it therefore it thrusts it selfe to the End of these Labours that it may seeme to haue the same Patron I would haue put nothing before it were it not necessarie you should know the Cause why the following Discourse was written why it stayed so long before it looked vpon the Light and why it is not able yet to goe alone but is led abroad by this former Worke. The Cause why it was written was this A certaine B. in the Iesuit's stile was called and required to a Conference by Them that might command him The Iesuit with whom hee had to deale was Mr Fisher. Hee began with great Protestations of seeking the Truth onely and for it selfe I would the B. could haue found it so After the Conference ended a great part of which time he spent in reading a passage out of a Booke which himselfe had printed the B. not suspecting any such thing hee spread abroad Papers of the Conference which were full of partialicie to his Cause and more full of Calumnie against the B. Hereupon the B. deliuered me the Papers that were spread and a Note what was mis-spread in them to the vttermost of his Memorie and other helpes And I not departing from that haue here entirely deliuered it to the vse of the Church There was a Cause also why it stayed so long before it could endure to be pressed and you must know that too It was not my idlenesse nor my vnwillingnesse to right both the B. and his Cause against the Paper that was scattered For I haue most Honorable Witnesses that this Thing such as it is was finished long since for the Papers came to my hand after Michaelmasse 1622. and J finished this Relation to them that Tearme But the cause was partly mine owne backwardnesse to deale with these men For they pretend onely for Truth and Vnitie but will 〈◊〉 neither vnlesse they and their Faction may preuaile in all Whereas it is a thing impossible so many deuout and learned men in diuers Ages and Parts of the Church should still pray and sometimes call for a Reformation if the Church had not warped at all or if no Reformation were necessarie And partly because there were about that time three Conferences with Mr. Fisher Two at which the worthie Authour of this fore-going Discourse was present This was the Third and therefore could not well and conueniently come into the world till the two former vpon which it somewhat depended had shewed themselues And the Cause why it cannot yet goe alone but is led into publicke by this former Worke is because before those Nine Articles there goeth a Preface which together with some of the Articles themselues are the mayne and substance of all that passed in the Two former Conferences and so they are fittest to take this Third by the hand and lead it forth J haue thus farre acquainted you with the Occasion of the ensuing discourse J haue beene a faithfull Relator of all passages and the B protests hee hath beene faithfull in relating to me But J cannot but 〈◊〉 and hee hath hard Bowells that grieues not to see Christendome bleeding in dissention Nay which is farre worse triumphing in her owne blood and most angry with them that study her Peace Jn the meane time there are Sua their owne things which S. Paul tells vs All men seeke and not the things that are Iesus Christs And Religion so much pretended and called vpon and the Church the Church so much honoured in name are but the stalking horse other Fowle are shot at Complaint is but a seeming ease of weaker spirits it can helpe nothing And since it cannot vse these Papers for a little support It may be these may giue some stay till God giue stronger So I leaue you to be indifferent between the B. and M. Fisher and for my selfe I shall haue reward enough if you pray for Peace and Truth in the Church and so for me Yours in Christ whom I labour to serue R. B. A BRIEFE RELATION OF WHAT PASSED in a third priuate CONFERENCE betweene a certaine B. and me BEFORE c. ANSVVERED BY R. B. Chaplaine to the B. I hope you will pardon the B. if iust occasion hath spunne my Answer for him to length F. The Occasion of this Conference was B. THE Occasion of this third Conference you should know sufficiently you were an Actor in it as well as the rest
Whether you haue related the two former truly appeares by Dr Whites Relation or Exposition of them The B. was present at none but this third of which he is readie by me to giue the Church an account But of this third whether that were the cause which you alledge he cannot tell You say F. It was obserued That in the second Conference all the speech was about particular matters little or none about a continuall infallible visible Church which was the chiefe and onely Point in which the person doubting required satisfaction as hauing formerly settled their mind That it was not for them or any other vnlearned persons to take vpon them to iudge of particulars without depending vpon the Iudgement of the true Church B. The opinion of that person in this was neuer opened to the B. And it is very fit the people should looke to the Iudgement of the Church before they be too busie with particulars But yet neither Scripture nor any good Authoritie denyes them some moderate vse of their owne vnderstanding and iudgement especially in things familiar and euident which euen ordinarie Capacities may as easily vnderstand as reade And therefore some particulars a Christian may iudge without depending F. That person therefore hauing heard it granted in the first Conference That there must be a continuall visible Companie euer since Christ teaching vnchanged Doctrine in all fundamentall Points that is Points necessarie to Saluation desired to heare this confirmed and proofe brought which was that continuall infallible visible Church in which one may and out of which one cannot attaine Saluation And therefore hauing appointed a time of meeting betweene a B. and me and thereupon hauing sent for the B. and me before the B. came the doubting persons came first to the roome where I was and debated before me the aforesaid Question and not doubting of the first part to wit That there must be a continuall visible Church as they had heard graunted by Dr White and L. K. c. B. What Dr White and L. K. graunted neyther the B. nor I heard But I thinke both graunted a continuall and a visible Church neyther of them an infallible at least in your sense And your selfe in this Relation speake distractedly For in these few Lines from the beginning hither twice you adde infallible betweene continuall and visible and twice you leaue it out But this concerneth Dr W. and he hath answered it F. The Question was Which was that Church One would needs defend That not onely the Romane but also the Greeke Church was right B. When that Honourable Personage answered I was not by to heare But I presume hee was so farre from graunting that onely the Romane Church was right as that he did not graunt it right and that hee tooke on him no other defence of the poore Greeke Church than was according to Truth F. I told him That the Greeke Church had plainely changed and taught false in a Point of Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost and that I had heard say that euen his Maiestie should say That the Greeke Church hauing erred against the Holy Ghost had lost the Holy Ghost B. You are very bold with his Maiestie to relate him vpon hearesay My intelligence serues me not to tell you what his Maiestie said but if hee said it not you haue beene too credulous to beleeue and too suddaine to report it Princes deserue and were wont to haue more respect than so If his Maiestie did say it there is truth in the speech the error is yours onely by mistaking what is meant by loosing the Holy Ghost For a particular Church may be said to loose the Holy Ghost two wayes or in two degrees The one when it looses such speciall assistance of that blessed Spirit as preserues it from all dangerous errors and finnes and the temporall punishment which is due vnto them And in this sense the Greeke Church lost the Holy Ghost for they erred against him they sinned against God and for this or other sinnes they were deliuered into another Babylonish Captiuitie vnder the Turke in which they yet are and from which God in his mercie deliuer them The other is when it looses not onely this assistance but all assistance ad hoc to this that they may remaine any longer a true Church And so Corinth and Ephesus and diuers others haue lost the Holy Ghost But in this sense the whole Greeke Church lost not the Holy Ghost for they continue a true Church in substance to and at this day though erroneous in the point which you mention F. The said person not knowing what to answer called in the B. who sitting downe first excused himselfe as one vnprouided and not much studied in Controuersies and desiring that in case he should faile yet the Protestant Cause might not be thought ill of B. The B. indeed excused himselfe and he had great reason so to doe But his Reason being grounded vpon his Modestie for the most part he is willing I should let you insult at your pleasure This onely by the way It may be fit others should know the B. had no information where the other Conferences brake off no instruction what should be the ground of this third Conference nor the full time of foure and twentie houres to bethinke himselfe whereas you make the sifting of these and the like Questions to the very Branne your dayly worke and came throughly furnished to the businesse Saint Augustine said once Scio me inualidum esse I know I am weake and yet he made good his Cause And the B. preferring the Cause before his Credit was modest and reasonable For there is no reason the weight of that whole Cause should rest vpon any one particular and great reason that the personall defects of any man should presse him but not the Cause F. It hauing a hundred better Schollers to maintaine it than he To which I said There were a thousand better Schollers than I to maintaine the Catholike Cause B. The B. in this had neuer so poore a conceit of the Protestants Cause as to thinke they had but a hundred better than he to maintaine it That which hath a hundred may haue as many more as it pleases God to giue and more than you And the B. shall euer be glad that the Church of England which at this time if his memorie reflect not amisse he named may haue farre more able defendants than himselfe he shall neuer enuie them but reioyce for her And hee makes no question but that if hee had named a thousand you would haue multiplyed yours into ten thousand for the Catholike Cause as you call it And this confidence of yours hath euer beene fuller of noyse than proofe But you admonish againe F. Then the Question about the Greeke Church being proposed I said as before that it had erred B. Then I thinke the Question about the Greeke Church was proposed But after you had with confidence
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
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
〈◊〉 institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi Authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur That which the vniuersall Church holdeth and which was not appointed by Councels but alwayes obserued is most rightly beleeued to be none other than a Tradition of the Apostles Lastly that which is produced out of BB. Whitgift and M. Cartwright belongeth to the Titles or Names of Ecclesiasticall Rulers and to the matter of Ceremonies Cartwright had a sowre opinion against these being neuer so antient and inculpable The most reuerend BB. his Aduersarie answereth out of S. Augustine Epist. 118. Those things that be not expressed in the Scriptures and yet by Tradition obserued of the whole Church come either from Apostles or from generall Councels as the obseruing of Easter the celebration of the day of Ascension c. The Bishop disputeth of adiaphorous Ceremonies and Titles of Ecclesiasticall persons no wayes blameable but because they are not expressely found in Scripture and concerning such things he saith That because their originall cannot be found out it is to be supposed it is probable they haue their beginning from the Apostles But hee speaketh not in this manner touching dogmaticall points and Articles of Faith Therefore our Aduersarie peruerteth his words and meaning IESVIT The Spirit of Christ or Christ by his Spirit being still with the Church cannot permit Errors in Faith so to creepe into the Church as they grow irreformable euen by the Principles of Christianitie But if Errors could so creepe into the Church as their beginning could not be knowne since the Apostles and neuer be espyed till they be vniuersally receiued Errors could so creepe into the Church and preuaile that by the Principles of Christianitie they are irreformable This I prooue because Errors are irreformable by the Principles of Christianitie when whosoeuer vndertakes to reforme them by the Principles of Christianitie is to be condemned as an Heretike But he that will vndertake to reforme Doctrines vniuersally receiued by the Church opposeth against the whole Church and therefore is by the most receiued Principle of Christianitie by Christs owne direct Precept to be accounted as an Heathen and Publican And as S. Augustine saith to dispute against the whole Church is most insolent madnesse specially when the Doctrine is antient without any knowne beginning as are the supposed erronious Customes and Doctrines of the Romane Church for then the vndertaking Reformer must striue against not onely the whole present Church but also the whole streame of the visible Church time out of mind since the Apostles Et quis ad haec Idoneus Who is able to begin a new course of Christianitie and to ouerthrow that Doctrine which is vniuersally receiued and cannot be prooued by any Tradition of Ancestors to be otherwise planted in the World but by the Apostles themselues through the efficacie of innumerable Miracles Wherefore these Doctrines if they be Errors which by the Principles of Christianitie no man ought to goe about to reforme and seeing it is impossible that there should be any such Errors we must acknowledge that Principle of S. Augustine as most certaine That Doctrines receiued vniuersally in the Church without any knowne beginning are truly and verily Apostolicall And of this kind are the Roman from which Protestants are gone ANSWER The Point which you labour to prooue is That Doctrines vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not reported by Monuments of Historie and Antiquitie are Apostolicall You haue taken that as granted and presupposed which we denie to wit That your Popish Doctrine was for a thousand yeeres at least vniuersally receiued But this is a begging of the Question and a false supposition Wherefore I might according to the rules of Disputation passe by the other part of your Argument But to cleare all things more exactly I will ex abundanti answer that which followeth Your disputation about this part of the question being resolued into the seuerall Arguments and parts may bee thus conceiued No errours irreformable can be in the Church All errours vniuersally receiued without a knowne beginning are irreformeable Ergo No errours vniuersally receiued without a knowne beginning can be in the Church The Maior is confirmed by an Argument taken from the continuall presence of Christ by his Spirit to the vniuersall Church for wheresoeuer Christ is perpetually present and assistant by his holy Spirit there it is impossible that irreformeable errours should preuaile I answere No errours great or lesse absolutely irreformeable can bee in the Church as it signifieth the sounder and better part thereof but errours irreformeable Ex Hypothesi that is presupposing the ignorance and malice of some ouerruling Prelates may preuaile in the Hierarchicall Church which is vulgarly reputed the vniuersall Church for such a Church may be the seate of Antichrist and whiles he reigneth errours may be incureable Ierem. 51. 9. Apoc. 17. 5. Neither doth the presence of Christ and of his Spirit deliuer the malignant part of the Church from irreformeable errours but onely the liuing members of his mysticall Bodie which are actuated and mooued by influence of sauing Grace Iohn 8. 31 32. Rom. 1. 28. 2. Thes. 2. 11. Iohn 12. 40. The Assumption to wit All errours vniuersally receiued without a knowne beginning are irreformeable is denied For although the errours of the Pharisees were vniuersally receiued according to the vniuersalitie of the state of the Church in those dayes without such a knowne beginning as Papists require vs to exhibite concerning their errours yet the same were reformeable by the word of Christ and by the doctrine of the Prophets in all such as receiued the loue of the Truth that they might be saued But the Iesuite prooueth his Assumption by this reason All errours are irreformeable when they which seeke to reforme them are Heretickes by the Principles of Christianitie But all that seeke to reforme errours vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne are heretickes by the principles of Christianitie Ergo All errours vniuersally receiued without a knowne beginning are irreformeable The Minor of this Paralogisme is denyed and it is false That all they which seeke to reforme errours vniuersally receiued are iustly condemned as heretickes by the principles of Christianitie And the Argument produced to prooue this Proposition is of no force Whosoeuer opposeth against the whole Church is by the most receiued Principle of Christianitie deliuered Matth. 18. 7. to be accounted as an Heathen or a Publicane and Saint Augustine saith That to dispute against the whole Church is insolent madnesse But whosoeuer seeketh to reforme errours vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne opposeth against the whole Church Ergo All they which seeke to reforme errours c. are Heretickes by the Principles of Christiantie ANSVVER Whosoeuer opposeth against the whole Church taken as before for the Church Hierarchicall or representatiue is not by the doctrine of our Sauiour and Saint Augustine to be accounted an
enough not spared to say That what the B. would not acknowledge in this cause you would wring and extort from him then indeed you said as before that it had erred And this no man denyed But euerie Error denyes not Christ the Foundation or makes Christ denie it or thrust it from the Foundation F. The B. said That the Error was not in Point fundamentall B. The B. was not so peremptorie His speech was That diuers learned men and some of your owne were of opinion That as the Greekes expressed themselues it was a Question not simply Fundamentall The B. knowes and acknowledges that Error of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne to be a grieuous Error in Diuinitie And sure it would haue grated the Foundation if they had so denyed the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne as that they had made an inequalitie betweene the Persons But since their forme of speech is That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Sonne and is the Spirit of the Sonne without making any difference in the consubstantialitie of the Persons the B. dares not denie them to be a true Church for this though he confesses them an erroneous Church in this particular Now that diuers learned men were of opinion That à Filio per Filium in the sense of the Greeke Church was but a Question in modo loquendi in manner of speech and therefore not fundamentall is euident The Master and his Schollers agree vpon it The Greekes saith hee confesse the holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Sonne with the Apostle Galat. 4. and the Spirit of Truth S. Ioh. 16. And since Non est aliud It is not another thing to say The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and the Sonne then that he is or proceeds from the Father and the Sonne in this they seeme to agree with vs in eandem Fidei Sententiam vpon the same Sentence of Faith though they differ in words Now in this cause where the words differ but the sentence of Faith is the same 〈◊〉 eadem euen altogether the same Can the Point be fundamentall You may make them no Church as Bellarmine doth and so denie them saluation which cannot be had out of the true Church but the B. dares not It ought to be no easie thing to condemne a man of Heresie in foundation of Faith much lesse a Church least of all so ample and large a Church as the Greeke especially so as to make them no Church Heauen Gates were not so easily shut against multitudes when S. Peter wore the Keyes at his owne Girdle And it is good counsaile which Alphonsus à Castro one of your owne giues Let them consider that pronounce easily of Heresie how easie it is for themselues to erre Or if you will pronounce consider what it is that seperates from the Church simply and not in part onely I must needs professe that I wish heartily as well as others that those distressed men whose Crosse is heauie alreadie had beene more plainely and moderately dealt withall though they thinke a diuerse thing from vs than they haue beene by the Church of Rome But hereupon you say you were forced F. Whereupon I was forced to repeat what I had formerly brought against Dr. White concerning Points Fundamentall B. Hereupon it is true that you read a large discourse out of a Booke printed which you said was yours The particulars all of them at the least the B. tells me he doth not now remember and is sure he did not then approoue But if they be such as were formerly brought against 〈◊〉 White they are by him formerly answered The first thing you did was the righting of S. Augustine Which Sentence the B. doth not at all remember was so much as named in the third Conference much lesse was it stood vpon and then righted by you Another place of S. Augustine indeed was which you omit but the place of it comes after about Tradition to which I remit it But you tell vs of a great proofe made out of this place These words containe two Propositions One That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall The other That this is prooued out of this place of S. Augustine 1. For the first That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall It was not the least meanes by which Rome grew to her Greatnesse to blast euerie Opposer shee had with the name of Heretike or Schismatike for this serued to shriuell the credit of the persons and the persons once brought into contempt and ignominie all the good they desired in the Church fell to dust for want of creditable persons to backe and support it To make this proceeding good in these later yeeres this course it seemes was taken The Schoole that must maintaine and so they doe That all Points defined by the Church are thereby Fundamentall necessarie to be beleeued of the substance of the Faith and that though it be determined quite Extra Scripturam And then leaue the wise and actiue heads to take order that there be strength enough readie to determine what is fittest for them But since these men distinguish not nor you betweene the Church in generall and a Generall Councell which is but her Representation for determinations of the Faith the B. though he be very slow in sifting or opposing what is concluded by lawfull generall and consenting Authoritie though hee giue as much as can be giuen to the definitions of Councels truly generall nay suppose hee should graunt which hee doth not That Generall Councels cannot erre yet this cannot downe with him That all Points euen so defined are Fundamentall For Deductions are not prime and Natiue Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations That which is a Foundation for all cannot be one and another in different Christians for then it could be no constant Rule for any nor could the soules of men rest vpon a shaking Foundation No If it be a true Foundation it must be common to all and firme vnder all in which sense the Articles of Christian Faith are Fundamentall And Irenaeus layes this for a ground That the whole Church howsoeuer dispersed in place speakes this with one mouth Hee which among the Guides of the Church is best able to speake vtters no more than this and lesse than this the most simple doth not vtter Therefore the Creed of which hee speakes is a common is a constant Foundation and an Explicite Faith must be of this in them which haue the vse of Reason for both Guides and simple people all the Church vtter this Now many things are defined by the Church which are but Deductions out of this which suppose them deduced right mooue farre from the Foundation without which Deductions explicitely beleeued many millions of Christians goe to Heauen and cannot therefore be Fundamentall in the Faith True
to be concluded out of it And since you are pleased before to passe from the Church of England to all Protestants you may know for your comfort that all Protestants agree most strongly in this That the Scripture is sufficient to saluation and containes in it all things necessarie to it The Fathers are plaine the Schoolemen not strangers in it And haue not wee reason then to account it as it is The Foundation of our Faith And Stapleton himselfe though an angrie Opposite confesses That the Scripture is in some sort the Foundation of Faith that is in the nature of Testimonie and in the matter or thing to be beleeued And if the Scripture be the Foundation to which wee are to goe for Witnesse if there be doubt about the Faith and in which we are to find the thing that is to be beleeued as necessarie in the Faith we neuer did nor neuer will refute any Tradition that is Vniuersall and Apostolike for the better exposition of the Scripture nor any definition of the Church in which she goes to the Scripture for what shee teaches and thrusts nothing as fundamentall in the Faith vpon the world but in what the Scripture is Materia Credendorum the substance of that which is to be beleeued whether immediately and expressely in words or more remotely till a cleare and full deduction draw it out F. I asked How he knew Scripture to be Scripture and in particular Genesis Exodus c. These are beleeued to be Scripture yet not prooued out of any place of Scripture The B. said That the Bookes of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and needed not to be prooued B. I did neuer loue too curious a search into that which might put a man into a Wheele and circle him so long betweene proouing Scripture by Tradition and Tradition by Scripture till the Deuill find a meanes to dispute him into Infidelitie and make him beleeue neither I hope this is no part of your meaning yet I doubt this Question How doe you know Scripture to be Scripture hath done more harme than you will be euer able to helpe by Tradition But I must follow that way which you draw me And because it is so much insisted vpon by you and is it selfe a matter of such consequence I will sift it a little further Many men labouring to settle this great Principle in Diuinitie haue vsed diuers meanes to prooue it All haue not gone the same way nor all the right way You cannot be right that resolue Faith of the Scriptures being the Word of God into onely Tradition for onely and no other proofe are equall To prooue the Scripture therefore so called by way of Excellence to be the Word of God first some flye to the Testimonie and Witnesse of the Church and her Tradition which constantly beleeues and vnanimously deliuers it secondly some to the Light and the Testimonie which the Scripture giues to it selfe with other internall proofes which are obserued in it and to be found in no other Writing whatsoeuer thirdly some to the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost which cleares vp the Light that is in Scripture and seales this Faith to the soules of men that it is Gods Word fourthly All that haue not imbrutished themselues and sunke below their Species and order of Nature giue euen Naturall Reason leaue to come in and make some proofe and giue some approbation vpon the weighing and the consideration of other Arguments 1. For the first The Tradition of the Church taken and considered alone it is so farre from being the onely that it cannot be a sufficient proofe to beleeue by Diuine Faith That Scripture is the Word of God for that which is a full and sufficient proofe is able of it selfe to settle the soule of man concerning it Now the Tradition of the Church is not able to doe this for it may be further asked Why he should beleeue the Churches Tradition And if it be answered Because the Church is infallibly gouerned by the Holy Ghost it may yet be demanded How that may appeare And if this be demanded either you must say you haue it by speciall Reuelation which is the priuate Spirit you obiect to other men or else you must attempt to prooue it by Scripture as all of you doe And that very offer is sufficient acknowledgement that the Scripture is a higher proofe than the Churches Tradition which in your owne grounds is or may be questionable till you come thither Againe if the Voice of the Church saying The Bookes of Scripture commonly receiued are the Word of God be the formall Obiect of Faith vpon which alone and absolutely and lastly I may resolue my selfe then euerie man not onely may but ought to resolue his Faith into the Voice or Tradition of the Church for euerie man is bound to rest vpon the proper and formall Obiect of the Faith But nothing can be more euident than this That a man ought not to resolue his Faith of this Principle into the Testimonie of the Church therefore neither is that Testimonie or Tradition the formall Obiect of Faith The Learned of your owne part grant this Although in the Article of the Creed I beleeue the Catholike Church peraduenture all this be contained I beleeue those things which the Church teacheth yet this is not necessarily vnderstood That I beleeue the Church teaching as an infallible Witnesse And if they did not confesse this it were no hard thing to prooue It seemes to me verie necessarie that we be able to prooue the Bookes of Scripture to be the Word of God by some Authoritie that is absolutely Diuine for if they be warranted vnto vs by any Authoritie lesse than Diuine then all things contayned in them which haue no greater assurance than the Scripture in which they are read are not Obiects of Diuine Beleefe And that once granted will enforce vs to yeeld That all the Articles of Christian Beleefe haue no greater assurance than Humane or Morall Faith or Credulitie can affoord An Authoritie then simply Diuine must make good Scripture's Infallibilitie This Authoritie cannot be any Testimonie orVoice of the present Church for our Worthies prooue That all the Churches Constitutions are of the nature of humane Law And some among you not vnworthie for their Learning prooue it at large That all the Churches Testimonie or Voice or Sentence call it what you will is but suo modo or aliquo modo not simply but in a manner Diuine Now that which is Diuine but in a manner be it the Churches manner is suo modo non Diuina in a sort not Diuine But this great Principle of Faith the ground and proofe of whatsoeuer else is of Faith cannot stand firme vpon a proofe that is and is not in a manner and not in a manner Diuine as it must if wee haue no other Anchor than the externall Tradition of the Church 2. For the second That Scripture
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