Sauiour was borne and his Church is euer visible Thirdly he still prouideth as Experience sheweth that in the firmer members of this his visible Church such zeale charity is found that natiōs can no sooner be discouered but presently some preachers passe thither with the sound of his Ghospell Fourthly hence the cause why some nations heare not of the Ghospell is not any defect in his Church but the want of working in the naturall causes to discouer such Countreys which defect God will not euer miraculously supply Fiftly if the Church were inuisible to the world keeping her Religion to her selfe not daring to professe or preach the same vnto others Nations might be discouered yet not a whit the neerer in respect of knowing the Ghospel Hence I thus argue If the Church were hidden for many ages as Protestants acknowledge theirs was men should perish not through defect in the natural causes but only through the hiddēnes obscurity wretchednes of the supernatural meanes to wit of the Church not daring to make profession of her Religion to the world But this is impossible for then God should not for his part wish the saluation of all men Therfore it is impossible that the true Church should not be euer vniuersall and notoriously knowne consequētly it is impossible that the Protestant should be the true Church nations may take notice of her all men could not be saued Sixtly this Church is Holy both in Life Doctrine Holy for life shining in all excellent and wonderfull (o) Sanctity to be a signe of the true Church must be on the one side diuine and excellent on the other externall manifest vnto sense were it not euident vnto sense it could not be a signe were it not diuine it could not be a signe of a Christian Church sanctifyed frō the rest of the world Hence appeareth the idlenes of the Minister who pag. 81. reiecting externall extraordinary sanctity makes inward sanctity a signe of the Church and so he proueth his Church to be Holy because forsooth she is cleansed by the bloud of the lambe c. This is idle For how can this inward Sanctity caused by the bloud of the Lambe and inhabitation of the spirit be a signe of the Church except it be made knowne by outward excellent works Hence our Sauior saith of this signe of sanctity Matth. 7.16 By their fruites you shall know thē and let your light shine before men that they may see your works Matth. 5.16 See S. Augustine de vtilit Credendi lib. 17. and his booke de moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae sanctity such as the Apostles gaue example of as Pouerty (p) The Minister pag. 82. lin 35. sayth that vowed Chastity makes most of our Church more impure then doggs before God and mē I answer this is blasphemy For the breach of vowed Chastity not the vowing therof maketh men impure before God Otherwise who should be more loathsome in his sight thē his immaculate mother who vowed Chastity as the Fathers proue by the Ghospell Luc. 1.34 This blasphemy is the same in effect with that of Turkes who say that the Christian band of chastity to one immaculate bed forbiding multitude of wiues makes Christians more impure then doggs Which they proue because now many thousands of Christians fall into Adultery Incest and other impurity which would not haue been had Christ permitted as Mahomet did the holy Liberty of many wiues which the ancient Prophets inioyed To this Hereticall Turkish accusation of the Catholike Christian Church I answere It was conuenient that Christ Iesus being the Sonne of God should exact of his followers such sanctity and chastity as might suite with the perfection of so diuine a Lawmaker And though he knew many thousands would therein be defectiue for whome therefore in his mercy he prouided the remedy of Pennance yet this fayling of some being but an effect of human frailty he thought it more tolerable then that he should allow by his Law such liberty of lust as was vndecent for his sanctity to permit and vnworthy of a people redeemed with his bloud whereby there would haue beene fewer sinners among Christians not through strictnes of life but through the loosenes of his law In this manner the Church of Christ taught by the spirit of his wisdom doth and did euer exact perfect chastity of them that were of her Cleargy though she be sure that in so great a multitude many will fayle who must seeke to be saued by pennance As adultery in Christians is rather to be suffered then auoyded by allowing many wiues generally vnto Christians though this be not of it selfe intrinsecally euill euen so the falling of some Votaies is not so great an inconuenience as this were that Sacred Ministers should not be bound to professe Chastity worthy of the diuinity of Christian Priesthood the sinning agaynst Chastity being humane infirmity but the not exacting thereof an indignity in the very Christian law For all men not blinded with passion see it is most vndecēt that Christian consecrated Ministers should goe a wooing and wiuing and when one wife dyeth wedde another as often as they please as the Protestant pretended Holy Ministers vse to do This practise is so euidently vnworthy and agaynst all Christian decency as they cannot bring one allowed example of a Christian Church in any former age that did permit liberty of wooing wiuing after Holy Orders which euen the Graecian Church doth detest Let them therefore consider how theirs can be the Holy Church that doth not so much as professe high Sanctity that becomes a Christian Church no not in her consecrated Ministers and more Religious professours Specially seing also Ministers by Mariage doe not wholy auoyd the stayne of wandring lust and other impurity yea themselues acknowledge that they be at the least as vicious as the Catholicke Cleargy The sanctity of the Church is not to be measured by the report of zealous cōplaint agaynst sinne nor is the exaggerated generality therof to be vrged as exact truth with which kind of stuffe our Minister hath most impertinently patched vp many pages of his Booke see pag. 82.83.111 seq for zealous complaint is Hyperbolicall euen in holy Scripture as all know And if Protestāts be remeasured agayne by this rule wherby they measure vs they will get the worst For themselues cōplayne that the world is made WORSE by vertue of their doctrine Luther postil in Dom. 1. Aduent that sinne had NEVER byn so rife but through the rifenes of their Ghospell Doctor King in Ionam Lecture 45. that scarse the tenth mā of the Ministry is morally honest Caluin in pannych in comm 2. 1. Petr. 2. No not one but all be dissolute and lewd sayth Luther Dom. 26. post Trinit In so much as in regard of this enormious wickednes of their Ministery Church any man may iustly doubt whether they be the true Church sayth Eberus praefat
errour and so fallible that euery particuler man of the people for feare of being deceaued (o) Iohn white way pag. 116. must examine her teaching yea your selfe affirme (p) Reply pag. 136. lin 20. c. that not whosoeuer contradicteth the whole Church is to be held as an Heathen and Publican but only such as oppose the whole Church rashly without cause or inordinatly Ergo Protestants acknowledge the authority giuen to the Church by the word of God and consequently her lawfull authority Pag. 169. The Iesuit doth charge you to extenuate the value of our Lords passion in saying that the same doth not purchase and merit true inward purity and sanctity to mens soules and actions Against this you say (q) Reply pag. 169. lin 20. No Christian Church euer prized the oblation and merits more highly and religiously then we Great prayse or rather pride euen the Church of the Apostles were not more religiously deuout vnto nor more highly conceyted of Christ Iesus his passion then you are Well how proue you it Heb. 10.14 it is written with one oblation he did consummate his sanctifyed for euer Iohn 1.29 Behold the Lambe that taketh away the sinns of the world This is euen iust as if an Arian should argue in this sort It is written Iohn 10.30 I and and my Father are one Ergo Neuer Christian Church prized the diuinity of Christ nor thought more highly or religiously of his Equality with his Father then we Would not this argument should an Arian vse it proue him to be more ridiculous then religious And the same force hath this your argument as will appeare if we put togeather into forme the propositions thereof the one Scriptures the other your Assertion It is written that Christ is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world who by his one oblation on the Crosse did consummate the sanctifyed for euer Protestants (r) Caluin Antidot Trident in sess 5 Permaneâ— verè peccatuÌ„ in nobis neque per BaptismuÌ„ vno die extinguitur lib. 3. Institut c. 14. §. 9. NulluÌ„ à sanctis exire potest opus quod non mereatur iustaÌ„ opprobrij mercedem say that Christ taketh not away the sinnes of the world but that the same doth truly and properly remayne in iustifyed persons and is only hidden and not imputed yea your selfe affirme pag. 170. and 171. That sinne is still adiacent vnto all the vertuous actions of iust men and that this imperfection sinfulnes is only couered by Christ his merits and purity that it be not imputed Ergo Protestants prize the value of Christs passion for the effectuall and perfect sanctification cleansing and consummation of saints and their actions as highly and religiously as euer did any Christian Church Scriptures abused and falsifyed §. 9. I Will conclude this section with some few Examples of fraud and falshood in your citing of Scriptures where you help the dice by addition or subtraction of some particle or word to make the Scripture found on your side Although I do not doubt but your scoring vp in cyphers of so many impertinent Texts though being discouered it be ridiculous was also not without fraud by you vsed that you might make shew of Scriptures for such articles of your doctrine for which you know in coÌ„science that no true proofe from Scripture can be produced The text Iohn 5.39 abused Search the Scriptures To begin with the Scriptures themselues with a falshood more then once repeated in your Booke you would shew that the sacred Scripture is so easy as Vnlearned people may vnderstand the sense thereof without relying on the Churches Tradition Exposition To this purpose you say Pag. 9. lin 9. Our Sauiour commanded euen simple people to vse the Scripture Ioan. 5.39 One would according to this your citation thinke that the sacred Text did expresly say that Search the Scriptures was spoken vnto simple people And yet this is a fancy by you cunningly foysted into the text against the playne euidence therof which sheweth that Search the Scriptures was sayd not to the simple people but to the Church-magistracy of the Iewes as these three arguments euince First the word Iewes in the Ghospel of S. Iohn doth signify the Magistracy of the Iewes excluding the simple people This might be proued by forty exaÌ„ples but this may suffice Iohn 7.13 Ioan. 1.9 2.18.20 5.15.16.18 7.1.11.35 8.22.48 9.18.22 There was much muttering about him our Sauiour amongst the coÌ„mon people yet none durst speake openly of him for feare of the Iewes Behold the Iewes opposed coÌ„distinguished against coÌ„mon people feared of them wherby it is manifest that by the Iewes the Gospel of S. Iohn doth vnderstand the Magistracy of the Iewes But certayne it is that our Sauiour sayd search the Scriptures to the Iewes according to the signification of that word in the Gospell of S. Iohn Dixit Iesus Iudaeis Scrutamini Scripturas c. Iohn 5.32 Therefore the wordes were sayd to the Magistracy of the Iewes the common people being excluded Secondly our Sauiour doth testify that he sayd search the Scriptures vnto them that sent the Embassage vnto Iohn to know what he was Iohn 5.34 vos misistis ad Ioannem But cleere it is that the authours of this Embassage were not the simple people but the Church-magistracy of the Iewes Ergo Not vnto simple people but vnto Church-men and Church-magistrates did our Sauiour say search the Scriptures Thirdly our Sauiour sayd search the Scriptures vnto men highly persuaded of the sole-sufficieÌ„cy of the Scripture thinking in them to haue eternall life This appeareth by the text Ibid. vers 33. TestimoniuÌ„ perâ—ibuit veritati Ibid. vers 36. opera quae facio testimonium perhibent Ibid vers 37. Pater qui misit me testimonium perhibuit mihi search the Scriptures because in them you thinke to haue eternall life Hence they would not belieue in our Sauiour neyther vpon the testimony of Iohn nor vpon the testimony of his workes and miracles nor vpon the testimony of his Fathers voyce from heauen Now that the simple people were thus conceyted of Scriptures agaynst the miracles of our Sauiour we haue no grouÌ„d to think whereas that the Church-magistracy of the Iewes was thus conceyted the Gospell doth expressely declare There we reade how they appealed from his miracles to Moyses his bookes bidding such as were lead away by his workes Ioan. 7 52.5â— Scrutare Scripturas vide quia à Galilaea Propheta non surgit to search the Scriptures see that our Sauiour could not be the Prophet Therfore to these men standing vpon the testimony of Scripture sole-sufficiency therof vnto eternal life not to simple People did our Sauiour say Search the Scriptures because in them you thinke that you haue eternall life without me wheras euen these giue testimony of me Hence appeareth another falsificatioÌ„ of
before was the like preparation pride and cost in tyme of warre the Souldyers euen the night before the battayle bathing themselues in wine casting their gorges crying showting vauÌ„ting confiding in their forces as inuincible On the Hector Boethius Histor Scot. lib. 14 fo 3.114 Thomas de la More vbi sup other side the Scottishmen spent the night in confessing their sinnes vnto Priests in prayers vnto God by the mediatioÌ„ of Saints specially of S. Finan whose sacred Relikes they brought with theÌ„ into the Field In the morning the King with his Nobles on the top of an Hill in the sight of his Army heard Masse receaued the B. Sacrament at the hands of Mauritius Abbot as the rest of the troups also did at the hands of other Priests The Masse ended the sayd Abbot came downe stood in the Front of the Army with the Standart of the Crosse which they all saluted falling with their bodyes on the ground The English imagining this was done in token that they yielded soone found theÌ„selues deceaued were taught by their ouerthrow an inuincible Truth That not Warlike preparatioÌ„ not the multitude of men not the courage of human Hart not the forces of Armes but true Catholicke Piety Confidence in God Inuocation of Saints Worship of the holy Crosse huÌ„ble Confession of sins vnto Priests deuotion vnto the most dreadfull Mystery of the Masse make Kings and Countreyes Victorious By these examples continued from Constantine vnto these tymes vnto which innumerable others might be added Your Maiesty may perceaue the Roman Religion to haue byn as the meanes to assure glorious Victoryes vnto Christian Princes so likewise the publike Christian profession at the least of all the last fourten Ages If this so ancient victorious Religion be proued by the expresse Texts of Diuine Scripture so cleerly that her Aduersaries be forced to leaue the litterall sense vpon no better ground then because the same is beyond the capacity of their vnderstanding what more can be desired Now this we haue endeauoured to demonstrate hope to haue fully performed the taske in the Treatise wee heere present prostrate at the Feete of your Royall Clemency humbly beseeching the soueraygne Ouer-seer and Ouer ruler of Harts so to incline your maiestyes Hart to be fauourable vnto your Catholicke Subiects as he seeth their Harts to be sincerly loyal vnto you euer desirous of your Royall Soueraignty full of endeared Affection vnto your Person which from your Infancy hath growne togeather with the Increase of your Yeares which hath wayted euery where on your Honourable Vndertakings with hartyest prayers for the most desired successe still wishing that our CHARLES the first of England may in the glory of Catholike Religion Piety in the Fame of Victoryes and Conquests in the large Extent of Dominions equall yea exceed the former Worthyes of that Name and Number the GREAT and GREATEST and after a long happy Raygne passe to be participant of an eternall Crowne Your loyall Subiect and Beadesman I. F. THE PREFACE TO THE READER TO the end good Reader thou mayst more cleerly conceaue the Scope of these Writings I haue thought fit to giue thee notice of some things concerning the Answere vnto the Nine Poynts and of the occasion thereof I suppose thou hast heard of some Conferences about matters of Religion which passed between M. Iohn Fisher Iesuit on the one side and D. Francis White Minister on the other for the satisfaction of an Honourable Person that was moued to doubt whether the Protestant were the true Church At the second Conference our late Soueraigne King Iames being himselfe present about the conclusion thereof imposed vpon M. Fisher a Taske of writing about some Questions of Controuersy and accordingly sent a note contaying Nine Poynts with this title of Superscription Some of the Principall Poynts which with-hold my ioyning vnto the Church of Rome except she reforme herselfe or be able to giue me satisfaction are these This is the true Occasion of M. Fishers writing and the manner in which his Maiesty proposed the sayd Nine Questions whereby thou mayst discouer the falshood of the Occasion pretended by the Minister D. White to saue his owne credit and to discredit M. Fishers Relation of the Conference He sayth In his Preface to the Reader his Maiesty hauing well vnderstood of the Iesuits Cretizing Relation of his dispersing hundreds of papers to his owne prayse and to the disgrace of his Aduersaryes THERFORE made the proposition of the Nine Questions that the Iesuit answering them and the Minister replying agaynst his Answere a publicke testimony might be extant whereby men might iudge of the sufficiency of the one and insufficiency of the other This is a Tale faygned vpon the fingers ends of the Writer thereof For besides that the superscription of the Nine Questions sheweth his Maiesty had another intention in proposing them his Maiesty layd the charge of writing vpon M. Fisher at the second Conference when he had dispersed no papers about the particulars of the first Conference yea the sayd Relation was not penned nor the penning thereof begun when the Note of the Nine Poynts was dâ—liuered into his hands So that it is a meere Fable that his Maiesty iudged the Iesuits Relation of the Confâ—rences to be Cretizing and false therefore charged him with the obligation of writing And in my Iudgment the Minister is not aduised in confessing that according to M. Fishers Relation his carriage in the Conference was most shameful That a Schoole-boy of thirteen yeares old Preface to the Reader could not haue been more vnskillful and childish This Confession I say cannot but be a stayne to his Cause Honour in the Iudgement of most men the foresayd Relation being of such Credit and in substance so exactly true as none of the Honourable Audience disclaymed from it yea which is more the Ministers Counter-narration ready and prepared as he sayth for the print durst neuer appeare agaynst it Whereof no doubt the reason is for that he saw that his printed narration must eyther be notoriously false with daÌ„ger to be proclaymed a falsifyer by the Honourable Audience or else in substance agree with M. Fishers which he doth acknowledge to be so much to his discredit Agayne the Minister which was the cause M. Fisher published his Relation had by word of mouth vttered vaunting reportes of his owne victoryes and of his putting M. Fisher to a Non-plus by arguments he neuer proposed yea concerning Controuersyes that were not touched In his printed Narration these triumphant arguments could neyther haue been well omitted nor hamsomely set downe If he should haue omitted theÌ„ his Credents would haue been scandalized perceauing he doth delude them by verball Reports which he dares not vtter in print If he should haue set them downe the Honourable Audience would haue been offended to see the Cause as they suppose of Truth mantayned by such exorbitant Falshood This is the true Reason
2. That this Worshippe was euer since the Apostles in the Church without beginning pag. 142.143 c. § 3. The places of Exodus Deut. with no probability vrged agaynst the Worship of Images by Protestants that make them pag. 154.155 c. § 4. Inconueniences which may come by occasion of Images easily preuented and their vtilities very great pag. 158.159 THE SECOND AND THIRD POINT II. Praying offering Oblations to the B. Virgin Mary III. VVorshipping Inuocation of Saints Angells pag. 172. § 1. An Eleauen Demonstrations that the Ancient Christian Church did euer hould Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Fayth Religion pag. 173.174 c. § 2. Inuocation of Saints not to be disliked because not expressed in Scripture pag. 194. § 3. Knowledge of Prayers made to them communicable communicated vnto Saints pag. 196.197 c. § 4. The Worship in spirit Truth with outward prostration of body due vnto Saints pag. 206.207 c. § 5. Praying to Saints not iniurious to Gods mercy but rather a commendation thereof pag. 211.212 c. § 6. Inuocation of Saints not an iniury but an honor to Christ the only Mediatour pag. 215.216 c. § 7. How it is lawfull to appropriate the obtayning of Graces and Cures vnto Saints pag. 219.220 c. § 8. Cōcerning Oblatiōs made to Saints p. 223.224 c. § 9. The Roman Churches set-formes of Prayer without cause misliked pag. 226.227 THE FOVRTH POINT IIII. The Liturgy priuate Prayers for the Ignorant in an vnknovvne Tongue pag. 130.131 THE FIFTH POINT V. Repetitions of Pater Nosters Aues Creeds especially affixing a kind of merit to the nūber of thē p. 241.242 c. THE SIXT POINT VI. The doctrine of Transubstantiatiō ¶ An Addition prouing the Catholike Reall Presence according to the litterall Truth of Gods word agaynst Ministeriall Metaphors Figures shifts pag. 248. ¶ § 1. The Zwinglian and Caluinian Religion about the Sacrament pag. 248. ¶ § 2. The Zwinglian Caluinian Presence confuted pag. 250. ¶ § 3. The Ministers Arguments agaynst the litterall sense of Christs word vayne idle pag. 253.254 c. § 1. That the Reall Presence of the whole body of Christ vnder the formes of bread belongs to the substance of the Mystery pag. 260.261 c. § 2. Transubstantiation belonges to the substance of Reall Presence pag. 266.267 c. § 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers pag. 271.272 c. ¶ A Refutation of the Ministers shifts to elude the former Testimonyes of the Fathers pag. 276.277 c. § 4. The seeming repugnances this Mystery hath with Sense should inclyne Christians the sooner to belieue it pag. 290.291 THE SEAVENTH POINT VII Communion vnder one kind abetting of it by Cōcomitancy pag. 305. § 1. The Doctrine of Concomitancy proued pag. 306.307 c. § 2. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Institution of Christ. pag. 311.312 c. § 3. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Sacrament pag. 315.316 c. § 4. Communion vnder one kinde not agaynst Christ his Precept pag. 319.320 c. ¶ The place of S. Iohn Qui manducat hunc panem c. explicated with an Answere to the Testimonies of the Fathers pag. 330.331 § 5. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the practice of the Primitiue Church pag. 332.333 c. THE EIGHT POINT VIII VVorkes of Supererogation specially vvith reference to the treasure of the Church pag. 334. § 1. The Doctrine of Merit declared pag. ibid. 335.336 c. ¶ The Ministers Arguments or rather Inuectiues against this Doctrine of Merit answered pa. 347.348 c. § 2. Merit of works of Supererogation p. 348.349 c. § 3. The Fathers taught works of Supererogation and proued them by Scripture pag. 352.353 c. § 4. The Doctrine of Satisfaction pag. 358.359 c. § 5. Workes with reference vnto the Treasure of the Church pag. 362.363 c. ¶ The Ministers rayling Argumēts agaynst the former doctrine censured pag. 372.373 c. THE NINTH POINT IX The opiniō of deposing Kings giuing avvay their Kingdoms by Papall povver vvhether directly or indirectly pag. 382. ¶ The Ministers fond Cauill That Iesuits honour not the King as Soueraygne pag. 383.384 c. ¶ His fond proofs of his Slaunder that Iesuits hold singular Opinions to the preiudice of Kings pa. 385.386 c. ¶ His Fondnes in Cauilling at the Iesuits words about the Temporall Soueraignity of Popes pag. 389.390 c. ¶ His miserable Apology for Protestāts p. 391.392 c. ¶ His Cauill agaynst the Iesuits speciall Vow of Obedience to the Pope pag. 393. c. THE CONCLVSION Faultes escaped in the printing In the Picture and Censure Pag. 10. lin 14. Christ read Christs Pag. 12. lin 17. in marg Ministery read Minister Pag. 13. l. 2. in marg conferunt read conferant Pag. 16. l. 20. place translated read place truly translated Pag. 25. l. 19. pleasore read pleasure Pag. 37. l. 7. are read were Pag. 86. l. 19. now read new Pag. 44. l. 3. this read his Pag. 104. l. 16. of read in Pag. 121. lin 32. an read be Pag. 132. l. vlt. diriue read driue In the Answere and Reioynder Pag. 4. l. 10. in marg if read it Pag. 19. line penult in marg seipsum read sensum Pag. 24. l. 1. God Though read God though Ibid. l. 16. could not read could not Pag. 56. lin 30. in marg this read thus Pag. 71. lin 32. in marg but must read but they must Pag· 74. l. 16. in marg do to proue read do proue Pag. 80. l. 30. in marg Votaies read Votaries Pag. 81. lin 32. Philip in dele Ibid. l. 34. in innumerable dele in Pag. 100. l. 1. 3. suppositious read supposititious Pag. 115. l. 16. in coll read in loc Pag. 119. l. 12. opinions read opinion Pag. 129. lin 1. Axione read Axiome Pag. 32. l. 34. in marg a positiue read a positiue precept Pag. 141. l. 11. in marg Sect. 3. read Sect. 1. Pag. 142. l. 26. in marg the argues read he argues Pag. 144. lin 21. viz. read verò Pag. 145. l. 10. reliueth read relieueth Pag. 152. l. 33. in marg Anthropomorphilae read Anthropomorphitae 177. l. 9. in marg praebitur read praebebitur Pag. 180. l. 22. wash awayt read washt away Pag. 227. l. 5. if they dele if Pag. 229. lin 23. in marg him that dele him Pag. 141. lin 9. reuerent read renewed Pag. 378. l. 22. satisfaction read satisfaction Pag. 396. l. 4. Roall read Royall Pag. 399. l. 2. fallable read fallible THE TRVE PICTVRE OF D· VVHITE MINISTER Or the Censure of his Reply vnto M. Fisher. The Reason of this Title THIS Short Censure is prefixed vnder the Name of your Picture that the Reioynder may correspōd in proportion vnto your Reply the beginning whereof is consecrated by an Image of your (a) For he teacheth
Scriptures Fathers speak as they please This your cogging in Scripture is already discouered Now about the Fathers Seauen Testimonies of S. Augustine about Scripture and Tradition falsifyed §. 1. TO note some few of the many Pag. 22. lin 5. to make S. Augustine seeme to fauour your Protestant fancy that men are resolued in fayth by the resplendent Verity and euidence of the Christian Doctrine you cite him as saying (*) Cont. Ep. Fund c. 4. Manifest Verity is to be prâ—fered before all other thinges wherby I am hâ—ld in the Catholike Church In this quotation the word other is cogged into the text to change the sense as if S. Augustine had sayd I haue many motiues to belieue the Catholike Doctrine amongst other the manifest verity of the things reuealed this is the chiefest of all S. Augustines true text is manifest verity so cleerly shewed as no doubt therof can be made praeponenda est omnibus is to be preferred before all these thinges whereby I am held in the Catholike Church Hence it is cleere that the manifest Verity was not the stay and motiue of S. Augustines fayth For what is preferred before all the motiues that stayed him in the Catholike Church was none of his motiues But he saith that manâ—fâ—st verity so cleerly shining as no doubt thereof can be made is to be preferred before all his motiues Ergo S Augustin was not befooled with this foppery that Fayth is resolued finally into the manifest resplendeÌ„t verity of the doctrine and thinges reuealed in Scripture Neere to the same (a) Pag. 21. lin â—2 and in marg lit b. c. place you cite S. Augustine (b) Aug. l. 2. de Baptis c. 3. saying That former councells are corrected by latter Whence you inferre that the Tradition of the Church is fallible For what sentence of the Church is infallible if that of Councells be fallible In which say you some Papists place the soueraignty of Ecclesiasticall authority Heere you shew Ignorance and Falshood Ignorance about the doctrine of Catholikes For though some preferre the Councell before the Pope others the Pope before the Councell in case the whole Councel should be opposite to the Pope in matters of Fayth to be defined which case yet neuer happened yet all preferre perpetual Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles before both Pope and Councell For how can we know that Church definitions made by Pope Councell be infallible but by Tradition Some may say that is cleerly proued by Scripture It is true but how shall we know the texts assumed in this proofe to be the Apostles Scripture but by Tradition How should we be so sure that we truly expound the Texts aright did we not see the Tradition and practise of the Church to haue been still conformable to the sense we giue of those Scriptures Your Falshood is in that you conceale the words that immediatly follow in S. Augustines sentence which had you set down Aug. lib. 2. de Baptis c. 3. Ipsa plenaria Concilia saepe priora posterioribus emeÌ„dari cùm EXPERIMENTO â—erum aperitur quod clausum erat it would haue been euideÌ„t that he doth attribute fallibility and corrigibility vnto Councells only in matters of fact or Ecclesiasticall Lawes about manners For the whole sentence is Amongst plenary Councells the former are corrected by the latter cùm experimento rerum c. when by EXPERIMENT of thinges something is brought to light which before was hidden Now the truth of matters and mysteries of Fayth is not brought to light by tyme and experience but the truth of matters of fact is of which One sayth Quicquid sub terra est in apricum proferet aetas Therefore S. Augustine speakes not of matters of Fayth but of matters of fact or of Ecclesiasticall Lawes about manners which in some cases tyme and experience doth discouer to be inconuenient therefore to be recalled In the same place to prooue S. Augustine (d) Pag. 21. in lit b. c. held that the Church in her perpetuall Traditions may be deceaued you cite him saying (e) Aug. l. 2. cont Crescon c. 21. Eâ—clesiastici Iudices sicut homines plerumque falluntur Ecclesiasticall Iudges as men may be deceaued and (f) Lib 2. de Baptism c. 3. EpiscoporuÌ„ litteras quae post confirmatum Canonem Scriptae sunt c. licere reprehendi Non debet Ecclesia se Christo praeponere vt putet à se iudicatos baptizare non posse ab Illo autem iudicatos posse cùm Ille semper veraciter iudicet Ecclesiastici autem Iudices sicut homines plerumque falluntur the writings of any Bishops since the Apostles may be questioned and called into doubt I do not doubt but you know in your conscience that S. Augustine in both the places is alleadged oppositely to his meaning In the first place he speaketh not about Church-errours in matters of fayth but about errors in matters of fact or Church iudgments concerning criminall causes For this is his whole sentence The Church ought not to preferre herselfe before Christ as to say that men condemned by him as wicked may validely baptize but such as she doth condemne may not seeing He in his iudgements neuer erreth whereas Ecclesiasticall Iudges as being men are often deceaued Who doth not see that you wrong Saint Augustine to bring this his testimony for his holding the perpetuall Tradition of the Catholicke Church hand to hand from the Apostles by the succession of Bishops to be fallible And no lesse iniuriously you produce him in the second testimony For he speaketh of single Bishops considered ech of them by themselues that their writings are obnoxious vnto errour and so may be questioned and examined by Scripture thence inferring that the Donatists should not wonder that he did examine the Epistle of S. Cyprian agaynst the Baptisme of Heretikes so cleere it is he speakes of single Bishops not of Tradition by the full consent of Bishops Pag. 37. lin 33. For only Scripture you cite the same S. August as thus writing (g) August in epist· 1. IoaÌ„ tract 3. The Church hath only two breasts wherwith she feedeth her Children the Scriptures of the Old New TestameÌ„t You corrupt this place by addition false translation First by adding to the text the word only to make men belieue S. Aug. held that no doctrine of Fayth is to be belieued which is not cleerly contayned in Scripture whereas (h) l. 4. de Baptis c. 6. 24. l. 5. c. 22. he hath an expresse principle to the contrary many tymes repeated in his workes Sundry thinges to wit of fayth such as was the doctrine that Baptisme giuen by Heretiks is valide are most iustly belieued to be the Apostles though they be no where written in the Scriptures Secondly S. August sayth not as you traÌ„slate that the Churches two breasts are the Scriptures of the Old New TestameÌ„t
for theÌ„ it would follow that she hath no milke in her two breasts but written doctrine but he sayth her two breasts are the two Testaments of Diuine Scriptures Hence you may gather that in ech of her breasts in ech of the Testaments the milke of Scripture is contayned but that only the milke of writteÌ„ doctrine is in them contayned you cannot from this text truly cited inferre therefore both by addition and transposition of wordes you help the dyce To proue That the Tradition of the Church hath no credit or authority but from Scripture and that though this Tradition might be false yet Fayth would subsist because there remayneth allwayes an higher and more soueraigne Iudge to wit God speaking in the Scripture To proue this I say you (i) Pag. 90. in margin lit c cite this text of (k) Augustin lib. 11. 〈◊〉 Faust. c. â— Tanquam in sede quâ—dam in sublimi collocata est cui seruiâ—t omnis Fidelis pius intellectus S. Augustine It is placed as it were in an high throne of authority vnto which euery faythfull and pious vnderstanding must be subiect What is this Why doe you not name it Because you durst not set downe the wordes that immediatly precede which make cleerly agaynst you to wit these (l) Excellentia Canonicâ—â— authoritatis Veteris Noui Testamenti Apoâ—stoloruÌ„ confirmata temporibus per SVCCESSIONES EpiscoporuÌ„ Propagationes Ecclesiarum tanquam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est c. The Canonicall authority of the Scriptures confirmed in the Apostles dayes is by SVCCESSIONS of Bishops propagations of Churches placed in an high throne of authority c. How directly is this testimony of S. Augustine agaynst that which you would proue thereby How hath Tradition no credit or authority but from Scripture if the Scripture by successiue tradition of Bishops hand so hand froÌ„ the Apostles hath gotten quoad nos in the persuasion of the Christian world the high seate of Diuine authority to be honoured as Gods word vnto which euery maÌ„ must yield If this successiue Tradition on which as S. Augustine teacheth our persuasion about the authority of Scripture dependes be made weake fallible by Protestants how shall the Scripture be able to keepe her credit and authority in our Fayth Verily it cannot except Christians will cease to rely on the authority of God reuealing and on doctrine deliuered by the succession of Bishops hunt after Diuine and Apostolicall Scripture by the sent and smell of the doctrines deliuered therein as you doe Likewise by addition of the Particle Only you falsify the saying of (*) Pag. 95. lin 31. in Marg. lit Paschasius For whereas he (m) Paschas in Matth. c. 28. Cum electis semper adfuturum se promittit sayth Christ promised to be with his Elect all dayes vntill the consummation of the world you cite him as saying Only with the elect More grossely in the same place you falsify Druthmarus for whereas (n) In cap. 28. Matth. he sayth Christ is with the Reprobate by the presence of his Godhead but with the Elect in another manner you make him say Christ promiseth to be only with the elect contrary to his meaning who teacheth that the presence and perpetuall assistance of our Sauiour are so vnited vnto his Church her Pastors that they may not erre but still teach all that he coÌ„manded but that presence whereof that Text properly speaketh is not only affoarded vnto the Elect but vnto wicked men for the Saluation of all worthy Communicants as your selfe (o) Pag. 52. lin 14. affirme You (q) See pag. 105. rayle bitterly against the Iesuit for prouing that your Protestant Church cannot be the true Church nor part thereof because you seuered your selues from the Roman Church and did not ioyne vnto any preexistent Christian Society of Pastors but aparted your selues froÌ„ the Communion of the whole world For this his argument you rayle agaynst the Roman Church for a whole leafe pag. 106. and 107. Where thus you conclude your foule Foliall Inuectiue They since their Synode of TreÌ„t haue proceeded from euill to worse (s) The Minister in proofe of all this bringes nothing only in the Margent he nameth the Massacre of Paris Was that done by the Fathers of the Councell of Trent Doth that proue obscuring and out-facing of Truth Had not the Protestants then slayne been Traytors agaynst their king Was not the king informed of their plot to murdâ—r him his mother his brethren the cheiefest of his Nobles If to preuent his owne instant death the king did by martiall law without Iuridicall forme proceed agaynst knowne Rebells iâ— this such a thing as yow may say It surpasseth all perfidious Stratagems and immane Cruelty of Infidels what idle Eloquence is this obscuring outfacing the truth with forgery and sophistry They haue conspired agaynst Kingdomes and States they haue surpassed professed Infidells in perfidious stratagems and immane cruelty And whereas they expelled vs by Excommunication and chased vs away from them by persecution yet this Roman Aduocate taxeth vs with Schisme Apostasy neuer remembring what (*) lib. 5. de Baptism c. 1. S. Augustine long since deliuered The Sacriledge of Schisme is then committed when there is no iust cause of Separation Thus by long continued fierce bitter blasts of false reproach you diriue your vnwary Reader vpoÌ„ the hidden rocke of a falsifyed sentence of S. Aug. as though this most Diuine Doctour had insinuated the lawfullnes of reuolt separatioÌ„ from all ChristiaÌ„ Churches What can be more false He disputeth agaynst the Donatists who had seuered themselues from the Christian world pretending that CaeciliaÌ„ Bishop of Carthage other Catholikes had giuen vp the Holy Bibles to the fire S. Aug. doth conuince them of Schisme two wayes First because this pretence were it true is not iust for there can be no iust cause of separation from the whole world and of beginning a new distinct Christian Church These be his wordes (t) Augustin ep 48. ad Vincent Fieri non potest vt aliqui iustam causam habeant qua communionem suam separent à coÌ„munione Orbis terrarum eamue appellent Ecclesiam Christi quòd se iuste ab omnium geÌ„tium communione separauerint Ibid. Nos ideo certi sumus neminem se à coÌ„munione omnium Gentium iuâ—â—è separare potuisse c. We are certayne that none could iustly separate themselues from the Communion of the whole world And againe It is no way possible that any should haue reason to separate themselues from the coÌ„munion of the whole World and so tearme themselues the Church because vpoÌ„ iust cause they haue deuided theÌ„selues from the Society of all nations Thus S. Aug. What can be more direct agaynst that doctrine for which you cite him Or more efficacious to conclude that you Protestants are guilty of damnable Schisme Secondly sayth
likenes and similitude confoundeth â—he sight not to discerne the one from the other In scriptuâ—es it is not so the doctrine proposed therein being not gold mingled with earth but pure Gold the word of God is pure syluer refined wilth fire so that the Scriptures be not mettals that require workemeÌ„ to seuer in their doctrine Drosse from Gold they offer a ready and refined treasure to them that seeke the riches hidden in them Thus S. Chrysostome and he doth there largely discourse how euery thinge in Scriptures euen the Chronologies and proper Names of men do affoard wholesome and profitable doctrine to the Reader but to find this treasure we must not as he there sayth nudam tantùm scripturam aspicere sed insistere cum studio repositas scrutari opes not only looke vpon the Scripture but insist with study search out the riches hoarded vp therein Haue you not theÌ„ notoriously falsifyed the sense of his discourse by the insertion of words of your owne In the behalfe of your Protestant sole-sufficiency of Scripture you cite (d) Pag. 50. in Marg. lit E. pag. 3. lin 6. in marg lit E. alibi saepe this sentence of Durand tearming him A famous Scholeman Ecclesia licèt Dei Dominationem habeat in terris illa tamen non excedit limitationem Scripturae Although the Church haue the power authority of God vpon earth yet that authority doth not exceed the limitation of the Scripture This place is by you alleadged many tymes in this your Reply but most impertinently For his meaning is that the Church though it haue the authority of God vpon earth (e) Matth. 16. v 20. Quicquid solueris quicquid ligaueris super terram erit solutum ligatum in caelis yet the same power is in some cases restrayned and limited by the Scripture In which respect the Church cannot dispense in many thinges wherein God might dispense In (f) Ecclesia licèt habeat authoritateÌ„ Dei in tertio illa tamen non excedit limitationeÌ„ Scripturae Scriptura autem docet expresse seruos conuersos ad fidem adhuc manere Dominis suis prioribus licet illi maneant infideles particuler she cannot saith he exempt slaues that be made Christians from their subiection vnto their old Maâ—sters because that the Scripture doth expressely teach that Slaues conuerted vnto the Fayth are to be still subiect to their former Maisters though their Maisters be Infidels Thus Durand Now what is this to the purpose of prouing that men are bound to belieue nothing but what is cleerly contayned in Scripture Except according to your skill in Logicke you will argue in this sort The Church cannot do the thinges forbidden her in Scripture because her power is not beyond the restraynt thereof giuen in the Scripture Ergo she cannot belieue teach doctrines proposed vnto her by the rule of Tradition without Scripture which is a thinge commended vnto her in Scripture Hold the Traditions you haue whether by speach or by Epistle 2. Thessal 2.15 How many tymes in this your Reply haue you cited this testimony of the Maister of the Sentences (g) Lombard l. 4. sent d. 18. lit f. God doth not still follow the iudgment of the Church which sometimes through ignorance and surreption iudgeth not according to truth This I say you cite (h) See pag. 89. in lit â— p. 93. lit d alibi to proue that the Church may erre in fayth at the least about secondary articles And yet it is most certayne and euident that he speakerh of iudgment in criminall causes For hence he inferretth (i) Soluere noxios vel damnare se putant innoxios cùm apud Deum non sententia Sacerdotum sed reorum vita queratur Et ita apertè ostenditur quòd non semper sequitur Deus iudicium Ecclesiae quae per ignorantiam surreptionem interdum iudicat the Church-meÌ„ must not thinke because Christ said vnto them whatsoeuer you bind or loose vpon earth shall be bound loosed in Heauen that therefore they may condemne the Innocent and absolue the Nocent For God in such case doth not follow their sentence but iudgeth according to the life of the accused To prooue that the Roman Bishop was not anciently acknowledged the supreme Pastour of the Catholike Church you say pag. 161. lin 15. Pope Stephen was sleighted by S. Cyprian and other Bishops of Africa In proofe whereof you cite in your margent (g) Ibid. lit D. these wordes of Firmilian (h) Firmil apud Cyprian epist. 75. Atque ego in â—ac parte iuste indignor in tam manifestam apertam Steâ—hani stultitiam quòd qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloriaâ—ur se successionem Petri tenere contendit And indeed I am iustly grieued against the open manifest folâ—y of Stephen that he so much glorieth of the dignity of his Bishopricke and standeth vpon his hauing the succession of Peter Thus you Now behold your falshood for I omit your ignoraÌ„ce in naming Firmiâ—ian as a Bishop of Africa whereas he was a Bishop â—f the East to wit of (i) Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. Caesareae Capadocensis Episcopus Caesarea in Cappadocia Your Legier-de-maine I say and falshood is twofold First you omit to let your Reader know that this Firmilian when he wrote this Epistle was a Quartaâ—eciman and also addicted to the Errour of Rebaptiâ—ing theÌ„ that had been baptized by Heretiks And because S. Stephen a most (k) Vincent Lyrinensis aduersus Haeres cap. 9. Holy Pope Martyr had made a decree against their Nouelty (l) Cyprian epist. 74. Nihil innouaÌ„dum praeâ—erquam quod traditum Let no nouelty be admitted â—ut let the ancient Tradition be kept this Firmilian wrote against him an Epistle full of sharpe contumelious speach Had you mentioned this quality of Firmilian which I do not doubt but you knew your impertinency would haue been apparent For this supposed your Argument goeth thus Some Bishops specially Firmilian erring against Fayth and blasted for the tyme with the spirit of Heresy wrote a coÌ„temptuous Epistle against the Sea of Peter Ergo the Sea of Peter is not by diuine Institution the Rocke of the Church agaynst which the gates of hell all Heresyes should rage but neuer preuayle Secondly you notoriously falsify the sentence of Firmilian in making him to rayle against the Roman Bishops being the successour of Peter For this euen in that his Hereticall passion wherof he afterward was (m) This is testifyed by Dionysius Alexandrinus who then liued in his Epistle to Xistus the Successour of S. Stephen apud Euseb. l. 7. Histor. c. 3. Niceph l. 6. c 7. penitent he neuer did yea he doth rather acknowledge the Roman Bishops succession froÌ„ Peter and thence argueth that seeing to Peter only Christ said To thee I will giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen c.
senteÌ„ce Hence (m) Baron Tom. 4. pag. 306. Decreta sancita muâ—are DECERNERE quibuscum à reliqua Ecclesia COMMVNICANDVM sit it may appeare that it did depend on the iudgment of the Roman Bishop to establish Decrees of Fayth and to recall the established and to DECREE with whome the rest of the Church were to keep COMMVNION Hence it is euident that Baronius speaketh of Decrees of fayth declaratiue with whome Communion in Fayth is to be kept that those are mutable as the Church shall see cause For the better vnderstanding whereof we must know that it was the practise or Heretikes (n) Sic Verba temperant sic ambigua quaeque concinnaÌ„ vt nostram aduersariorum confessioneÌ„ teneant Hieron epist. ad Pammach Ocean as S. Hierome noteth to couch their Errours in such ambiguous wordes that taken one way they sounded Heretically another way they carryed a Catholike sense Hence vpon the arising of new Heretikes euen the Catholike Fathers were sometymes deuised some coÌ„municating with some denying communion vnto such Dogmatizants The decision of these doubts is to be made by the Catholik Church and the supreme Pastour thereof in which case the Church may change her decrees For when there is sufficient reason to thinke that such propositions be taken by the Authours in the Hereticall sense Decree is to be made that no communion be held with them If afterward it appeare by good proofe that they meant the said propositions according to the Catholike sense they may be receaued by some latter Decree and the former Decree about auoyding their Communion may be repealed In this sense true is the saying of S. Augustine (o) Lib. 5. de Baptism c. 1. That former Councels are reformed by later when by experimeÌ„t of things what before was hidden commeth to light In this sort ancient Councells (p) In coÌ„cilio Ephes. Christiparae nomeÌ„ explosum est Canis de B. Virg. l. 3. c. 19. made this decree of Fayth that none should tearme the most Blessed Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christs Mother because by that Title Heretikes did meane tacitely to imply that she was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods Mother And yet this Decree of Faith is now by custome repealed because it now appeareth that such as tearme her Christes Mother meane not therby to deny that she is truly and verily Gods Mother This is that which Baronius saith for speaking of the Apollinarians who did vtter their Errours (q) Ruffin de adulterat libror Origen in doubtfull wordes he saith that first by Pope Damasus they were reiected as Heretikes and Catholikes were forbidden to communicate with them Afterwards these (r) Greg. Nazian ad Chelid epist. 2. Apollinarians falsely gaue out that the Councell of the Westerne Church including principally the Roman Bishop had againe receaued theÌ„ into Communion Vpon the newes of this report S. Gregory Nazianzen thus writeth Those that agree with Apollinaris say that they were admitted by the Councell of the West or Roman Bishop by whome it is manifest they were once condemned Yet (s) Hoc osteÌ„dant nos acquiescemus let them but shew this and we yield For it is manifest (t) PERSPICVVM enim eos veritati assenâ—iri nec enim aliter se res habere potest si hoc consecuti sunt that their doctrine doth agree with the true Fayth for it cannot otherwise be if they haue obtayned this This S. Gregory Nazianzen Hence Baronius doth inferre against Heretikes that the Grecian Fathers did beare such reuerence vnto the Roman Church and Roman Bishop belieuing he could not erre that if his Decrees declaratiue of doubtfull ambiguous propositions should change alter they were ready to change and alter with him and to thinke that manner of speach in matters of Faith most fitting for the present which he did for the present allow This I say is all that Baronius doth affirme not that the Pope may change his Decrees about the truth of the articles and mysteries of Fayth as you in your blind auersion would impose vpoÌ„ him catching at words syllables of euery lesse cleere sentence which to be the right iogge (u) Aguntur spiritu maligno in pios vt Satanicâ virulentia incensi EORVM VERBA ET SCRIPTA NON MALOTIO SE INTERPRETARI non possint Loc. commun Martini Lutheri 5. Classe pag. 26. of the Caluinian spirit Luther long agoe noted THE CONCLVSION BEHOLD good store of your Ignorances Impertinencyes Misallegations of Scriptures Wilfull Vnconscionable Falshoods in your producing the Fathers which I offer vnto your Picture to adorne that Crowne which in your Glorious Humour you haue caused to be set ouer your Booke in the second page therof giuing it the Title of Wisdome and Truths Triumph Verily no Iewells and Gemmes can sit the Crowne of such Wisdome and Truth as yours is better then these being made in this Censure Cleere Shining Illustrious by manifest proofe My purpose was to haue discouered many besides these yea more then an hundred no lesse notorious then these about the Nine Points with many other eminent Vntruths but now I perceaue that hereby your Picture would grow though not disproportionable to the greatnes of your Desert yet into a greater bignes they Paper-Images vse to haue which commonly are still lesse then their Patterns I must therefore remayne indebted vnto you for the rest which are many hundreds engaging my selfe to pay the last farthing of this debt whensoeuer the same shall be exacted with sufficient assurance that the performance thereof shall auayle not only to your personall Disgrace but also to the publicke Good by conuersion of so many by you miserably seduced soules Although I must confesse that the former are so many and so cleere as they may sufficiently resolue such as depend on you of their miserable and dreadfull danger and mooue them to returne to the truth if they erre through weaknes of Vnderstanding not through willfulnes of hart For as S. Cyprian sayth (x) Lib. aduer Demetrianum initio Qui ad malum motus est mendacio fallente multò faciliùs ad bonum mouebitur veritate cogente such as haue been simply lead away vnto euill by the fallacy of lying will more easily be brought backe agayne vnto Good by the force of Truth FINIS THE ANSWERE VNTO The Nine Points of Controuersy Proposed by our late Soueraygne of Famous memory vnto M. Fisher of the Society of IESVS AND THE REIOYNDER Vnto the Reply of D. Francis VVhite Minister Et faciam VOS fieri PISCATORES Hominum Matth. 4.19 And I will make YOV FISHERS of Men. Permissu Superiorum M.DC.XXV His Maiestyes Note deliuered vnto M. Fisher. SOME of the principall points which with-hold my ioyning vnto the Church of Rome except she reforme her selfe or be able to giue me satisfaction Are these 1. The worship of Images 2. The Prayings Offering oblations to the Blessed Virgin
so contemptible in the eye of men that verily the worke of the worlds creation doth not more cleerly discouer God the Authour of Nature then this of the worlds Conuersion doth shew it selfe to proceed from the Authour of grace Fourthly the miraculous coÌ„tinuance of a Christian Catholike Church spread ouer the world foretold by our Sauiour notwithstanding so many persecusecutions by the Iewes Heathens Heretikes Polititians and dissolute Christians Against this Principle of ResolutioÌ„ Ministers (d) Chalenour in his Credo Ecclesiam Catholicam p. 1. c. 6. Field l. 3. cap. 15. and our Minister (e) Reply pag. â—16 citing in particular obiect that miracles are only probable not sufficient testimonies of diuine doctrine yea (f) Bellarm. l. 4. de Eccl. cap. 14. Bellarmine sayth we cannot know euideÌ„tly that miracles are true for if we did we should know euidently that our fayth is true so it should not be faith I Answer that such euideÌ„ce as doth exclude the necessity of pious reuerence affection vnto Gods word euidence I say enforcing men to belieue cannot stand with true fayth If we knew by Mathematicall or Metaphysicall euidence that the miracles of Christ and his Apostles were true perchance this euidence would compell men to belieue and ouercome the naturall obscurity and seeming impossibility of the Christian doctrine And therefore as Bellarmine sayth we cannot be mathematically and altogeather infallibly sure by the light of nature that miracles are true Notwithstanding we must not deny what Scriptures affirme (g) Ioan. 5â— 36. that miracles are a sufficient testimony binding men to belieue and consequently that we may know them to be true (h) Suarez de fide disput 4. sect 3. n. 9. Videntibus coÌ„stare poterat euideÌ„tia naturali vera esse quae agebantur by Physicall euidence as we are sure of things we see with our eyes or of such as being once euident to the world are by the worlds full report declared vnto vs. Neyther doth this Physicall euidence of miracles take away the merit of Fayth The reason is because this euidence not being altogeather and in the highest deâ—ree infallible by it selfe for our senses may sometymes be deceaued is not sufficient to ouercome the naturall obscurity darknes seeming falshood of things to be belieued vpon the testimony of those miracles For the mystery of the Trinity of the Incarnation of the Reall Presence and the like seeme to reason as impossible as any miracle can seeme euident vnto sense Hence when fayth is proposed by miracles ariseth a conflict betwixt the seeming euidence of the miracles and the seeming darkenes and falshood of the Christian doctrine Agaynst which obscurity a man cannot get the victory by the sole eâ—idence of miracles except he be inwardly holpen by the light of Gods spirit mouing him by pious affection to cleaue to the doctrine which is by so cleere testimonyes proued his word As a man shut vp in â— chamber with two lights wherof the one maketh â—he wall seeme white the other blew caÌ„not be firmly â—esolued what to think till day light enter obscuring both those lights discouer the truth Euen so a man looking vpon Christian doctrines by the light of Christian miracles done to proue them will be mooued to iudge them to be truth but looking vpon â—hem through the euidence of their seeming impossibilities vnto reason they will seeme false nor will he be able firmely to resolue for the side of faith vntill the light of diuine grace enter into his hart making him to preferre through pious reuerence towards God the so proposed authority of his word before the seeming impossibility of mans reason The third Principle demonstrated §. 3. BEING resolued that the doctrine of God is sauing truth the Apostles doctrine the doctrine of God we meete with a third Enemy who labours to driue vs out of the beateÌ„ high way to know what doctrine is the Apostles This Enemy is the Heretike a domestike Enemy and therfore more dangerous These men graunt the doctrine of Saluation to be supernaturall and reuealed the reuealed to be the Apostolicall and no other but they will haue the rule of knowing what doctrine the Apostles taught to be speciall illumination of the spirit not Catholike Tradition For there is a double kind of Tradition from the Apostles that may be pretended The one publicke by the vniforme perpetuall teaching of Pastours The other secret by the teaching of some priuate men pretending to haue been taught more singularly and highly then other men by the Apostles The second kind of Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles by the secret teaching of an inuisible Church Heretikes haue pretended but neuer the first of publike and Catholike Tradition The cause why Heretikes prescribe the course to resolue by illuminations is because an Heretike will not admit doctrines deliuered vnto him by the consent of his Christian Ancestors but with choyce receaue some and reiect others as he findeth good Whence he hath the (d) Tertull. de praescript cap. 6. Haereses dictae Graeca voce exinterpretatione Electionis Name Heretike that is one who is his owne caruer and chooser in matters of Religion still (e) Augustin l. 7. de Gen. ad lit c. 9. Neque enim non omnes Haeretici Scripturas Catholicas legunt pretending for all his fancyes Scripture vnderstood by the light of the spirit If Catholike Tradition were by him admitted as a rule infallible to know what doctrine the Apostles preached he could not haue liberty to choose according to his best liking but would be bound (f) Nobis nostro arbitrio non licet indulgere sed ê— Apostoli fideliter consignarunt accipere to receaue the forme of Religion made vnto him by Tradition of Ancestours Hence agaynst this way of Catholike Tradition he bandeth with might and mayne charging the same to be fallible that errours may secretly creep into it teaching men to retyre vnto the inward teaching of the spirit as the only secure meanes to know which be the Apostolicall Scripturs which the Apostolicall interpretation of them Agaynst this Enemy is the third principle of true Christian Religion The Apostolicall doctrine is the Catholike to wit the doctrine that is deliuered from the Apostles by the Tradition of whole ChristiaÌ„ worlds of Fathers vnto whole ChristiaÌ„ worlds of ChildreÌ„ that in matters of ChristiaÌ„ Religion Heresy that is priuate election and choyce may haue no place About this principle faith is resolued and assured by a third perfection belonging to God as he is Prime Verity This is that he cannot so much as conniue vnto falshood whereby he become any way accessory of deceauing then that simply readily religiously belieue what they haue iust reason to thinke to be his word But there is iust and sufficient reason to belieue that doctrine deliuered by ful and perpetuall Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles is verily their doctrine and therefore
Iesuite to say that men not belieuing forehand all necessary points of fayth cannot haue any certaine vnderstanding of Scripture This is a slauÌ„der He onely sayth that such ignorants and wanters of beliefe cannot vnderstand aright Scriptures in all necessary points but they will erre in some chiefe article or other though they may happily vnderstand something aright For there was neuer Heretike that did erre in all necessary points But it is inough to damnation to erre in one substantiall pointe therefore we must not presume to reade interpret Scriptures till we be well grounded in them by the Tradition of the Church caÌ„not with assurance vnderstand them but may euen in maynest poynts mightely mistake for the blessed Apostles wryting to Christians that were beforehand fully taught and setled in substantiall Christian Doctrines and customes doe ordinarily in their writings suppose such things as abuÌ„dantly knowen without declaring them anew onely touching them (t) Thus S. Peter act 9.3 4. repreheÌ„ding Ananias for the breach of his Vow doth by the way teach the holy Ghosts Diuinity Why hath Satan filled thy hart to lye to the holy Ghost Thou hast not lyed vnto men but vnto God For what is spoken directly and of purpose in Scripture is no more infallible truth then what is spokeÌ„ but cursorily by the way Wherfor the former speach of S. Peter doth assure vs that the holy Ghost is God as much as that it is a sinne to breake a vow and yet that is spoken by the way and this of purpose Whence you may see the Ministers great weakenes of IudgemeÌ„t who holding that some points of fayth are coÌ„tained in Scripture only consequently pag. 32. lin 3. raileth at the Iesuite for saying that some thinges are sayd in Scripture cursorily and by the way For to be written cursorily and by the way which the Iesuite giues vnto Scripture is more then to be onely virtually and consequently written cursorily by the way and therfore obscurely so that they who are already taught might well vnderstand their sayings and no other Concerning the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture §. 2. HENCE I may further inferre that Protestants haue not yet throughly pondered the place of the Apostles to Timothy which they so vehemently vrge to proue the all-sufficiency of sole Scripture for euery man as though the Apostles had sayd absolutely that the Scriptures are able to instructe or make any man wise vnto saluation which he sayes not but speaking particularly (u) 2. Tim. 3.14.15.16.17 vnto Timothy sayth They are able to instructe or make Thee wise vnto saluation Thee (x) The Minister here laboureth impertinenly to proue that speaches vnto one single person may be generall vnto many other in Scripture which no man denies And so this speach They are able to make Thee wise is generall vnto all persons that are like to Timothy that is instructed aforehand and setled in the fayth of Tradition For what is sayd vnto one single person is not sayd vnto others further theÌ„ they agree with that party in the cause for which it is truly sayd of him What God sayd vnto Abraham Gen. 15.12 I am thy Protectour is not sayd to all men but only to all meÌ„ that were like Abraham that is deuout worshipers of the true God as he was that hast bene aforehand instructed by word of mouth doest thervpon firmely belieue all substantiall doctrines and knowest all the necessary practises of the Christian discipline Verily the Apostle in that place speaketh onely of the Scriptures of the Old Testament affirming them not sufficient for euery man but for Timothy and not sufficient for him by themselues alone but per fidem quae est in Christo Iesu that is ioyned with the doctrine of the Christian fayth which Tymothy had heard and belieued vpon the liuely voyce of Tradition And the consequent words of the Apostle so much insisted vpon All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach c. If Protestants could so (y) The Minister heere heapeth many speaches of Fathers that say the Scriptures are sufficient to proue that Profitable signifyes the same that Sufficient This is ridiculous The Iesuit grants the Scripture to be sufficient for them that know Tradition yet he will still deny that profitable signifyes the same as sufficient How Catholicks grant the same sufficiency to be in Scripture as Protestants and the true state of the Question about sufficiency of Scripture and of Tradition THE Minister here enters into a longe impertinent discourse about the clarity sufficiency of Scripture setting titles ouer the heads of his pages Many Scriptures playne the Scriptures sufficient c. as who would say the Answerer had denied this To discouer these his false insinuatioÌ„s and to cleere this controuersy most important we must know 5. things First that there was once a controuersy betwixt Protestants and vs about the sufficieÌ„cy clarity of Scripture For in their beginning they taught all matter of fayth to be EXPRESSED in Scripture and nothing inuolued Omnia expressa nihil inuolutum De tota Scriptura dico nullam eius partem obscuram esse So Luther de â—erâ—to Arbitrio in Tom. 2. Wittenberg Nothing is to be belieued without the word of God though it seeme deduced by good consequence Luther in locis coÌ„mun 1. part c. 24. pag. 69. Secondly now Protestants euen our Minister pag. 32 lin 2. and often in this reply disclaime from expresse and formall Scripture and pretend that all things are written eyther formally or virtually and so confesse that there is herin no difference betwixt the most learned Papists and them So saith Field Church l. 4. c. 20. pag. 241. lin 6. Thirdly when some Catholicks as Dominicus Bannes so many tymes cited by the Minister pag 151. Marg lit f. pag 109. lin 40. pag. 189. marg lit b. pag. 580. marg lit a. say that some points be neither expressely nor inuoluedly in Scripture they do not meane that they are not virtually inuolued in thinges contayned in Scripture as effects in their cause so are deduceable from Scripture but only that they are not formally inuolued in thinges of Scripture as parts in their whole in sort as they can be articles of fayth by sole Scripture For thinges formally inuolued in Scripture as parts in the whole a soule and body in man indiuidualls in the whole masse of their kind be articles of fayth by vertue of Scripture Thus when the Scripture â—aith Iob was a man it is said inuoluedly yet formally that he had soule body c. when the Scripture sayth Libanus hath Cedar trees it sayth not formally but virtually it hath imputrible wood Fourthly the question now resting between Protestants and vs is not whether the Scripture be virtually intricate and inuolued about some points of fayth nor whether some rule of interpretatioÌ„ be necessary for that the Scripture is inuolued and needeth an vnfolding rule
be proued that she departed from her selfe that is froÌ„ the mother originall doctrines deliuered by the Apostles But she cannot (l) Heere the Minister pag. 128. agayne repeateth his saying that negatiue arguments from humane history are vnconsequent which his saying as hath beene shewed is agaynst the consent of mankind His arguments against this ground of perpetuall Ecclesiasticall Tradition knowne by notorious fame of history are by him named foure but the fourth coÌ„taines foure branches and so they are eight which I will set downe answere First it is not absolutely necessary that the humane history of all matters should be composed Answere There being a cleere lineal succession of Princes and Prelates from the Apostles famously particulrely knowne it is impossible but that historicall TraditioÌ„ eyther written or vnwritten should deliuer most notoriously the substantiall matters of fact done since that time These matters are such as cause great changes in the world as in Ciuill affayres the setting vp the pulling down and changing of renowned Kingdomes States â—n the affayres of the Church the beginnings of ReligioÌ„ the most famous Pastors thereof the conuersions of great Nations the springing vp of heresies poteÌ„t sects their preuailing their being resisted their ouerthrow and commonly also the names of their principall renowned Patrons â—hese illustrious thinges when there is particular Tradition euen to the very names of persons can not be hidden Secondly when history is written it causeth only humane fayth Answer Humane history made by meere human writers and preachers concerning humane and naturall thinges breedes only humayne fayth but Ecclesiasticall Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles made by the Pastours of the Church consecrated to that end by the holy Ghost deliuering diuine reuealed thinges being infallible breedes not only human Fayth but is eleuated by the concurrence of diuine Authority towardes the production of Diuine Fayth as hath beene sayd Thirdly historyes may totally perish and be suppressed or corrupted by the enemies of truth Answere Concerning substantiall renowned matters which are knowne not only by report but also by their permanent effects it is impossible that fame and Tradition should be suppressed or corrupted so long as there is a visible Church in the world For example Arius his doctrine Luthers occasion of changing from the Roman Church King Henryes breach with the Pope and the cause thereof can neuer be suppressed by the ennemyes of truth so long as there shall be a famous Christian Church in the world though about this or that circumstance that are not so notorious questions are mooued and new may arise Fourthly history may be repugnnant to history Answere This cannot be about the substance of the narration when the matters thereof are in manner aforesayd illustrious to wit when they are not only declared by full report but also declare themselues by effects though in circumstaÌ„ce there may be variety of reports Fiftly euen the Papists teach that the principal monuments of antiquity to wit the â—ncient Councells haue not beene faythfully preserued Answere Auncient Geneâ—all Councells concerning the substance of their definitions which they â—id principally intend are and euer were famously knowne yea Tradiâ—â—on hath made the fame of them immortall and incorruptible so long as a visible professing Church shall be in the world Heretikes may endeaâ—our to misreport and corrupt Councells as also they do Scriptures but â—hey neuer could preuayle as concerning any substantiall matter Sixtly many things suppositious haue beene added to the workes of the ancient 〈◊〉 bastardly bookes passe vnder the tytles of Fathers Answere As though also there haue not beene many suppositious bookes vrged as Scripture by Heretikes to wit the Ghospells of Peter of Thomas of Bartholomew Doe not the most ancient Fathers namely the Councell of Carthage S. Augustine receyue some bookes of Scripture to the number of 12. which Protestants partly Caluinists partly LutheraÌ„s reiect Must we therfore refuse triall by Scripture No It is sufficieÌ„t that we haue by most certayne TraditioÌ„ innumerable works that are vndeniably ancient though question be mooued about some which therefore cannot be vrged till they be knowne to be ancient Seauenthly the Papists being a part purge alter such records Answere This is vntruth we purge not any of the bookes of the ancient as any may see with his eyes that will take the paynes to read our Index Expurgatorius set forth by the Protestant Iunius and compare the Expurgations with the bookes Eightly the Papists despise and contemne Historians as Eusebius Sozomen Socrates when they are agaynst their Tenet Answere When good Historians do not agree the matter caÌ„not be certayne but must be decided by coÌ„iÌ„ecture which doth neuer happeÌ„ about the substance of famous facts that by effects made themselues notorious to the world When historians are singular they may be reiected specially when the authours are otherwise heretikes and the narrations wherein they be singular fauour their heresyes Thus Eusebius being an Arrian is not trusted in some narrations agaynst others historians concerning Constantine that seeme to fauour Arrianisme Socrates and Sozomen being Nouatians are not easily credited in singular narrations in the behalfe of their Sect Though as I sayd concerning matters illustrious facts which make themselues euident to mankind by effects as are the changing of ChristiaÌ„ Religion ouer the world resistance made agaynst all open and notorious sects and who were the resisters who the resisted such difference is neuer found about substance but only in circumstance And only this Tradition of the Church concerning these kinds of notorious matter which is as cleerly Apostolicall as the sunne is bright at Noone day we make the ground of our beliefe that our Roman Religion hath not beene changed since the Apostles be proued to haue changed her doctrine since the Apostles by any monuments of History or Antiquity yea the contrary in my Iudgement may be most euidently proued in this sort The doctrines that were for diuers ages vniuersally receyued in the Christian Church and no time of their beginning is assignable must be doctrines vnchanged comming from the Apostles But it is most cleere (m) Because this matter is stifly not to say outfacingly denyed by the Minister pa. 129. 134. behold the very words of Protestants D. Hutterus Luthers successour in the chayre of Wittenberge de sacrificio Missatico pag. 377. I willingly acknowledge that the Roman Idolary whose pyth is the sacrifice of the Masse did occupy in manner the whole world specially for the last thousand yeares Hospinian the successour of Zwinglius in his chayre superintendency Hist. Sacram pa. 1. pag. 157. In the age of Gregory the Great that is more then a thousand yeares agoe all maÌ„ner of popish Idolatry superstition as a mayne sea ouerwhelmed and drowned in manner the whole world no man making resistance agaynst it Simon de Voyoâ— a Geneuian Minister and of Caluins schoole in his
Catalogue of Doctours in his Epistle to the Reader sayth In the yeare 605. more then a thousand yeares agoe falshood preuayled and then was the whole world ouerwhelmed in the dreggs of Antichristian filthines abominable Traditions and superstitions of the Pope M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed pag. 307. 400. sayth During the space of Nine hundred yeares the Popish Heresy hath spread it selfe ouer the whole world and for many hundred yeares an vniuersall Apostacy ouerspread the whole face of the earth so that our Protestant Church was not then visible to the world M. Fulke treatise agaynst Stapleton and Martiall pag. 25. The Pope hath blinded the world these many hundred yeares some say 900. some 1000. some 1200. Mayster Napier Reuelat. pag. 64. 101. The Antichristian and Papisticall raygne beganne about the yeare 316. after Christ raigning vniuersally without debatable contradiction Gods true Church abiding certainly bidden and latent confessed by the Proteâ—tants whose testimonies plentifull in this behalfe if need require shall be brought First that the doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestants refuse haue byn vniuersally receyued for many ages a thousand yeares at least euer since Boniface the third Secondly that Protestants cannot tell the tyme when the Church of Rome began to change and deuiate from the Apostolicall doctrine deliuered by succession Ergo the Roman Church neuer changed her fayth so that her doctrines are to be receaued as Apostolicall if the Maior of the first argument be true to wit that (n) The Minister pag. 15. sayth The Iesuite conueyeth into S. Augustins proposition certayne wordes to wit doctrines vniuersally receiued c. which are not found in S. Augustine for this Father did neuer allow that the vniuersall Church belieue any doctrin of faith not coÌ„maÌ„ded in Scripture I answere The wordes of S. Augustine will discouer the Minister what he is for these they are formally in the place cited by the Iesuite l. 5. de baptis c. 23. Many things are Held by the Vniuersall Church therefore are TRVLY belieued to haue beene COMMANDED by the Apostles though they be NOT WRITTEN Thus he And though there be no doctrine which may not be in some sort proued by Scripture and deriued from thence by coÌ„sequence yet this Logicall Deduction doth not suffice to make doctrines to be vniuersally matters of fayth except they be also deliuered expresly by Tradition or the word of God vnwritten as hath been often shewed in this Reioynder doctrines vniuersally receyued whose beginning are not knowne are to be belieued as Apostolicall And what more true this being a principle set downe by S. Augustine lib. 4. de Baptism cont Donat. c. 6. lib. 5. cap. 23. allowed by Doctour Whitguift late Archbishop of Canterbury Defence pag. 351. 352. who in his booke written by publike authority agaynst Puritans citing diuers Protestants as concurring in opinion with him sayth Whatsoeuer opinions are not known to haue begunne since the Apostles tyme the same are not new or secundary but receyued their originall from the Apostles But because this principle of Christian Diuinity brings in as M. Cartwright there alleadged speaketh all Popery in the Iudgment of all men I will further demonstrate the same though of it selfe cleere inough The spirit of Christ or Christ by his spirit being still with the Church cannot permit errours in fayth so to creepe into the church as they grow irreformable eueÌ„ by the principles of christianity but if errours could so creepe into the church as their beginning could not be known since the Apostles and neuer be espyed till they be vniuersally receaued then errour could so creepe into the Church preuayle that by the principles of christianity they are irreformable This I prooue because errors 〈◊〉 (o) The Minister sayth that the errours of the Pharisees were vniuersally receaued in the Iewish Church and yet reformed by our Sauiour I answere First his desire to make our ReligioÌ„ like the Pharisees makes him fashion vnto the Pharisees a Religion of his owne head as if he had neuer read the Ghospell For the Traditions of the Pharisies were certaine practises of piety inuented by themselues deducted by their skill from Scripture wherby they would seeme singularly religious non sicut caeteri hominum Secondly Christ Iesus prouing himselfe to be true God might reforme errours vniuersally receaued the Church of the Iewes falling erect a new Church of Christians as he did But this is lawfull for no man eyther before or since For Christian Religion must continue vntill the worlds end by vertue of the first Tradition therof neuer interrupted without extraordinary and Propheticall beginning by immediate reuelation miracles and so if errours be deliuered by the full consent of Christian Tradition they are irreformable irreformable by the Principles of â—hristianity when whosoeuer vndertakes 〈◊〉 reforme them is by the Principles of â—hristianity to be condemned as an Hereâ—â—ke But he that will vndertake to reâ—orme doctrines vniuersally receaued by â—he church opposeth agaynst the whole Church and therfore is by the most receaâ—ed and knowne principle of Christianity and Christs owne direct precept to be accounted as an (p) The Minister sayth that one man may oppose the whole Church and oppugne her errours by Scripture and not be as an Heathen or Heretike For not euery one that opposeth the Church is to be accounted an Heathen but only such as in ordinatly and without iust cause oppugne it Thus he pag. 136. I answere By this doctrine euery particular man is made examiner of the whole Church and her iudge and Hellish Confusion brought into Christendome If agaynst the sentence of perpetuall vniuersall Tradition a priuate maÌ„ may without Heresy pretende Scripture stand stifly therin and though the Church giue seeming appearing answeres vnto his Scriptures yet coÌ„demne her saying these answeres are sophisticall as our Minister doth p. 581. what can be more disorderly or what is hereticall obstinacy if this be not Wherfore S. August epist. 48. sayth absolutly it is impossible men should haue iust cause to depart and impugne the whole ChristiaÌ„ Church adding nos cerâ—ò scimus herof we Christians are sure And why but because it is a ruled Christian case He that heareth not the Church is an Heretike Heathen and Publican Matth. 18. vers 17. And as S. Augustine â—ayth Epist. 118. to dispute agaynst the whole Church is most insolent madnes specially wheÌ„ the doctrin is ancient without any known beginning as are the supposed erroneous customes doctrins of the RomaÌ„ Church For then the vndertaking Reformer must striue agaynst not only the whole present Church but also the whole streame of the visible Church tyme out of mind since the Apostles Et quis ad haec idoneus who is able to beginne a new course of Christianity and to ouerthrow that doctrine which is vniuersally receyued cannot be prooued by any Traditions of Ancestours
Saynts vsed by way of deuout remembrance they would haue accused Epiphanius of impiety towards Christ and his Saints and not onely of iniustice in renting in peeces the Cloth without paying the price therof saying si scindere voluerat iustū erat vt aliud daret velum mutaret doth by this relation more then insinuate that this was the Image of some prophane man hanging in the Church as if it had been a sacred Image of Christ or of some Saint which is gathered by his reason When I saw saith he against the authority of the Scriptures the Image of a man hanging in the Church not absolutely any Image as M. 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 impiety of the fact in regard that it was the Image of a man but that he vnderstood by the word Man a meere ordinary prophane man not a blessed Saint For certainly it might seeme more against the authority of Scriptures to make and set vp in churches the image of God then the image of holy men the image of Christ according to his godhead thē as he is a mā so that there was no cause why (n) The Minister here setteth downe other answers giuen by Catholicks vnto this place of Epiphanius some of which he would haue thought better then this of the Iesuit and that the Iesuits is sleighted by Bellarmine which discourse is to litle purpose This is certayne that if other solutions he better then this yet this is so good as the Minister hath not been able to speake a wise word agaynst it as is more largely shewed in the Censure Sect. 1. §. 1. And whereas some authors thinke that Epiphanius in regard of the errour of the Anthropomorphilae whereof he was a great Ennemy did reproue this Image of the Anablathans as being of God in the forme of man although this conceyte doth not help the Ministers fancy nor make against vs yet is it not so conforme to the text as is the Iesuits Which any man may perceaue that will peruse attentiuely the text of Epiphanius and compare these two solutions therewith Epiphanius 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 retaining some Reliques therof did out of their affection to their deceased friends and parents vse to paint their images and offer vnto them oblations of Frankincēse other the like Heathenish honour especially in their Anniuersaryes Dayes vpon their sepulchers These men S. Augustine de mor. Eccl. c. 36. 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 paternas Paucaque in extructos mittere thura rogos Parua petunt manes Wherfore seing this Minister so much esteemed in the Church of England in proofe of the Roman Churches change brings nothing but manifest falshoods so many in so few lines any indifferent man may cōclude that worship of Images hath continued without change euer since the Apostles For if any change in such a matter as this had bene made it would haue bene most euident when and by whom so great a Nouelty was introduced The places of Exodus Deut. with no probability vrged against the worship of Images by Protestants that make them §. 3. AGAINST Image-worshippe Protestants bring the places of Exodus Chap. 20. v. 4. and 5. and of Deuteronomy Chap. 5. v. 6. and the 7. Thou shalt not haue false gods before me Thou shalt not make to thy selfe a grauen Image or any likenes either in heauen aboue or on earth below or of things that are vnder waters or vnder ground thou shalt not adore nor worshippe them Which place I wonder they can thinke stronge inough to ouerthrow a custome in which the rules of Nature the Principles of Christianity the perpetuall Tradition of gods Church doth settle Christians For this place makes against (i) Note that the question between vs and Protestants is not whether the Image of an adored persō may lawfully be made for this they grant but whether the image of an adored person lawfully made may be adored We affirme and they deny but for their deniall haue not one sillable of Scripture The Minister pag. 259. lin 3. brings the brasen Serpent and golden Cherubims that were made yet could not be adored but these examples are impertinēt as hath been shewed because they were not proper images of adored persōs wherof wee speake though S. Hierome Epistola 70. also say that the Golden Cherubims were adored The Iconomachi the Turks and Iewes who thinke that to make any image of an adored person is vnlawfull consequently forbid adoratiō haue for them a little shew of Scripture which sayth thou shalt no make any image nor adore it But Protestants that grant that the proper images of adored persons may be lawfully made but deny they may be lawfully adored haue against them the light and instinct of nature and for them neither any example of Scripture nor any text that may make so much as a little shew them or not against vs which I proue thus The images we are forbidden to worship we are forbidden to make Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image thou shalt not adore them nor worshippe them Contrariwise the images we may lawfully make we may also lawfully adore or worshippe if they be images of venerable and adorable persons as before hath bene shewed But the images we worship of Christ Protestants make yea some to wit Lutherans set them vp in their Churches and they are images of an adorable Person Ergo they cannot condemne our adoration of images except likewise they condemne their making them as against Gods law If they answere we are not forbidden to make thē but only not to make thē with purpose intention to adore them they discouer much partiality and not so much reuerence to Gods expresse 〈◊〉 as they pretend for the words of Gods law are as cleere and expresse against making of Images as against worshippinge of them Thou shalt not make them Thou shalt not adore them If then Protestants to excuse their custome of making of images may to Gods expresse word Thou shalt not make them adde by way of explication with purpose and intention to adore them why may not (k) The Minister pag. 259. obiects that this precept Thou shalt not make to thy selfe a grauen image is expounded by the greatest number of Papists to wit with purpose to adore I answere Some Catholike Interpreters expound Thou shalt not make any image to wit with purpose to worship the same as God or with diuine worshippe referred vnto it or
fled for feare of punishmēt vnto the Protestants of France there professed what he was Polidore Viues Gerson are noted as full of mistaking in their complaints and rash in Iudginge and censuring Durandus speaks against indiscreet excessiue vse of images that the same may be dangerous which no man denyes Gabriell Biel derides the simplicitye of some people that rather worshippe fayre imags and such as are trimmed thē other Which simplicity is no more Idolatry then it is to heare the sermon of a Minister trimmed in his Ruff◠and Cuffs more willingly then of another more simply attyred to this purpose bringinge some testimonyes of S Augustine epist. 19. and in Psal. 113. To this I answere first that this may seeme a great wrong not onely to the Christiā Church but also to Christ himselfe to thinke that men indued with his knowledge fayth and made partakers of the light wherby they belieue most high diuine and incomprehensible mysteries which he reuealed to the world should so easily be carried away into such blockish Errours as to thinke a stocke or a stone to be God a blindnes scarce incident vnto men except they be wholy destitute of all heauenly conceipts and nuzzelled vp from their cradles in that persuasion as Paynims were of whō onely S. Augustine speaks for they did not onely want this light of Christian instructiō but also were taught by their Auncestors that in their Idolls a kind of Diuine vertue or Godhead was lodged and affixed vnto them wheras Catholik Doctrine teacheth the contrary that our Images are bare resemblances of holy persons no Diuinity no Vertue no Dignity no Sanctity that makes them venerable being in them but in the Prototype Secondly such Idolls as the Paynims adored many of them did by Diuels meanes ordinarily speake giue answeres moue and exercise other actions of life so that their speaking was not accounted miraculous and extraordinary but rather their silence which speakings were very potente to perswade men to belieue what their Auncestours told them that those very stocks and stones were Gods or had a Godhead affixed vnto them Now these kind of things seldome happen in our images scarce once in a age and when they happē they are takē as Miracles wrought not by the images or any vertue residing in them but by Gods infinite power nor are they brought to proue any excellency affixed vnto the image but onely that God liketh that we should honour our Sauiour and his Saints in their images Finally I dare say vulgar ordinary Protestants in England by reading (p) The Minister sayth pag. 272. that the Creed is as dangerous in this respect as the Scripture because it names the right hand of God Answer The Creed cā import dāger neither vnto Catholicks nor vnto Protestants Not vnto Catholicks because with the text of the Creed they receaue the Churches explication therof which still preuents mistaking of that word Not vnto Protestants because they must belieue the Creed no further then they see the same conforme vnto Scripture and so the Scripture attributing Humane shape vnto God is only dangerous vnto them For the Scripture perpetually attributes humane shape vnto God and their common people reade it by themselues without any guide whom they be bound to belieue further then by their skill in Scripture they shall find reason the Bible in their mother tongue are in greater danger to belieue that God is a body and hath all the parts therof euen as hath a man then any the simplest Catholike is to thinke an image to be God This is proued to be likely because it is impossible to conceiue God otherwise then in the forme of a corporall thinge and as the Oratour sayth We easily flatter our selues to thinke our shape the fayrest and so the fittest for God Wherfore it is easy for men to assent to this errour vnto which the best and greatest wits that euer were Tertullian apud August heres 86. and S. Augustine himselfe whilest he was a Manichee did assent l. 3. Confess c. 7. Much more easily therfore may ignorant (q) The Minister sayth pag. 272. lin vlt. That the reading of Scripture by the vulgar is lawfull and holy but the worship of images is alwaies condemned and censured by holy writ Answer This is easily said but can neuer be proued For Protestāts cānot bring one text of Scripture that approues Scripture to be read by the vulgar as Protestants pretend to wit with authority to Censure out of their skill in Scripture the most Catholick best Church in the world Nor will he or any of his progeny be able to bringe one example or one texte that shewes that images of adored persons lawfully made may not lawfully be adored which is the Controuersy betwixt them and vs. people be deceiued therin through weaknes of conceipt and inclination of nature when they read the Scripture describinge God as hauing the forme and shape of man with head face eyes eares hands and feet On the contrary side neuer any Christian did teach that the image of Christ is truly Christ or a liuing thinge nor euer did any man or woman except some few and those very simple and senseles if such historyes be true fall into such foolish imagination Moreouer children and ignorant people are in the Catholicke Church often and plentifully instructed against such errours as by our Catechismes appeare and particularly by Iesuits who make a solemne vow to keepe their Institute especially about teaching the Rudimēts of fayth vnto common and ignorant people Hence it is that in Townes where they dwell and Villages about on Sundayes holy dayes besides their sermons for people more intelligent they teach without fayle vnto children and men of ruder sort the forme of Christian doctrine and vse all industry by giuing rewards vnto children and by bestowing almes on poore people to make them willing diligent in this learning In the English Church what is done for the instruction of ignorant in their rudiments of fayth by Ministers and Pastours as I know not much so will I say nothing but only that tyme they spēd in the praises of sole Fayth (*) The Minister here sayth that the Iesuit doth depresse the English Church accusing their Pastours of negligence For which cause he tearmeth him One Cui verbosa lingua cor verò obtenebratum speaking much in praise of his Church and of the liuely sole Fayth they preach All which is idle and ridiculous And as for their sole Fayth if it be the same Luther preached it is so liuely and liue-like as it maks a man to liue and not to dye though he commit the deadest workes that may be Whoredome and Murther a thousand tymes aday Luther Tom. 1. Epist. Latin fol. 334. and about the secrets of Predestinatiō in long bitter Inuectiues agaynst our doctrines misunderstood if not purposely misrelated might in my opinion more profitably be spent in declaring
all other Saints men Angells be mediatours and intercessours not hauing accesse vnto God but by him then certainly that Saints mediate and intercede for vs is exceeding glorious vnto Christ Iesus But Catholikes teach that Saints be such intercessours as haue no accesse vnto God but through Christ Iesus by mediation of his merits passion and death there being no other name in heauen or in earth by which we are to be saued Therfore the doctrine that maks Saints subordinate mediatours vnto Christ by him approaching vnto God doth magnify and extoll the supremacy of Christs mediatourship more then if in this kind of mediation he had none depending on him Whence I inferre that Protestants mistake our doctrine when they say we teach that Saints are fellow-mediatours with Christ and that we bring them in to supply the defect of his intercessiō that otherwise would not be sufficient This we doe neither teach nor belieue but that the merits of Christ are infinite euery drop of his pretious bloud able to pay the full ransome of a milliō of worlds That the Saints mediate and intercede for vs vnto Christ is for his greater glory by whose merits they are made worthy of that dignity and whom by their intercessions they acknowledge to be the fountayne of all good that comes vnto mankind If it be a glory to the roote of a tree to haue many boughes and branches loaden with excellent fruite the Saints being but branches of Christ Iesus the true Vine-tree Iohn 15.15 surely the honour of all their meritts springs originally is referred finally vnto him And as it is impossible to honour and prayse the boughes without honouring and praysing of the roote So likewise it is not possible that Catholikes who acknowledge that Saints haue all their grace merit fauour with God from Christ Iesus should honor them or pray vnto them without honouring Christ without praying finally euer vnto him Wherefore Saints when they pray for vs that God would forgiue vs our sinnes grant vs fauours that help vs towards eternall life they do not alleadge their merits as a sufficient motiue of the grant but the merits of Christ. And when holy ancient Fathers in their prayers alleadge vnto God the merits of Saints this is because their merits make them gracious in Gods sight and worthy that the graces they craue for vs be graunted vnto vs not by the applicatiō of their merits but only through the application of the merits of Christ. Put case that a Prince should ransome a great multitude of his subiects taken prisoners and held in miserable thraldome paying for them a sufficient and aboundant ransome yet so that none should haue the fruit of that Redemption but those whom the King should singularly choose and make worthy of that fauour Suppose that some noble man in the Court whome his Merits made gracious with the King should by his interceding obtayne that the benefit of that ransome should be extended to some one whome he particularly affects Surely this Captiue should be redeemed deliuered through the ransome payd by the King not by the merits of the Noble man interceding for him whose merits concurred thereunto only remotely and a farre off To apply this similitude Christ Iesus hath payd an aboundant price for mans redēption yet none enioy the benefits thereof but they to whome by speciall 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 obtayning of fauours conducing vnto eternall life Christ grants their petition and request and thereupon applyes his merits vnto them These men cannot be properly sayd 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 How it is lawfull to appropriate the obtayning of graces and cures vnto Saints §. 6. OVR Aduersaryes finding our Inuocation of Saints for substance practised in Gods Church euer since her primitiue times take exceptiōs at some circumstances therof which they thinke new not iustifiable by Antiquity which are principally three whereon are grounded other three causes of their dislike So the sixt reason of their dislike is that we distribute amongst Saints offices of curing diseases seeke some kind of fauour of one some of another of which practise there is no example in Antiquity yea it seemes to resemble the leuity of heathenish superstitiō who did multiply Gods according to the multitude of the thinges they sought to obtayne of them I answere that to seeke some fauours by the intercession of one Saint rather then of another was the Iudgment (d) The Minister saith The Iesuit by Fathers meaneth the Trident Fathers not the ancient Fathers This is ridiculous for the Iesuit saith the ancient Fathers in S. Augustines time that is 12. hundred yeares before the Councell of Trident. And the Minister cannot find one Syllable in the Coūcel of Trent for this appropriatiō that may breed suspition that the Iesuit meaneth them wheras he brings the practise and patronage of Saint Augustine himselfe prouing by Scripture this appropriation of miraculous benefits to one place and Saint more then to another And S. Paul ad Hebr. 2.10 saying wherin himselfe suffered and was tempted therin he is potent to helpe them that are tempted shewes a reason why we should inuocate in some temptations rather some Saint then another as S. Laurence against fire S. Apollonia against the tooth-ach c. because wherein themselues were tryed they are specially able to help others of the Fathers in S. Augustines time which he himselfe practised vpon this occasion In the towne of Hippo one of the family of S. Augustine accused a Priest of an heynous crime making his accusatiō good by oath which the other did reiect in like manner purging himselfe by oath The fact being open and scandalous seing of necessity one of them was periured S. Augustine sent them both into Italy to the shrine of Saint Felix of 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 shewing that to seeke recourse rather to one Saint then another is pious and godly wondering at the secret prouidence of God therein (e) The Minister sayth that this narration is not to the purpose because there is no mention of Inuocation of S. Felix or of oblation to him Answer This is idle For we haue proued by S. Augustine and Fathers and Scriptures that Saintes are to be prayed vnto only the question now is whether it be lawfull to seeke some benefits at one place and by one Saint rather then another which to be lawfull S. Augustine affirmes and proueth by deduction from Scripture shewing it to haue beē the practise of his age and
of benefits receaued as pictures of Lymms by Saints prayers miraculously cured That therin they doe not deflect from ancient Christian deuotion and that the Christian Church in her best tymes vsed vniuersally to make such oblations Theodoret (o) Theodoret. de curandis Graecorum affect l. 8. is a sufficient witnes who writing agaynst the Gentills alleadgeth as a manifest signe of Christs Godhead and Omnipotency that Idols being excluded he brought in Martyrs to be honoured in their roome not superstitiously as Gods but religiously as diuine men and Gods speciall friends Christian people sayth he present themselues vnto Martyrs not as vnto Gods but as vnto the Martyrs of God and diuine men inuocating beseeching them to be intercessours for them vnto God And those that piously and with Fayth pray obtayne what they desire as testify the oblations which they being therunto bound by their vowes present in the Chappell 's of Saints as tokens of health recouered For some hang vp Images of eyes others of eares others of hands some made of gold some made of siluer (p) The Minister also here denyeth that these ancient Christians did offer these oblations at the shrines of Martyrs in token of gratitude for benefits receued Wheras Theodoret saith expressely that they were vowes which they had made and were bound to pay vnto the Martyrs that is vnto their shrines as monuments of their power in curing them Thus he so generall and notorious euen vnto Infidels was this Christian deuition The Roman Church set formes of Prayer without cause misliked §. 8. FINALLY Protestants dislike the circumstance of praying in a set forme vnto Saints and that we appoint a particular office vnto the Blessed Virgin Mary which cannot be proued to haue been vsed in the Primitiue Church (q) The Minister pag. 353. brings prayers vsed in the Romane Missalls as though they were absurd Call vpon the sweet name of Mary Saints interceding we may deserue to be deliuered from all necessityes The Saints merits interceding Lord absolue vs from all sinnes I Answere all these speaches are the very words vsed by the full consent of ancient Fathers as yow may find in the fifth Demonstration Doth the Minister expect that for feare at his rayling we should leaue all antiquity We must not do so nor do we nor may we feare the bitternes of mans tongue in so high degree I answere that the Primer or Office so tearmed of our Lady is not an office properly and principally directed vnto her but an Office contayning prayses of God taken out of holy Scripture wherein commemoration of her is made So as I dare say that the prayers of that office of our Lady that are directed vnto her make not the hundred part thereof And seing it is most certayne that the Christian Church in her best times did frequently pray vnto Saints what reason haue we to thinke that in her set forme of prayers she did not vse to craue their intercession If it be lawfull pious and profitable when we pray vnto God to pray also to Saints by their mediatiō offering our prayers to him why should any mislike the doing of this in a set forme that is allowed by the Church why should this displease rather then an extemporall forme But further we cā proue that the Church in her best (r) The Minister here questioneth our meaning by the word primitiue I answere that we hold that true Christian Religion planted by the Apostles was not a meere shaddow that vanished away in a trice but that the beliefe and practise therof cōtinued in the world after their decease This Religion in respect of being in the world was primitiue in the dayes of the Apostles and of them that saw the Apostles and were conuerted by them But in respect of free publike profession the same was neuer Primitiue till the fourth Age that is vnder Constantine Now the monuments of the first and second Age after the Apostles in regard of persecutiō are few many Christian Historyes monuments yea in a manner al were made away by Dioclesian So that the best way to know what Religiō was professed immediately vpō the death of the Apostles is to examine what forme of Religiō in the dayes of Constantine came frō vnder groūd secret meetings into the free view of the world For no doubt but that Religion was freely professed vnder Constantine that was cruelly persecuted and the monuments therof abolished by Dioclesiā Constantine his Predecessour and the other Pagan Emperours before him But the Christian profession of Constantines age is so cleerly Catholike as our Ministers feare triall thereby and would rather haue all reduced vnto those ages wherof the monuments are scarse for therin they hope to find best patronage for their negatiue religion and for their Inuisible Perpetuall Namelesse Notorious Professours times did pray vnto Saints in set formes as Catholikes now do euen with a forme of prayer acknowledged cōfessed by the Magdeburgiās Cent. 4. c. 4. to haue byn in vse euē in the fourth age after Christ in which the foure first generall Councels were held But if they will perchance say that they do not so much dislike set formes vnto Saints as some Phrases or speaches in our Prayer-bookes that seeme to giue too much vnto Creatures as our calling the Blessed Virgin Mother of Grace Mother of mercy saying to her Lady protect vs from the Diuell receaue vs in the houre of death giue light to the blind pardon to the guilty remooue from vs all euill c. I answere these speaches cannot iustly be disliked because they are vnderstood in a pious sense knowne to Catholikes a sense obuious playne according to the phrase of Scripture and which the words may well beare euen according to the custome of speach The nature of thinges being various and the answerable conceipts of men copious but words to expresse such conceyts scant and in great paucity necessity doth inforce vs to vse words applyable to diuers senses For example one man may deliuer another from death either by authority pardoning him as do Kings or by Iustice defending him as do Aduocates by force taking him out of his enemyes hands as do Souldiers or paying his ransome to them that keep him captiue as Almoners finally by begging his life of them that haue power to take it away as intercessours These be very different wayes of reliefe yet haue we but one word to expresse them all to wit to saue a mans life which therefore is to be vnderstood according to the subiect it is applyed And if men want vnderstanding or will not take our words according to the matter they are applyed vnto there can neuer want Cauils vnles we eyther speake not at all or when we speake still vse long circumlocutions which were ridiculous in verse impossible the metre not permitting it And yet the aforesayd misliked phrases in the office of the Blessed Virgin are
of bread was acknowledged by the Fathers (*) The Minister pag. 462. proposeth this argument agaynst Concomitancy which he thinkes to be so stronge and glorious as he sets the same in a distinct letter ech proposition in a distinct line to call the eye of the Reader vpon it Whatsoeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was before offered to God on the Crosse. But the body of Christ hauing soule and bloud in it by Concomitancy was not offered to God vpon the Crosse. Ergo at this day soule and bloud be not in the body of Christ by Concomitancy c. I answere This argument serues as a myrrour wherein Learned men may see and admire our Ministers want both of Philosophy and Logicke His want of Philosophy in not distinguishing the being by Concomitancy in the body from being by Concomitancy in the place where the body is The body of Christ neyther on the Crosse nor in the Eucharist hath soule bloud in it and vnited with it by Concomitancy yet the body of Christ not only in the Sacrament but also on the Crosse had soule and bloud present with it by Concomitancy or consequence For the soule being substantially vnited with the body and bloud contayned within the body they were consequently inforced to be togeather with the body in the same place on the Crosse. Hence the Ministers argument is turned agaynst himselfe That body is receaued in the Eucharist which was offered to God on the Crosse but Christs body hauing soule and bloud in the same place with it by Concomitancy was offerred to God on the Crosse. Ergo the body of Christ hauing soule in the same place with it by Concomitancy is in the Sacrament His ignorance in Logicke is likewise very specious and notable to present vnto the world with so great solemnity an idle Sophisme and Fallacy tearmed by the Logitians Figurae dictionis Of which fallacy one kind is when from the substantiall word one argueth vnto the accidentall As for example this Sophisme What meate soeuer thou didst buy in the market thou dost eate at dinner but thou did'st buy raw flesh in the market Ergo thou dost eate raw flesh at dinner And this likewise What fingers soeuer thou had'st being a Childe thou hast now being a man thou had'st little fingers being a Child Ergo thou hast little fingers now being a man Iust of the same frame fashion is our Ministers argument What soeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was offered on the Crosse A body that had not blood in it by Concomitancy was offered on the Crosse Ergo a body not hauing blood in it by Concomitancy is receaued in the Sacrament If this forme be good one may proue that we do not now receaue the body of Christ risen from death Whatsoeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was offered on the Crosse A body hauing soule and blood in it by vertue of resurrection from death to life was not offered on the Crosse Ergo a body risen from death or hauing soule and blood in it by vertue of resurrection from death is not receaued in the Sacrament Here your Ladyes may see with what Baberyes you delude their Ignorance arguing from the Substantiall vnto the Accidentall tearme For though Christs body receaued in the Sacrament be the same that was offered on the Crosse in respect of substance it doth not follow that therefore it is the same also in respect of accidents qualityes and circumstances Hence his body may now haue blood and soule by Concomitancy with it in the Sacrament though it had not had blood soule by Concomitancy with it on the Crosse. This principle supposed which is no lesse certayne then the true real presence I inferre the lawfulnes of Communion vnder one kind to wit vnder the sole forme of bread by this Argument If communion vnder one kind be not agaynst the substance eyther of Christs institution or of his Sacrament or his precept or of the practise of the primitiue Church it is lawfull iustifiable for iust reasons may be commanded by the Church This proposition is true because there neyther are other causes of dislike that may not be reduced to these foure neyther doth Christs Institution or Precept or the Primitiue practise binde vs to keep them further then in substance the accidentall circumstances of institutions Sacramēts precepts primitiue Customes being variable according to the variable disposition of thinges vnto which the Church militant in this life is subiect Now I assume Concomitancy being supposed it may be made euident that Communion vnder one kind is not agaynst the substance eyther of Christs institution or of the Sacrament or of his precept or of the primitiue practise For the substance of these foure obligations is one the same to wit that we be truly really partakers of the body and bloud of our Sauiour which is (e) The Minister p. 467. saith Though Concomitancy be granted yet Communion in one kind is not iustifyed because the blood by Concomitancy is receaued in the veines of the body not as shed out of the veynes But people must receaue the blood of Christ represented as shed which is not done but by receauing the Cuppe Answere The essence of the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice is to represent the effusion of our Lords blood so can not be entyre in one kind But the essence of the Eucharist as a Sacrament is to represent the body and blood of our Lord as the foode of the soule But in eyther kind the body and blood to be sufficient food of the soule the Iesuit prooueth so that people be not boūd so receaue the bloud represented distinctly and expressely as shed but only the Priest that doth sacrifice fully done by Communion vnder one kind as I will shew in the foure consequent Sections Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Institution of Christ. §. 2. DIVINE Institution is an action of God whereby he giues Being vnto things with reference vnto some speciall end This end is twofold the one corporall and temporall for which God hath instituted agreable and conuenient meanes That men may be borne into this world he did institute marriage and for maintenance of the sayd life being had he ordayned many sorts of meate The other end is spirituall for which God hath instituted Sacraments as for the first obtayning of grace and spirituall life the Sacraments of Baptisme Pennance for the preseruing of grace increasing therein particularly the Sacrament of the Eucharist That a man be bound to vse the Institution of God two things are required First that the end thereof be necessary and he bound to endeauour the attayning therof Hence it is that though marriage be the institution of God appointed to propagate mankind yet euery man is not bound to marry because he is not bound to propagate mankind when there be others that do aboundantly comply with that duty to which mankind is
them all only What reason then is there to extend the words Drinke yee all of this further then to all the Apostles Secondly these words Accipite (*) The Minister p. 490. saith If Bibite do not import a precept that the people receaue the Sacrament in the forme of wine thē Māducate doth not inforce a precept that they receaue vnder the forme of bread and so they shall be boūd to receaue neyther in one kind nor in both Answere The word Manducate was spoken personally to the Apostles only as much as Bibite and so by vertue of this word we cannot bind the people to receaue vnder the forme of bread Notwithstanding by other texts of Scripture we prooue thē to be bound to receaue by eating the Sacred bread For the precept doe this in remēbrance of mee was spoken only after the consecration of the bread as appeares by the Gospell But your selfe say pag. 490. lin 7. That these wordes were spoken to the People respectiuely and in part to wit that they receaue though not consecrate administer the Sacrament in the forme of bread Therefore though the word Manducate do not yet other wordes of the Institutiō do inforce a precept to receaue in the forme of bread manducate bibite Take eate drinke were certainly spoken vnto the same persons and they runne so togeather in ranke that no man can with probability make the one out-runne the other But the Commaund Accipite which signifyes take with your hands for it is a precept distinct from mādacate which is take with your mouth was giuen to the Apostles only not vnto al the faythfull else we must say that all Communicants are bound to take the consecrated bread Cup with their hands Who euer heard of such a precept in the Christian Church The third reason is because there was a peculiar and personall cause why Christ should giue that peculiar counsell or admonition for the Imperatiue word doth not euer signify a precept but often an aduise or a permission as your Maiesty well knowes to his Apostles at that tyme (x) When the finall cause end of the precept is personall then the sense of precept is personall The end of Christs saying Drinke yee all of this was personall to wit that all the Apostles should drinke of the same indiuiduall Cupp without new consecration filling Ergo the sense of the precept is personall only concernes those twelue persons to wit because he would haue them all not only drinke of his bloud but also would haue them drinke of the same Cup without filling consecrating the same anew This is more manifest in the Protestants opinion who thinke the Chalice whereof Christ sayd in S. Matthew Bibite ex hoc omnes to be the same wherof he sayd by (y) Luc. 22.18 Saint Marke Accipite diuidite inter vos non enim bibam ampliùs de hoc genimine vitis For this being supposed Drinke yee all of this imports the same as Deuide this Cup amongst you But deuide this Cup amongst you was a personall precept giuen to all the Apostles importing that euery one should drinke but a part of that Cup that also in such a measure as the Cup without new filling and consecration might suffice for all to drinke thereof (z) What the Minister sayth That the precept is that all men drinke not of the same indiuiduall but of the same specificall Cup is idle For Christs words deuide this Cup amōgst you import drinke yee all of this indiuiduall Cuppe If one should bestow a quart of wine vpon 4. persōs saying Deuide this amongst you were it not ridiculous to interprete his speach that he meanes not Drinke yee all of this indiuidual quart but of a quart of the same kind If two of the cōpany should drinke vp that whole indiuiduall quart being challēdged by the other to haue done agaynst the order of the giuer who would not laugh should they answere as our Minister teacheth them that Deuide this Cupp amongst you imports not drinke all of this indiuiduall Cupp but of a Cupp of the same kind So that howsoeuer the Minister in this place doe rayle bitterly and bragg mightely yet his Reply is ridiculous and agaynst common sense What all men in the world Or all Christians that should succeed them to the worlds end Christ neuer intended that one Cup for all nor is it indeed deuided or parted with vs but the Apostles dranke it vp amongst them Wherfore referring my sayings to your Maiesties learned censure I conclude that to me it seemes cleere that the precept or rather direction Drinke yee all of this was but personal confined vnto the nūber of all there then present (*) The Minister pag. 489. bringes foure arguments to proue that the wordes of Christ Drinke yee all of this command all the faythfull to drinke which arguments though very poore ones shall be answered The first is What Christ sayd to the Apostles Paul sayd to the whole multitude of the faythfull 1. Cor. 11.28 Answere S. Paul neuer sayd the wordes drinke yee all of this to all the faythfull yea the same are not found in all the Epistles of S. Paul for 1. Cor. 11.28 he only sayth let a man proue himselfe and so eate of that bread and drinke of that Cupp which wordes as euery man in his senses must needes perceaue do not import a precept to receaue in both kinds but only that no man receaue in both kinds or in one kind without first trying himselfe whether he be worthy What you cite out of S. Hieroms commentary Coenam Domini oportet esse communem only signifyes that the Sacrament is for all men aswell for the poore as for the rich agaynst which some Corinthians erred scorning to receaue in the Company of the poore The second If Communion in both kinds hath no foundation in Gods word then Communion in one kind hath no foundation in Gods word Answere The lawfullnes of Communion in both kinds the lawfullnes of Communion in one kind haue foundation in Gods word and so to vse the one or the other is not agaynst the Diuine law But a Diuine precept to receaue in one kind or in both kinds hath no foundatiō in Gods word as being but a fond Ministeriall fancy The word of God doth command to receaue at least vnder the forme of bread but to receaue in the same only without the Cupp is no Diuine precept The third Argument If the reason why the Apostles receaued the Cupp was because they were Priests then all Priests being present at Communion ought to receaue in both kinds though they administer not Answere If the reason why the Apostles receaued the Cup was not because they were Priests but as the Iesuit proueth by the Gospell because Christ would haue it so saying vnto them Drinke yee all of this indiuiduall Cupp then is the Ministers argumēt idle and impertinent Such also is
crime with which some Protestants charge vs that our receauing vnder the sole forme of bread is to iumpe in opinion with the Manichees we may as D. Morton confesseth reiect as iniurious saying That it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine but the reason of their forbearance that was iudged hereticall Morton Protestant Appeale lib. 1. cap. 4. pag. 140. (*) Agaynst this explication of the place of Gelasius it is obiected that the same doth not agree with the reason of the Canon For Gelasius sayth men are not to be permitted to receaue but in both kinds because the diuision of one and the same Sacrament cannot be done without sacriledge The whole decree is this We find that some men hauing taken the portion of our Lords body refrayne from the Cup of the holy bloud Which men because they are imbued with I know not what superstitiō let them without any question receaue the whole Sacraments or nothing at all for the diuision of one and the same mystery cannot be vsed without a great Sacriledge I Answere first Gelasius doth not say no man is to be permitted to receaue in one kinde but only no superstitious abstinent Secondly his reason is not ōly because the deuiding of the Sacramēt is Sacriledg but quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi because they are proued to be imbued with a certayne superstitious opinion to wit that the creature of wine is impure The discourse then of Gelasius is because these men are superstitiously conceyted that the creature of wine is the Diuells gall therefore by them the deuiding of the holy mystery receauing the consecrated Bread without the Cup sine grandi sacrilegio fieri non potest cannot be done without great Sacriledge Whēce he concludes proculdubio arceantur let such men be kept from Communion in one kind without any question mercy or indulgēce As if he had sayd Vnto men Orthodoxally conceited about the creature of wine Cōmunion in one kind may be granted sometimes vpon iust causes as if they be by nature abstemij that cannot endure wine But men that be superstitiously persuaded agaynst the nature of wine proculdubio arceantur let Communion in one kind be denyed vnto them without question and granted in no case because in respect of them Communion in one kind is euer Sacrilegious The Minister also in this place keepeth a styrre and would make the world belieue that the Iesuit Vasquez doth maynly oppose himselfe agaynst the Iesuit Answerer about this place of Gelasius The Iesuit sayth he is confuted by a learned and intelligent man of his owne Society to wit Vasquez who sayth that some of his party apply the place of Gelasius agaynst Manichees but this exposition agreeth not with the last clause of the Canon Answere You shew great desire to discredit your aduersary yet cannot you doe it so much as in this trifle with truth For in citing the censure of Vasquez you leaue out the principal word which being set down would haue marred your market Vasquez not only sayth that some of his side explicate the place of Gelasius of lay Manichees but also addeth his Iudgment about the same saying probabiliter explicant this their explication is probable Do not you see your falshood in citing and vanity in vrging this censure of Vasquez If this explication be probable euen by the Iudgment of Vasquez how is the Iesuit confuted by Vasquez of his owne Society as not answering your argument sufficiently Is it not sufficient that Catholicks bringe probable solutions vnto your arguments agaynst Christian customes defined in Councells and receaued in the Church before you or your Luther were borne You your selfe say pag. 11. That no man is to reiect the Doctrine and custome of the Church or the exposition of Scripture commonly and anciently receaued vpon vncertayne and probable reasons If the Iesuit hath answered your arguments probably as euen by this censure of Vasquez he hath then be your arguments at the most but probable and consequently your reuolt from the Church of Rome grounded thereon dānable Who now is condemned by Vasquez his Censure But Vasquez sayth that the Iesuits explication though it agree fitly to the rest of the decree of Gelasius yet cannot be fitted to the last branch thereof where Gelasius sayth that the diuision of the one and same mystery is Sacrilegious in it selfe and in nature Quare mihi magis placet altera explicatio Wherefore sayth Vasquez vnto me another explication seemeth more probable I Answere First Gelasius doth not say that the diuision of the mystery is in itselfe in nature a Sacriledge nor can it be very probably sayd that he did so meane For what sense is there in this discourse To deuide the Sacrament by receauing in one kind is a Sacriledge of his owne nature and absolutely in it selfe therefore let not these men be permitted in any case to receaue in one kinde quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi because they are conuinced to hold superstitious Doctrine about the impurity of the creature of wine Besides had Gelasius meant that Communion in one kind is a sacriledge absolutely in it selfe he would haue decreed that not only superstitious mē but absolutely all men should be kept frō the same proculdubio without any question Wherfore Gelasius his decree cannot be better sensed then thus Because these men are conceyted superstitiously agaynst the creature of wine their receauing in one kind without the Cup can not but be impious Therefore proculdubio arceantur let not Communion in one kind be giuen vnto them in any case though vnto Orthodoxe people vpon iust reasons the same may be granted Secondly suppose all that Vasquez would cōclude to wit that another exposition is more probable what haue you gayned Surely nothing for this other exposition better liked by Vasquez is that Gelasius spake not of laymens receauing but of Priests that celebrate and consecrate affirming that it is sacrilegious in it selfe for Priests to cōsecrate without receauing in both kinds If the Iesuit Vasquez in this exposition and doctrine seeme to you learned intelligent be it so in Gods name you are satisfyed and your Aduersary contented for he did neuer meane to say that this explication is improbable specially the same being giuen by Gratian who read that Epistle of Gelasius which now it not extant This custome was the cause that Cyprian (o) Cyprian de Coena Domini sayth that the Law forbad the eating of bloud but the Ghospell commands the same should be drunke not only because some Christians to wit Priests are bound to drinke the bloud of Christ but also because Christ in his Ghospell did institute the Sacrament of his body bloud in both kinds whence grew the Custome of the primitiue Church to receaue in both kindes by custome there grew further an obligation to drinke of the cup except there were some iust cause of abstinence as in the sicke
especially vnto (f) Basil. epist. ad Caesar. Patritium Pratum Spiritual c. 79. Eremits to be carryed in most pure linnen Corporalls home to their houses to be takē in the morning before al other meats But there is no signe or token in Antiquity that the faythfull togeather with the consecrated bread did carry away with them cōsecrated wine yea diuers historyes shew the only forme of bread (**) Minister pag. 504. It was an ancient custome to send the Communion to persōs absent in both kinds as appeareth by Exuperius in S. Hierome Tom. 1. Epist. 4. and S. Gregory Nazianzen of his sister Gorgonia Answere Exuperius no laymen but Bishop of Tholosa hauing sold the syluer Ciboriums Chalices of his Church to mayntaine the poore was forced throgh pouerty to keep the Body and Bloud in a basket of Osier in a glasse-Cup so carrying them about when he did administer the same in the Church to the people But that he carryed the blood of our Sauiour in a glasse out of the Church about him S. Hierome doth not say yea he signifies that this vse of Osier-baskets glasse-Cups was in the Church saying Nihil ditius Exuperio nostro qui corpus Domini canistro vimineo Sanguinē portat in vitro qui auaritiam eiecit ETEMPLO nothing is more rich then Exuperius who doth carry the body of our Lord in an Osier-basket and his bloud in a glasse who hath cast Couetousnes out of the CHVRCH Nor is it probable that he carryed the bloud about him in a glasse when he went any iourney exposing the same to manifest danger of being irreuerently spilled specially glasse being so brittle and easely broken and the ancients exceeding sollicitous and anxious that the bloud might not be shed nor any particle of the sacred bread fall to the ground S. Gregory Nazianzen sayth of his sister Gorgonia praying earnestly for the recouery of her health That whatsoeuer of the Antitypes or Images of the pretious body and bloud her hand had hidden that shee did bath mingle with her teares which place Vasquez whome you so commend as learned and intelligent doth shew to be spoken of holy Images of Christs Passion and death not of the blessed Sacrament For Women were neuer permitted to touch the sacred Chalice with their hand nor to keepe consecrated Cups in their houses for the bloud but only white linen corporalls for the body It had been also agaynst the Reuerence ancient Christian deuotion did beare to the pretious bloud of our Sauiour for her to haue powred her teares into the sacred Chalice mingling them with the pretious bloud so that there is no signe in Antiquity that laymen did keep in their priuate houses or did carry about them the bloud of our Sauiour in the forme of wine Therfore in their priuate houses and out of the Church they still receaued in one kind was carryed away and consequently that the Church did not then esteeme of Communiō vnder one kind as of a sacrilegious mayming of the Sacrament as Protestants now doe Thirdly it was an ancient custome in the Grecian (g) Concil Loadicen can 49. Trullen can 52. Church to cōsecrate the holy Eucharist on Saturdayes and Sundayes on the other dayes of the weeke to Communicate ex praesanctificatis of the presanctifyed formes that is consecrated on the Saturday or Sunday before Now it is not probable that they did consecrate wine to endure fiue or six dayes long for feare specially in such hoate Countreys the same should grow sower Wherfore for the most part they did Communicate vnder one kind Fourthly the (h) Leo. serm 4. de Quadrag Manichees liued in Rome and other places shrowding themselues amongst Catholikes went to their Churches receaued the Sacrament publikely with them vnder the sole forme of bread and yet they were not noted nor thereby discerned from Catholiques A manifest signe that Communion vnder one kind was publickely 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 been hidden amongst these ancient Christians if they had byn perswaded as now Protestants are that receauing vnder one kind 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 (i) The Minister pag. 560. First the Manichees were espyed else how could the Pope reproue their practise Secondly Vasquez the Iesuit sayth That these Heretikes receaued the Cup into their hand but dranke no wine And amōg a great multitude some few might hold the Cup to their mouth make shew of drinking and yet receaue no wine Answere The Pope did reproue that practise of the Manichees because he knew it was their Heresy so to doe in that they held wine to be the gall of the Diuell and that Christ did not shed his bloud on the Crosse which also to be their practise such as were conuerted from that heresy did witnesse Vasquez doth not say that the Manichees did only put the Cup to their mouth without drinking and so lay hidden and vnknowne for he was not so simple but he did see this could not be done but the Deacons that gaue the Cup to the Cōmunicants one by one would presently haue perceaued it He sayth that they did drinke of the cōsecrated wine but kept the same in their mouth till they came to some place where without being noted they might spit is out Which I can not thinke to be probable First the Manichees holding wine to be a thing so impure and detestable as the Diuells gall how would they take the same into their mouth Secondly how could they keepe the wine in their mouth so longe but that some part therof would goe downe Thirdly S. Leo bids Catholickes to note the men that omnino altogeather refrayne from the Cup signifying that they might by this their perpetuall abstinence be distinguished from Catholicks that sometymes refrayned But if they tooke still the wine into their mouth kept the same there till they came to a solitary place where they might spit it out securely how could they be discerned by their abstayning from the Cup more then any other Catholicks did vse to doe Hence euen Vasquez doth acknowledge that this argumēt drawne from the dissimulation of heretikes namely of the Macedonian woman related by Sozom. l. 8. c. 5. is probabile valde apparens probable and very apparent to proue that Communion in one kind was arbitrary and a thinge indifferent in the ancient Church The last Argument is practise of the Apostles that is of the first Christians vnder them of whome we read in the Acts of the Apostles (k) Act. 2.42 Erant perseuerantes in doctrina Apostolorum communicatione fractionis panis orationibus speaking of sacred Eucharisticall bread the taking whereof was ioyned with prayer which vnto the newly baptized was