onely Rule because it is not said to be sufficient for all men but for the man of God and it is not sufficient alone and by it selfe but being ioyned with Tradition I answere first That which is Sufficient in genere regulae as a Rule for the man of God either Minister 1. Tim. 6. 12. or other spirituall man 1. Cor. 2.15 is sufficient for all men because there is but one common Obiect and Rule of Faith for the whole Church and all the members thereof contayning strong Meat for the Learned and Milke or plaine Doctrine for Babes And therefore if the Scripture be a Rule and a sufficient Rule it is such in common and in respect of all people although the manner of applying and vsing the same may differ Secondly That which is Profitable to make the man of God perfect and throughly furnished to euerie good worke is both a sufficient Rule and an onely Rule First it is sufficient because it makes people which receiuc it by Faith and Obedience meet for the kingdome of God Secondly it is alone sufficient otherwise this effect of making the man of God perfect and throughly instructed could not be ascribed to it alone as it is manifestly done in the Apostles speech When two persons equally co-worke we cannot ascribe the whole worke to one of them alone but to both Bread alone being one part of Food is not sufficient to all kind of Nutriment The Apostle in the Text alledged affirming first That the Scripture is able to make wise vnto saluation secondly affirming That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Scripture as Dionysius Carthusian expoundeth it giuen by inspiration is profitable to teach confute instruct reproue and then declaring the greatnesse of the vtilitic which is to make the man of God perfect and throughly instructed to euerie good worke This effect cannot be ascribed to a partiall cause neither can the Apostle meane that the whole Scripture is profitable or sufficient onely as one part of Diuine Reuelation but because it containeth the whole Rule of Faith If any shall pretend That the Scripture is not sufficient of it selfe to these effects because Diuine Grace Ecclesiasticall Ministerie Docilitie in the Hearer or Reader are necessarie together with the Scripture to make the man of God perfect they must vnderstand that our question is Whether holy Scripture alone be a sufficient rule of Faith Not whether other adiuuant causes be necessarie for the receiuing and applying thereof that it may produce Faith The Earth is sufficient to bring forth food for man Gen. 1. 29. although Husbandmen and Grasiers be necessarie Manna Quailes and the water flowing from the Rocke were sufficient to feed the children of Israel in the Desart yet Bakers and Cookes were necessarie to prepare and dresse this food Exod. 16.6.24 Sap. 16.21 Euen so the holy Scripture is sufficient as a Rule to teach all Doctrine necessarie for our spirituall nourishment although the Ministerie of man and Diuine Grace be needfull also that wee rightly vse the same If the Obiection were good to wit Holy Scripture is not the onely Rule because by it alone without Diuine Grace and Ecclesiasticall Ministerie c. wee cannot beleeue then Tradition and holy Scripture being conioyned to make vp the Rule of Faith the same will yet be insufficient because without Diuine Grace Ecclesiasticall Ministerie and Docilitie in the people neither Scripture nor Tradition can produce Faith IESVIT Hence also we may conclude that the many allegations of Fathers which Protestants bring to prooue the Scripture to be cleere in all substantiall points are impertinent because the Fathers speake of men aforehand instructed in all substantiall points who may by the light of Tradition easily discouer in Scripture as they that heard Aristotle explicate himselfe by word of mouth may vnderstand his Booke of Nature most difficill to bee vnderstood of them that neuer heard his explication either out of his owne mouth or by Tradition of his schollers ANSWER Out of your owne fancies you may conclude what you please but from the Fathers nothing can be concluded repugnant to that which Protestants hold concerning the perspicuity of sacred Scripture euen in it selfe Ireneus saith All the Scriptures both Propheticall and Euangelicall are cleere without ambiguity and may indifferently bee heard of all men S. Hierom It is the manner of the Scripture to ioine that which is manifest to such things as are obscure S. Cyril That they may be knowne of all people both small and great they are profitably commended vnto vs in a familiar kind of speaking that they may exceed the capacitie of none S. Augustine Plaine places are found in them to expound and open the darke and hard S. Gregorie The Scripture hath so much in open 〈◊〉 as may feed little ones S. Chrysoft Scriptures are 〈◊〉 like mettals which haue need of workemen to digge them out but they deliuer a treasure readie at hand for them which seeke hidden riches in them It is sufficient to looke into them that you may depart replenished with all fruit it is sufficient onely to open them that you may presently behold the splendor of their pearles And although the antient Fathers do many times referre people to Tradition especially in three cases First For the testifying of the number and integritie of the Bookes of Canonical Scripture Secondly For the cleering of some hard or ambiguous Texts of Scripture from the new and forged expositions of Heretickes Thirdly For externall rites and ceremonies yet neither the Fathers nor the more learned Papists themselues do hold that there is a large and general Commentarie of all the Scriptures or of all the difficill places thereof receiued from the Apostles and preserued vntill our daies neither doe the Fathers hold that people cannot read the holy Scripture with profit or collect the true meaning of them in points substantiall and necessarie without such a Commentarie First If such a Commentarie were extant it must be found in the elder Fathers Tertullian Ireneus Origen c. But the Papists themselues will not alwaies be tied to their Expositions as appeareth by their forsaking of Tertullian in the Exposition of the wordes of the Gospell Hoc est corpus meum This is my bodie and by their forsaking of Origen in many of his Expositions and againe of Tertullian in his Exposition of Math. 16. 17. Secondly The Exposition of Scripture giuen by the Fathers is many times repugnant and different each of them from other as Sixtus Senensis in his Bibliotheca and Cardinall 〈◊〉 in his Commentaries and other Pontificians doe shew but if there had beene a large and generall Commentarie of Scripture or of all or most of the harder places of Scripture the antient Fathers 〈◊〉 nearest vpon the Apostles must haue knowne and followed that and so could neither haue
Church then it is not necessarie that because God will haue all men to be saued by his antecedent will therefore the true Church must in all ages be visibly vniuersall A contingent cause vndetermined doth not produce or argue a constant certaine and necessarie effect The antecedent will of God is a contingent cause in respect of the perpetuall visible vniuersalitie of the Church Ergo The antecedent will of God doth not produce or argue a perpetuall visible vniuersalitie of the Church For if notwithstanding the antecedent will of God many singular persons and whole nations may be for some space of time destitute of outward calling by the ministerie of the Church and of all morall possibilitie for that space of time of the hauing thereof and are not guiltie of the sinne of infidelitie because without any speciall demerit of their owne they are destitute of the word of Faith as it is maintained by Aquinas and his followers then the antecedent will of God is only a contingent cause in respect of producing arguing outward calling by the ministerie of the Church and consequently of the perpetuall visible vniuersalitie of the true Church But the first is true as appeareth by the Indies before Columbus arriuing in their coasts and by many barbarous people and nations liuing in remote regions and hauing no preachers of the Gospell sent vnto them before the two hundred fiue hundred or six hundred yeare after Christ Ergo The latter is also true IESVIT Sixtly this Church is holy both in life and doctrine holy for life shining in all excellent and wonderfull sanctitie such as the Apostles gaue example of as Pouertie Chastitie Obedience Virginitie Charitie in vndergoing labours for the helpe of Soules Fortitude in suffering heroicall Martyredomes Zeale and Patience in the rigorous treatie of their bodies by miraculous Fasting and other austerities ANSVVER Sanctitie is a propertie and inseperable qualitie of the true Church in respect of all the liuing members thereof Cant. 4. 7. Eph. 5.26 27. 1. Cor. 14.33 Rom. 1.7 Eph. 1.18 c. 4.12 Phil. 4.21 Coll. 1.12 1. Cor. 6.11 1. Iohn 3.18 And the same is called holy First Because it is clensed and washed from the guiltinesse of sinne by the immaculate blood of Christ Apoc. 1.5 Heb. 10.10 c. 13.12 Secondly Because it is pertaker of the holinesse of Christ the head thereof by Grace 1. Cor. 1.30 Ephes. 5.30 Iohn 17.19 Heb. 12.10 and because of the speciall inhabitation and operation of the holy Ghost Ephes. 1.13 1. Cor. 3.17 1. Thessal 4.8 2. Tim. 1. 14. Thirdly Because it is called and consecrated vnto holinesse 2. Tim. 1.9 1. Pet. 2.9 1. Thessal 4.7 Apoc. 1.6 Fourthly Because the Faith Doctrine Lawes Sacraments and Religion thereof are holy Iud. v. 20. 2. Pet. 2.20 Tit. 3.5 Fiftly Because the vertues and actions thereof are truely and indeed holy whereas the vertues of Infidels which liue out of the Church are prophane and vnholy as bearing the image of vertue but wanting the true forme and fruit thereof But our Aduersarie passeth by these causes and reasons of the sanctitie of the Church being proper and essentiall which are deliuered in the holy Scripture and will haue the same to be reputed holy because of monasticall vowes of Pouertie Obedience and Chastitie and for externall Fastings Whippings wearing of Haire-cloth and other bodily exercises which some Heremites and Cloysterers performe in the Roman Church Touching this Assertion we are to obserue First that the Iesuit doth onely affirme these things but bringeth no proofe and therefore it were sufficient for me to say with S. Hierom Quod de Scripturis non habet authoritatem eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur That which wanteth authoritie from the Scriptures may as well bee despised as receiued Secondly when the principall Doctors of the Romish Church deliuer the causes why the true Church is stiled Holy they either omit these externall exercises or else onely mention them as accessarie Turrccrem sum d. Eccles. l. 1. c. 9. Cordub Arma. fid q. 1. propos 2. Bannes 22. q. 1. ar 10. Bellarm. d. Eccles l. 4. c. 11. Greg. Val. to 3. Disp. 1. punct 7. Thirdly these exercises are common to hypocrites and heretickes and they make not people holy and good which vse them and the Church may bee holy without them and therefore they are no constitutiue parts or essentiall properties of the sanctitie of the Church That the same are common appeareth by the example of the Pharisees and of many Heretickes which vsed these exercises with great austeritie and yet they were no sound parts of the holy Catholicke Church And that the Church may be holy without these exercises is manifest by reason and example The Church which wanteth these things may haue all the causes of sanctitie to wit Faith Hope Charitie Regeneration remission of sinnes c. Therefore it may bee holy without them And the Church of the Hebrews to which Saint Paul wrote his Epistle was an holy Church yet Saint Chrysostome saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There was not so much as any footstep of a Monke c. Fourthly these monasticall vowes haue many times distained and corrupted the Church and therefore they are no mayne or proper actions of holinesse Aluares Pelagius saith of the Monkes and Cloysterers of his age that they were Paupertatis professores sed haereditatum successores Professours of pouertie and heires apparant to euerie mans land Mathew Paris saith That the Mendicants in England raised stately buildings equall to Princes palaces and they hoorded vp inualuable treasure c. And Papirius Masson saith Pouertie which religious Orders seeme to professe is more hatefull to them than to any other sort of men The vow of Chastitie made the most of them more impure than dogs and to stinke before God and men That many of them were Sodomites is affirmed by no meaner man than Saint Bernard who saith Besides fornication adulterie and incest the deedes of ignominie and turpitude for which the cities of Sodome and Gomorrha were predamned are not wanting c. Rodericus a famous Bishop saith That Votaries and Regulars were not satisfied with one woman but kept Concubines and young Damosells sans number Alphonsus Castro saith The incontinencie of Priests is in these dayes so frequent that if but one of them be knowne to liue chastly although many other necessarie 〈◊〉 lities be wanting in him he is esteemed a holy man by the people for this one qualitie Aluares Pelagius saith That the Cells of Anchorites were dayly visited by women And in another place Priests for many yeeres together doe arise euerie day from their Concubines sides and without going to Confession say Masse And in another place Quis Clericorum intra sanctam Ecclesiam Castitatem seruat What Clerke is there within the holy Church which obserueth
kernell of an Apple a great tree may bee made and nourished by the force and vigour proceeding from the same did not we see by daily experience the same to be true that ashes may be made of glasse that stones in the stomacke of a Doue yron in the belly of an Ostridge be turned into flesh that of a rotten barke of a tree falling into the water should be bred and produced a perfect bird to me seemes more incredible than that God should make the accidents of Bread separated from their substance to nourish mans body for the dead barke of a tree may seeme to haue no more efficacie of it selfe to produce a liuing creature specially so perfect a bird as Barnacles than haue the accidents of Bread to feede and breede the flesh of a liuing man Yea many Philosophers teach and in my iudgement conuince that in substantiall generations where no cause coequall in perfection to the effect produced is present God by his Omnipotencie doth supplie deficiencie of naturall causes Why then should any man so much mislike our Doctrine that in this Mysterie where the substance of Bread wants God by the secret operation of his power supplies the defect thereof seeing by the opinion of many learned Philosophers his prouidence by the like secret speciall working doth ordinarily daily and hourely supply the manifold defects of substantiall secondarie Agents Neither is the manner how God can doe this difsicile to explicate For he may inable the quantitie of Bread to receiue and sustaine the working of mans nutritiue power and when in that quantitie there is the last accidentall disposition to the forme of flesh he can secretly produce againe Materiam primam that was of the Bread and combine the same with the prepared quantitie and the substantiall forme of Flesh What reason is there why God may not doe this yea doe it sooner than we speake it Wherefore the seeming absurdities of this mysterie being as J haue shewed meerely imaginarie and not like those against the Trinitie and the Incarnation wherein not so much imagination as reason findes difficultie it is the part not onely of sincere Christian faith but also of a cleere excellent wit to conceiue them and not to permit wandring vnruly fancie destitute of reason to controll our beleefe about the literall sence of Christs words so many waies by the grauest testimonies of Antiquitie recommended vnto vs. ANSVVER That Accidents may subsist and haue their naturall force and operation without a subiect of support or inhaerencie implies a contradiction for it is of the being and definition of Accidents to be in another or to be in their subiect And none of the Examples taken from a Kernell Ashes Iron in the belly of an Ostridge the barke of a tree c. are ad idem for these are not Accidents without a substance but reall bodies hauing by nature a proportion and propension to produce their owne effects either as seminall causes or true materials conuerted by heate fire and art or things putrescent formed and animated by the heate of the Sunne and other secret and naturall causes That an Akorne should become an Oake is wonderfull as the workes of God are yet it is as naturall as that a Lyon begets a Lyon nay as that the Sunne or fire shineth That of ashes is made glasse what is it but that a transparent bodie is made of a bodie not transparent so Yee of Snow c. And concerning Stones Iron c. I doe not thinke that these feed or nourish Doues Hawkes Struthiocameles c. but onely coole or cleanse them and this I count not impossible in nature that vegetatiue heate should in short time dissolue stones The Barnacles are generatio ex putri as are Mice Frogs and Serpents but what is this to accidents nourishing without matter and substance Now for all the former wee know the truth and certaintie by naturall reason and by experience of our sences but there is no naturall or supernaturall rule or Law no manifest demonstration either to sence or reason no reuelation of Faith that the abstracted formes of bread and wine subsist without a subiect and haue power to nourish and may bee tasted and felt and also putrifie but Romists presumptuously forme these Chimera's and Idols in the forge of their owne deceiued brest and they deserue to bee fed onely with accidents like Birds that pecked at the painted grapes which thinke to feed any intelligent Reader with such improper and extrauagant accidents IESVITS 3. Consideration Thirdly to make Christians incline to 〈◊〉 this Mysterie so difficile to carnall imagination this Consideration may be very potent to wit that in beleeuing the same on the one side there may be great merit and excellent faith if it be a truth and on the other side though which is impossible it should be false yet in beleeuing it we shall not fall into any damnable errour For although we suppose this an vnpossible case yet what can be laid to our charge which wee may not defend and iustifie by all the rules of equitie and reason if we be accused that we tooke Bread to be the body of Christ adoring the same as God so committing Idolatry we may defend that both for soule and body we are innocent herein For seeing the body is not made guiltie but by a guiltie mind euen our body may pleade not guilty seeing our mind our thoughts or deuotion were fully and totally referred vnto Christ whom we truely apprehend by faith as vailed with the Accidents of Bread and so may repell the reproach of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bread Worshippers with saying Quae nouit mens est pani nil vouimus illa Neither did we beleeue that the Bread was changed into Christs body vpon sleight reasons or mooued by the fancies of our owne head but contrary to our fancies out of Reuerence to the expresse words of Christ This is my body A sense declared by most antient Fathers defined by many generall Councells deliuered by full consent of our Ancestors so practised in the Church for many ages without any knowne beginning finally confirmed with the most credible and constant report of innumerable most euident miracles Can a Christian beleeue any points of Religion vpon surer grounds And if God at the day of iudgement will condemne none but such as liuing in this world wronged him in his honour Why should Catholikes feare any hard sentence in respect of their prompt Credulitie of Transubstantiation that is of Gods Word taken in the plaine proper sense Js it an 〈◊〉 to his veritie that they denie their senses correct their imaginations reforme their discourses abnegate their iudgements rather than not to beleeue what to them seemeth his Word Js it an iniury to his power to be persuaded he can doe things incomprehensible without number put the same body in innumerable places at once Make a body occupy no place and yet remaine a quantitatiue substance
spirituall manducation alone without Sacramentall If the former illation of Romists were good it will follow likewise from thence that receiuing of Bread in the Eucharist is not of the substance of Christs Institution for whole and intire Christ according to bodie and soule and infinite person is in the blood alone if the Popish Doctrine of Concomitancie be true and if this be granted as of necessitie it must then Romists may mangle and transforme the holy Sacrament at their pleasure Secondly The end and fruit of the Sacrament is either common to the holy Eucharist with other meanes of Grace or else proper to it onely To eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Sonne of God by recognition of Christs Passion and by Faith in the same may be an effect of the Gospell preached Ioh. 6. 54. But to eate the same flesh and blood communicated more distinctly and effectually by visible seales of the couenant of the new Testament is an end and fruit peculiar and proper to the holy Eucharist 1. Cor. 10. 16. A man may haue the same inheritance bestowed on him by the word and writing of the Donor yet when the same is confirmed by the seale of the Donor the donation is of greater validitie and if by Law or custome two seales should be appointed the apposition of one is not of equall force and validitie to the apposition of both so likewise because the Sonne of God made choyce of two outward signes namely Bread and Wine to represent and apply his Passion and Oblation and withall commanded the common vse and reception of both saying Drinke ye all of this and also annexed a speciall promise and blessing to both these outward signes ioyntly vsed therefore the vse sumption of one of these without the other cannot haue so great force to apply the effect fruit of the Sacrament as the vse reception of both And as in concauses or partiall causes the action of the one cannot produce the effect without the other and as when two keyes are prouided to open a locke the same is not opened by one of them onely so likewise Christ Iesus hauing instituted and sanctified two signes for the more proportionable and effectuall application of his Bodie and Blood it is grosse presumption in man to mutilate and cut off a part of that bodie which the wisedome of Christ hath framed in due and beautifull proportion and to diuide that which God hath ioyned together and without warrant from Gods reuealed word to attribute a totall effect to a partiall meanes and cause IESVIT Hence it is apparent that without any iust cause some Protestants inueigh against the Councell of Constance as professing to contradict the Precept of Christ because it decreed That the Sacrament may bee lawfully giuen vnder one kind Non obstante quod Christus in vtraque specie illud instituerit Apostolis administrauerit Notwithstanding Christs Institution and Administration thereof in both kinds to his Disciples This their bitternesse proceeds from zeale without knowledge not distinguishing the Jnstitution of God from his Precept which are very distinct for the Precept of both kinds if Christ gaue any doth bind whether both kinds be necessarie for the maintenance of mans soule in grace or no but the Jnstitution in both kinds doth not binde further than the thing instituted to wit Communion vnder both kinds is necessarie for the maintaining of spirituall life for which one kind being sufficient as I haue shewed Christs Institution of both kinds doth not inforce the vse of both If God should haue commanded the vse both of meate and drinke euery man should be bound not onely to eate but also to drinke though he had no necessitie thereof but now seeing God hath not giuen such a Precept a man that can liue by meate without euer drinking is not bound to drinke non obstante that God did institute both eating and drinking for the preseruation of life in euerie man ANSWER The Councell of Constance is iustly censured for presuming to alter and disanull the ordinance of Christ for if it be flagitious amongst men to alter and contradict the lawfull Will of a Testator Galat. 3.15 shall it not be much more vnlawfall to alter the Testament of the Sonne of God who disposed to the common people his Bloud as well as his Bodie saying Drinke ye all of this Math. 26 27. and except yee eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the man c. Ioh. 6.53 And the words of the said Synod are most presumptious for this they pronounce Although Christ after supper instituted and administred to his Disciples vnder both kindes c. And although in the Primitiue Chruch this Sacrament was receiued of Beleeuers in both kinds yet notwithstanding the contrarie custome for Laicks to receiue in one kind is with good reason brought in and they are Heretickes which hold this sacrilegious or vnlawfull But what are these men in comparison of Christ and his Apostles and of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church If men may thus twit Christ and his Apostles what shall become of all religion The sole and totall rule to guide the Church in the matter of the holy Eucharist is Christs Institution and practise recorded by the Euangelists and testified by the Apostles and the Primitiue Church in their doctrine and practise followed this rule as some of our learned Aduersaries ingeniously confesse If therefore Christ Iesus and his Apostles and after these the Primitiue Church administred the Communion to lay people in both kinds as this Synod confesseth and on the contraie nothing is extant in holy Writ or in the monuments of the Fathers to testifie that Christ and his Apostles retracted or altered this first practise What audacious sacriledge was it in the Prelates of Constance vpon their owne priuate and childish reasons to cancell Christs last Will and Testament and to violate the sacred precept and ordinance of the Sonne of God But our Aduersarie laboureth by a distinction of Institution and Precept to plaister the vlcerous Doctrine of the 〈◊〉 of Constance saying or implying That although Christ did institute the holy Eucharist in two kinds yet he gaue no precept for the vse of it in two kinds But this plaister of sig-leaues healeth not the wound for there is both an institution and a precept for both kinds and more expressely for the cup than for the bread for Christ said expressely and literally Drinke yee all of this whereas he said not so literally and expressely eat yee all of this Besides his institution is a vertuall and interpretatiue precept as appeareth by S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.23 And Christ did institute the Eucharist in two kinds that people might receiue and vfe it in two kinds Also if the manner of the institution prooueth not the manner of the vse then the Eucharist may be vsed in another manner I meane in things substantiall than
Granting that some vulgar people and nouices in Faith may attaine beleefe concerning such verities of Christian Doctrine as are absolutely necessarie to Saluation by the Tradition of their Ancestors and Teachers without distinct and explicit resoluing their Faith into the Text of holy Scripture or the particular Bookes or Sections thereof But withall I deny that they can haue sauing Faith without resoluing the same into the doctrine of the Scriptures For example It is an Article of Faith necessarie to be beleeued by all Christians of riper yeres that Iesus Christ is the 〈◊〉 of the World and the same Article is reuealed and taught in many Texts of holy Scripture If a simple rurall person beleeue this Article taught him by his parents and other teachers he beleeueth the Doctrine of the Scripture and vertually grounds his Faith vpon the Scripture although hee know not the Bookes of the Scripture or the particular sentences contained in the same A man which drinketh water flowing from a fountaine or seeth day light although he haue no distinct knowledge of the fountaine or sight of the Sunne which is the cause of light yet hee receiueth water mediatly from the fountaine it selfe and his light principally from the Sunne so likewise rude and illiterate Christians reape the benefit and fruit of the Scriptures and vertually ground their Faith vpon them although they be not able distinctly to looke into them or to resolue their Faith into the seuerall parts and testimonies contained in them OBIECTION Vulgar andilliterate persons do not know or vnderstand the Scriptures neither can they be certaine by their owne knowledge that the same are truely translated in such points as the y are bound to beleeue therefore they cannot ground their Faith finally and lastly vpon the Scriptures ANSVVER 1. If this Obiection were good vulgar people could not ground their diuine Faith vpon Tradition because they haue not distinct knowledge of Tradition or of the qualitie or deriuation thereof Therefore I distinguish of Knowledge out of Bonauenture that the same is two fold to wit either confused and generall or distinct and speciall and a thing may be knowne two waies either in it selfe or in another If vulgar and illiterate people could know and vnderstand the Scriptures neither confusedly nor distinctly neither in themselues nor in any other thing then it were impossible that they should resolue their Faith into them but if they may know them by teaching of others and vnderstand the Doctrine of the Scriptures to be diuine by the light of heauenly veritie resplendent in the same and by the inward testimonie of the holy Spirit co-working with that Doctrine then it is possible for them to resolue their Faith into the Scripture because they which actually resolue their Faith into the Doctrine of the Scripture doe virtually and mediatly resolue the same into the verie Scripture euen as he that actually beleeueth the kings proclamation doth virtually beleeue the kings authoritie although he know the king or his authoritie confusedly and in generall only The Text of holy Scripture and the distinct sayings and sentences thereof are the principall and finall externall ground whereupon the whole bodie of the Church must ground their Faith But as there is a diuersitie of the members of the Church 1. Cor. 12.20 so likewise there is a difference betweene them in the manner of resoluing Faith for the stronger and firmer members are able to resolue their Faith distinctly into Scripture but the weaker members whose Faith as Bonauenture speaketh is diminuta seeble and imperfect in respect of the distinct apprehension of the obiect of Faith are guided by the stronger as children by a nurse And these little ones are taught the truth of heauenly Doctrine 1. By their parents or ecclesiasticall teachers and they know the Scriptures to be truely translated not by their owne skill but by crediting others which are able to iudge But being thus farre directed and persuaded by humane meanes then the light of Gods word it selfe by the power of Grace persuadeth them as a diuine cause to yeeld full assent to all such verities as are necessarie to be beleeued by them to saluation IESVIT And this is that which Protestants must meane if they haue any true meaning when they say that the common people knew Scriptures to be truely translated by the light of the Doctrine shining in true Translations to wit by the light of Doctrine receiued by Tradition of Ancestors and thereupon so firmely beleeue as they will acknowledge Scriptures to be truely translated so farre and no farther than they perceiue them consonant with the Faith deliuered vnto them so that their last and finall resolution for substantiall points is not into Scripture truly translated into their vulgar tongue but into Tradition by the light whereof they discerne that their Translations are true more or lesse according to the measure of knowledge they haue by Tradition ANSVVER The summe of the former obiection is Vnlearned people are not able without the helpe and instruction of others to resolue their Faith into the Scriptures Therefore the Scripture is not the finall and greatest stay and ground of Faith The Argument is denied for as in Arts and Sciences an vnskilfull person cannot resolue his knowledge into the first principles vntill he be taught the meaning of words and the sence of rules and precepts but when he is taught and vnderstandeth these then he maketh resolution into the very first principles themselues So likewise in beleeuing the Obiect of Faith must be taught the sence of the words and matter declared the grounds and reasons of credibilitie deliuered and then the beleeuer principally and immediately settles the resolution of his Faith not vpon these helps and instruments which are only dispofitiue and adiuuant causes but vpon the first principles themselues expressely or deriuatiuely contained in holy Scripture And whereas Dr. Ioh. Wh. is produced affirming in the behalfe of all Protestants that common people know Scriptures to be truely translated by the light of the Doctrine shining in true Translations First Dr. Wh. in the place assigned speaketh not in particular of common people but of the true Church in which are found many persons skilfull and learned Secondly he deliuereth other meanes besides the light of Doctrine whereby the Church may know that Translations are true to wit knowledge of Tongues rules of Art ministerie of the Word to which I adde analogie of Faith the testimonie of the 〈◊〉 Church and best learned in all ages All these are helpes and instruments of right Translations and when the Scriptures are translated they manifest their Author and sacred authoritie to such as in a right manner are conuersant in hearing or reading them And this is not only the Tenet of Protestants but besides the antient Fathers of moderate Papists themselues There is saieth one of them
Grace Mother of Mercie saying to her Ladie protect vs from the Diuell receiue vs in the houre of death giue light to the blind pardon the guiltie remooue from vs all euill c. A answer These speeches cannot iustly bee disliked because they are vnderstood in a pious sence knowne to a Catholicke a sence obuious and plaine according to the phrase of Scripture and which the words may well beare euen according to the common custome of speech The nature of things being various and the answerable conceits of men copious but words to expresse such conceits scant and in great paucitie Necessitie doth inforce to vse words applicable to diuers senses For example one man may deliuer another from death either by authoritie pardoning him as do Kings or by iustice defending him as do Aduocates by force taking him out of his enemies hands as do Souldiors or paying his ransome to them that keepe him captiue as Almoners finally by begging his life of them that haue power to take it away as Intercessors These be verie 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 applied and if men want vnderstanding or will to take our wordes according to the matter they are applied vnto there can neuer want cauills vnlesse we either speake not at all or when we speake euer vse long circumlocutions which were ridiculous and in verse impossible the meeter not permitting it And yet the aforesaid misliked phrases in the office of the blessed virgin are taken out of the hymnes and verses thereof If they that by begging obtaine of the King the life of one condemned to death may be and are commonly said to saue his life though they saued him by intercession not by their proper authoritie Why may not Saints bee said to giue vs the things which by their prayers they obtaine for vs Why may not the Church speake in hymnes and in verse as the learnedest Fathers speake euen in prose neuer imagining that any would mistake their meaning ANSVVER We condemne the verie substance of your prayers in this kind and not only some phrases c. For what Prophet or what Apostle or Euangelist did euer teach Gods people to pray in this manner And whereas some formes of your prayers to Saints being vnderstood according to the sound of words are blasphemous you labour to qualifie this by a fauourable exposition pretending that you say one thing and meane another and that herein you varie not from the Scripture You call the blessed Virgin Mother of Grace Mother of Mercie Queene of Heauen c. you say that all power is giuen her in heauen and in earth and because she outliued her sonne she was by naturall right heire of all the world Yea some of you go further teaching that as Christ redeemed man-kind by his flesh and bloud so she redeemed the same with her soule and that all grace and glorie comming from Christ the head passeth to the Church by the Virgin Marie as by the necke and she as his mother hath all right authoritie and dispensation of his mercie This lying doctrine is coloured with certaine distinctions and forced instances of holy Scripture which notwithstanding agree to the present question like Harpe and Harrow Men indeed which are instruments of preseruing life and sauing others may be said in largenesse of speech to giue life or to be sauiours Iud. 3. v. 9. 15. But the blessed Virgin and Saints deceased since their departure are not by any new actions instruments of spirituall life nor bestowers of grace and saluation vpon the liuing And when the Prophets and Apostles exercised their office and ministerie vpon earth Who euer stiled them Sauiours or prayed vnto them with such a conceit or by vsing such titles They themselues gaue all glorie to God and Christ and instructed the Church to do the like The Virgin Marie was neuer stiled a Redeemer Mediatour or Sauiour by the holy Ghost but she saith in her thankesgiuing My spirit reioiceth in God my Sauiour Some names are common and sometimes that which was common or typically giuen to certaine persons in the old Testament is appropriated in the new as we obserue in the names of Sauiour Iesus Redeemer Mediatour High Priest and the like Sometimes the effect of the principall cause is attributed to the instrumentall but in all these Regulam habemus praeter quam loqui fas non est We haue a rule beside which we may not speake And we are not so straighted for words that we must of necessitie applie or communicate the titles of Christ vnto the creatures Now to that which you adde by way of excuse for your improper or abusiue speaking saying in verse impossible the meeter not permitting I answer What an impudent and ridiculous plaster is this will not verse permit vs to implore benefits only at Gods hand by Christ or will not the measure and number of poeticall feet without pinching in the stockes be applied to direct and euident compellation of Saints to pray for vs without crauing the benefits we desire at their own hands Nay who so readeth the Papisticall poeticall Church hymnes shall in the most of them find versing laws most broken where the lawes of inuocation are most transgressed A reasonable Poet in lesse than a weekes worke would make so many hymns in exact verse and yet without ridiculous circumlocutions expres that which might better beseeme the triumphant Church to heare from the militant But that is verified in you which Arnobius said of the Gentiles Quod semel sinè ratione fecistis nè videamini aliquando nescisse defenditis meliusquè putatis non vinci quam confessae cedere atquè annuere veritati That which you haue once done vnreasonably you wil still persist in defending least you should seeme to haue beene ignorant and you rather desire to haue it appeare you are not ouercome than to submit your selues to euident truth IESVIT Saint Gregorie Nazianzen for his excellent learning tearmed by the Grecians The Diuine thus prayeth vnto Saint Cyprian Looke downe on vs from heauen with a propitious eye guide our words and wayes feed this holy flocke gouerne it with vs dispose some of them as farre as is possible to better state cast out importune and troublesome wolues that cauill aud catch at syllables vouchsafe vs the perfect and cleare splendor of the blessed Trinitie with whom thou art alreadie present ANSWER That Gregorie Nazianzen prayed vnto Saint Cyprian is more than you can prooue he vseth indeed an Oratoriall Apostrophe but your selues make a difference betweene a Prosopopeia or Apostrophe and Prayer you say you make an Apostrophe to the Crosse when you vse this Hymne All haile oh Crosse c. And I thinke you will not grant that the wodden Crosse heareth you So by
Luc. 18 38 39. Esa. 6. 3. Psal. 136. Math. 26. 39. to 45. Marc. 14.39 Luc. 22. 42. Ergo Repetition of Paternosters Creedes and Aues according to the formes prescribed in the Romish Primers and Rosaries are pious and lawfull I answer Granting that repetitions in prayer and thanksgiuing which agree with the examples of sacred Scripture are pious and lawfull but the Illation from these to the Roman Battalogees is inconsequent because the repetitions in question differ from the patterne expressed in holy Scripture First in the kind and obiect for this latter are in part directed to creatures and not onely to the Creator and of this deuotion there is no example in Scripture Secondly they are multiplyed to an excessiue and portentuous number and doubtlesse the Romists exceede and transcend their brethren the Pharisees in the number and vaine repetition of such superstitious Orisons Thirdly the Creed and Aue-maries are no prayers or thanksuings either formally or vertually Fourthly our A duersaries maintaine That if these repetitions be vsed without vnderstanding of the words and consequently without present actuall attention they are pious and effectuall But the Romists cannot produce approoued examples out of holy Scripture of such repetitions and therefore their argument from example concludeth not It is also apparent that the repetitions which are practised among Papals in manner aforesaid doe rather resemble the superstitious Battalogie of the Pharisees Math. 6.7 than the deuout prayers and thanksgiuings recorded for our instruction in holy Scripture IESVIT Jf any thinke to merit by reason of the number of his prayers hee is ignorant of the doctrine of the Catholike Church which attributes no merit to prayers in regard of their number further than the number awakes in vs deuout thoughts which is the onely thing that by the number we aime at Wee say Paters Aues and Creedes to the number of three in memorie of the blessed Trinitie seeking Gods fauour and grace by glorifying that incomprehensible Mystery to the number of fiue in memorie of the fiue speciall wounds our Sauiour receiued that pierced into and through his sacred body to the number of 33 in remembrance of the 33 yeares our Sauiour wrought our saluation vpon earth giuing him thankes for his labours desiring the application of his merits stirring vp our selues to the imitation of his vertues The like reason mooueth vs to pray in the number of sixtie three Angelicall salutations to call to mind the yeeres the Mother of God liued on earth according to one probable opinion And because the opinion that she liued seuentie two yeeres now begins to be much followed many Catholickes therupon particularly in Spaine haue thereupon increased the Corone of our Ladie to seuentie two Aue-Marias a manifest signe that they neuer attributed merit vnto the number of sixtie three but onely to the deuout memories of the blessed Virgins vertues exercised in the yeeres shee conuersed in this world giuing to God thankes for his great graces bestowed on her The Psalter of our Ladie and the Iesus Psalter containe one hundred and fiftie repetitions of Prayers the one of Aue-Marias the other of Iesu Iesu Iesu in imitation of the deuout Royall Prophet whose Psalter containes Psalmes in Gods praise to the samè number ANSVVER The true Catholicke Church which the Roman is not maketh no Prayer meritorious in condignitie for what can be imagined more absurd than to maintaine that beggers doe merit by crauing and receiuing almes And the number of Pater Nosters Aues and Creeds which moderne Romists prescribe is a nouell Inuention and was of small esteeme vntill the dayes of Friar Dominicus It was expected that the Iesuit would haue confirmed his Romish deuotion by the Testimonie of antiquitie and by the practise of Apostolicall Churches in the best ages thereof But in place hereof hee reciteth onely what the practise of the moderne Romists is in repeating Pater Nosters Aues and 〈◊〉 to the number of three fiue and thirtie three sixtie three seuentie two c. But these deuices are voluntarie and grounded vpon vncertaine causes for what connexion is there betweene the Antecedent to wit the fiue wounds of Christ and sixtie three or seuentie two yeeres of the blessed Virgins Temporall life and the deuotion inferred and proportioned because Christ had fiue wounds and the Virgin Marie liued seuentie two yeeres in the world therefore it is a seruice pleasing God and such a meanes to honour the blessed Virgin as God accepteth for satisfaction merit and impetration There appeareth small difference betweene the former practise and that which some Romane Casuists censure as superstitious to wit to place vertue and to ascribe effects to the precise number of words and syllables when the same is not appointed by God IESVIT Neither are we in this point of repeating Prayers vpon Beades or little stones in a certaine number for the causes before mentioned destitute of the example of Saints that liued in the best ages of the Church Palladius in his Historie setteth downe some examples of Saints praying in this kinde yea the Centurie Writers and Osiander acknowledge the example of Saint Paul a most holy Monke liuing in the fourth age after Christ that In dies singulos trecentas orationes Deo velut tributum reddidit 〈◊〉 ne per imprudentiam in numero erraret trecentis lapillis in sinum coniectis ad singulas preces singulos eijcit lapillos consumptis igitur lapillis constabat sibi orationes lapillis numero pares abs se expletas esse Which example of so great a Saint so knowne and notorious and neuer censured by any Father may more than abundantly suffice for satisfaction in a matter of no more moment than this for wee are not curious in this point nor doe require of any man that he say his Prayers in a certaine number so as that he may not say more or lesse as his deuotion serues him ANSVVER Palladius his writings are of small credit and this Authour was long agoe censured by the Antient Paulus the Monke in Sosomene made three hundred Prayers to God but not any to the blessed Virgin and his vsing of stones when he said his Prayers is an onely example not paralelled in Antiquitie But singular examples are no rule neither doe they alwayes prooue the thing done to be lawfull for Batheus a Monke in the same Historie vsed such abstinence that wormes bred in his teeth Pior another Monke refused after fiftie yeres absence to looke vpon his naturall sister Ammonius being sollicited to bee a Bishop cut off his owne eare to make himselfe vncapable These and the like examples are not censured by the Historian reporting them and yet it is more than probable that it is not safe for others to imitate them In like sort Paulus his beades are a matter of singularitie rehearsed by Sozomene rather for noueltie than
speciall Promise of Diuine assistance and grace is annexed to the Sacramentall signes vsed and receiued according to Christs Institution which belongeth not to other signes and figures therefore it is inconsequent to say one Element receiued alone signifies as much in substance as both Ergo the vse of one Element is as profitable and effectuall as the vse and reception of both But if the obiection be reduced to forme the defect will be more apparent If there is the same signification of one single Element which there is of both then there is the same benefit obtained by receiuing one which is obtained by receiuing both But there is the same signification of one single Element which there is of both to wit spirituall Food vnion of the Faithfull and Christs passion Ergo There is the same benefit obtayned by receiuing in one kind as in both I answer First denying the consequence of the Maior Proposition For although there were the same signification in one Element which is of both yet there is not equall benefit reaped by receiuing one as is reaped by receiuing both because the promise of Grace is annexed to the receiuing both and not to the receiuing of one without the other for when a promise is made vpon condition of a duty to be performed the promise is not fulfilled but vpon obseruing the condition Now Christ hauing instituted the Sacrament as a seale of his Couenant and appointed the same to be receiued in both kinds as his Institution shewes the Church cannot expect that Christ should fulfill his promise in giuing his flesh and blood by the Sacrament vnlesse the Church obserue his ordinance and doe that which he appointed Also obedience is better than Sacrifice 1. Sam. 15. 22. but when we administer and receiue in both kinds we obey Christ saying Drinke ye all of this and we disobey when we doe otherwise Therefore although there were the same signification of one Element which is of both yet the same benefit is not reaped by receiuing one which is obtained by receiuing both Secondly to the assumption I answer that there is a more perfect and liuely representation of spirituall feeding and refection and of coniunction of the faithfull and of Christs death and Sacrifice vpon the crosse by both the signes than by one and pouring out of the wine doth in a cleerer manner represent and signifie the effusion of Christs bloud and also the separation of his body and soule and there is a more perfect similitude of nourishment in Bread and Wine together than in Bread alone Eccles. 4. 9. so likewise two Elements represent more than one and nourish more than one and vnite more than one Otherwise if the representation of one Element were equall to the representation of both to what purpose should our Sauiour institute a Sacrament in two kinds which according to Papists who will seeme wiser than God is as sufficient in one kind as in both IESVIT The fourth thing required to the substance of a Sacrament is Causalitie to wit to worke in the soule the Spirituall effects it signifies This Causalitie cannot be wanting to the Sacrament vnder one kind wherein is contayned the fountaine of Spirituall life For the cause why the Sacrament in both kinds giueth grace and refresheth the soule is That Christ is assistant vnto them bound by his promise at the presence of sensible signes to worke the proportionable spirituall effects in disposed soules But Christ is in the Sacrament vnder the forme of Bread and he is able through infinite power and bound by inuiolable promise to worke the effect of grace preseruing vnto life eternall the worthy participant of this Sacrament vnder the forms of Bread Qui manducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum Not any doubt then may be made but the Sacrament in one kind is full entire compleate in substance and by participation thereof prepared consciences doe receiue the benefite of celestiall fauour that conserueth the life of the soule with daily increase in perfection ANSVVER The summe of this obiection is There is the same power of causing Grace in one signe receiued alone as in both because Christ the Fountaine of Grace is receiued in one signe alone Ioh. 6. 51. Therefore the receiuing of one signe alone is as sufficient and profitable as the sumption of both The Antecedent of this Argument is denyed And the Scripture Ioh. 6. 51. saith not Whosoeuer eateth Sacramentall Bread without Wine shall liue for euer but if any eat this Bread which came downe from Heauen to wit Christ Iesus incarnate shall liue for euer And then it followeth Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you Ioh. 6.53 Now let the Romist chuse which Exposition hee pleaseth If our Sauiour in these last words speaketh of Sacramentall and Spirituall eating ioyntly then Communion in both kinds is necessarie to life eternall and if he speake of Spirituall eating only by Faith then this Scripture prooueth not the necessitie of receiuing eyther Bread or Wine and much lesse prooueth it that there is the power of causing Grace in receiuing Bread alone IESVIT §. 4. Communion vnder one kind not against Christ his Precept ALthough Communion vnder both kinds pertaine not to the substance of the Sacrament yet if Christ did specially command the same we are bound to that obseruance and should by Communion vnder one kind sinne not against his Sacrament and Institution but against a speciall Diuine Precept ANSWER WHen Christ instituted the Sacrament he prouided and prescribed two materiall Elements and not one onely or none and he sanctified and distributed both and with his Institution and Practise he conioyned a Precept Doe this in remembrance of me Drinke ye all of this Saint Paul likewise saith Let a man prooue himselfe and so let him eate of this Bread and drinke of this Cup and the practise of the holy Apostles in their dayes and of the successours of the Apostles and Saint Pauls owne practise appeareth 1. Cor. 10.16 cap. 11.26 and he describeth Communicating by taking the Cup as a most noble part saying Yee cannot drinke the cup of the Lord and the cup of deuils 1. Cor. 10.21 Iustin Martir who borders vpon the Apostles saith That Christians in his age distributed the sanctified Bread and Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to euery one present and he addeth further that the Apostles taught That Iesus commanded them to doe thus Saint Chrysostome saith That whereas in the old Law there was a difference betweene Priests and Laicks in communicating of Victimes in the New Testament it is otherwise for one Bodie and one Cup is ministred to all This practise continued as a Law more than a thousand yeeres after Christ. And Haimo who liued in the yeere 850. saith That in his dayes all the people receiued out of the
conclusion you giue vs that which is worst Iohn 2. 8. The Antecedent or leading part of your Argument is dubious and the Consequence also is infirme First you are not able to prooue out of the Texts Act. 2.42 or Luk. 24.30 that Christ and his Apostles in those places administred the holy Communion for there may be Prayer and breaking of Bread and yet no Sacrament 1. Tim. 4. v. 3.4.5 Also the place Act. 2. 42. may be vnderstood of dealing bread by Eleemosinarie dole to the poore And although some of the Fathers apply these Scriptures to the Eucharist according to the mysticall sence yet other Fathers are contrarie yea many Pontificians expound these Texts of common food or bread and not of the Eucharist But if the first Exposition were true yet Communion in one kinde cannot be hence inferred for either the words are proper or figuratiue If Romists will presse them according to the letter then no wine at all was then vsed by Christ Luc. 24. or by the Apostles Act. 2. and consequently it followeth 〈◊〉 If they will yeeld that there is a 〈◊〉 in the words then euen as when wee reade in sundrie places of Scripture That people meet together to 31.34 〈◊〉 2.10 wee vnderstand by a part of the 〈◊〉 the whole not 〈◊〉 wine or other in the 〈◊〉 Texts making literall mention of bread onely must be vnderstood as mentioning a part of the spirituall Feast for the whole Neither is there any force in the Argument ensuing which is Their eyes were opened to know Christ Ergo They 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread for the eyes may be opened by Miracle Grace and by Donation of Faith Act. 10. 14. without receiuing Eucharisticall Bread The holy Eucharist is not a sole or 〈◊〉 cause of grace 〈◊〉 there are other caufes and meanes besides and therefore the Illation is inconsequent 〈◊〉 an effect which may proceed from diuers and fundrie 〈◊〉 to one speciall and determinate efficient cause But the Aduersarie proceedeth saying That after breaking of bread Christ straight way vanished out of their sight and they hastened to Hierusalem with all speed Therefore there was no space after receiuing the Bread for the sumption of Wine The Reader may perceiue by these and other such like writhings of the Text vpon what foundation Popish Faith is builded First The word Straight wayes is not in the Narration Luke 24. Secondly The receiuing a small quantitie of Wine could neither hinder our Sauiours expedition nor the Apostles iourney to Ierusalem Thirdly How appeareth it that receiuing Eucharisticall Bread made the Disciples more agile in bodie and prompter in minde to trauell to Hierusalem for two Disciples ranne to the Sepulchre with as much allacritie and expedition as was possible 〈◊〉 20. 4 and yet they had at that present time receiued no Eucharisticall Bread Yea on the contrarie the Apostles of Christ after the receiuing of the holy Eucharist doe all of them flie away and forsake their Master Math. 26.58 This collection therefore The Disciples hasted to Hierusalem Ergo They receiued the Eucharist is dissolute and not much vnlike that of Pope Boniface the eight God said Let vs make two great lights Ergo The Pope is greater than the Emperour IESVIT These bee the Warrants that Communion vnder one kinde hath being the greatest that may bee whereby appeares that the Roman Church is furnisht with all kinde of proofe in this point in which she doth seeme to her Aduersaries to be most forsaken of Antiquitie Now supposing Communion vnder one kinde to be good and lawfull That the Church could preseribe it and That shee had iust reasons to prescribe it J will let passe without proofe as a thing not doubted of by your Maiesties excellent wisedome ANSVVER All your warrants for halfe Communions are meere Impostures and audacious words and figments Commota semel excussa mens ei seruit à quo impellitur saith Seneca The mind which is disordered and put out of frame becomes a slaue to that which impells it This is verified in you you want all kinds of iust defence for your Sacriledge in mangling and dismembring the holy Communion yet hauing once ouershot your selues and become slaues to your owne conceit of not being subiect to errour Litigare magis quam sanari vultis you chuse rather to make warre with heauen than to retract your errour for they warre with heauen which oppose the Testament of the Sonne of God the Tradition of the holy Apostles and the practise of the Primitiue Church and this is your case although you list not to see it or rather seeing to acknowledge it THE EIGHT POINT WORKES OF SVPERERROGATION SPECIALLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE TREASVRE OF THE CHVRCH IESVIT IT is hard if not impossible to giue satisfaction in this point vnto any that is not aforehand persuaded of the Catholicke Doctrine of Merit ANSVVER THe word or name of merit is taken in two notions First properly strictly and vniuocally Ro. 4.4 Deu. 7.10 Secondly improperly largely and equiuocally Eccle. 16.15 The first is tearmed by Schoolemen Merit of Condignitie and the latter Merit of Impetration or of Congruitie If the Iesuit maintaine Merit according to the first acceptation then out of all question the Doctrine of Merit is not Catholicke If he maintaine Merit according to the second notion then Popes pardons and workes of Supererogation cannot be inferred or concluded from the doctrine of Merit for how can that action bee applied to other persons as satisfactorie which is rewarded by God of his free fauour and grace aboue the desert of the person himselfe which hath wrought it IESVITS §. 1. The Doctrine of Merit declared THis Doctrine is much misliked by Protestants as proud and arrogant yet not so much misliked as misunderstood their dislike growing from misconstruction thereof For Catholickes hold that no worke is meritorious with God of it owne nature but to make the same meritorious many graces are required and those most diuine and excellent particularly these seuen ANSVVER CAn any thing be more arrogant and foolish than for a miserable begger and sinner whose iustice is rather in remission of sinnes than in perfection of vertues to maintaine that God should be vniust if he rendred not heauen to mans good workes And yet this proud Doctrine is deliuered by the Rhemists and by some other Romists But our Aduersarie laboureth by distinction to salue this Pharisaisme saying Good workes are not meritorious by their nature but by many graces c. I answer If he should maintaine that Good workes merit iustification or perseuerance not by their Nature but by Grace this distinction would not free his Tenet from error so likewise it is erroneus to maintaine that Good works merit glorie by Grace for that which is of Merit is not of Grace but of debt And diuine grace doth not eleuate vertuous actions by adding vnto them a force of meriting but
onely by making them susceptible of a free and liberall reward and by placing them in the state and order of causes impetrant or dispositiue conditions S. Paul saith Rom. 8.18 I thinke that the Passions of this time are not condigne to the glorie to come that shall be reuealed in vs. First the passions here expressed were Martyredomes sanctified by grace Phil. 1.29 and spirituall sacrifices of a sweete smelling sauour 2. Tim. 4. 6. most pretious in Gods sight Psalm 116.15 Secondly Condignitie or Worthinesse equall in desert or value to the reward of glorie is denyed vnto them but where there is inequalitie betweene the worke and the reward and where the reward is of Grace and the worke of debt there is found no proportion of Condignitie Origen saith I can hardly persuade my selfe that there can be any good worke deseruing as a debt the reward of God S. Augustine Thou shall not receiue eternall life for thy Merit but only for Grace Andreas Vega saith That many Schoole-men to wit Gregorie Arimine Durand Marsilius Waldensis Burgensis Eckius c. reiect the Romish doctrine of merit of Condignitie Dionisius Cistertiensis doth the like Brulifer saith It is a verie deuout opinion established by many authorities that no man in this life how pure and perfect soeuer can merit coelestial glorie by 〈◊〉 but that by 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 And 〈◊〉 the Iesuit 〈◊〉 That the Roman Church hath not hitherto determined expressely the question of 〈◊〉 of condignitie and the same author with others 〈◊〉 That Merit of congruitie is not truly properly simply Merit but 〈◊〉 quid nomine tenus comparatiuely and in appellation only And they deliuer a good reason of this assertion for if for a small labour and seruice or if for a seruice and obedience due of right by other titles a liberall and immense gift shall be bestowed there is no Merit in the receiuer but the reward is meerely of 〈◊〉 in the bestower So likewise when God Almightie bestoweth vpon his children an incomparable weight of glorie for a small and imperfect seruice and for that which is due vnto himselfe in right by many other titles this reward is not a wages of debt neither is God obliged in iustice to bestow it but it is a reward of Grace and bountie and man is indebted to God for promising and bestowing the same Now from hence it is apparent that the doctrine of Merit taken properly is not Catholicke or infallible and therefore if Popes pardons depend vpon the same a worme-eaten post is made the pillar and supporter of this moath-eaten rag of supererogation wherwith the Romists would gayly cloath their children IESVIT The first grace is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because God out of his owne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his actions 〈◊〉 a without which Ordination no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or correspondencie with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ANSWER By Diuine preordination vertuous actions haue reference not of desert but of disposition and instrumentall efficiencie or manuduction to beatitude or the last supernaturall 〈◊〉 and according to Saint Bernard they are Via regni non causa regnandi The way to the heauenly Kingdome but not the meritorious cause of raigning IESVIT The second is the Grace of Redemption by Christ Iesus without whom wee and our workes are defiled wee being by nature the children of wrath and should bee so still had not hee by his Passion and Death appeased God 〈◊〉 vs the inestimable treasure of his merits so that In illo benedixit nos Deus omni benedictione spirituali in caelestibus in quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem eius secundum diuitias gratiae suae quae superabundauit in nobis ANSVVER The grace of Redemption appeaseth God and purchased for vs the fruit and inestimable benefit of Christs Merits both for remission of our sinnes and for our Sanctification But that Christs Merits make mans actions meritorious and that his satisfaction inableth man to satisfie Gods Iustice is all one as if one would inferre saying Christ Iesus hath redeemed vs by his Passion and he communicates to vs the grace of Redemption Ergo Christ Iesus hath made vs Redeemers IESVIT The third is grace of Adoption in Baptisme whereby soules are supernaturally beautified by participation of the diuine nature whence a triple dignity redounds vnto Works one by the grace of Adoption from God the Father who in respect of this Adoption regards good works as the works of his children Another is from God the holy Ghost dwelling in vs by whom Good workes are honoured as by the principall Author of them so that he rather than we doth the works who therefore is said to pray for vs with vnspeakable groanes The last dignitie is from God the Son Christ Iefus whose members we are made by Grace so that the works we doe be reputed not so much ours as his as the worke of the particular members is attributed principally vnto the head ANSWER By the grace of Regeneration and Adoption the diuine Image is imprinted in the soule 2. Pet. 1. 4. Ephes. 4.24 and a dignitie of goodnesse redounds to vertuous actions from the three persons of the Trinity But hence it followeth not Ergo Good workes merit in condignitie for although Christ Iesus and the holy Ghost worke in righteous People and the vertuous deedes of these Persons are in some sort reputed the works of Christ yet because the diuine Persons worke in them according to a certaine degree and measure of grace and not according to the fullnesse of Power and the vertuous deeds of men are attributed to Christ not as the cause Elicitiue or as immediately producing them it is inconsequent to say Good workes are produced originally by the holy Ghost and they are reputed Christs works in regard of Influence Approbation and Acceptation Ergo they haue the totall Perfection to wit of meriting and satisfying which Christs owne Personall workes had The foot of man is vnited to the head and the head maketh influence into it neuerthelesse the whole perfection of the head is not in the foot and the foot doth not vnderstand because the head vnderstandeth nor seeth heareth or smelleth although these senses are 〈◊〉 in the head So likewise euery iust person is vnited to Christ and is spiritually sanctified by the Grace of the holy Ghost but this motion and influence is finite in it selfe and limited to the estate of our weakenesse 〈◊〉 distributed according to the necessitie of the Receiuer and the wisedome and good pleasure of the moouer and therefore it imparteth not the whole vertue of the moouer but so much onely as is necessarie and conuenient for the Subiect to receiue but it is not necessary for men to receiue power of meriting properly and it is most honourable for God to bestow life eternall
and dutifull respect towards the King how commeth it to passe that Roman Priests and Iesuits haue had their singer in euerie treason intended against his Maiestie yea formerly against Queene Elizabeth and the state and wherefore doe you your selfe decline the Oath of Allegeance and persecute some of your owne part because they persuade and maintaine the lawfulnesse of this Oath Thirdly If you be vnwilling for feare of afterclaps to dispute or deliuer your iudgement concerning this question this feare of danger becommeth not a Diuine of resolution And S. Bernards rule is Melius est vt scandalum oriatur quam vt veritas relinquatur It is better that scandall happen than that Veritie be forsaken which is most to be obserued in matter of Faith such as this is made by your faction and tending by the denying thereof to the ruine of soules as yee pretend IESVIT But seeing that those of our Societie are odiously traduced as maintainers of Doctrine extolling the Popes authoritie to the preiudice of Princes more than any other Diuines of the Roman Religion J sinceerely in the sight of Almightie God protest vnto your Maiestie that I neuer knew any Iesuit who was permitted either by word or writing to hold any singular opinion in this point but such as are ordinarily held by other Diuines secular and religious ANSWER There be three opinions maintained respectiuely by Roman Diuines concerning the present question 1. The first is negatiue to wit the Pope by vertue of his office hath not any power or authoritie to depose Princes or to dispose of their crownes or liues for any cause crime end or good whatsoeuer 2. The second is affirmatiue That the Romane Pope hath a direct power to depose and vnstate them and that Romish Catholiques are obliged to assist the Pope in the execution of his sentence of decrowning Princes and translating their crownes 3. The third is pendulous with shew of Limitation and Mitigation to wit The Pope hath an indirect Power limitted and circumscribed by many Cautions and Prouisoes in deposing Princes c. The first Tenet is Orthodoxall grounded vpon holy Scripture and the Testimonie of the Primitiue Fathers and the consent of many famous Doctors in all Ages whose mouthes the malice and tyrannie of Popes was neuer able to stop but they freely and successiuely to this Age haue propugned this Diuine Veritie The second Opinion is falsely fathered vpon Pope Zacharie the first but indeed no elder than Pope Gregorie the seuenth a Brand of Hell and it was ripened by many of his Successors and fomented by sundrie Parasites and Assassines of Rome and is by many Modernes defended The third Opinion maintained by Bellarmine may seeme for manner of speaking to be more moderate than the former but in weight and consequence it is equally false and pernitious for it hath the same effects yeelding Authoritie to Popes to depose Princes when the same appeareth to themselues reasonable and for the benefit of the Roman Cause it armeth subiects to Rebellion and enemies to mischiefe and it prouideth that Regall Maiestie shall depend vpon Papall discretion and deuotion But the Iesuit our Aduersarie washeth his hands like Pilate Matth. 27. 24. pretending That he and his fellowes good men are cleare from shedding Royall Bloud or treading Scepters in the myre hee neuer knew any Iesuit who was permitted either by word or writing to hold any singular Opinion in this Point approoue and receiue the Oath of Allegeance and wee shall be more readie to credit Protestations concerning their fidelitie to his Royall Maiestie and the State IESVIT For my owne particular as I reuerence the Pope as Christ his Vicar on earth yet I doe vtterly disclaime from enlarging his power ouer the temporalties of Princes by any singular opinions of mine or more than definitions of Councells and consent of Diuines doth force me to hold and Popish Diuines are not farre to seeke which haue exalted the Popes Temporall Soueraigntie as farre ouer Princes as Heauen is aboue the Earth And therefore saying That you hold no singular Opinions more than Definitions and consent of Diuines you leaue a libertie to your selfe to close in your Opinion with Pope Hildebrand Pope Boniface the eight and with Baronius and Bosius Aluares Pelagius Augustinus ab Anchona Panormitan yea and with the Deuill himselfe IESVIT In Points where there is libertie of Opinion I shall still encline to that part which doth most fauour the quiet tranquilitie honour and temporall independencie of my Prince Wherefore I humbly craue of your most gracious Maiestie to be content with this my answer and reuerent silence springing as well from respect vnto your sacred Person and Authoritie as also from vowed obedience vnto the Generall of our Order who hath particularly forbidden vs all to treat of this odious Argument not to giue your Maiestie any cause of iust offence as appeareth by what I here insert out of his owne Letters Praecipitur in virtute Sanctae Obedientiae sub poena Excommunicationis inhabilitatis ad quaeuis officia suspensionis à Diuinis alijs Praepositi Generalis arbitrio reseruatis ne quis nostrae Societatis publicé aut priuatim praelegendo seu consulendo multo etiam minus libros conscribendo affirmare praesumat licitum esse cuiquam personae quocunque praetextu Tyrannidis Reges aut Principes occidere seu mortem eis machinari Prouinciales autem qui aliquid eorum resciuerint nec emandarint aut non praeuenerint incommoda quae ex contraria opinione sequi possunt efficiendo vt hoc Decretum Sancte obseruetur non modo praedictas poenas incurrere sed etiam Officio priuari voluit Pub. Claudius Epist. Dat. 1614. 1. Augusti In virtute Obedientiae commendatur Prouincialibus ne in sua Prouincia quidquam quacunque occasione aut lingua euulgari patiantur à nostris in quo de potestate summi Pontificis supra Reges Principesque aut de Tyrannicidio agatur c. Ex Epist. P. Claudij Dat. 1614. 2. August ANSWER There is touching the maine no libertie of Opinion in this case Your Great Master must be aut Caesar aut nullus eyther all or nothing And that which you adde concerning the Generall of your Order is a meere Illusion For may not yea must not the Generall of your Order if the Lord Pope require it vntie this fast knot of Iesuiticall fidelitie to the temporall state and what safetie can Princes inioy by relying vpon those seruants which stand Centinell at an houres warning to follow their greater Master And what if the next moneth after the Generall of your Order will send to you and your fellowes the like Mandatorie Letters to the contrarie To say the truth your answere hath made the whole matter more suspitious For what need you and your brood be thus curbed