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
though he lead vs to hell bring something euident and manifest out of the holy Scripture Si diuinarum Scripturarum earum scilicet quae canonicae in Ecclesia nominantur perspicua firmatur Authoritate sine vlla dubitatione credendum est 〈◊〉 vero testibus vel testimonijs quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur tibi credere vel non credere liceat c. If saith S. Augustine it be confirmed by the perspicuous authoritie of those diuine Scriptures which are Canonicall it must without all question be beleeued but as for other witnesses and testimonies by which any thing is persuaded to be beleeued it is lawfull for thee to beleeue or not beleeue them as thou shalt perceiue them to deserue credit IESVIT Fundamentall errours of the first kinde Protestants haue 〈◊〉 particularly these Nine ANSWER Malice alwayes fighteth against Vertue and laboureth to impose and rub off her owne faults vpon it and all they whose brests and minds are inhabited by Satan testifie their venemous rage with furious words If this Traducer be able to conuince the Protestants of Nine or of any one fundamentall errour wee must acknowledge that we are in a perillous state but if hee onely depraue and falsifie our doctrine or affirme that to be fundamentall errour which is diuine veritie then he prooueth himselfe to be one of his Ministers of whom S. Gregory speaketh Perfidious dealing is in the Tabernacle of Antichrist whereby he gainesayeth the faith of the Redeemer IESVIT First their Doctrine against Traditions vnwritten whereby the foundation is ouerthrowne on which wee beleeue all other substantiall and fundamentall points as hath beene shewed ANSVVER Either you wilfully falsifie or ignorantly mistake the Protestants Doctrine concerning vnwrttten Tradition First we admit in generall all vnwritten Traditions agreeing with the holy Scripture which are deriued from the Apostles and deliuered vnto vs by the manifest and perpetuall testimonie of the Primitiue Church and by the vniforme consent of succeeding Churches in all ages Secondly we beleeue in particular the historicall Traditions of the Primatiue and succeeding Churches concerning the dignitie authoritie perfection authors number and integritie of the bookes of Canonicall Scripture and also the Historicall Tradition of the said Church concerning the perpetuall virginitie of the blessed Virgin Marie and concerning the baptisme of infants and all other genuine Traditions which maintaine the Faith and Doctrine contained expressely or by consequent in the Scripture Thirdly we embrace such exposition of holy Scripture as being consonant to the rule of Faith and to the text of Scripture is affirmed by antient Tradition to haue descended from the holy Apostles Fourthly we beleeue the rule of Faith contained in the Apostles Creed both vpon the authoritie of Christs written word and also vpon the voice and testimonie of vnwritten Tradition If it shall then be demanded Wherefore do the Romists and you so eagrely contend about the question of Traditions and wherein lies your difference we answer as followeth First we yeeld the highest and most soueraigne authoritie to the sacred Scripture and make the voice and sentence thereof a supreame rule and iudge of supernaturall Veritie and we make Tradition vnwritten subordinate and ministeriall to holy Scripture admitting the same so farre forth only as it is conformable to the Scripture and reiecting the contrarie Secondly we affirme that the Canonicall Scriprure containeth all supernaturall Veritie necessarie to saluation and being receiued and vnderstood is a sufficient and perfect rule of Faith and the sole doctrine thereof is sufficient to instruct the whole Church and euery member thereof to saluation And that Tradition vnwritten maketh no addition or increase of new Articles of Faith but is only an helpe and instrument to deliuer applie and interpret the doctrine expresly deliuered or intended by the holy Ghost in the Scripture Thirdly we receiue no Tradition as diuine or apostolicall but such as hath the plaine manifest and vniforme testimonie and approbation of the Primatiue Church But our Aduersaries either equall or preferre vnwritten Tradition before the Scripture and they make Tradition a diuers and larger part of the rule of Faith containing many Articles which are neither expressely nor inuoluedly reuealed in the Scripture and they make the present Roman Church an infallible witnesse of such Tradition affirming that we are bound to beleeue euerie Article which the said Church deliuereth as a Tradition with the same assurance of Faith wherewith we beleeue any written testimonie of S. Paul or the holy Euangelists And many of them teach That it is not necessarie to deriue Tradition by a perpetuall descent and current through all ages but the voice of the present Church is sufficient to make any Article ctedible and authenticall to vs Lastly many particularopinions of antient Fathers which they deliuered coniecturally or probably onely and concerning which they haue not affirmed that they were diuine or apostolicall Traditions are ranked by latter Pontificians in the number of diuine 〈◊〉 and made parts of the vndoubted word of God And thus the present Roman doctrine concerning Traditions vnwritten is a Seminarie of Errour and by pretext hereof Pontificians obtrude vpon the Church many prophane fabulous and superstitious 〈◊〉 fansies and nouelties repugnant to holy Scripture and the antient Catholicke Faith Let therefore impartiall Readers consider whether this Romish doctrine debasing the sacred Scripture and aduancing humane Traditions tendeth not to the corrupting of Christian Faith and consequently whether the same be not rather a fundamentall Errour than an Orthodoxall Veritie And on the contrarie whether the doctrine of the Protestants maintaining the supreame authoritie of the sacred Scripture which is Gods vndoubted word and withall yeelding to genuine Tradition the credit and honour which the antient Church gaue thereunto is not fundamentall Veritie and a soueraigne meanes to preserue right Faith IESVIT Secondly their questioning the infallibe authoritie of lawfull generall Councels thereby casting downe the foundation of Vnitie in Gods Church ANSWER They which will not permit generall Councels to assemble or to proceed lawfully and which oppose the decrees of antient Councels are the Romists and not the Protestants First The moderne Popes vsurpe the whole right and authoritieof calling and conuocating Councells contrarie to the antient custome and practise of the Church Secondly They receiue and admit no Assessors and Iudges in Councels but onely their fast friends to wit men aforehand oblieged by solemne oath to proceed according to the will and purpose of the Pope Thirdly The Pope alone is appointed the authenticall Iudge of all causes and matters which are concluded in Councels he approoueth or refuseth whatsoeuer himselfe pleaseth and all other Iudges and Assessors are onely his shadowes and creatures Fourthly Whereas in words and tearmes they seeme to aduance
part onely is immediately the Word of God and the other part is a collection arising vpon reflection and obseruation of a mans owne qualities and actions and the conclusion is more or lesse certaine according to the condition of the second Proposition Fourthly The certaintie and assurance of their owne particular Iustification which iust persons attaine vnto is reduced by vs to certaintie and assurance of Faith because one ground thereof is a Proposition or Sentence mediately Diuine the other is inferred and concluded from that which is Diuine for the Rule by which a man discerneth himselfe to beleeue and repent is the Doctrine of Gods Word declaring the qualitie of Faith and Repentance Many Pontificians maintaine That this Proposition to wit Pope Gregorie the fifteenth is S. Peters Successor is of Faith and yet the same is not an immediate Diuine Reuelation and the collection thereof from that which is reuealed is lesse euident and certaine than that which a iust person maketh concerning his owne particular Faith and Charitie Fiftly The difference betweene some learned Papists who liued since the Trident Councell and vs concerning this Question is very small if it be any at all for they maintaine That iust persons may haue a true and certaine assurance without distrustfull doubting of their Iustification and that infused Faith enclineth and leadeth immediately to this certaintie and assurance And it is worthie obseruation which Andreas Vega deliuereth concerning the Trident Councell saying Non negat sciri hoc posse per fidem sed tantum negat sciri hoc posse certitudine fidei The Councell denyeth not that one may be able to know by Faith that he is in the state of Grace but it denyeth onely that this can be knowne by certaintie of Faith It is also remarkable That whiles the Romists accuse vs about the definition of iustifying Faith they forget the Beame which is in their owne eye for they make such a Faith the foundation of true Iustification as is common with Deuils Iam. 2. 19. and which according to their owne Doctrine is no true Vertue It is saith Michael Palacius a great Question and as yet vndecided among vs Whether Faith be a true Vertue or not and Albertus thinketh it is not properly a Vertue but onely improperly Aquinas It hath not a perfect Act and therefore it cannot be a Vertue The like is affirmed by Bonauenture Durand Archangelus Rubeo c. And the same is manifest by reason For Vertue is a good qualitie making the person in whom it is seated and his actions good and the Faith which the holy Scripture and the antient Fathers require to Iustification purifieth the heart Acts 15.9 and impelleth vnto righteousnesse Heb. 11. 33. But informed Catholike Faith performeth none of these things Iam. 2. 17. And therefore the Romists depart from the Scripture and from Antiquitie when they appoint a dead and informed Faith which is no Vertue to be the foundation of true Iustification Lastly Our Doctrine concerning the forme and manner of Iustification is the same which Peter Lombard the Maister of the Schoole affirmed to be Orthodoxall in his dayes His words are these Wee are said also to be iustified by the death of Christ because by the Faith of his Death wee are cleansed from our sinnes Whereupon the Apostle saith The righteousnesse of God is by the Faith of Iesus Christ Rom. 3. 22. whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his bloud Verse 25. that is through Faith of his Passion euen as in times past they which were bitten of fierie Serpents were made whole by looking vpon the Brazen Serpent which was raysed vpon a peece of Wood. If therefore wee by the aspect of Faith rightly behold him who was hanged vpon a Tree for vs wee are loosed from the bonds of Sathan to wit from our sinnes 〈◊〉 Vega affirmeth That many Romane Doctors in former dayes denyed that men were formally iustified by any created qualitie inhaerent but onely by the free grace and fauour of God accepting man and imparting the righteousnesse of Christ vnto him And that vntill the Trident Councell the present Doctrine of Pontificians concerning the formall cause of Iustification was onely receiued as probable And before the said Councell many learned Papists to wit Albertus Pighius the Councell of Colen set forth by Gropper Antididagma Coloniense Conradus Clingius c. maintained our Doctrine concerning the formall cause of Iustification and were not condemned of Heresie by the Romane Church Wherefore the same cannot in these dayes be a fundamentall Error in vs. IESVIT FIftly Their extenuating the value of the price of our Redemption not making it sufficient to giue inward sanctitie and puritie to mens soules nor to rayse the good Workes of Gods children to a due proportion with their reward ANSWER NO Christian Church euer prised the oblation and merits of Christ more highly and religiously than wee Heb. 10. 14. Eph. 5.2 Acts 4. 12. Ioh. 1.29 and wee firmely beleeue the inestimable price and vertue thereof for mans Redemption Sanctification Iustification and Glorification 1. Cor. 1. 30. And in particular wee beleeue expressely and contrarie to our Aduersaries accusation That the same is all-sufficient to iustifie a sinner in the sight of God and to giue true and inhaerent sanctitie and puritie to mens soules and actions first in this life sanctitie and puritie secundum statum viae according to the condition of mans wayfaring state secondly in the life to come sanctitie and puritie of perfect righteousnesse without error or sinne And we beleeue that the Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse effecteth all this both by way of merit and influence Rom. 6. 3 4 5. Ioh. 15. 1. c. What then doth this Popish Momus accuse in our Doctrine I suppose his owne fancie for it is ordinarie with Papals to calumniate saying That wee hold Good workes to be mortall sinnes and that they are Vertues onely by extrinsecall denomination and hee is also offended that wee make not Good workes properly and condignely meritorious Concerning the first I referre my Reader to the words of Melancthon and Beza who treating of this Question speake as followeth Although the workes of regenerate persons are not so perfect and good as that they are able to merit eternall life yet they are truly good because they proceed from the Holy Ghost who purisieth the heart by Faith and because God is glorified by them and wee our selues receiue excellent fruit by them c. The same are good in regard of their obiect forme efficient and end Psal. 119. 167. Galath 5.22 Phil. 2.13 1. Cor. 10.31 They are good fruits opposed to euill fruits Matth. 7.17 workes of Light opposed to workes of Darknesse Eph. 5.9 a spirituall Sacrifice acceptable to God Phil. 4.18 And the same are truly good non comparatione scelerum not
Heb. 7.23.27.28 ca. 10. 21. Neither is there any word or sentence in our Sauiours Doctrine concerning any reall sacrifice but only of himselfe vpon the Crosse neither was any altar vsed and ordained by Christ and his Apostles And if in all reall sacrifices the matter of the oblation must be really destroyed and changed and no physicall destruction or change is made in the bodie of Christ or in the elements of Bread and Wine by Transubstantiation then Romists haue deuised a reall sacrifice in the new Testament which hath no diuine Institution Secondly There is no created vertue inhaerent in the Sacramentall words as they are pronounced by a Priest to make the bodie of Christ locally present in the holy Eucharist but when all the words and all the actions are lawfully performed which Christ commanded the holy Ghost is assistant to his owne ordinance and deliuereth vnto faithfull people the crucified Bodie of Christ and the Bloud of Christ shed for our sinnes vpon the crosse And although the crucified bodie of our Sauiour was seuered from the soule yet the deitie euen then remained vnited to that bodie which then was not dead in regard of merit and satisfaction and all they which receiue that bodie by operatiue faith are made partakers of the merit and satisfaction thereof and by this receiuing are more and more ingraffed into Christ. IESVIT Thirdly If vnder the forme of bread were onely the bodie of Christ and his soule and bloud were not by concomitancie there the communicants should receiue the body of Christ but not truely Christ as our Aduersaries grant Caluin specially saying Quis sanus sobrius Christi corpus Christum esse sibi persuadeat And againe Ne fando quidem auditum est corpus Christi aut sanguinem Deum hominem appellari But Fathers affirme most constantly that not onely the bodie of Christ but also Christ himselfe is in the Sacrament that we take in the Dominicall refection The word made flesh that by the consecration of the Mysteries wee receiue the verie Sonne of God that vnder the forme of Bread we lodge within vs the Soueraigne King and that we see Christ feele Christ eate Christ Non regium puerum sed ipsum vnigenitum Dei filium An hundred other places might be brought where the Fathers call the consecrated Bread Christ and consequently they did not thinke there was the meere Bodie without Blood and Soule seeing as Caluin doth confesse Jt is an absurd manner of speech to terme Christ the meere bodie of Christ and such a forme of speech was neuer heard of hitherto in the world Ergo Concomitancie that is Christs reall and entire Bodie Soule Flesh Blood to be vnder the forme of Bread was acknowledged by the Fathers ANSVVER It is granted that worthie Communicants in the holy Eucharist receiue Christ Ioh. 6. 33 35 48. but Sacramentall eating his flesh and drinking his blood is the meanes by which they are vnited and incorporated with Christ himselfe therefore the Obiection to wit if the soule and blood were not in Christs bodie by Concomitancie Communicants should receiue the bodie of Christ but not truely Christ is inconsequent because by receiuing the one they receiue the other and the former is the instrumentall cause of the latter So in this kinde of spirituall Concomitancie neither the Fathers nor Caluin nor we nor you need be at any difference IESVIT This Principle which is no lesse certaine than the true reall Presence supposed I inferre the lawfulnesse of Communion vnder one kinde to wit vnder the sole forme of Bread by this Argument If Communion vnder one kinde be not against the substance either of Christs Institution or of his Sacrament or his Precept or of the Practise of the Primitiue Church it is lawfull iustifiable and for iust Reasons may be commanded by the Church This Proposition is true because there neither are other causes of dislike that may not be reduced to these foure neither doe Christs Institution or Sacrament or Precept or the Primitiue practise bind vs to keepe them further than in substance the accidentall Circumstances of Institutions Sacraments Precepts Primitiue Customes being variable according to the variable disposition of things vnto which the Church Militant in this life is subiect Now I assume Concomitancie being supposed it may be made euident that Communion vnder one kind is not against the substance either of Christs Institution or of the Sacrament or of his Precept or of his Primitiue practise For the substance of these foure Obligations is one and the same to wit that we be truly and really partakers of the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour which is fully done by Communion vnder one kind as I will shew in the foure consequent Sections ANSWER If Concomitancie which is stiled in this place by the name of a Principle were graunted yet Communion in one kind is not iustifiable For although it depriue not people of Christs Bloud as it is a bodily part contained in the veines yet it depriueth them of the Bloud of Christ as it was shed and poured out and offered in Sacrifice for them To the maine Argument I answer denying the Assumption For Communion in one kind is repugnant to the first Institution of the Eucharist by Christ who hallowed two materiall Elements Bread and Wine appointed them a distinct signification deliuered them indifferently to all the Communicants and annexed a Promise to the reception of the one as well as to the sumption of the other Secondly It is repugnant to the expresse Precept of Christ saying Drinke yee all of this and to S. Pauls Precept 1. Cor. 11. 28. Thirdly The practise of the holy Apostles and of the Primitiue Church is against it Fourthly The people which receiue in one kind receiue onely a Moitie and piece but not the whole and entire Sacrament IESVIT § 2. Communion vnder one kind not against the substance of the Institution of Christ. DIuine Institution is an Action of God whereby hee giues being vnto things with reference vnto some speciall end This end is twofold the one corporall and temporall for which God hath instituted agreeable 〈◊〉 meanes that men may be borne into this world he did institute marriage and for maintenance of the said life being had hee or dained many sorts of meate The other end is spirituall for which God hath instituted Sacraments as for the first obtaining of grace and spirituall life the Sacrament of Baptisme and Penance and for the preseruing of grace and increasing therein particularly the Sacrament of the Eucharist That a man bee bound to vse the Jnstitution of God two things are required First that the end thereof bee necessarie and hee bound to indeuour the attaining thereof Hence it is that though marriage bee the Jnstitution of God appointed to propagate mankinde yet euery man is not bound to marry because he is not bound to propagate
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
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
iustifie their departure How could he say this since he did not graunt that they did depart There is difference betweene departure and causelesse thrusting from you for out of the Church is not in your power to thrust vs Thinke on that And so much the B. said expressely then That which the B. did ingenuously confesse was this That Corruption in Manners onely is no sufficient cause to make a seperation in the Church Nor is it It is a truth agreed on by the Fathers and receiued by Diuines of all sorts saue by the Cathari to whom came the Donatist and the Anabaptist against which Caluin disputes it strongly And Saint Augustine is plaine There are bad Fish in the Net of the Lord from which there must be euer a seperation in heart and in manners but a corporall seperation must be expected at the Sea shore that is the end of the World And the best Fish that are must not teare and breake the Net because the bad are with them And this is as ingenuously confessed for you as by the B. For if Corruption in Manners were a iust cause of actuall seperation of one Church from another in that Catholike Bodie of Christ the Church of Rome hath giuen as great cause as any since as Stapleton graunts there is scarce any sinne that can be thought by man Heresie onely excepted with which that Sea hath not beene foulely stayned especially from eight hundred yeeres after Christ. And he need not except Heresie into which Biel grants it possible the Bishops of that Sea may fall And Stella and Almain grants it freely that some of them did fall and so ceased to be Heads of the Church and left Christ God be thanked at that time of his Vicars Defection to looke to his Cure himselfe F. But saith he beside Corruption of Manners there were also Errors in Doctrine B. This the B. spake indeed And can you prooue that he spake not true in this But the B. added though here againe you are pleased to omit That some of her Errors were dangerous to saluation For it is not euerie light Error in disputable Doctrine and Points of curious Speculation that can be a iust cause of seperation in that admirable Bodie of Christ which is his Church for which he gaue his Naturall Bodie to be rent and torne vpon the Crosse that this Mysticall Bodie of his might be One. And S. Augustine inferres vpon it That he is no way partaker of Diuine Charitie that is an enemie to this Vnitie Now what Errors in Doctrine may giue iust cause of seperation in this Bodie were it neuer so easie to determine as I thinke it is most difficult I would not venture to set it downe least in these times of Discord I might be thought to open a Doore for Schisme which I will neuer doe vnlesse it be to let it out But that there are Errors in Doctrine and some of them such as endanger saluation in the Church of Rome is euident to them that will not shut their eyes The proofe whereof runs through the particular Points that are betweene vs and so it is too long for this discourse which is growne too bigge alreadie F. Which when the generall Church would not reforme it was lawfull for particular Churches to reforme themselues I asked Quo Iudice Did this appeare to be so B. Is it then such a strange thing that a particular Church may reforme it selfe if the generall will not I had thought and doe so still That in point of Reformation of either Manners or Doctrine it is lawfull for the Church since Christ to doe as the Church before Christ did and might doe The Church before Christ consisted of Iewes and Proselytes this Church came to haue a seperation vpon a most vngodly Policie of 〈◊〉 so that it neuer pieced together againe To a Common Councell to reforme all they would not come Was it not lawfull for Iudah to reforme her selfe when Israel would not ioyne Sure it was or else the Prophet deceiues me that sayes exactly Though Israel transgresse yet letnot Iudah sinne And S. Hierome expresses it in this verie patticular sinne of Heresie and Error in Religion Nor can you say that Israel from the time of the seperation was not a Church for there were true Prophets in it Elias and Elizaeus and others and thousands that had not bowed knees to Baal And there was saluation for these which cannot be where there is no Church And God threatens to cast them away to wander among the Nations and be no Congregation no Church therefore he had not yet cast them away into Non Ecclesiam into no Church And they are expressely called the people of the Lord in Iehu's time and so continued long after Nor can you plead that Iudah is your part and the Ten Tribes ours as some of you doe for if that be true you must graunt that the Multitude and greater number is ours And where then is Multitude your numerous Note of the Church But you cannot plead it For certainely if any Calues be set vp they are in Dan and Bethel they are not ours Besides to reforme what is amisse in Doctrine or Manners is as lawfull for a particular Church as it is to publish and promulgate any thing that is Catholike in either And your Question Quo iudice lyes alike against both And yet I thinke it may be prooued that the Church of Rome and that as a particular Church did promulgate an Orthodoxe Truth which was not then Catholikely admitted in the Church namely The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne If shee erred in this Fact confesse her Error if shee erred not Why may not another Church doe as shee did A learned Schooleman of yours saith she may The Church of Rome needed not to call the Grecians to agree vpon this Truth since the Authoritie of publishing it was in the Church of Rome especially since it is lawfull for euerie particular Church to promulgate that which is Catholike Nor can you say he meanes Catholike as fore-determined by the Church in generall for so this Point when Rome added Filioque to the Creed of a Generall Councell was nor And how the Grecians were vsed in the after Councell such as it was of Florence is not to trouble this Dispute but Catholike stands there for that which is so in the 〈◊〉 of it and fundamentally Nor can you iustly say That the Church of Rome did or might doe this by the Popes Authoritie 〈◊〉 the Church For suppose he haue that and that his Sentence be infallible I say suppose both but I giue neither yet neither his Authoritie nor his 〈◊〉 can belong vnto him as the particular Bishop of that See but as the 〈◊〉 Head of the whole Church And you are all so lodged in this that Bellarmine professes he can neither tell the