likenes and similitude confoundeth â—he sight not to discerne the one from the other In scriptuâ—es it is not so the doctrine proposed therein being not gold mingled with earth but pure Gold the word of God is pure syluer refined wilth fire so that the Scriptures be not mettals that require workemeÌ„ to seuer in their doctrine Drosse from Gold they offer a ready and refined treasure to them that seeke the riches hidden in them Thus S. Chrysostome and he doth there largely discourse how euery thinge in Scriptures euen the Chronologies and proper Names of men do affoard wholesome and profitable doctrine to the Reader but to find this treasure we must not as he there sayth nudam tantùm scripturam aspicere sed insistere cum studio repositas scrutari opes not only looke vpon the Scripture but insist with study search out the riches hoarded vp therein Haue you not theÌ„ notoriously falsifyed the sense of his discourse by the insertion of words of your owne In the behalfe of your Protestant sole-sufficiency of Scripture you cite (d) Pag. 50. in Marg. lit E. pag. 3. lin 6. in marg lit E. alibi saepe this sentence of Durand tearming him A famous Scholeman Ecclesia licèt Dei Dominationem habeat in terris illa tamen non excedit limitationem Scripturae Although the Church haue the power authority of God vpon earth yet that authority doth not exceed the limitation of the Scripture This place is by you alleadged many tymes in this your Reply but most impertinently For his meaning is that the Church though it haue the authority of God vpon earth (e) Matth. 16. v 20. Quicquid solueris quicquid ligaueris super terram erit solutum ligatum in caelis yet the same power is in some cases restrayned and limited by the Scripture In which respect the Church cannot dispense in many thinges wherein God might dispense In (f) Ecclesia licèt habeat authoritateÌ„ Dei in tertio illa tamen non excedit limitationeÌ„ Scripturae Scriptura autem docet expresse seruos conuersos ad fidem adhuc manere Dominis suis prioribus licet illi maneant infideles particuler she cannot saith he exempt slaues that be made Christians from their subiection vnto their old Maâ—sters because that the Scripture doth expressely teach that Slaues conuerted vnto the Fayth are to be still subiect to their former Maisters though their Maisters be Infidels Thus Durand Now what is this to the purpose of prouing that men are bound to belieue nothing but what is cleerly contayned in Scripture Except according to your skill in Logicke you will argue in this sort The Church cannot do the thinges forbidden her in Scripture because her power is not beyond the restraynt thereof giuen in the Scripture Ergo she cannot belieue teach doctrines proposed vnto her by the rule of Tradition without Scripture which is a thinge commended vnto her in Scripture Hold the Traditions you haue whether by speach or by Epistle 2. Thessal 2.15 How many tymes in this your Reply haue you cited this testimony of the Maister of the Sentences (g) Lombard l. 4. sent d. 18. lit f. God doth not still follow the iudgment of the Church which sometimes through ignorance and surreption iudgeth not according to truth This I say you cite (h) See pag. 89. in lit â— p. 93. lit d alibi to proue that the Church may erre in fayth at the least about secondary articles And yet it is most certayne and euident that he speakerh of iudgment in criminall causes For hence he inferretth (i) Soluere noxios vel damnare se putant innoxios cùm apud Deum non sententia Sacerdotum sed reorum vita queratur Et ita apertè ostenditur quòd non semper sequitur Deus iudicium Ecclesiae quae per ignorantiam surreptionem interdum iudicat the Church-meÌ„ must not thinke because Christ said vnto them whatsoeuer you bind or loose vpon earth shall be bound loosed in Heauen that therefore they may condemne the Innocent and absolue the Nocent For God in such case doth not follow their sentence but iudgeth according to the life of the accused To prooue that the Roman Bishop was not anciently acknowledged the supreme Pastour of the Catholike Church you say pag. 161. lin 15. Pope Stephen was sleighted by S. Cyprian and other Bishops of Africa In proofe whereof you cite in your margent (g) Ibid. lit D. these wordes of Firmilian (h) Firmil apud Cyprian epist. 75. Atque ego in â—ac parte iuste indignor in tam manifestam apertam Steâ—hani stultitiam quòd qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloriaâ—ur se successionem Petri tenere contendit And indeed I am iustly grieued against the open manifest folâ—y of Stephen that he so much glorieth of the dignity of his Bishopricke and standeth vpon his hauing the succession of Peter Thus you Now behold your falshood for I omit your ignoraÌ„ce in naming Firmiâ—ian as a Bishop of Africa whereas he was a Bishop â—f the East to wit of (i) Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. Caesareae Capadocensis Episcopus Caesarea in Cappadocia Your Legier-de-maine I say and falshood is twofold First you omit to let your Reader know that this Firmilian when he wrote this Epistle was a Quartaâ—eciman and also addicted to the Errour of Rebaptiâ—ing theÌ„ that had been baptized by Heretiks And because S. Stephen a most (k) Vincent Lyrinensis aduersus Haeres cap. 9. Holy Pope Martyr had made a decree against their Nouelty (l) Cyprian epist. 74. Nihil innouaÌ„dum praeâ—erquam quod traditum Let no nouelty be admitted â—ut let the ancient Tradition be kept this Firmilian wrote against him an Epistle full of sharpe contumelious speach Had you mentioned this quality of Firmilian which I do not doubt but you knew your impertinency would haue been apparent For this supposed your Argument goeth thus Some Bishops specially Firmilian erring against Fayth and blasted for the tyme with the spirit of Heresy wrote a coÌ„temptuous Epistle against the Sea of Peter Ergo the Sea of Peter is not by diuine Institution the Rocke of the Church agaynst which the gates of hell all Heresyes should rage but neuer preuayle Secondly you notoriously falsify the sentence of Firmilian in making him to rayle against the Roman Bishops being the successour of Peter For this euen in that his Hereticall passion wherof he afterward was (m) This is testifyed by Dionysius Alexandrinus who then liued in his Epistle to Xistus the Successour of S. Stephen apud Euseb. l. 7. Histor. c. 3. Niceph l. 6. c 7. penitent he neuer did yea he doth rather acknowledge the Roman Bishops succession froÌ„ Peter and thence argueth that seeing to Peter only Christ said To thee I will giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen c.
whether they be more or lesse And thus â—â—â—phanius finding the image of a man hanging in the Church of Anablatha with a lampe burning before it sayth that it did hang as Christs or some Saintes thaâ— is in such manner as he could not discerne any diffeâ—rence betwixt the reuerence giuen by that people vnto it the reuereÌ„ce the (*) That images of Christ his Saints were hanged vp in Churches in that age of S. Epiphan Hierom Augustin is euident by Euodius Vzalensis l. 1. de mirac S. Stephani c. 4. Church vsed towardâ— the Images of Christ and his Saints You may theâ— rayle at your pleasure but whiles you reply no (e) Seing the Ministery grants this to be the cleerest testimony that may be found in antiquity against the honouring of holy Images the Reader may iudge how poore defectuous of solide profe Protestants are in this point better euen Grammer-boyes may see your aduersary hath concluded you in a Cap-case which qua doth signify as much as put case The second Example §. 2. YOVR aduersary pag. 487. doth defend that the words of Christ drinke yee all of this were spokeâ— to the twelue Apostles vpon a personall reason beâ—longing to them only This he proueth First because when a word is ambiguous the same is to be interpreted by another place speaking of the same matteâ— where the same word is vsed without ambiguity Iâ— this speech of S. (f) Matth. 26. vers 39. Matthew drinke yee all of this it 〈◊〉 ambiguous whether the word all concerne all meâ— or only all the twelue there present S. (g) Mar. 14.23 Mark speaking of the same matter signifying how thaâ— precept drinke yee all of this was accomplished sayth they dranke all thereof where all cannot be extendeâ— further then vnto all the twelue Ergo this place caÌ„not with any reason or by the rule of exposition 〈◊〉 further extended Secondly the words Accipite manducate bibiâ—â— were certaynely spoken vnto the same persons and they runne so togeather in ranke that no man witâ— probability can make the one out-runne the other But the command Accipite which signifyes takâ— with your hand for it is a precept distinct from mâ—Ì„â—ducate which is take with your mouth was giuen to 〈◊〉 Apostles only not vnto all the faythfull else we â—ust say that al communicants are bound by diuine precept to take the consecrated cup or bread with their hands Who euer heard of such a precept in the Christian Church You being to make answere vnto this grounded discourse first you keepe your wont and according to your (h) Qui loquitur maledicta stultissimus est Prou. c. 10. Et nullus acriter impoperat Eccles 18.18 skill in Rhetorike ad captandum beneuoâ—â—ntiam to win our good will set vpon vs thus with a Prefatory peale of reproach That which S. Stephen spake to the vnfaithfull Iewes yee do alwaies resist the holy Ghost Act. 7.51 is verifyed in the Pharisees of Rome for no light of heauenly verity is so illustrious which this generation in fauour of their own impiety will not endeauor to cloud Is it possible for any thing to be more euideÌ„t for communion in both kinds then this precept of Christ Drinke yee all of this yet the sonnes of darknes hauing renounâ—â—d verity and chosen the way of errour blunder and â—rope in the cleere light and verba recta ac veritatis 〈◊〉 fulgentia tortuosis interpretationibus obscuraâ—â— deprauare moliuntur as S. Augustine longe since spake of the Pelagians Thus (i) You might haue here remembred the saying of S. Hierom Haereticorum machinae sunt vt conuicti de perfidia ad maledicta se conferunt super quo viderint quomodo illud audiant Maledici regnum Dei non possidebunt l. 3. aduers. Ruffin c. 11. lib. 2. c. â—â— yow So great a sinne it is for vs to expound the word of God against the fancy of a Minister by conference of places by consideration of antecedents and consequents by the circumstances of the action and by all other Christian allowed rules Hauing thus rayled yow approach to the Iesuits arguments againe skip ouer the first without any syllable of reply In your solution of the second grounded on the word accipite take to shew both your Grammaticall and Scripturall erudition yow write in this sorte The Iesuit imagineth that all taking is with the hand and thus he proueth himselfe to be neither good Grammarian nor Deuine Virgil saith illos porticibus Rex accipiebat in amplis where accipio is to entertaine S. Paul saith per quem accepimus gratiam Rom. 1.5 By whome we haue receaued grace and Apostleship c. 8.15 Yee haue receaued accepistis the spirit of adoption The Angell said Ioseph thou sonne of Dauid feare not to take Mary thy wife Matt. 1.20 His Bishopricke let another man take Act. 1.20 Thus yow very learnedly as yow thinke so that you dare accuse the Iesuite as neither good Gramarian nor Deuine Giue Iesuits I pray you leaue to examine your learning before they yield that you be their maister both in Grammer and Diuinity as you challenge to be First what blindnes is it in yow to say that the Iesuit imagineth that all taking is with the hand Doth he not in this place most expressely say men may take meate out of the hand of another with their hand immediatly or with their mouth He supposeth then that there is other taking then with the hand but proues in this text take eate drinke that take must needes command taking with the hand not immediatly with the mouth For as he saith in this text take eate drinke take commands such a kind of taking of meate offered as is distinct from eating therof and not inuolued therin But to take with the mouth is inuolued in eating and commanded therin Ergo in this text take eate drinke take cannot be vnderstood of taking immediatly with the mouth but with the hand Secondly If the Iesuit were so simple as yow make him seeme as to imagine that all corporall taâ—â—ng is with the hand haue yow not very learnedly instructed him of the contrary both out of Virgil and Scripture Virgil forsooth saith Illos porticibus 〈◊〉 accipiebat in amplis the king entertained them in his ample Galleryes where accipio is to entertaine Ergo all corporall taking of a thing out of the hand of another is not with the hand The scripture saith Yee haue receaued grace the Apostleship the spirit of adoption therfore all corporall taking is not with the hand The Angell said to S. Ioseph feare not to take Mary thy wife ergo all taking is not by the hand yea which striketh the naile on the head it is written of Iudas His Bishopricke let another man take Might yow not without taking so much paines to shew your learning in Virgil scripture haue proued that all corporall taking is not with the hand because men many times be
great confidence auouch that it is a diuine ordinance that all ignorant Laymen read Scripture in the vulgar A strong argument The Scripture doth not say the Beroeans read the Scripture in their vulgar tongue nor doth it tearme them Noble for their reading of Scripture but for their receauing the word of Paul with alacrity and ioy Yea the tearme of The more noble is not giuen them in prayse of their Religion but to declare the quality of their Gentry and so Fulke his Bible hath the Noblest for byrth But suppose the Beroeans read in their vulgar and be therfore called Noble is not this inference ridiculous Ergo it is a diuine Precept that euery man read Scripture Doth not this arguing deserue rather to be laughed at then answered The third (a) Apoc. 1.3 Blessed is he that readeth and heareth Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that all meÌ„ read the Scripture that the Church giue theÌ„ the Scripture translated into all vulgar tongues Here you not only argue impertinently but also detruncate curtall the text of Gods Word leauing out words without which the text hath a false and foolish sense For if all be blessed that read and heare without mention or care of what then they be blessed who read or heare Tully Virgill or the bookes of Knighthood Why doe you not let the Scripture expresse the thing which being read or heard maketh men blessed The Scripture fully and truly cited sayth Blessed is he that heareth and readeth the wordes of this Prophesy to wit of the Apocalyps Which place eyther proueth nothing for your purpose or else proueth a necessity that euery man read the Apocalyps vnder penalty of otherwise not to be blessed This perchance for very shame you dare not auerre If you do what shall we or may we thinke of Luther who did neyther read nor heare nor belieue the Apocalyps as a Prophesy or as the word of (b) Nec Apostolicum nec PropheticuÌ„ esse puto hunc libelluÌ„ similem reputo Quarto Esdrâ—â— nec vllo modo deprendere possum quod a Spiritus Sancto confectus sit Lutherus praefat in Apocalip God And what an idle inference is this He is blessed who readeth the Apocalyps Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that euery man read Scriptures S. Paul sayth (c) 1. Cor. 7. Bonum est homini mulierem non tangere vers 1. Bonum est illis si sic permaneant vers 7. Beatior erit si sic permanserit vers 40. he is blessed that doth not marry Is it consequent Ergo euery man is bound not to marry or Ergo men cannot be blessed but only such as do not marry Surely your wife wil see this inference to be foolish yet it is as good as yours Blessed is he that readeth or heareth the Apocalyps Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that none be blessed but such as read Scripture The fourth argument The Galathians read the Scripture Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that ignorant laymen read them and that they be translated into euery vulgar Dialect That the Galathians read the Scriptures you prooue by the cypher of Galat. 4.24 where the Apostle sayth you that will be vnder the Law haue you not read the Law For it is written Abraham had two Sonnes This proofe is very poore For the Apostle doth not affirme they read but doubtingly demaunds whether they had not read one particle of Scripture Also the question was mooued without doubt only to the learned Galathians But suppose they read the Scripture is it lawfull thence to conclude Ergo they read it in their vulgar If they read it in their vulgar is it thence consequent Ergo euery man is bound by diuine ordinance to read and this so strictly as the Church may not forbid translations vnto such as abuse them The fifth place The Ephesians read the Scripture Ergo it is a diuine precept that ignorant Laymen read the Scripture in their vulgar tongue The antecedent you shew by the cypher Ephes. 3.4 where the Apostle sayth Reading you may vnderctand my wisdome in the Mistery of Christ A seely proofe Saint Paul doth not say that the Ephesians read but only that by reading his Epistle they might vnderstand his wisâ—ome about the mysteries of grace and Christian Religion But suppose they read S Pauls Epistle sent vnto theÌ„ doth it follow Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that Laymen promiscuously read Scripture and that the Church must translate Scripture to that end This inference as euen as good as this By reading the Epistles of Saint Peter one may vnderstand the great knowledge he had of Christ Ergo Euery man is bound to read S. Peters Epistles The sixt The Colossians read the Scripture Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that all ignorant Laymen read the Scripture The antecedent is by you proued by the cypher Coloss. 4.16 which sayth When this Epistle hath been read amongst you cause it also to be read in the Church of Loadicea This place doth not proue your intent that they read so much as that Epistle priuatly by theÌ„selues but only that the same was publikely read in the Church by the Bishop or the Priest or some Church officer in the same laÌ„guage wherin it was written originally But suppose the Colossians read this Epistle priuately by theÌ„selues what a wooden inference is this Ergo euery Christian is bouÌ„d by diuine ordinance to read Scripture Or Ergo the Church is obliged by diuine precept to prouide that the Scripture be translated into vulgar tongues The seauenth Argument The Thessalonians read the Scripture Ergo the reading thereof by ignorant Laymen is a diuine ordinance The antecedent you prooue by the cypher 1. Thess. 5.25 which sayth I adiure you that this Epistle be read vnto all holy brethren Neyther doth this text prooue priuate reading of Scripture by Laymen but only publik reading therof in the Church But suppose they priuately read this Epistle sent them by the Apostle is it consequeÌ„t Ergo all Laymen are bound to read Scripture and the Church to translate the same into euery tongue Truly this argument is euen as good as this God created heauen and earth of nothing Ergo Ministers may make arguments of nothing or make argumeÌ„ts good that haue nothing in them Or as this In the beginning was the word the word was with God Ergo euery godly person is bound to read the Scripture word by word from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalyps Or Ergo Godly persons do nothing els but read Scripture Grosse Ignorance of Theology SECTION III. BESIDES the manifold Errours which you maintaine in coÌ„mon with other Ministers you haue diuers proper peculiar to your selfe and exceeding grosse wherby you declare how ignorant how are of Theology I will only discouer some few of them but those fundamentall by which you so shake the fabrike of your Reply as no piece thereof remayneth â—ound The first
alwayes directeth in their publike doctrine But wicked persons sayth S. Augustine retayne the figure or outward shape of a member but they are not in truth the body of Christ Non sunt de compage domus Dei they are not of the frame of the house of Christ. Ergo. Thus you How false and absurd this your Doctrine is I will not stand to shew by Scriptures and Fathers which are cleere and plentifull in this point For though Christ as he is the head and fountaine of sanctifying Grace cannot haue wicked and damnable members that receiue influence from him yet as he is the head and fountaine of all spirituall gouernement and authority he may haue damnable subiects and members and from him power and authority may flow vnto them But omitting this I will make your Folly and Ignorance apparent by prouing that this your argument is inept in respect of forme in the matter so absurd as you contradict your selfe you ouerthrow your owne Church you crosse the maine streame of Protestant Doctrine First your argumeÌ„t eueÌ„ in respect of form is fond for you change the medium or means of proofe arguing from the time preterite to the present (i) Reply pag. â—00 in fine Wolues hypocrites impious Persons BE NOT the true Church Romish Prelats HAVE BEEN Hypocrites Wolues and impious Persons Ergo. The Romish Prelates be not the true Church Who doth not feele this manner of arguing to be inept as good no better then this A sucking Child is not a Preacher and Minister of the word Francis White hath been a sucking Child Ergo. He is not a Preacher or Minister of the word Hence though your paradoxe that the Church which hath a wicked man for Pastor cannot be the true Church were true your tale that some Popes haue been wicked were also graunted yet it is not hence consequent that the Romane Church is not now the true Church but at the most that it was not the true Church for the tyme that it had some wicked Pope for supreme Pastour Secondly you contradict your selfe about the doctrine that wicked Pastours cannot faithfully preserue and deliuer the true word of saluation for pag. 52. you thus write to the contrary The promises of Christ made to the Church concerning his presence assistance to his Sacraments preached and administred according to his commandement are fulfilled when WICKED Persons execute the office and performe the worke of outward Ministry For although the wicked like the CarpeÌ„ters of Noahs arke reape no benefit to theÌ„selues yet God almighty CONCVRRETH with their ministery being his owne Ordinance for the saluation of all deuout Communicants Thus you If this be true as it is most certaine then may wicked persons faythfully and constantly deliuer Apostolicall Traditions about matter of Saluation This sequele I proue They with whose ministery God doth concurre for the saluation of all deuout worthy coÌ„municants being bound so to do by his promise doe constantly and faithfully deliuer Apostolicall Traditions concerning the doctrine of saluation and are infallibly directed so to do This is euident because when God concurreth with his Ministers to teach the truth they neuer erre nor deliuer in matter of fayth and saluation false doctrine But God doth still and infallibly concurre with them with whom to concurre he hath bound himselfe by promise euer and alwayes euen to the consummation of the world Wherfore if God hath bound himselfe to his Church that he will concurre euen with the wicked Ministers of his word in their teaching for the saluation of all deuout worthy communicants as you affirme pag 52 lin 18. then wicked persons may deliuer faithfully constantly Apostolicall traditions concerning fayth and saluation and are infallibly directed so to do which you deny pag. 54 lin 6. manifestly contradicting your selfe within lesse then a leafe Thirdly you ouerthrow your owne protestant Church For if that caÌ„not be the true Church directed by God according to his infallible promise wherin wicked men haue sitten as visible rulers gouernours then Protestants and all of their communion cannot be the true Church out of which saluation is not had For I hope they will not be so impudent as to deny but they haue had some wicked meÌ„ for their rulers and Pastours Was not King Henry the eight ruler Gouernour of the Protestant Church and yet their owne Historyes paint him forth as a monster for beastlines cruelty and impiety Was not Cranmer a most wicked persecutour and murtherer of diuers Saints not only of Catholikes but of sundry Foxian martyrs who were by him sent to the fire And yet he was a ruler gouernour in the Protestant Church Wherfore the argument which you set in distinct letters lines as of speciall weight may be with the same force forme applied against your Protestant Church in so many words only by placing the words Protestant in lieu of Romish Wolues Hypocrites impious Persons are not the holy Catholike Church Protestant Prelates and Visible Rulers haue been Wolues Hypocrites impious persons Ergo. Protestants are not the Holy Catholike church out of which there is no saluation Fourthly what more opposite to the common streame euen of the Protestant Doctrine then that that Church cannot be the temple house of God in which wicked and impious men sit or haue sitten as visible rulers Commonly all Ministers foolishly I confesse yet earnestly endeauour to proue that the Pope is Antichrist because he sitteth in the Temple and Church of God as Christs Vicar and as her supreme Visible Head Ruler vnder Christ which Doctrine you your selfe suppose as certaine pag. 588. were you make this Exclamation What a misery will it be if it fall out as it is certaine it will that at the Day of Iudgement the greatest part of English Romistes be found to haue followed the man of sinne the sonne of perdition who exalteth himselfe aboue all that is called God so that he sit in the temple of God shewing himselfe as if he were God Thus you I vrge not the folly of this your Exclamation in that it is a fond supposition of the Question yea a taking of that as certaine which not onely Catholiks but also learned Protestants deny Your selfe haue you not lately since the writing of this Reply approued (k) The Appeale vnto Caesar of Richard Montague a Booke by Order of his Maiesty in which that Authour doth often and earnestly (l) Second part c. 5. pag. 141. professe not to beleeue the Pope to be that Antichrist further affirming that Protestants out of affection haue been to violently forward to pronounce the Pope is that man of sinne sonne of perdition yea that some out of violent and transported passion no doubt make it an Article of their Creed wheras their arguments be so far from the force of demonstratiue as they are not persuasiue Thus this Authour in that Booke which you haue
Mary 3. Worshipping Inuocation of Saints Angels 4. The Liturgy priuate Prayers for the Ignorant in an vnknowne Tongue 5. Repetitions of Pater Nosters Aues Creeds especially affixing a kind of merit to the number of them 6. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation 7. Communion vnder one kind the abetting of it by Concomitancy 8. Workes of Supererogation especially with reference vnto the Treasure of the Church 9. The Opinion of deposing Kings and giuing away their Kingdomes by Papall power whether directly or indirectly THE PREFACE Most Gratious and Dread Soueraygne A Conference about ReligioÌ„ between Doctor White and Me was occasion that your Maiesty called me to your gracious Presence not disdayning to dispute with one so meane and vnworthy as my self imitating his Benignity whose Vicegerent you are and according to the Phrase of Holy Scripture As (a) 2. Reg. 14.17 Sicut Angelus Dei sic est Dominus meus Rex his Angell And as it is the property of the Good Angell first to strike feare and terrour into them to whome he appeares but in the end to leaue them full of comfort in like sort your Maiesty For though the first salutation carryed a shew of seuerity yet your dismissing me was benigne and gratious not only pardoning my earnestnes in defending the part of the Catholike Church but also saying (*) What the Minister doth obiect against this narration is refuted in M. Fishers Booke about vntruths falsely layd to his charge You liked me the better The gratefull acknowledgement and admiration of this your Princely Clemency makes me desire from the bottome of my Soule that I could fully satisfy your Maiestie of my dutyfull and loyall affection which is fast tyed vnto your sacred person by a threefold (b) Funiculus triplex difficilè rumpitur Eccles. 14.14 inuiolable bond The (*) The Minister saith that the Iesuits Oratory is plausible and thereupon enters into a coÌ„mon place that Truth needs no Trimming which is true yet if needs many tymes Apologies Defence against Slaunders Law of nature obligeth me thereunto as being your Maiesties borne Subiect the transgression whereof were Vnnaturall Barbarous Inhumane The Law of God requires the like constant and perfect Allegiance at my hands binding me to regard you as his Lieutenant and to acknowledge your power and authority as (c) Rom. 13.1 his Ordination so that according to the doctrine of the Catholike Church I must not only outwardly obserue but also admit your Maiesties will and command with Reuerence into the secret closet of my inmost (d) Rom. 13.5 CoÌ„science Soule The Constitutions also of the Order wherof I am an vnworthy meÌ„ber do strictly command me the same in seuerest manner charging the Subiects therof no wayes to meddle in State-matters or in Princes affaires much lesse vnder pretence of Religion to attempt any thing or to consent vnto any enterprize that may disturbe the quiet and tranquillity of Kings and Kingdomes And seeing we are so deuoted to our own Institute that our (e) Colloquium de Secretis Iesuitarum Aduersaries thereupon amongst many other Calumniations lay to our charge that we more reuereÌ„tly esteeme carefully obserue the constitutions of our Rule then the Law of God I shall for your Maiesties fuller satisfactioÌ„ set downe some part of our Constitutions in this point in maÌ„ner following (f) Decret 101. Cong 5. General ac Can. 12. â—iusdem (g) Monita Gener. §. 18. The Constitutions out of which these are taken be tearmed Monita Generalia Generall Admonitions because they coÌ„cerne generally al persons of the Order by way of distinction from Particular which coÌ„cerne only some kind of persons as Preachers Maisters c. Which particular AdmonitioÌ„s are as publick as the generall Whereby you may see the Ministers ignoraÌ„ce in Logicke to be equall vnto his malice against Iesuits who sayth that the terme of Generall Admonitions forbidding to meddle in State-matters argueth that Iesuits haue other Secret Admonitions that warrant such medling As though Generall Admonitions were condistinct agaynst secret and particular against publik Wheras general may be kept secret particular be made publike Vt ab omni specie mali abstineatur querelis etiam ex falsis suspicionibus prouenientibus quoad fieri poterit occurratur praecipitur nostris omnibus in virtute Sanctae Obedientiae sub poena inhabilitatis ad quaeuis officia dignitates seu praelationes vocisque etiam actiuae quà m passiuae priuationis ne quispiam publicis saecularibus Principum negotijs quae ad rationem Status vt vocant pertineant vlla ratione se immiscere nec etiam quantumuis requisitus rogatus eiusmodires politicas tractandi curam suscipere audeat vel praesumat (h) Decret 57. Can. 17. Illa autem omnia quae à spirituali Instructione diuersa sunt negotia Status censeri debent qualia sunt quae ad Principum inter se foedera vel ad Regnorum iura successiones pertineÌ„t vel ad bella tam ciuilia quà m externa (i) In Regulis communibus Reg. 41. Iubet regula 41. vt saecularia negotia vtpote quae sunt à nostro Instituto aliena vehementer à spiritualibus auocant multùm auersemur (k) In Regulis Concionatorum Iubentur Concionatores Societatis à reprehensionibus Principum Magnatum Reipub abstinere obedientiaÌ„ erga Principes Magistratus frequenter seriò suis in Concionibus populo commendare (l) In Constitutionibus Iubent CoÌ„stitutiones nostrae varijs in locis vt oremus speciatim pro Principibus eorumque spirituali saluti praecipuâ curâ procurandae ac promouendae inuigilemus ob vniuersale bonum quod ad multos alios qui eorum authoritatem sequuntur vel per eos reguntur proueniet (m) In Instructionibus Extat denique Instructio pro Confessarijs Principum quâ Nostris seriò interdicitur ne occasione huius muneris rebus Politicis aut Reipublicae gubernationi se immisceant Iubentur etiam hanc InstructioneÌ„ Principibus ostendere curareque vt ij planè intelligant quid Societas ab eo postulat qui Confessarium sibi eligit neque per Leges nostras licere nobis alijs conditionibus id oneris suscipere I humbly craue pardon for offering so many particulers of our Rule vnto your Maiesties perusall which I should not haue done but out of a most strong desire to giue your Maiestie (n) The Minister shapeth this argumeÌ„t into this forme No Iesuite obseruing the Rules of his Order can meddle in state matters Euery Iesuit obserueth the rules of his Order Ergo No Iesuit doth meddle in State matters And theÌ„ in answere thereof he sayth He that belieues the Minor must be a stranger in the world and haue liued an Anchoret or Recluse in some Caue who neuer heard of Campian Parsons Creswell Garnet Suarez Bellarmin c. I
because knowne by the Churches perpetuall Tradition to be from the Apostles by the Apostles miraculous authority to be of God by Gods supreme Verity who cannot deceaue nor be deceaued to be the truth THE SECOND PART About the Catholike Resolution of Fayth NO doubt but that to the end a man may belieue diuine inward illuminatiō annointing his hart is necessary The question is what is the externall infallible ground vnto which Diuine inspiration moueth men to adhere that they may be setled in the true sauing fayth The answere in few words is this The Resolution of true Religion is firmely assured about foure Principles agaynst foure Enemyes by foure Perfections belonging vnto God as he is Prima veritas Prime and Infinite Verity that cannot deceaue nor be deceaued This I declare and proue The first Principle prooued §. 1. THE first Enemy of true Christian Religion is the Pagan (a) Dicunt pagani Ben◠viuimus or Prophane (b) Fuerunt Philosophi de virtutibus vitijs sublimia multa tractantes Aug. Tract 45. in Ioan. Philosopher who is persuaded he may attayne vnto perfect felicity and Sanctity by the knowledge of sole naturall truth Against this enemy is the first principle of true Christian Religion The Doctrine of Saluation is that only which was reuealed of God vnto his Prophets About this Principle true belieuers are resolued by a perfection which in the first place belonges vnto God as he is Prime Infinite verity to wit that he cannot lye nor reueale any vntruth when he speaks immediatly himselfe by secret inspiration Hēce we thus resolue God the Prime verity cannot reueale vntruth specially about the State-matters of saluation when he speakes by secret inspiration immediatly himselfe But he reuealed in this manner by inspiration vnto his Prophets that men cannot serue him truly nor be saued without knowing supernatural truthes beyond the (c) As mans felicity the blissfull visiō of God is aboue the forces of Nature so it was conueniēt God shold bring him vnto it by belieuing truth aboue the reach of his reason reach of Reason which truthes in particular he reuealed vnto them Therfore the doctrine of saluation is supernaturall truth such as was reuealed of God vnto his Prophets and others whome he did vouchsafe to teach immediatly by himselfe and send them to be the teachers of the world This the prime and highest principle of Christian resolution Protestants not in expresse words but in deeds and by consequence reiect from being the stay of their fayth For as they that belieue the doctrine of Aristotle lastly and finally by the light and euidence therof because it sheweth it selfe to be conformable to reason do not build vpon the authority of Aristotle nor vpon his bare world euen so they that belieue the doctrine of Scripture by the light resplendent verity thereof because it shewes it selfe to be diuine and heauenly truth as Protestants pretend to doe do not build vpon the authority of God the authour and doctour of Scripture nor his bare meere pure word This is most euident for who doth not see that it is one thing to belieue the word of some Doctour by the light of the doctrine and another to belieue his word through reuerence vnto his authority as knowing him to be infallible in his word Hence the Protestant fayth is so independent of the authority of God as though God were not prime verity but fallible in his words yet their fayth might subsist as now it doth This is cleere because let one be neuer so fallible and false yet when his sayings shew themselues to be true we may yea we cannot but belieue his word in respect of the resplendent verity therof But Protestants pretend that the sayings of Scripture shew themselues to be true by the light lustre of the Doctrine belieued therin vpon this resplendēt verity they build lastly their fayth Therfore though God were fallible might be false yet their fayth that his Scripture is truth which sheweth it selfe to be truth by the resplendent verity of the doctrine might subsist Is this the true Christian fayth which depends not vpon Gods being the Prime and Infallible Verity which giues no more credit vnto God then men wil giue vnto a lyar to wit to belieue him so farre as they see him To credit the word of his teaching so farre as it sheweth it selfe to be truth by the light of the doctrine Verily this forme of Fayths resolution is grosse and vnchristian which I am persuaded Protestants would not mantayne did they well vnderstand what they say or could they find some other way of Resolution wherby they might know what doctrine is the Apostles and therfore Gods without being bound to relye vpon the Tradition of the Church The second Principle demonstrated §. 2. SOME will say God is prime Verity by whose word we cannot be deceaued But how prou◠you these pretended diuine reuelations to be truly such Here cōmeth in the second enemy of true Religion who following his blind passion labours to depriue the world of the proofes of diuine reuelations that are more euident then the Sunne This Enemy is the Iew who graūting the doctrine of saluation to be supernaturall truth reuealed of God denies the reuealed doctrine of God to be Apostolicall that is the doctrine which the Apostles preached to the whole world as the doctrine of saluation Agaynst this Enemy is the second Principle of true Religion The Doctrine of saluation reuealed of God is no other but Apostolicall that is which the Apostles published to the world About this principle true belieuers are resolued by a second perfection of the prime Verity which is That he cannot with his seale that is with miracles and workes proper to himselfe warrant or subsigne falshood deuised or vēted by any man Hence we make this resolution God being Infinite verity cannot by signe and miracle testify falshood deuised and vented by men God hath by manifest miracles testifyed the doctrine of the Apostles to be his word and message Ergo the same is not a false religion inuented of men but the doctrin of Saluation reuealed of God The miracles by which the Prime verity hath giuen testimony vnto the Apostles doctrine may be reduced vnto foure heades First the miraculous predictions of the Prophets most cleerly punctually fullfilled in Christ Iesus his B. Mother his Apostles his Church Secondly the miraculous workes in all kindes which Christ Iesus and his disciples haue wrought which are so many so manifest so wonderfull aboue nature as we cannot desire greater euidences Thirdly the miraculous conuersion of the world by twelue poore vnlearned Fisher-men the world I say which thē was in the flowre of human pride glory in the height of human erudition and learning bringing them to belieue a doctrine seemingly absurd in reason to follow a course of discipline truly repugnant vnto sensuality to imbrace a way of saluation
inough to know actually some doctrine which is in Scripture but he must know that it is in Scripture and belieue the Scripture â—o be the word of God but ignorant persons cannot know infallibly Scriptures to be the word of God truly translated further then they find them conforme to the doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of the Church Therfore they build their Fayth finally vpon Tradition not vpon Scripture truly translated light of the doctrine shining in true Translations to wit by the light of the doctrine receiued by Tradition of Ancestors and thereupon so firmely belieued as they will acknowledge Scriptures to be truly translated so far and no further then they perceyue them consonant with the fayth deliuered vnto them so that their last and finall resolution for substantiall points is not into Scriptures truly translated into their vulgar tongue but into Tradition by the light whereof they discerne that the Translations are true more or lesse according to the measure of knowledge they haue by Tradition The third Argument IF all the mayne and substantiall poynts of Christian Fayth must be knowne and firmely belieued before we can securely read and truly vnderstand the Holy Scripture then the mayne and substaÌ„tiall points of fayth are belieued not vpon Scripture but vpon TraditioÌ„ precedently vnto Scripture This is cleare because true fayth is not built but vpon Scripture truely vnderstood neyther can Scripture before it be truly vnderstood of a man be to him a ground of assured persuasion But we cannot vnderstand the Scripture securely and aright before we know the substantiall articles of fayth which all are bound expressely to belieue the (i) The Minister here laboureth to proue that the rule of fayth is contained in Scripture and therfore cannot be Tradition vnwritteÌ„ Which discourse is impertinent and the inference false For himselfe grants pag. 150. lin 16. that the rule of fayth is both written Tradition and vnwritten The Doctrine then of TraditioÌ„ is tearmed vnwritten not because it is no waies written but because as the Answerer sayth it is knowne by preaching precedently and independently of Scripture summary comprehensioÌ„ of which poynts is tearmed the Rule (*) Tertul. de Praescr c. 13. of fayth This is (k) The Answerer here brings three ArgumeÌ„ts that coÌ„uince that none can vnderstand Scripture securely and without danger of damnable errour that are not aforehand grounded in the substantiall articles of fayth The Minister though he professe to haue set downe the Answere Verbatim leaueth all this out and then cryeth thus agaynst the Iesuite pag. 34. circa finem That men must be first instructed in the necessary poynts of fayth before they can securedly read and interprete Scriptures is affirmed by the Iesuite but not proued Thus he What not proued The Iesuit bringes three large coÌ„uictiue proofes thereof which you because you cannot answere omit and then cry the Iesuit doth say and not proue This dealing is grosse proued by the acknowledgement of Protestans in whose name (l) D. Feild l. 3. of the Church cap. 4. D. Feild writeth in this sort We hold with the Papists that neither conference of places nor consideration of antecedentia and consequentia nor the knowledge of tongues and lookinge into the originalls â—s of any force vnlesse we find the things which we conceiue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant vnto the rule of fayth (m) D. Feild l. 4. of the Church cap. 14. 19. For who can be able to vnderstand the Scriptures but he that is setled in those things which the Apostles presupposed in their deliuery of Scripture Secondly by the experience both of all former ages and this present prouing by too many examples that such as come to reade expound Scripture without being aforehand setled by Tradition in the rule of fayth do fall into errours most damnable against the maynest articles of the Creed as the Creation of the world the blessed Trinity and the Incarnation Baptisme and other So that reading interpretation of Scripture makes not men Christians but supposeth them to be made by Tradition at the least for substantiall poynts such as euery one is bound expressely to know Thirdly we are not more able to vnderstand Scripture then were our Forefathers the auncient Doctors of the Church neither is there reason that we should so thinke of our selues but they thought themselues vnable to interprete Scripture precisely of it selfe by conference of places without the light of ChristiaÌ„ Doctrine aforehand knowne and firmely belieued vpon the Churches perpetuall Tradition from the Apostles witnes (n) Ruffinus Eccles. hist. l. 2. c. 9. S. Basill and S. Gregory Nazianzen the two grande Doctors of the Grecian Church and Origen who thus writes (o) Orig. tract in Matth. cap. 29. In our vnderstandinge of Scriptures we must not depart from the first Ecclesiasticall Tradition nor belieue otherwise but as the Church of God hath by succession deliuered to vs. Ergo no man is able to read interprete Scripture without (p) Protestants affirme as Whitaker contr 1. q. 4. c. 2. and others that no man can vnderstand Scripture that bringes not with him the light of fayth and Christian piety puras sanctas mentes which doth most euidently demonstrate that fayth about substaÌ„tial poynts is grounded on Gods word precedently vnto Scripture That persuasion which is precedent vnto the knowledg of Scripture and is the rule guiding vs in our knowledge of Scripture cannot be grounded vpon knowledge of Scripture But Christian fayth piety as they grant is precedent vnto knowledge of Scripture yea must be brought vnto the reading thereof and direct vs in it Ergo fayth is not originally grounded on Scripture the light assistance of firme Christian fayth aforehand conceiued by the voyce of the Church deliuering what by Tradition from Auncestors she receiued Whence I also conclude that it is exceeding dangerous boldnes in men of this age so to presume on their interpretations of Scriptures gotten by diligent reading and conferring of places as they care not though a (q) Luther de captiu Babyl Tom. 2. Wittenberg pag. 344. thousand of Cyprians Augustins Churches Traditions should stand against them The fourth Argument THOSE that vnderstand the Scriptures aright must be such as they were to whom the Apostles writ and deliuered the Scriptures and whose instruction they intended by their writing but the Apostles as D. (r) Lib. 4. of the Church c. 4. in the margent Feild acknowledgeth wrote to them they had formerly taught more at large that were instructed and grounded in all substantiall and necessary poynts of fayth that knew the coÌ„mon necessary obseruations of Christianity Ergo they that reade and presume to interprete the Scriptures without first knowing and firmely belieuing by tradition at the least all necessary and substantiall poynts of fayth (s) The Minister pag. 34. lin 34. chargeth the
is granted on both sides The only question is by what rule these Doctrines inuolued are vnfolded and made knowne vnto vs as articles of fayth ProtestaÌ„ts say by Scripture and the rules of Logicke and Reason Wotton Triall of the Romish c. pag 88. lin 29. and by other things besides Scripture euident in the light of nature Feild pag 281. lin 20. Catholikes hold that the rule to expound Scripture binding all men to belieue deductions as matters of fayth is not Logicke but the Tradition and definition of the Church And this Catholicke doctrin is proued First because the rule of faith must be for the capacity of vnlearned men aswell as of learned But men vnlearned cannot be sure of the virtualityes of Scripture by the rules of Logicke or Logicall deduction for they cannot vnderstand when an argument is good by the rules of Logicke Secondly the Scripture it selfe to supply her wants sendeth vs not to the rules of Logicke but vnto traditions saying 2. Thessal 2.15 Hold fast the Traditions ye haue receaued by word or our epistle They send men to the Church as to the pillar and ground of truth 1. Tim. 3.15 which whosoeuer doth not heare is as a heaâ—hen and a publican Matth. 13.5.7 Therfore by the rule of Church-Tradition not by the rules of Logicke do we learne autheÌ„tically the confessed virtualities obscurities and inuolutions of Scripture about matters of fayth Thirdly the Fathers about matters inuolued in Scripture send men not vnto Logicke but vnto Tradition auouching the same to be a rule as certaine no lesse estimable then Scripture S. Chrysostome homil 4 in 2. ad Thessal The Apostles did not deliuer all things in Scripture but some things without writing and these are as much to be credited as the written It is a Tradition this is inough seeke no more The same is taught by S. Dionysius Eccles. Hierar c. 1. Iren. l. 2. c. 2.3 4. Eusebius lib. 1. de demonst Euang. c. 8. by S. Basill de Spirit sanct c. 27. Epiphan haeres 55. 61. Aug. de Baptis li. 2. c. 7. lib. 5. c. 23. and the rest Finally we dislike the Protestant manner of controlling the Church by Scripture For on the one side they contradict the vniuersall custome and Tradition of the Church at the least and as they grant of many ages saying The Popish doctrine during the space of nine hundred yeares hath spread it selfe ouer the whole world so that an vniuersall Apostacy was ouer the whole face of the earth for many hundred yeares Perkins Exposit. of the Creed pag. 307. 400. On the other side their Arguments out of Scripture are at the most but probable and they sometimes challenge no more homini non prorsus alienato probabilior apparet Whitak contr 1. q. 5. c 8. circa finem Others alledge Scripture not with as probable colour as we doe Iohn White defence pag. 321. Yea this Minister in his Reply doth acknowledge pag. 581. That by Sophistry we giue vnto their Scripturall arguments seeming and appearing solutions Now we Catholikes thinke it to be Hereticall as S. Augustine sayth insolent madnes vpon probabilities vpon Arguments froÌ„ Scripture that receaue seeming solutions to contradict the Christian vniuersall Tradition of many hundred yeares For what the Minister saith this to be done by Sophistry is ridiculous For if to giue seeming plausible and probable solutions vnto Scripturall arguments against the full Tradition of Christianity be Sophistry what is true Theology On the other side if for men to stand against the Tradition of so many whole Christian ages vpon arguments they confesse to be probably and seemingly answered be Christianity what is hereticall Obstinacy Fifthly whereas you obiect that pag. 199. lin 6. the Fathers disputed from Scripture negatiuely agaynst Heretikes in this sort Doctrine is not cleerly deliuered in Scripture therefore it is not to be receaued as Fayth You must know that the Fathers proceed vpon a supposition that was knowne vnto all and granted by the Heretickes themselues to wit that the doctrins they disputed agaynst were not the full and publicke Tradition of the Catholike Church For seing Scripture as we haue shewed doth necessarily suppose Tradition that we may know the true text and sense thereof so likewise the Fathers when they vrge that all doctrine is to be reiected which is not in Scripture still suppose that that doctrine is not the publicke Tradition of the Church Where we must also note that the Fathers did not only require of Heretikes proofe from Scripture by way of deduction Logicall inference for such all heretiks did pretend and herewith deluded seely sots as now Protestants doe but they required of Heretikes to shew their doctrine in Scripture ipsis dictionibus sayth Irenaeus l. 2. c. 36. expressely and in tearmes and proue it not by texts sayth S. Augustine de vnitat Eccles. c. 3. which require sharpenes of wit in the auditors to iudge who doth more probably interprete them not by places quae vel interpretem quaerunt which require an interpreter and an arguer making Logicall inferences vpon the text so concluding for his purpose but by places playne manifest cleere which leaue no place to contrary exposition and that no Sophystry can wrest them to other sense to the end that Controuersyes which concerne the Saluation of soules be defined by Gods formall word and not by deductions from it according to Logicall forme For sayth S. Augustine what more vniust then Ingeniorum contentionibus causam populorum committere Hence the Fathers negatiue argument from Scripture ouerthroweth Protestant Religion for thus I argue Nothing is matter of Fayth and of necessity which is not formally and expressely reuealed by the word of God eyther written or vnwritten deliuered by full Ecclesiasticall Tradition But no Heretikes euer did nor our Protestants now do or can pretend perpetuall publicke Tradition vnwritten for their doctrins agaynst the Catholicke and Roman Church nor can they proue their Tenets ipsis dictionibus ex scriptura by Scripture auerring them in expresse tearmes Only they clayme texts which as themselues confesse receaue seeming appearing solutioÌ„s agaynst which they haue nothing to say but that this is done by Sophistry so bringing the busines of the Saluation of the world to be decided by contentioÌ„ of wit Therefore their doctrins are to be reiected as vnchristiaÌ„ Finally it is great vanity in you to thinke that the Traditions vnwritten mentioned by Fathers are conforme to your Doctrine writing as you doe pag. 46. By Tradition the Fathers vnderstand not the Fabulous dreames and inuentions of Papals who like Pharisees corrupt the right sense of Scripture by their vnwritten Tradition and affirme those thinges to be Apostolicall which agree with the confessed doctrine of the Apostles like darkenesse with light Thus you with much bitternesse and no lesse falshood For what Gerson de signis ruinae Eccles. sig 5. sayth of the heresyes of his age to wit
is sufficient for euery man seing the Apostle speakes not of euery man but expressely of him who is Homo Dei the man of God that is one already fully instructed and firmely setled by Tradition in all the mayne poynts of Christian fayth and godly life such an one as Timothy was The Scriptures for men in this manner aforetaught and grounded in fayth are abundantly sufficient who will deny it But this proueth at the most the sufficiency of the Scripture ioyned with Tradition not of Scripture alone or of onely-onely-onely Scripture as Protestants bookes in great Letters very earnestly affirme Hence also we may conclude that the (z) The Minister to proue Scriptures are cleere vnto Infidels that haue not the Spirit of fayth heapes many testimonies of Fathers that teach Scriptures in some matters to be cleere Who denyes this they are so to the faythful not vnto Infidels not vnto them that are vnsetled in the Catholike fayth yea many places he brings speake expressely only of the faythfull pious Sicut vera Religio docet accedunt as S. Augustine others by him alleadged affirme and therefore are brought impertinently to proue the sufficiency clarity of Scriptures in respect of Infidels pag. 34.35.36 many allegatiōs of Fathers which Protestants bring to proue the Scripture to be cleere in all substātiall points are impertinent because the fathers speake of mē aforehand instructed in all substantiall poynts who may by the light of Tradition easily discouer them in Scripture as they that heare Aristotle explicate himselfe by word of mouth may vnderstand his booke of nature most difficill to be vnderstood of thē that neuer heard his explicatiō either out of his owne mouth or by Tradition of his Schollers I hope I haue in the opinion of your most learned Maiesty sufficiently demonstrated this first GROVND of Catholicke fayth to wit That a Christian is originally and fundamentally builte vpon the word of God not as written in Scriptures but as deliuered by Tradition of the Church successiuely from the Primitiue vpō the authority wherof we belieue that both Scriptures and all other substantiall articles of fayth were deliuered by the Apostles thence further ascending inferring they came from Christ and so from God the prime veracity author of truth THE SECOND GROVND That there is a visible Church alwaies in the world to whose Traditions men are to cleaue That this Church is One Vniuersall Apostolicall Holy §. 3. THIS principle is consequent vpon the former out of which six things may be clerly proued First that there is alwaies a true (a) The Minister still cōeth forth with his distinctiō that by Church we may vnderstand a Hierarchy of mitred prelates thē he denyes that there is still a church teaching the truth in the world Secondly for a number of belieuers smaller or greater teaching and professing the right sayth in all substantial points then he grants there is still a true Church of Christ in the world This distinction so much repeated specially pag. 57. and 58. is impertinēt for by Church we vnderstād not euery small number of right belieuers but a Christian multitude of such credit and authority as vpon her tradition we may be sure what Scriptures doctrines were the Apostles For this is a fundamentall pointe necessary to be knowne that so we may know what Doctrine is of God and it cannot be knowne but by Tradition of the Church as hath bene proued Now whether this Church be Mitred or not Mitred goe in Blacke or in White or in Scarlet doth little import Let the Minister but shew vs a Church that hath euident Tradition of Doctrine hand to hand frō the Apostles we will say she is the true Church though she haue no Surplisse or Miter but be as precise as Geneua it selfe but if there be no Church in the world but this Hierarchy of Mitred Prelates whose Tradition hand to hand can assure men which be the Scriptures and doctrines of Religiō deliuered by the Apostles men ought not to beare such spleen against a Miter or Corner-Cap or Surplisse as in respect of them to fly from the Church that onely hath Catholicke Tradition from the Apostles Church of Christ in the world for if there be no meanes for men to know that Scriptures and all other substantiall Articles came from Christ and his Apostles and so consequently from God but the Tradition of the Church then there must needes be in all ages a Church receiuing and deliuering these Traditions els men in some age since Christ should haue bene destitute of the (b) The Minister pa. 59. lin 15. sayth A corrupt Church may deliuer vncorruptly some part of sacred truth as the Scripture and Creed by which men may be saued Answer We may conceaue two wayes of deliuering an incorrupt text The one Casuall by chance and so a corrupt Church yea a Iew an Infidell a child may deliuer an vncorrupt Copy of the Bible The other Authentike assuring the receauer this to be the incorrupt text of the Apostles Scripture and binding him so to belieue This Authentik and irrefragable Tradition cannot be made by a false Church erring in her Traditiōs as is cleer Now it is necessary to saluation that men not only Casually haue the true Scripture but must be sure that the text therof be incorrupt Therfore ther must be stil a Church in the world whose Tradition is Authentike that is a sufficient warrant vpon which men must belieue Doctrines to come from the Apostles ordinary meanes of saluation because they had not meanes to know assuredly the substantiall Articles of Christianity without assured Fayth wherof no man is saued Secondly this Church must be alwaies (c) The Minister pag. 61. lin 15 lin 26. obiects that in time of persecution the true Church may be reputed an impious sect by the multitude and so not be knowne by the notion of True and Holy nor can her truth be discerned by sense and common reason I answere As there are foure properties of Church-doctrin so likewise there are foure notions of the Church The first is to be Mistresse of the sauing truth According to this notion the Church is inuisible to the naturall vnderstanding both of men and Angels For God only his Blessed see our Religion to be the truth The second is to be Mistresse of Doctrine truly reuealed by secret inspiration According to this notion ordinarily speaking the Church is inuisible to almost all men that are or euer were the Apostles onely and the Prophets excepted The third to be Mistresse of Doctrine which Christ and his Apostles by their Miraculous preaching planted in the world According to this notion the Church was visible to the first and Primitiue world but now is not The fourth to be Mistresse of Catholike doctrine that is of doctrine deliuered and receaued by full Tradition and profession all the aduersaryes therof being vnder the name of
ad com Philip. in 1. ad Corinth This may conuince our Minister that his allegations be of no credit and that Iudgement of the Sanctity of a Church is not to be made by the report of zealous complaint but by the euidence of sight ruled by vnpartiall search By which rule one may find in the Catholike Cleargy thousands and thousands that shew admirable charity specially in conuerting Infidells yea that winne the glorious crowne of Angelicall Chastity for which they would neuer haue striuen had not the Church bound them thereunto So that if human infirmity by occasiō of this law make some men impure that otherwise perchance in marriage would haue beene chast so the Grace of God by the same occasiō worketh in innumerable Angelical Saints who had neuer beene such but for the Churches exaction And this haruest makes full recompence for that losse specially seing also many of such delinquents be not lost but saued by Pennance yea become more excellent Saints then they had beene had they neuer fallen Chastity Obedience Charity in vndergoing labours for the help of soules Fortitude in suffering of heroycall Martyrdomes Zeale and Patience in the rough and rigorous treaty of their bodyes by miraculous fasting another austerityes This sanctity shineth not in all children of the Church but in her more eminent preachers professours Which kind of sanctity togeather with miracles if the Church did want she could not be a sufficiēt witnes of the truth vnto Infidells who commonly neuer begin to affect admire Christianity but vpon the sight of such wōders of Sanctity other extraordinary works Holy for doctrine in regard her Traditions be diuine and holy without any mixture of errour For if the Church could deliuer by consent of Ancestours togeather with truth some Errours her Traditions euen about truth were questionable could not be belieued vpon the warrāt of her traditions for who can without danger and securely feed on that dish that may aswell containe poyson as wholsome sustenance And whereas some Protestants affirme that the Church cannot erre in fundamentall points but only in thinges of lesse moment the truth is that in perpetuall Traditions she cannot erre at all If the Tradition of the Church deliuering a small thing as receyued from the Apostles may be false one may call into question her Traditions of moment For like as if we admit in the Scripture errours in small matters we cannot be sure of its infallibility in substātial matters So likewise if we graunt Traditions perpetuall to be false in things of lesse importance we haue no solide ground to defend her Traditions as assured in others of moment Wherfore as he that should say Gods written word is false in some lesse matters as when it sayes S. Paul left his Cloake at Troas erreth fundamentally by reason of the consequence which giues occasion to doubt of euery thing in Scripture euen so he that graunteth that some part of Traditions or of the word of God vnwritten may be false erreth substantially because he giueth cause to doubt of any Tradition which yet as I haue shewed is the prime and originalll ground of Faith more (q) The Minister heere rayleth largely lustily tearming this assertion impudent Antichristian prophane bastardly c. yet the assertion is euident truth his reasons agaynst it are of no force For they goe not agaynst the assertion but proue another thing to wit the excellency of Scripture which none denyes For Tradition Scripture according to different cōparisons are equall superiour the one to the other Compare them in respect of certainty of truth they are equal as the Councell of Trent defineth sess 4. both being the word of God the one Written the other Vnwritten and so both infinitly certayne Compare them in respect of depth sublimity and variety of doctrine the Scripture is farre superiour vnto Tradition Tradition being playne and easy doctrine concerning the common capitall and practicall articles of Christianity wheras the Scripture is full of high hidden senses and furnisht with great variety of examples discourses and all manner of erudition Aug. Epist. 3. Compare them in respect of priority and euidence of being the Apostles the Scripture is posteriour vnto Tradition in tyme and knowledge and cannot be proued directly to be the Apostles therfore Gods but by Tradition as sometime not only Fathers but euen Protestants afffirme As Philosophy is more perfect then Logicke and Rhetoricke then Grammer in respect of high excellēt knowledge yet Logike is more prime originall fundamentall then Philosophy Grammer then Rhetoricke without the rules and principles wherof they cannot be learned Euen so Tradition is more prime and originall then Scripture though Scripture in respect of depth and sublimity of discourse be more excellent then Tradition fundamentall then the very Scripture which is not knowne to be Apostolicall but by Tradition wheras a perpetuall Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by its owne light For what more euident thē that that is from the Apostles which is deliuered as Apostolicall by perpetuall succession of Bishops consenting therein The Propertyes of the Church proued by Matth. 28.20 §. 4. ALL this may be cleerly prooued to omit other pregnant testimonyes by the words of our Sauiour in the last of S. Matthew Going into the world teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to keepe all that I haue commanded you and behold I am with you all dayes euen to the consummation of the world A (r) The Minister pag. 195. lin 4. sayth that this promise is conditionall in repect of Pastours succeeding the Apostles to wit that Christ will assist them conditionally whē they teach and baptize as he hath commanded but that they shall so still teach he doth not promise p. 24. lin 28. This exposition is false first because our Sauiour here promiseth his Presence vnto the Apostles and their successours to baptize and teach vntill the worlds end by one and the same forme of speach and indiuiduall breath so that the promise cannot be conditionall in respect of the successors except it be also conditionall in respect of the Apostles But in respect of the Apostles the promise is absolute as the Minister grants pag. 94. lin 23. Therefore it is also absolute in respect of their successors Not that this or that Pastour may not be deceaued but that they shall neuer deliuer by ioynt consent any falshood as the Apostles doctrine Secondly if the promise be conditionall then the sense is this I will alwayes assist you to teach Christen aright when you teach christen according to my commandement as the Minister expounds pag. 94. lin 22. But this sense is idle and iust nothing as if Christ had sayd Behold I will assist you to teach aright when you teach aright for what is to teach Christian Religion aright but to
the first place For as Protestants acknowledge the particular examination of doctrines is tedious and long not for the capacity of all whereas the finding out of the true Church endeth all controuersyes seeing we may securely follow her directions and rest in her Iudgement Field Epist. dedicat Secondly what more idle and vayne then to appeale from Scripture setting downe matters cleerly vnto Scripture teaching thinges obscurely or not so cleerly what is this but to appeale from light to darkenes or at the least from noone day to twy-light But no particular point of doctrin is in holy Scripture so manifestly set down as is the Church the marks whereby the same may be knowne no matter about which the Scripturs are more copious and cleere then about visibility perpetuity amplitude the Church was to haue so that as S. Augustine sayth Scriptures are more cleere about the Church then euen about Christ. in Psalm 30. concion 2. That Scripture in this poynt is so cleere that by no shift of false interpretation it can be auoyded the impudency of any forhead that will stand agaynst this euidence is confounded de vnit Eccles. c. 5. That it is prodigious blindnes not to see which is the true Church Tract 1. in 1. Epist. Ioan. That the Church is the tabernacle placed in the Sunne that it cannot be hidden vnto any but such as shut their eyes against it l. 2. cont Petilian c. 32. What vanity then is it for Protestants not being able to cleere by Scripture the cleerest of all points to appeale vnto the prouing of their doctrine by more darke or lesse euident places Thirdly if no man can directly know which be the Scriptures the Apostles deliuered but by the Tradition of the Catholike Church then it is vayne before they decide this controuersy to vndertake to proue by Scriptures what doctrine the Apostles taught For how can Scripture make me know what the Apostles taught vnlesse I know aforehand the Scriptures to be the Apostles I may see this or that doctrine deliuered in the Scripture shewed me as the Apostles but I cannot know that doctrin to be the Apostles except I know aforehand the booke to be the Apostles but this cannot be proued but by the Tradition of the Church I omit many other arguments wherby this shift may be conuinced to be but flying from the light of Gods word about the visible Church For as sayth Saint Augustine l. 1. contra Crescon cap. 33. God would haue his Church to be described in Scripture without any ambiguity as cleere as the beames of the Sunne that the controuersy about the true Church being cleerly decided when questions about particular doctrines that are obscure arise we might fly to her and rest in her iudgement that this visibility is a manifest signe wherby euen the rude and ignorant may discerne the true Church from the false Augustine l. 13. cont Faust. c. 13. must eyther be the Roman or the Protestant or some other opposite vnto both Protestants cannot say a Church opposite vnto both for then they should be condemned in their owne Iudgement and bound to conforme themselues to that Church which can be no other but the Grecian a Church holding almost as many if not more doctrines which Protestāts dislike thē doth the Church of Rome as I can demonstrate if need be It is also most manifest vndenyable that Protestants are not such nor part of such a Church since their Reuolt and separation from the Romane seing confessedly they changed their doctrines they once held forsooke the body wherof they were members brake off from the stocke of that tree wherof they were branches Neyther did they depart from the Roman ioyne themselues with any Church professing their particular doctrines dissonant from it Ergo the Roman is the one holy Catholike Apostolicall Church The second Argument THIS also plainly will appeare to any man of vnderstanding that will cast on the Roman Church an vnpartiall eye For she is most euidently Apostolicall hauing most glorious successiō of Bishops Pastours famous in all (x) The Minister p. 116. lin 9. sayth that it is incōsequent to inferre negatiuely from humane history to say historyes are silent therfore no such matter I answere Hēce one may feele euen with his hand what an vnconsequent and absurd Religion theirs is which cannot stand without denying principles euident in common reason receaued by consent of mankind for who doth not feele that to argue from humane history thus negatiuely they are silent Therfore there neuer was any such matter is many times conuincing and strong This some Protestants more iudicious then our Minister acknowledge who thus write It is most playne that euen negatiuely an argument from humane authority may be strong as namely this The Chronicles of England mention no more then only six Kings bearing the name of Edward since the tyme of the last Cōquest therfore it cannot be there should be more It is true men are ignorant many things may escape them they may be deceaued they may conceale truth or vtter vntruth out of malice they may forget what they know Howbeit INFINITE CASES are wherin all these impediments are so MANIFESTLY excluded as there is no shew or colour wherby any such exception may be taken Thus M. Hooker Eccles. Policy pag. 115. 116. Now amongst these cases wherein the negatiue argument from Tradition and history is strong the chiefest is when the matter is famous and illustrious and there is a line and succession of chiefe Bishops Princes Persons notoriously knowne euen to the particularityes of their names actions dayes of their raygne and death Wherfore it is idle what the Minister pag. 230. brings agaynst this that we know not who was the first that eate mans flesh nor when the Assyrian matrons did first prostitute themselues in the temple of Venus For no wonder we know not such things seing we haue not a lineall history of these times as we haue of other times specially since the comming of Christ. For lineall history concerning illustrious matters is both affirmatiuely negatiuely strong yea more strong negatiuely then affirmatiuely The reason is because it is not so impossible that men with full report should vent an vntruth as that they should be by full cōsent silent about a most illustrious truth men being in such cases more prone to report then to conceale For example should one contest that some of our Kings since the Conquest set vp Images in al Churches of England the Country being before that tyme pure Protestant might not such an impudent writer be conuinced of madnes by negatiue history And why But because there is a most notorious line of our Kings since the last Conquest and their names actions dayes of their raygne and deathes most famously knowne In the same manner there being a line of Popes so conspicuously knowne as nothing more from Peter vnto Vrban they eight what
though he deny the Primacy of S. Peter yet is forced by the euideÌ„ce of the sacred Text to graÌ„t that wheÌ„ce this primacy is proued First p. 157. that S. Peter had the Primacy of spirituall authority vniuersall Iurisdiction ouer the whole Church with the rest of the Apostles Secondly that this was giuen him singularly to wit as appeares by the Ghospell Matth. 16.10 Ioan. 20.21 by the singular order institutioÌ„ Christ applyed to him Now this doth inforce Monarchicall primacy For the three different formes of gouernement Democracy Aristocracy Monarchy are nothing els but three different applications of the primacy of iurisdiction vniuersall to different persons Primacy of vniuersall Iuridiction applyed generally to the whole Commons is Democracy applyed principally to some few chiefe persons of the State Aristocracy applyed singularly to one indiuiduall person Monarchy And what is vnderstood by Monarchy but primacy of power and vniuersall Iurisdiction applyed singularly to one indiuiduall person ouer all the affaires of a whole and entiere state Hence the Apostles were as the Fathers say both equall and inferiour vnto Peter Equall in that they had the same kind of power that Peter had to wit the authority of the Key-bearers of the Rockes of the Pastors of the vniuersall Church nor doe we read in the Ghospell any kind of power giuen to Peter which was not also giuen for kind to the rest on the other side the other Apostles were inferiour vnto Peter as the same Fathers affirme in that they had the same kind of power in a lower degree with subordination vnto Peter as the chiefe no kind of power being giuen to the rest of the Apostles which we doe not expressely reade in the Ghospell to haue been giuen to S. Peter by singular commission order and institution Whence it is consequent that Peter was gouernour of the whole Church with the rest in more eminent degree of power and Iurisdiction then the rest all men being bound to obey him more specially more singularly and aboue the rest The eminency of the rest in the Church was vniuersall power had by commission directed coÌ„monly to them all wherby they all indifferently not one more then the other receaued commission of power in respect of all men of the Church distinct from themselues The eminency of Peter in the Church was vniuersall power giueÌ„ by commission directed singularly to his only person To Peter the sonne of Ionas Matth. 16.18 Wherby he was endued with primacy of Ecclesiasticall power in respect of all men in the Church distinct from himselfe in which number all Christians absolutely are comprehended not one excluded And this is Monarchy Now if Christ did ordayne and institute Monarchicall Gouernement in his Church then the gouernement thereof must be and was euer Monarchicall and that Peter still hath had a Monarchicall successour but if he had such a successour it is by all historyes more euident then the sunne that he had no other but the Roman Bishop What the Minister heere obiecteth agaynst the Roman Bishops Primacy is triuiall stuffe vrged without any new difficulty to wit about the tytle of vniuersall Bishop the Nicene Canon Contention of S. Cyprian with Pope Stephen the controuersy of the Africans about Appellations the Asians resisting Pope Victor All which Instances truly examined proue the primacy most euidently as is shewed by Bellarmine l. 2 de Pontif. lately by Fidelis Annosus de Monarchia Ecclesiastica l. 2. c. 5. 6. Primacy of S. Peter his successours the fundation which Christ layd of his Church necessary for the perpetual gouernment therof Matth. 16.18 Thirdly their questioning the infallible Authority of lawfull (a) The Minister heere rayleth agaynst Councells gathered by the authority of the Pope and in most grosse maÌ„ner falsifieth Cusanus in eight or nine particulars but in fine he dares not make direct answere to the question proposed whether Protestants hold the definitions of Lawfull Generall CouÌ„cels to be infallible or not His answere hereunto is like the oracle of Apollo giuen in generall and doubtfull tearmes to wit that Protestants giue the same authority vnto Councells that the ancient Church did in the margent he cites S. Augustine that Councells of Bishops are not to be equalled vnto Scriptures as doubtles they may not The truth is though he be ashamed to say it in plaine tearmes Protestants hold General CouÌ„cells lawfully assembled to be inferiour not only vnto Scripture but also vnto their exposition thereof For they teach that Councells be not assisted by the holy Ghost that it is most pernicious yea abominable to thinke so of them Luther Tom. 7. Germ. Wittenberg fol. 262. and though they proceed lawfully and be confirmed by the supreme Pastours yet be they fallible examinable refusable and subiect to the Protestant skill in Scripture In so much as the same Luther in his articles art 115. sayth When Councells haue defined then will we be Iudges whether they be to be accepted or not And the same sayth Caluin l. 4. Instit. cap. 9. Hence appeares how idle their pretence is that forsooth they would fayne haue a free Generall Councell To what purpose Surely they can intend nothing els but that they may bring the Councell to be of their humour or els if it be agaynst them to contemne it as not being in their iudgement conforme vnto Scripture It is reason M. White that you first meete amongst your selues You I say that pretend to be reformed and see whether you can agree that Generall Councells are infalliâ—â—◠〈◊〉 by the spirit of Christ so that no man may by his skill in Scripture or any other pretence reiect them This done then speake of meeting with Catholikes in a Generall Councell Otherwise Catholikes by meeting with you are sure to gayne no peace and vnity except they yield vnto you besides by the very yielding to meete with you they must for euer renounce the infallibility of Councells such a diuine stay of peace and vnity in the Church That this perpetuall renuntiation vnto CouÌ„cells must be made by meeting with you is cleere For by admitting you who question the authority of Councells into their Councells they must admit that it is at least questionable among Christians whether such Councells be infallibly assisted by Gods holy spirit or not els they cannot meet with you but must fly from you as damned heretikes If they admit the infallibility of Councells to be questionable they must bid this infallibility farewell for euer it can neuer be established by any ensuing consent of Generall Councels For if a Generall Councell should define that Generall Councells are infallible except we be sure aforehand that Councells are infallible we may doubt whether that Councell doth not erre in defining that Councels are infallible Wherefore this doctrine of the infallibility of lawfull Generall Councels is eyther to be abaÌ„doned for euer togeather with the vnity of the Church that so much depends theron or els
Theodos. Nor as the sanctifyer of our soule dwelling in the same by grace Hierom in Prouerb c. 2. Nullum inuocare idâ—â— intus orando vocare nisi Deum debemus Thirdly that the Preist doth not inuocate Saints by direct prayer in the Lyturgy of the Masse which being a sacrifice the deuotion therof is to be directed to God onely Augustine lib. 22. de ciuit c. 10. Carthag 4. c. 23. Fourthly that our friends that are deceased do not now heare vs in the familiar manner they were wont conuersing with vs. Hierom. ad Heliodor de obitu Nepotiam whatsoeuer I write seemeth to be dead 〈◊〉 because Nepotian doth not heare it to wit iâ— visible manner delighting therein and applauding the same as he was accustomed to doe in his life-time (c) HeÌ„ce appeareth the impertineÌ„cy of the Minister that so often vrgeth this place of S. Hierome pag. 29.2 lin 22. Orthodoxe pa. 54. li. 6. Fiftly that they do not know what is done in this world by their natural forces Augustine de cura pro mortuis c. 16. Per diuinam potentiam Martyres viuorum rebus intersunt quoniam defuncti per naturam propriam viuorum rebus interesse non possunt Sixthly speaking vnto some deceased persons they make an If whether they heare them or not because they speake vnto such as they knew not certainly to be Saints Nazianzen orat 3. in Iulian. (d) The Minister here sayth Did not the Fathers reckon Constantine to be in ioy and glory and yet Gregory Nazianzen vsing an Apostrophe to him sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heare o thou Spirit of Great Constantine if thou hast any notion of these thinges I Answere you falsify the text of Nazianzen both in the Greeke in your English translatioÌ„ For his words are Heare o thou Spirit of Great Constantius if thou haue any notion of these thinges Yea that we might see you corrupt the text wilâ—â—lly against your conscience euen in this very Reply in this poynt â—f controuersy you cite the same pag. 359. lit a. in this manner Audi etiam 〈◊〉 Constantij magni anima siquis mortuus sensus est Heare o thou Spirit of â—reat Constantius c. Now Constantius was an Arian and a persecutour of Catholickes vnto his dying day though on his death bed it was sayd â—e made some kind of repentance Hence S. Gregory NazianzeÌ„ might doubt â—f his being in Glory and say Heare if thou haue any notion of these â—â—inges The same Father in his funerall Oration for his sister Gorgonia where he sayth Sister admit of this oration in lieu of many funerall offeâ—â—ngs If this reward be giuen to holy soules to feele these things he doth not doubt of her hearing his prayers but only whether she receaued an humane naturall content in that his affectuous Panigyricall made in her prayse THIS truth supposed I cannot but coÌ„ceaue that your Maiesty professing so much loue to the first primitiue ages may â—eceaue satisfaction about this point the causes of Protestants dislikes being weake and not to be opposed against the strength of so long continued authority as I shall endeauour to demonstrate in their eight usuall Exceptions Inuocation of Saints not to be disliked because not expressed in Scripture §. 2. AND first I must satisfy the transcendeÌ„tall cause of their dislike (a) Confess August art 12. Fulke against Rhem. which is that worship and Inuocation of Saints deceased is no where expressely set downe in Scripture without expresse warrant wherof nothing may lawfully be done that belongs to Religion But this though carrying a shew of deuotion in the conceit of common people is altogether vnworthy of the erudition of any learned Protestant For howsoeuer in the beginning of their separation they did (b) Luther l de seruo arb serm de Cruce siue expresso Dei mandato cry for expresse Scripture expresse Commands oâ— the Written Word yet now they are 〈◊〉 gone (c) Wotton in his Tryall pag. 89. from that principle as they are exceeding angry (d) Iohn White in his defence pag. 228. with vs that wâ— should thinke that any of theirs were 〈◊〉 any time broachers of such an absurdity Wherfore in their written bookes whâ—â— they teach in Pulpits I know not they (e) D. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 20. Whitaker de sacra Scrip. cont 1. q. 6. disclaime from expresse Scripture and thinke it a sufficient warrant of a Christâ—â—â— custome that the same be (f) Note that it is one thing to be expressed in Scripture and another to be grouÌ„ded on Scripture All Christian doctrine is not expressed in Scripture yet euery Christian doctrin is so grouÌ„ded on Scripture that it may in some sort or other be proued from Scripture grounded â—â— Scripture that is may be deduced by good discourse from truthes reuealed therin 〈◊〉 be proued consonant to the rules principles therof according to which ample extent of Scriptures vnto things deducible from them or consonant vnto them there is no Catholike custome that hath not warrant in Gods word as we are able to shew This onely we require that ignorant people be not Iudges of such inferences an office so farre aboue their capacity as I am perswaded no vnlearned man that hath in him any sparke of humility or any mediocrity of Iudgement will vndertake it For no man is competent to iudge assuredly of argumeÌ„ts by deduction froÌ„ Scripture that hath not exact skill of Scripture to know the false sense from the true as of Logicke to distinguish Syllogismes from Paralogismes being able to giue sentence of the truth of principles by the one and of the inferences by the other A thing so hard as euen learned Deuines do much suspect their owne sufficiency to iudge of deductions dare not absolutely pronounce their sentence but referre the same to definitions of authority which besides skill of Scripture Logicke hath the promise of Gods perpetuall assistance in teaching the Christian Church Wherfore if Protestants will bind vs to bring expresse Scripture for the worship of Imags Adoration of the Sacrament Inuocation of Saintes they must themselues likewise be bound to bring expresse Scripture against Anabaptists for (g) D. Field l. 4. of the Church c. 20. saith It is no where expressely deliuered in Scripture christening of Infants and for the keeping of the Sunday in lieu of the ancient Sabboath Day for their dedicating of (h) CoÌ„cerning the Protestants keeping festiuall daies of Saints with religious solemnity the Minister saith not a word which is tacitely to grant that this duty of ReligioÌ„ is vsed piously by the English Church although the same waÌ„t the warrant of Scripture why then may not Catholicks pray vnto Saintes though there were no warrant in Scripture for such practise Dayes in memory of the Apostles with religious solemnity for the (i) Concerning the Crosse in baptisme the Minister saith pag. 302. that it is
of benefits receaued as pictures of Lymms by Saints prayers miraculously cured That therin they doe not deflect from ancient Christian deuotion and that the Christian Church in her best tymes vsed vniuersally to make such oblations Theodoret (o) Theodoret. de curandis Graecorum affect l. 8. is a sufficient witnes who writing agaynst the Gentills alleadgeth as a manifest signe of Christs Godhead and Omnipotency that Idols being excluded he brought in Martyrs to be honoured in their roome not superstitiously as Gods but religiously as diuine men and Gods speciall friends Christian people sayth he present themselues vnto Martyrs not as vnto Gods but as vnto the Martyrs of God and diuine men inuocating beseeching them to be intercessours for them vnto God And those that piously and with Fayth pray obtayne what they desire as testify the oblations which they being therunto bound by their vowes present in the Chappell 's of Saints as tokens of health recouered For some hang vp Images of eyes others of eares others of hands some made of gold some made of siluer (p) The Minister also here denyeth that these ancient Christians did offer these oblations at the shrines of Martyrs in token of gratitude for benefits receued Wheras Theodoret saith expressely that they were vowes which they had made and were bound to pay vnto the Martyrs that is vnto their shrines as monuments of their power in curing them Thus he so generall and notorious euen vnto Infidels was this Christian deuition The Roman Church set formes of Prayer without cause misliked §. 8. FINALLY Protestants dislike the circumstance of praying in a set forme vnto Saints and that we appoint a particular office vnto the Blessed Virgin Mary which cannot be proued to haue been vsed in the Primitiue Church (q) The Minister pag. 353. brings prayers vsed in the Romane Missalls as though they were absurd Call vpon the sweet name of Mary Saints interceding we may deserue to be deliuered from all necessityes The Saints merits interceding Lord absolue vs from all sinnes I Answere all these speaches are the very words vsed by the full consent of ancient Fathers as yow may find in the fifth Demonstration Doth the Minister expect that for feare at his rayling we should leaue all antiquity We must not do so nor do we nor may we feare the bitternes of mans tongue in so high degree I answere that the Primer or Office so tearmed of our Lady is not an office properly and principally directed vnto her but an Office contayning prayses of God taken out of holy Scripture wherein commemoration of her is made So as I dare say that the prayers of that office of our Lady that are directed vnto her make not the hundred part thereof And seing it is most certayne that the Christian Church in her best times did frequently pray vnto Saints what reason haue we to thinke that in her set forme of prayers she did not vse to craue their intercession If it be lawfull pious and profitable when we pray vnto God to pray also to Saints by their mediatiō offering our prayers to him why should any mislike the doing of this in a set forme that is allowed by the Church why should this displease rather then an extemporall forme But further we cā proue that the Church in her best (r) The Minister here questioneth our meaning by the word primitiue I answere that we hold that true Christian Religion planted by the Apostles was not a meere shaddow that vanished away in a trice but that the beliefe and practise therof cōtinued in the world after their decease This Religion in respect of being in the world was primitiue in the dayes of the Apostles and of them that saw the Apostles and were conuerted by them But in respect of free publike profession the same was neuer Primitiue till the fourth Age that is vnder Constantine Now the monuments of the first and second Age after the Apostles in regard of persecutiō are few many Christian Historyes monuments yea in a manner al were made away by Dioclesian So that the best way to know what Religiō was professed immediately vpō the death of the Apostles is to examine what forme of Religiō in the dayes of Constantine came frō vnder groūd secret meetings into the free view of the world For no doubt but that Religion was freely professed vnder Constantine that was cruelly persecuted and the monuments therof abolished by Dioclesiā Constantine his Predecessour and the other Pagan Emperours before him But the Christian profession of Constantines age is so cleerly Catholike as our Ministers feare triall thereby and would rather haue all reduced vnto those ages wherof the monuments are scarse for therin they hope to find best patronage for their negatiue religion and for their Inuisible Perpetuall Namelesse Notorious Professours times did pray vnto Saints in set formes as Catholikes now do euen with a forme of prayer acknowledged cōfessed by the Magdeburgiās Cent. 4. c. 4. to haue byn in vse euē in the fourth age after Christ in which the foure first generall Councels were held But if they will perchance say that they do not so much dislike set formes vnto Saints as some Phrases or speaches in our Prayer-bookes that seeme to giue too much vnto Creatures as our calling the Blessed Virgin Mother of Grace Mother of mercy saying to her Lady protect vs from the Diuell receaue vs in the houre of death giue light to the blind pardon to the guilty remooue from vs all euill c. I answere these speaches cannot iustly be disliked because they are vnderstood in a pious sense knowne to Catholikes a sense obuious playne according to the phrase of Scripture and which the words may well beare euen according to the custome of speach The nature of thinges being various and the answerable conceipts of men copious but words to expresse such conceyts scant and in great paucity necessity doth inforce vs to vse words applyable to diuers senses For example one man may deliuer another from death either by authority pardoning him as do Kings or by Iustice defending him as do Aduocates by force taking him out of his enemyes hands as do Souldiers or paying his ransome to them that keep him captiue as Almoners finally by begging his life of them that haue power to take it away as intercessours These be very different wayes of reliefe yet haue we but one word to expresse them all to wit to saue a mans life which therefore is to be vnderstood according to the subiect it is applyed And if men want vnderstanding or will not take our words according to the matter they are applyed vnto there can neuer want Cauils vnles we eyther speake not at all or when we speake still vse long circumlocutions which were ridiculous in verse impossible the metre not permitting it And yet the aforesayd misliked phrases in the office of the Blessed Virgin are
the Apostle prefer prayer that doth edify the vnderstanding yet doth he not prohibite prayer of meere affection without new instruction of the vnderstanding but saith that in such prayers men pray with their spirit and affection though not with their vnderstanding Now that S. Paul did cōmād that seruice should be in such a language as euery womā in the Church might be able to vnderstād it word by word (b) The Minister sayth pag. 374. that Ignorance of the distinct notion of euery word hindreth not sufficient edification when the ordinary necessary and common passages of the publicke seruice are intelligible Thus he Now I subsume But people who vnderstand not latin distinctly may by instruction through bookes Sermons and Cathechismes vnderstand the ordinary necessary and common passages of the publicke seruice specially by the helpe of vse and custome as experience sheweth Ergo publicke prayers in latin may yield sufficient edification and so are lawfull is incredible nor are our Aduersaryes able to proue it neyther can they shew by any Records of antiquity that such a custome was in the Primitiue Church yea the cōtrary may more then probably be shewed because the drift of the Church in appointing Lyturgies or set formes of publike Prayer at the oblation of the Eucharisticall sacrifice was not for the (C) The Minister sayth that indeed the end of publicke seruice is not to instruct People yet the prayers must be said in a language vnderstood of all because they which come to God with sound of wordes without vnderstanding offer the sacrifice of fooles Answere He that offereth vnto God vocall prayers full of deuout pious affection knowing only in generall that they be pious deuout expressing such affections offers a gratefull sacrifice vnto God though he doe not distinctly vnderstand the words and parts of the Prayer For exāple if one that vnderstands not Latin belieue the Psalme Miserere to be full of penitent affections and say the same with many teares of inward sorow contritiō for his sinnes whosoeuer will say that this man offers vnto God the sacrifice of fooles is himselfe an Infidell or Foole. For what greater folly then to think that prayers of pious affection please not God except the affection correspond mathematically to the words peoples instruction but for other reasons First that by this publike Seruice a continuall dayly tribute or homage of prayer thankesgiuing might be publikely offered and payed vnto God Secondly that christians by their personall assistāce at this publike seruice might protest exercise exteriourly acts of Religion common with the whole Church represented by the Synaxis or Ecclesiasticall meeting of euery Christian parish Finally to the end that euery Christian by his presence yielding consent vnto the publike prayers prayses and thankesgiuings of the Church and as it were subscribing setting his seale vnto them by this assisting at them might ordinarily participate of the graces benefits fruits which the Church doth obtaine by her Liturgyes and publike oblations Now for this end there is no need that euery one shold vnderstād word by word the prayers that are sayd in the publike Liturgy but it sufficeth that the Church in generall and in particular Pastours and Ecclesiasticall persons dedicated vnto the Ministeryes of the Church and who watch being bound to giue an account of soules committed to their charge haue particular notice of all the prayers that are sayd and that all who will may be taught instructed in particular if they will vse diligence desire it Moreouer the Churches anciently euen in the purest tymes of Christianity had Chancels vnto which Laymen might not enter so could not particularly and distinctly vnderstand (c) It had bene folly for the Church intending her Liturgy for the instruction of lay-men to haue excluded them out of the Chancells and though our Aduersary say that the Preist read seruice in so audible a voice as he might be heard from the highest of the Chācell where the Aultar was placed vnto the body of Church yet this he might better haue spokē vnto fooles then vnto men of vnderstāding that know how great the Chancells of many Churches are and how farre distinctly audible a mans voice ordinarily is the prayers said by the publike Minister of the Church Within the sayd Chancells they did also vse to say a good part of the Liturgy (d) Vide Liturgias impressas anno Domini 1568. Basil. in Liturg fol. 34. secretly so that their voyce was not audible vnto any Yea the Greeke Church did anciently vse a Veyle (e) Basil. ibidem fol. 34.38.41.43.46 Chrysostom Liturg. fol. 55. hom 61. ad Pop. wherewith the Priest was for the tymes of the sacred Oblation compassed which are manifest signes that the Church did neuer thinke it necessary that all the publike Liturgy should be heard much lesse word by word vnderstood by the whole vulgar multitude present therat Besides it is certayne that the Scripture was not read in any language but Greeke ouer al the Churches of the East as S. Hierome (f) Hieron praefat in Paralip witnesseth Also the Greeke Liturgy of Saint Basill was vsed in all the Church of the East and the Grecian was not the vulgar language of all the Countreyes of the East as is apparent by manifest testimonyes particularly of the (g) Basil. de Spiritu sancto c. 19. Cappadocians (h.i) Hieron in Prooem 2. lib. com ad Galat. Act. Apost c. 1. v. 10. 11. Mesopotamians (h.i) Hieron in Prooem 2. lib. com ad Galat. Act. Apost c. 1. v. 10. 11. Galathians (k) Theodoret. in histor SS Patrum hist. 13. Lycaonians (l) Hieron de script Eccles. in Anton. Aegyptians Syrians yea that all these Countreys and most of the Orient had their proper language distinct from the Greeke is manifest out of the Acts of the Apostles No lesse manifest is it that the Latin Liturgy was cōmon anciently for all the Churches of the Westerne parts euen in Africke as appeareth by testimonyes of S. (*) August Epist. 57. de doctrin Christian. l. 2. c. 13. August in Psalm 123. in exposit Ep. ad Rom. epist. 173. Augustine But it is manifest that the Latin was not the vulgar language for all nations of the West and though the better sort vnderstood it yet some of the (m) Although the Fathers say that the Greek Liturgy translation did serue all Asia and the East Although likewise they affirme the same of the Latin for all Africa and the Occident yet our Minister saith to the contrary pa. 379. and 380. that all people had their Liturgyes in their natiue tōgue which he proueth because the people did then praise God in all languages and did pray according to S. Iustine and Tertulliā togither with the Preist Ergo the publike Liturgy was read in the Church in all vulgar tongues As his denying what
of bread was acknowledged by the Fathers (*) The Minister pag. 462. proposeth this argument agaynst Concomitancy which he thinkes to be so stronge and glorious as he sets the same in a distinct letter ech proposition in a distinct line to call the eye of the Reader vpon it Whatsoeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was before offered to God on the Crosse. But the body of Christ hauing soule and bloud in it by Concomitancy was not offered to God vpon the Crosse. Ergo at this day soule and bloud be not in the body of Christ by Concomitancy c. I answere This argument serues as a myrrour wherein Learned men may see and admire our Ministers want both of Philosophy and Logicke His want of Philosophy in not distinguishing the being by Concomitancy in the body from being by Concomitancy in the place where the body is The body of Christ neyther on the Crosse nor in the Eucharist hath soule bloud in it and vnited with it by Concomitancy yet the body of Christ not only in the Sacrament but also on the Crosse had soule and bloud present with it by Concomitancy or consequence For the soule being substantially vnited with the body and bloud contayned within the body they were consequently inforced to be togeather with the body in the same place on the Crosse. Hence the Ministers argument is turned agaynst himselfe That body is receaued in the Eucharist which was offered to God on the Crosse but Christs body hauing soule and bloud in the same place with it by Concomitancy was offerred to God on the Crosse. Ergo the body of Christ hauing soule in the same place with it by Concomitancy is in the Sacrament His ignorance in Logicke is likewise very specious and notable to present vnto the world with so great solemnity an idle Sophisme and Fallacy tearmed by the Logitians Figurae dictionis Of which fallacy one kind is when from the substantiall word one argueth vnto the accidentall As for example this Sophisme What meate soeuer thou didst buy in the market thou dost eate at dinner but thou did'st buy raw flesh in the market Ergo thou dost eate raw flesh at dinner And this likewise What fingers soeuer thou had'st being a Childe thou hast now being a man thou had'st little fingers being a Child Ergo thou hast little fingers now being a man Iust of the same frame fashion is our Ministers argument What soeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was offered on the Crosse A body that had not blood in it by Concomitancy was offered on the Crosse Ergo a body not hauing blood in it by Concomitancy is receaued in the Sacrament If this forme be good one may proue that we do not now receaue the body of Christ risen from death Whatsoeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was offered on the Crosse A body hauing soule and blood in it by vertue of resurrection from death to life was not offered on the Crosse Ergo a body risen from death or hauing soule and blood in it by vertue of resurrection from death is not receaued in the Sacrament Here your Ladyes may see with what Baberyes you delude their Ignorance arguing from the Substantiall vnto the Accidentall tearme For though Christs body receaued in the Sacrament be the same that was offered on the Crosse in respect of substance it doth not follow that therefore it is the same also in respect of accidents qualityes and circumstances Hence his body may now haue blood and soule by Concomitancy with it in the Sacrament though it had not had blood soule by Concomitancy with it on the Crosse. This principle supposed which is no lesse certayne then the true real presence I inferre the lawfulnes of Communion vnder one kind to wit vnder the sole forme of bread by this Argument If communion vnder one kind be not agaynst the substance eyther of Christs institution or of his Sacrament or his precept or of the practise of the primitiue Church it is lawfull iustifiable for iust reasons may be commanded by the Church This proposition is true because there neyther are other causes of dislike that may not be reduced to these foure neyther doth Christs Institution or Precept or the Primitiue practise binde vs to keep them further then in substance the accidentall circumstances of institutions Sacramēts precepts primitiue Customes being variable according to the variable disposition of thinges vnto which the Church militant in this life is subiect Now I assume Concomitancy being supposed it may be made euident that Communion vnder one kind is not agaynst the substance eyther of Christs institution or of the Sacrament or of his precept or of the primitiue practise For the substance of these foure obligations is one the same to wit that we be truly really partakers of the body and bloud of our Sauiour which is (e) The Minister p. 467. saith Though Concomitancy be granted yet Communion in one kind is not iustifyed because the blood by Concomitancy is receaued in the veines of the body not as shed out of the veynes But people must receaue the blood of Christ represented as shed which is not done but by receauing the Cuppe Answere The essence of the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice is to represent the effusion of our Lords blood so can not be entyre in one kind But the essence of the Eucharist as a Sacrament is to represent the body and blood of our Lord as the foode of the soule But in eyther kind the body and blood to be sufficient food of the soule the Iesuit prooueth so that people be not boūd so receaue the bloud represented distinctly and expressely as shed but only the Priest that doth sacrifice fully done by Communion vnder one kind as I will shew in the foure consequent Sections Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Institution of Christ. §. 2. DIVINE Institution is an action of God whereby he giues Being vnto things with reference vnto some speciall end This end is twofold the one corporall and temporall for which God hath instituted agreable and conuenient meanes That men may be borne into this world he did institute marriage and for maintenance of the sayd life being had he ordayned many sorts of meate The other end is spirituall for which God hath instituted Sacraments as for the first obtayning of grace and spirituall life the Sacraments of Baptisme Pennance for the preseruing of grace increasing therein particularly the Sacrament of the Eucharist That a man be bound to vse the Institution of God two things are required First that the end thereof be necessary and he bound to endeauour the attayning therof Hence it is that though marriage be the institution of God appointed to propagate mankind yet euery man is not bound to marry because he is not bound to propagate mankind when there be others that do aboundantly comply with that duty to which mankind is
an act of obedience vnto Christs precept Drinke yee all of this but obedience is better then Sacrifice 1. Sam. 15. 22. His argument supposeth without proofe what the Iesuit hath shewed to be most false and so may be with more truth turned to the contrary for to receaue in one kind is an act of obedience vnto the Church whereof Christ sayth He that heareth not the Church let him be to thee as an heathen and a publican But obedience is better then Sacrifice Therefore more spirituall profit and merit is gotten by Communion in one kind Communion vnder one kind not agaynst Christ his Precept §. 4. ALTHOVGH Communion vnder both kindes pertayne not to the substance of the Sacrament yet if Christ did specially commaund the same we are boūd to that obseruance and should by communion vnder one kind sinne not agaynst his Sacrament and Institution but agaynst a speciall diuine precept Hence we may probably inferre that Christ gaue no speciall precept thereof because Christ hath commaunded no more concerning the vse of the Eucharist then what by the substance of the institution nature of the Sacrament we are bound vnto leauing accidentall circūstances belonging thereunto to be ordeyned by the Apostles and Pastours of the Church as S. Augustin noteth saying (r) Augustin ep 118. Our Lord did not appoint in what order the Sacrament of the Eucharist was to be taken afterward but left authority to make such appointments vnto his Apostles by whome he was to dispose and order his Churches So cleerly doth S. Augustine speake that Christ gaue no commaundements to his Church concerning the vse of the Sacrament besides such as are conteyned in the substance of the Institution and of the Sacrament of which kind Communion vnder both kindes cannot be as hath been proued which will further appeare by pōdering the places alleadged to prooue a Precept The words of Christ Do this in remembrance of me do no wayes inferre a Precept of both kinds First because he sayd Do this in remembrance of me absolutly only of the Sacrament in the forme of bread of the forme of wine not absolutely but conditionally Do this as often as you drinke in memory of me that the Aduersaryes of the Church might not haue any the least plausible shew to complayne of her neglecting Gods Precept (s) The Minister in this place is very bitter tearming the Iesuit Vermine infatuated Romanist and the like But in lieu of answering his argument he confirmes the same as is shewed in the Censure Sect. 4. §. 5. For this precept Do this being the only precept giuē by Christ to his Church as shal afterwards appeare and giuē absolutely of the forme of bread conditionally of the forme of wine there is no colour to accuse the Church of doing agaynst Christs precept by Communion vnder one kind Secondly suppose Christ spake these Imperatiue wordes Do this after the giuing of the Cup yet are they to be vnderstood with this restriction Do this that is all things that belong to the essence and substance of this action in memory of me For if we extend the precept Do this further then the substance of the action vnto the accidentary circumstances therof in which Christ did then institute and giue the Sacrament many absurdityes will follow For by this rule we must alwayes celebrate and receaue the Eucharist after supper as Christ did specially seeing this circumstance of after supper was chosen of Christ as being very proper mysterious For thereby is signifyed that this is the sacrifice which succeeds the Paschall Lambe that was offered in the Euening the sacrifice whereof the royall Prophet sayth (t) Psal. 140. v. 2. in the person of Christ Eleuatio manuum mearum sacrificium vespertinum The sacrifice which instituted in the euening of the world was to continue vntill the end thereof We should also by this rule be bound still to celebrate in Azime that is vnleuened bread in which Christ did celebrate and giue the Sacrament saying Do this which circumstance was also mystical and signifyes the purity of our Sauiours virginall body person which was without any Leauen of sinne And besides the Priest might not giue the Sacrament vnto any but such whose feet he had washed afore seing Christ gaue the Eucharist with this preparatiue circūstance which doubtlesse is very pertinent and mysterious to signify with what purity of conscience mē ought to approach vnto the sacred Table If to bind men to obserue these circumstances of our Sauiours action though mysterious and Sacramentall were absurd as without doubt it is most absurd then we must not extend the precept Do this to the circumstances of Christs action but acknowledge that the precept Do this only includes the doing of that which pertaines to the substance of the Sacrament and so not to the giuing of both kindes the substance thereof being entyre in one only kind as hath been proued (u) The Ministers ignorance and simplicity in answering these argumēts is discouered in the Censure Sect. 1. §. 2. The second text much vrged for the giuing of the Cup vnto all men is the wordes of our Sauiour Bibite ex hoc omnes wherein some note our Sauiours prouidence saying that he foreseeing that some would take the Cup from the Laity graunting them the consecrated bread sayd of the Cup Bibite ex hoc omnes but not of bread Manducate ex hoc omnes I answere the wordes of our Sauiour be plaine Drink ye all of this But the difficulty is to whō they are spokē who are those all Luther would haue all men for whom the bloud of Christ is shed whence it followes that as the bloud of Christ was shed for all men euen Infidells Iewes Turkes Infants the Cup also should be giuen vnto all these which to say were very absurd Others restrayne the wordes All to the faythfull come to the yeares of discretion who must drinke of the Cup all of them But what shall we say of them that are by nature Abstemij who cannot endure the tast of any wine yet are not to be excused from the Sacrament Wherfore the truth is that these words were spoken vnto all the Apostles and to them all only And though it be inough for Catholiks to say it and put their aduersaryes to prooue their pretended Precept which they call of the eternall King for the Cup and so long as they cannot cleerly conuince the contrary good reason the word of the Church defined by Councells should stand yet ex abundanti we can very probably shew out of the sacred Text that the particle all concernes all the Apostles only First what one Euangelist Mat. 26.27 sayth was commanded vnto al Bibite ex hoc omnes drinke yee all of this another relates to haue been answerably performed by them all Matth. 14.23 Biberunt ex eo omnes all dranke thereof but the second all is restrayned to all the Apostles and to
them all only What reason then is there to extend the words Drinke yee all of this further then to all the Apostles Secondly these words Accipite (*) The Minister p. 490. saith If Bibite do not import a precept that the people receaue the Sacrament in the forme of wine thē Māducate doth not inforce a precept that they receaue vnder the forme of bread and so they shall be boūd to receaue neyther in one kind nor in both Answere The word Manducate was spoken personally to the Apostles only as much as Bibite and so by vertue of this word we cannot bind the people to receaue vnder the forme of bread Notwithstanding by other texts of Scripture we prooue thē to be bound to receaue by eating the Sacred bread For the precept doe this in remēbrance of mee was spoken only after the consecration of the bread as appeares by the Gospell But your selfe say pag. 490. lin 7. That these wordes were spoken to the People respectiuely and in part to wit that they receaue though not consecrate administer the Sacrament in the forme of bread Therefore though the word Manducate do not yet other wordes of the Institutiō do inforce a precept to receaue in the forme of bread manducate bibite Take eate drinke were certainly spoken vnto the same persons and they runne so togeather in ranke that no man can with probability make the one out-runne the other But the Commaund Accipite which signifyes take with your hands for it is a precept distinct from mādacate which is take with your mouth was giuen to the Apostles only not vnto al the faythfull else we must say that all Communicants are bound to take the consecrated bread Cup with their hands Who euer heard of such a precept in the Christian Church The third reason is because there was a peculiar and personall cause why Christ should giue that peculiar counsell or admonition for the Imperatiue word doth not euer signify a precept but often an aduise or a permission as your Maiesty well knowes to his Apostles at that tyme (x) When the finall cause end of the precept is personall then the sense of precept is personall The end of Christs saying Drinke yee all of this was personall to wit that all the Apostles should drinke of the same indiuiduall Cupp without new consecration filling Ergo the sense of the precept is personall only concernes those twelue persons to wit because he would haue them all not only drinke of his bloud but also would haue them drinke of the same Cup without filling consecrating the same anew This is more manifest in the Protestants opinion who thinke the Chalice whereof Christ sayd in S. Matthew Bibite ex hoc omnes to be the same wherof he sayd by (y) Luc. 22.18 Saint Marke Accipite diuidite inter vos non enim bibam ampliùs de hoc genimine vitis For this being supposed Drinke yee all of this imports the same as Deuide this Cup amongst you But deuide this Cup amongst you was a personall precept giuen to all the Apostles importing that euery one should drinke but a part of that Cup that also in such a measure as the Cup without new filling and consecration might suffice for all to drinke thereof (z) What the Minister sayth That the precept is that all men drinke not of the same indiuiduall but of the same specificall Cup is idle For Christs words deuide this Cup amōgst you import drinke yee all of this indiuiduall Cuppe If one should bestow a quart of wine vpon 4. persōs saying Deuide this amongst you were it not ridiculous to interprete his speach that he meanes not Drinke yee all of this indiuidual quart but of a quart of the same kind If two of the cōpany should drinke vp that whole indiuiduall quart being challēdged by the other to haue done agaynst the order of the giuer who would not laugh should they answere as our Minister teacheth them that Deuide this Cupp amongst you imports not drinke all of this indiuiduall Cupp but of a Cupp of the same kind So that howsoeuer the Minister in this place doe rayle bitterly and bragg mightely yet his Reply is ridiculous and agaynst common sense What all men in the world Or all Christians that should succeed them to the worlds end Christ neuer intended that one Cup for all nor is it indeed deuided or parted with vs but the Apostles dranke it vp amongst them Wherfore referring my sayings to your Maiesties learned censure I conclude that to me it seemes cleere that the precept or rather direction Drinke yee all of this was but personal confined vnto the nūber of all there then present (*) The Minister pag. 489. bringes foure arguments to proue that the wordes of Christ Drinke yee all of this command all the faythfull to drinke which arguments though very poore ones shall be answered The first is What Christ sayd to the Apostles Paul sayd to the whole multitude of the faythfull 1. Cor. 11.28 Answere S. Paul neuer sayd the wordes drinke yee all of this to all the faythfull yea the same are not found in all the Epistles of S. Paul for 1. Cor. 11.28 he only sayth let a man proue himselfe and so eate of that bread and drinke of that Cupp which wordes as euery man in his senses must needes perceaue do not import a precept to receaue in both kinds but only that no man receaue in both kinds or in one kind without first trying himselfe whether he be worthy What you cite out of S. Hieroms commentary Coenam Domini oportet esse communem only signifyes that the Sacrament is for all men aswell for the poore as for the rich agaynst which some Corinthians erred scorning to receaue in the Company of the poore The second If Communion in both kinds hath no foundation in Gods word then Communion in one kind hath no foundation in Gods word Answere The lawfullnes of Communion in both kinds the lawfullnes of Communion in one kind haue foundation in Gods word and so to vse the one or the other is not agaynst the Diuine law But a Diuine precept to receaue in one kind or in both kinds hath no foundatiō in Gods word as being but a fond Ministeriall fancy The word of God doth command to receaue at least vnder the forme of bread but to receaue in the same only without the Cupp is no Diuine precept The third Argument If the reason why the Apostles receaued the Cupp was because they were Priests then all Priests being present at Communion ought to receaue in both kinds though they administer not Answere If the reason why the Apostles receaued the Cup was not because they were Priests but as the Iesuit proueth by the Gospell because Christ would haue it so saying vnto them Drinke yee all of this indiuiduall Cupp then is the Ministers argumēt idle and impertinent Such also is
crime with which some Protestants charge vs that our receauing vnder the sole forme of bread is to iumpe in opinion with the Manichees we may as D. Morton confesseth reiect as iniurious saying That it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine but the reason of their forbearance that was iudged hereticall Morton Protestant Appeale lib. 1. cap. 4. pag. 140. (*) Agaynst this explication of the place of Gelasius it is obiected that the same doth not agree with the reason of the Canon For Gelasius sayth men are not to be permitted to receaue but in both kinds because the diuision of one and the same Sacrament cannot be done without sacriledge The whole decree is this We find that some men hauing taken the portion of our Lords body refrayne from the Cup of the holy bloud Which men because they are imbued with I know not what superstitiō let them without any question receaue the whole Sacraments or nothing at all for the diuision of one and the same mystery cannot be vsed without a great Sacriledge I Answere first Gelasius doth not say no man is to be permitted to receaue in one kinde but only no superstitious abstinent Secondly his reason is not ōly because the deuiding of the Sacramēt is Sacriledg but quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi because they are proued to be imbued with a certayne superstitious opinion to wit that the creature of wine is impure The discourse then of Gelasius is because these men are superstitiously conceyted that the creature of wine is the Diuells gall therefore by them the deuiding of the holy mystery receauing the consecrated Bread without the Cup sine grandi sacrilegio fieri non potest cannot be done without great Sacriledge Whēce he concludes proculdubio arceantur let such men be kept from Communion in one kind without any question mercy or indulgēce As if he had sayd Vnto men Orthodoxally conceited about the creature of wine Cōmunion in one kind may be granted sometimes vpon iust causes as if they be by nature abstemij that cannot endure wine But men that be superstitiously persuaded agaynst the nature of wine proculdubio arceantur let Communion in one kind be denyed vnto them without question and granted in no case because in respect of them Communion in one kind is euer Sacrilegious The Minister also in this place keepeth a styrre and would make the world belieue that the Iesuit Vasquez doth maynly oppose himselfe agaynst the Iesuit Answerer about this place of Gelasius The Iesuit sayth he is confuted by a learned and intelligent man of his owne Society to wit Vasquez who sayth that some of his party apply the place of Gelasius agaynst Manichees but this exposition agreeth not with the last clause of the Canon Answere You shew great desire to discredit your aduersary yet cannot you doe it so much as in this trifle with truth For in citing the censure of Vasquez you leaue out the principal word which being set down would haue marred your market Vasquez not only sayth that some of his side explicate the place of Gelasius of lay Manichees but also addeth his Iudgment about the same saying probabiliter explicant this their explication is probable Do not you see your falshood in citing and vanity in vrging this censure of Vasquez If this explication be probable euen by the Iudgment of Vasquez how is the Iesuit confuted by Vasquez of his owne Society as not answering your argument sufficiently Is it not sufficient that Catholicks bringe probable solutions vnto your arguments agaynst Christian customes defined in Councells and receaued in the Church before you or your Luther were borne You your selfe say pag. 11. That no man is to reiect the Doctrine and custome of the Church or the exposition of Scripture commonly and anciently receaued vpon vncertayne and probable reasons If the Iesuit hath answered your arguments probably as euen by this censure of Vasquez he hath then be your arguments at the most but probable and consequently your reuolt from the Church of Rome grounded thereon dānable Who now is condemned by Vasquez his Censure But Vasquez sayth that the Iesuits explication though it agree fitly to the rest of the decree of Gelasius yet cannot be fitted to the last branch thereof where Gelasius sayth that the diuision of the one and same mystery is Sacrilegious in it selfe and in nature Quare mihi magis placet altera explicatio Wherefore sayth Vasquez vnto me another explication seemeth more probable I Answere First Gelasius doth not say that the diuision of the mystery is in itselfe in nature a Sacriledge nor can it be very probably sayd that he did so meane For what sense is there in this discourse To deuide the Sacrament by receauing in one kind is a Sacriledge of his owne nature and absolutely in it selfe therefore let not these men be permitted in any case to receaue in one kinde quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi because they are conuinced to hold superstitious Doctrine about the impurity of the creature of wine Besides had Gelasius meant that Communion in one kind is a sacriledge absolutely in it selfe he would haue decreed that not only superstitious mē but absolutely all men should be kept frō the same proculdubio without any question Wherfore Gelasius his decree cannot be better sensed then thus Because these men are conceyted superstitiously agaynst the creature of wine their receauing in one kind without the Cup can not but be impious Therefore proculdubio arceantur let not Communion in one kind be giuen vnto them in any case though vnto Orthodoxe people vpon iust reasons the same may be granted Secondly suppose all that Vasquez would cōclude to wit that another exposition is more probable what haue you gayned Surely nothing for this other exposition better liked by Vasquez is that Gelasius spake not of laymens receauing but of Priests that celebrate and consecrate affirming that it is sacrilegious in it selfe for Priests to cōsecrate without receauing in both kinds If the Iesuit Vasquez in this exposition and doctrine seeme to you learned intelligent be it so in Gods name you are satisfyed and your Aduersary contented for he did neuer meane to say that this explication is improbable specially the same being giuen by Gratian who read that Epistle of Gelasius which now it not extant This custome was the cause that Cyprian (o) Cyprian de Coena Domini sayth that the Law forbad the eating of bloud but the Ghospell commands the same should be drunke not only because some Christians to wit Priests are bound to drinke the bloud of Christ but also because Christ in his Ghospell did institute the Sacrament of his body bloud in both kinds whence grew the Custome of the primitiue Church to receaue in both kindes by custome there grew further an obligation to drinke of the cup except there were some iust cause of abstinence as in the sicke