for theÌ„ it would follow that she hath no milke in her two breasts but written doctrine but he sayth her two breasts are the two Testaments of Diuine Scriptures Hence you may gather that in ech of her breasts in ech of the Testaments the milke of Scripture is contayned but that only the milke of writteÌ„ doctrine is in them contayned you cannot from this text truly cited inferre therefore both by addition and transposition of wordes you help the dyce To proue That the Tradition of the Church hath no credit or authority but from Scripture and that though this Tradition might be false yet Fayth would subsist because there remayneth allwayes an higher and more soueraigne Iudge to wit God speaking in the Scripture To proue this I say you (i) Pag. 90. in margin lit c cite this text of (k) Augustin lib. 11. 〈◊〉 Faust. c. â— Tanquam in sede quâ—dam in sublimi collocata est cui seruiâ—t omnis Fidelis pius intellectus S. Augustine It is placed as it were in an high throne of authority vnto which euery faythfull and pious vnderstanding must be subiect What is this Why doe you not name it Because you durst not set downe the wordes that immediatly precede which make cleerly agaynst you to wit these (l) Excellentia Canonicâ—â— authoritatis Veteris Noui Testamenti Apoâ—stoloruÌ„ confirmata temporibus per SVCCESSIONES EpiscoporuÌ„ Propagationes Ecclesiarum tanquam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est c. The Canonicall authority of the Scriptures confirmed in the Apostles dayes is by SVCCESSIONS of Bishops propagations of Churches placed in an high throne of authority c. How directly is this testimony of S. Augustine agaynst that which you would proue thereby How hath Tradition no credit or authority but from Scripture if the Scripture by successiue tradition of Bishops hand so hand froÌ„ the Apostles hath gotten quoad nos in the persuasion of the Christian world the high seate of Diuine authority to be honoured as Gods word vnto which euery maÌ„ must yield If this successiue Tradition on which as S. Augustine teacheth our persuasion about the authority of Scripture dependes be made weake fallible by Protestants how shall the Scripture be able to keepe her credit and authority in our Fayth Verily it cannot except Christians will cease to rely on the authority of God reuealing and on doctrine deliuered by the succession of Bishops hunt after Diuine and Apostolicall Scripture by the sent and smell of the doctrines deliuered therein as you doe Likewise by addition of the Particle Only you falsify the saying of (*) Pag. 95. lin 31. in Marg. lit Paschasius For whereas he (m) Paschas in Matth. c. 28. Cum electis semper adfuturum se promittit sayth Christ promised to be with his Elect all dayes vntill the consummation of the world you cite him as saying Only with the elect More grossely in the same place you falsify Druthmarus for whereas (n) In cap. 28. Matth. he sayth Christ is with the Reprobate by the presence of his Godhead but with the Elect in another manner you make him say Christ promiseth to be only with the elect contrary to his meaning who teacheth that the presence and perpetuall assistance of our Sauiour are so vnited vnto his Church her Pastors that they may not erre but still teach all that he coÌ„manded but that presence whereof that Text properly speaketh is not only affoarded vnto the Elect but vnto wicked men for the Saluation of all worthy Communicants as your selfe (o) Pag. 52. lin 14. affirme You (q) See pag. 105. rayle bitterly against the Iesuit for prouing that your Protestant Church cannot be the true Church nor part thereof because you seuered your selues from the Roman Church and did not ioyne vnto any preexistent Christian Society of Pastors but aparted your selues froÌ„ the Communion of the whole world For this his argument you rayle agaynst the Roman Church for a whole leafe pag. 106. and 107. Where thus you conclude your foule Foliall Inuectiue They since their Synode of TreÌ„t haue proceeded from euill to worse (s) The Minister in proofe of all this bringes nothing only in the Margent he nameth the Massacre of Paris Was that done by the Fathers of the Councell of Trent Doth that proue obscuring and out-facing of Truth Had not the Protestants then slayne been Traytors agaynst their king Was not the king informed of their plot to murdâ—r him his mother his brethren the cheiefest of his Nobles If to preuent his owne instant death the king did by martiall law without Iuridicall forme proceed agaynst knowne Rebells iâ— this such a thing as yow may say It surpasseth all perfidious Stratagems and immane Cruelty of Infidels what idle Eloquence is this obscuring outfacing the truth with forgery and sophistry They haue conspired agaynst Kingdomes and States they haue surpassed professed Infidells in perfidious stratagems and immane cruelty And whereas they expelled vs by Excommunication and chased vs away from them by persecution yet this Roman Aduocate taxeth vs with Schisme Apostasy neuer remembring what (*) lib. 5. de Baptism c. 1. S. Augustine long since deliuered The Sacriledge of Schisme is then committed when there is no iust cause of Separation Thus by long continued fierce bitter blasts of false reproach you diriue your vnwary Reader vpoÌ„ the hidden rocke of a falsifyed sentence of S. Aug. as though this most Diuine Doctour had insinuated the lawfullnes of reuolt separatioÌ„ from all ChristiaÌ„ Churches What can be more false He disputeth agaynst the Donatists who had seuered themselues from the Christian world pretending that CaeciliaÌ„ Bishop of Carthage other Catholikes had giuen vp the Holy Bibles to the fire S. Aug. doth conuince them of Schisme two wayes First because this pretence were it true is not iust for there can be no iust cause of separation from the whole world and of beginning a new distinct Christian Church These be his wordes (t) Augustin ep 48. ad Vincent Fieri non potest vt aliqui iustam causam habeant qua communionem suam separent à coÌ„munione Orbis terrarum eamue appellent Ecclesiam Christi quòd se iuste ab omnium geÌ„tium communione separauerint Ibid. Nos ideo certi sumus neminem se à coÌ„munione omnium Gentium iuâ—â—è separare potuisse c. We are certayne that none could iustly separate themselues from the Communion of the whole world And againe It is no way possible that any should haue reason to separate themselues from the coÌ„munion of the whole World and so tearme themselues the Church because vpoÌ„ iust cause they haue deuided theÌ„selues from the Society of all nations Thus S. Aug. What can be more direct agaynst that doctrine for which you cite him Or more efficacious to conclude that you Protestants are guilty of damnable Schisme Secondly sayth
he is so silent in print about the particulars of the ConfereÌ„ces only doing his endeauour to disgrace the Iesuit in generall tearmes saying That he vanished away from before his Maiesty with foyle and disgrace his Maiesty telling him he neuer heard a Verier Meaning a Foole or Asse c. A report so false as the Minister contradicts the same himselfe elsewhere writing to the contrary In his Preface towards the end and Reply to the Iesuits Preface initio That by the second Conference his Maiesty obserued that the Aduersary was cunning and subtill in eluding Arguments For what more opposite to the Veriest Asse or Foole then one cunning and subtill If his Maiesty obserued by that Conference that the Iesuit was cunning subtill acute in answering how could he say of him I neuer heard a Verier Asse Thus men implicate themselues that speake what they would haue belieued without care of Truth But in defence of the Relation I need say no more there being extant an Apology for the same in print Now concerning the Answere it selfe to the Nine Poynts M. Fisher hauing receaued the note presently addressed himselfe to comply with his Maiestyes CoÌ„mand being encouraged thereunto by the Title shewing his Maiestyes desire of ioyning vnto the Church of Rome could he be satisfyed about some Poynts And as he imployed therein his greatest strength so likewise he was carefull to vse the expeditioÌ„ that was required atchieuing the Worke in lesse then a moneth though the same was not so soone deliuered into his Maiestyes hands This expedition was likewise the cause that he did omit the discussion of the Ninth Poynt About the Popes Authority to depose Kings For being bound by the CoÌ„mand of his Generall giuen to the whole Order not to publish any thing of that Argument without sending the same first to Rome to be reuiewed and approued his Answere to that Poynt could not haue been performed without very longe expectation delay And he was the more bold to pretermit that Controuersy in regard that sundry whole Treatises about the same written by Iesuits and others both Secular Religions had been lately printed These Authours so fresh and new he was sure were not vnknowne to his Maiesty nor was it needfull that any thinge should be added Also knowing that commonly Kings be not so willing to heare the proofes of Coerciue Authority ouer them be the same neuer so certayne he iudged by this omission the rest of his Treatise might be more gratefull and find in his Maiestyes breast lesse disaffection resistance agaynst the Doctrine thereof Nor could he thinke that his Iudicious Maiesty being persuaded of the other eight Points would haue been stayd from ioyning vnto the Church of Rome only in regard of the Nynth Of the Popes Authority ouer Kings the Doctrine of the Protestant Church about the Authority of the people and of the CoÌ„mon wealth in such cases being farre more disgracefull dangerous And this forbearance is not Reply pag. 571. as the Minister obiects against the resolution of a constant Deuine or S. Bernards rule Melius est vt scandalum oriatur quà m vt veritas relinquatur It is indeed better that scandall arise then Diuine Verity be forsaken by the deniall thereof or by not professing our Conscience therein Reply vnto the Iesuits Preface initio when we are iuridically examined by the Magistrate wherein euen the Minister giueth testimony that the Iesuit was not defectiue but did fully and cleerely declare his Fayth about the Popes Authority his Maiesty telling him he liked him the better in respect of his playnesse This notwithstanding there is no man of Learning Discretion but will acknowledge that a Constant Deuine may put off the Scholasticke TractatioÌ„ of some Poynt of Fayth that is lesse pleasing vntill the Auditours by being perswaded of Articles that do lesse distast be made more capable of the truth towardes which by disaffection they are not so prone The other articles are largely discussed and as exactly as shortnes of tyme ioyned with penury of Bookes would permit They be according to the Note but Eight yet some of them contayne diuers branches and so all togeather they amount to the number of fourteene to wit 1. The worship of Images 2. The worship of the holy Crosse Reliques 3. That Saynts Angells heare our prayers 4. That they are to be worshipped with honour super-humane or more then Ciuill 5. That we may ought to inuocate theÌ„ 6. That Repetitions of Prayers in a fixed number is pious 7. The Liturgy lawful in a language not vulgarly knowne 8. The Reall Presence of Christs body vnto the corporall mouth 9. Transubstantiation 10. Merit 11. Workes of Supererogation 12. The remaynder of temporall payne after the guilt of Sinne. 13. That holy men by Diuine grace may for the same make compensant yea superabundant Satisfaction 14. That superabundant Satiâ—factions may be applyed vnto others by the Communion of Saynts Before these is prefixed the fundamentall Controuersy of the Church That men cannot be resolued what doctrines are the Apostles but by the Tradition and Authority of the Church About the sufficiency perspicuity of the Scripture About the Churches â—isible Vnity Vniuersality Holynes Succession from the Apostles That the Roman is the visible Catholicke Church whose Tradition is to be followed So that in this Treatise a Summe of all the chiefest CoÌ„trouersies of this Age is contayned Concerning the manner of haÌ„dling these Points the Minister graunting the Iesuite sheweth himselfe well verst in Controuersy addeth In his Preface he is deficient of diuine proofe in euery Article and farre more specious including our Arguments then happy in confirming his owne What reason he may haue to giue this ceÌ„sure of the Treatise I do not see but only that he would say something agaynst it and no better exception occurred otherwise it is cleere that in euery Article the Answerer vrgeth not only the Tradition of the Church not only the consent of Fathers but also sundry Texts and Testimonyes of Scripture And he doth not only which is the Ministers tricke score Bookes Chapters Verses without so much as citing the wordes nor only doth he produce the wordes of the Text but also refuteth the Protestant Answeres by the rules of interpretation themselues commend by recourse vnto the Originalls by the consideration of the Texts Antecedent and Consequent by the drift and scope of the discourse by Conference of other places specially by the expresse Letter and proper sense of Gods word He sheweth that Protestants pretending to appeale vnto Scripture interpreted from within it selfe as vnto the supreme Iudge in very truth appeale from the expresse sentence of diuine Scripture vnto the figuratiue construction of their humane conceyte For in euery Point of these Controuersyes they are proued to leaue the litterall sense of some Text of Scripture without euident warrant from the sayd Scripture so to doe vpon Arguments at the most probable
2. That this Worshippe was euer since the Apostles in the Church without beginning pag. 142.143 c. § 3. The places of Exodus Deut. with no probability vrged agaynst the Worship of Images by Protestants that make them pag. 154.155 c. § 4. Inconueniences which may come by occasion of Images easily preuented and their vtilities very great pag. 158.159 THE SECOND AND THIRD POINT II. Praying offering Oblations to the B. Virgin Mary III. VVorshipping Inuocation of Saints Angells pag. 172. § 1. An Eleauen Demonstrations that the Ancient Christian Church did euer hould Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Fayth Religion pag. 173.174 c. § 2. Inuocation of Saints not to be disliked because not expressed in Scripture pag. 194. § 3. Knowledge of Prayers made to them communicable communicated vnto Saints pag. 196.197 c. § 4. The Worship in spirit Truth with outward prostration of body due vnto Saints pag. 206.207 c. § 5. Praying to Saints not iniurious to Gods mercy but rather a commendation thereof pag. 211.212 c. § 6. Inuocation of Saints not an iniury but an honor to Christ the only Mediatour pag. 215.216 c. § 7. How it is lawfull to appropriate the obtayning of Graces and Cures vnto Saints pag. 219.220 c. § 8. Cōcerning Oblatiōs made to Saints p. 223.224 c. § 9. The Roman Churches set-formes of Prayer without cause misliked pag. 226.227 THE FOVRTH POINT IIII. The Liturgy priuate Prayers for the Ignorant in an vnknovvne Tongue pag. 130.131 THE FIFTH POINT V. Repetitions of Pater Nosters Aues Creeds especially affixing a kind of merit to the nūber of thē p. 241.242 c. THE SIXT POINT VI. The doctrine of Transubstantiatiō ¶ An Addition prouing the Catholike Reall Presence according to the litterall Truth of Gods word agaynst Ministeriall Metaphors Figures shifts pag. 248. ¶ § 1. The Zwinglian and Caluinian Religion about the Sacrament pag. 248. ¶ § 2. The Zwinglian Caluinian Presence confuted pag. 250. ¶ § 3. The Ministers Arguments agaynst the litterall sense of Christs word vayne idle pag. 253.254 c. § 1. That the Reall Presence of the whole body of Christ vnder the formes of bread belongs to the substance of the Mystery pag. 260.261 c. § 2. Transubstantiation belonges to the substance of Reall Presence pag. 266.267 c. § 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers pag. 271.272 c. ¶ A Refutation of the Ministers shifts to elude the former Testimonyes of the Fathers pag. 276.277 c. § 4. The seeming repugnances this Mystery hath with Sense should inclyne Christians the sooner to belieue it pag. 290.291 THE SEAVENTH POINT VII Communion vnder one kind abetting of it by Cōcomitancy pag. 305. § 1. The Doctrine of Concomitancy proued pag. 306.307 c. § 2. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Institution of Christ. pag. 311.312 c. § 3. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Sacrament pag. 315.316 c. § 4. Communion vnder one kinde not agaynst Christ his Precept pag. 319.320 c. ¶ The place of S. Iohn Qui manducat hunc panem c. explicated with an Answere to the Testimonies of the Fathers pag. 330.331 § 5. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the practice of the Primitiue Church pag. 332.333 c. THE EIGHT POINT VIII VVorkes of Supererogation specially vvith reference to the treasure of the Church pag. 334. § 1. The Doctrine of Merit declared pag. ibid. 335.336 c. ¶ The Ministers Arguments or rather Inuectiues against this Doctrine of Merit answered pa. 347.348 c. § 2. Merit of works of Supererogation p. 348.349 c. § 3. The Fathers taught works of Supererogation and proued them by Scripture pag. 352.353 c. § 4. The Doctrine of Satisfaction pag. 358.359 c. § 5. Workes with reference vnto the Treasure of the Church pag. 362.363 c. ¶ The Ministers rayling Argumēts agaynst the former doctrine censured pag. 372.373 c. THE NINTH POINT IX The opiniō of deposing Kings giuing avvay their Kingdoms by Papall povver vvhether directly or indirectly pag. 382. ¶ The Ministers fond Cauill That Iesuits honour not the King as Soueraygne pag. 383.384 c. ¶ His fond proofs of his Slaunder that Iesuits hold singular Opinions to the preiudice of Kings pa. 385.386 c. ¶ His Fondnes in Cauilling at the Iesuits words about the Temporall Soueraignity of Popes pag. 389.390 c. ¶ His miserable Apology for Protestāts p. 391.392 c. ¶ His Cauill agaynst the Iesuits speciall Vow of Obedience to the Pope pag. 393. c. THE CONCLVSION Faultes escaped in the printing In the Picture and Censure Pag. 10. lin 14. Christ read Christs Pag. 12. lin 17. in marg Ministery read Minister Pag. 13. l. 2. in marg conferunt read conferant Pag. 16. l. 20. place translated read place truly translated Pag. 25. l. 19. pleasore read pleasure Pag. 37. l. 7. are read were Pag. 86. l. 19. now read new Pag. 44. l. 3. this read his Pag. 104. l. 16. of read in Pag. 121. lin 32. an read be Pag. 132. l. vlt. diriue read driue In the Answere and Reioynder Pag. 4. l. 10. in marg if read it Pag. 19. line penult in marg seipsum read sensum Pag. 24. l. 1. God Though read God though Ibid. l. 16. could not read could not Pag. 56. lin 30. in marg this read thus Pag. 71. lin 32. in marg but must read but they must Pag· 74. l. 16. in marg do to proue read do proue Pag. 80. l. 30. in marg Votaies read Votaries Pag. 81. lin 32. Philip in dele Ibid. l. 34. in innumerable dele in Pag. 100. l. 1. 3. suppositious read supposititious Pag. 115. l. 16. in coll read in loc Pag. 119. l. 12. opinions read opinion Pag. 129. lin 1. Axione read Axiome Pag. 32. l. 34. in marg a positiue read a positiue precept Pag. 141. l. 11. in marg Sect. 3. read Sect. 1. Pag. 142. l. 26. in marg the argues read he argues Pag. 144. lin 21. viz. read verò Pag. 145. l. 10. reliueth read relieueth Pag. 152. l. 33. in marg Anthropomorphilae read Anthropomorphitae 177. l. 9. in marg praebitur read praebebitur Pag. 180. l. 22. wash awayt read washt away Pag. 227. l. 5. if they dele if Pag. 229. lin 23. in marg him that dele him Pag. 141. lin 9. reuerent read renewed Pag. 378. l. 22. satisfaction read satisfaction Pag. 396. l. 4. Roall read Royall Pag. 399. l. 2. fallable read fallible THE TRVE PICTVRE OF D· VVHITE MINISTER Or the Censure of his Reply vnto M. Fisher. The Reason of this Title THIS Short Censure is prefixed vnder the Name of your Picture that the Reioynder may correspōd in proportion vnto your Reply the beginning whereof is consecrated by an Image of your (a) For he teacheth
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
senteÌ„ce Hence (m) Baron Tom. 4. pag. 306. Decreta sancita muâ—are DECERNERE quibuscum à reliqua Ecclesia COMMVNICANDVM sit it may appeare that it did depend on the iudgment of the Roman Bishop to establish Decrees of Fayth and to recall the established and to DECREE with whome the rest of the Church were to keep COMMVNION Hence it is euident that Baronius speaketh of Decrees of fayth declaratiue with whome Communion in Fayth is to be kept that those are mutable as the Church shall see cause For the better vnderstanding whereof we must know that it was the practise or Heretikes (n) Sic Verba temperant sic ambigua quaeque concinnaÌ„ vt nostram aduersariorum confessioneÌ„ teneant Hieron epist. ad Pammach Ocean as S. Hierome noteth to couch their Errours in such ambiguous wordes that taken one way they sounded Heretically another way they carryed a Catholike sense Hence vpon the arising of new Heretikes euen the Catholike Fathers were sometymes deuised some coÌ„municating with some denying communion vnto such Dogmatizants The decision of these doubts is to be made by the Catholik Church and the supreme Pastour thereof in which case the Church may change her decrees For when there is sufficient reason to thinke that such propositions be taken by the Authours in the Hereticall sense Decree is to be made that no communion be held with them If afterward it appeare by good proofe that they meant the said propositions according to the Catholike sense they may be receaued by some latter Decree and the former Decree about auoyding their Communion may be repealed In this sense true is the saying of S. Augustine (o) Lib. 5. de Baptism c. 1. That former Councels are reformed by later when by experimeÌ„t of things what before was hidden commeth to light In this sort ancient Councells (p) In coÌ„cilio Ephes. Christiparae nomeÌ„ explosum est Canis de B. Virg. l. 3. c. 19. made this decree of Fayth that none should tearme the most Blessed Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christs Mother because by that Title Heretikes did meane tacitely to imply that she was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods Mother And yet this Decree of Faith is now by custome repealed because it now appeareth that such as tearme her Christes Mother meane not therby to deny that she is truly and verily Gods Mother This is that which Baronius saith for speaking of the Apollinarians who did vtter their Errours (q) Ruffin de adulterat libror Origen in doubtfull wordes he saith that first by Pope Damasus they were reiected as Heretikes and Catholikes were forbidden to communicate with them Afterwards these (r) Greg. Nazian ad Chelid epist. 2. Apollinarians falsely gaue out that the Councell of the Westerne Church including principally the Roman Bishop had againe receaued theÌ„ into Communion Vpon the newes of this report S. Gregory Nazianzen thus writeth Those that agree with Apollinaris say that they were admitted by the Councell of the West or Roman Bishop by whome it is manifest they were once condemned Yet (s) Hoc osteÌ„dant nos acquiescemus let them but shew this and we yield For it is manifest (t) PERSPICVVM enim eos veritati assenâ—iri nec enim aliter se res habere potest si hoc consecuti sunt that their doctrine doth agree with the true Fayth for it cannot otherwise be if they haue obtayned this This S. Gregory Nazianzen Hence Baronius doth inferre against Heretikes that the Grecian Fathers did beare such reuerence vnto the Roman Church and Roman Bishop belieuing he could not erre that if his Decrees declaratiue of doubtfull ambiguous propositions should change alter they were ready to change and alter with him and to thinke that manner of speach in matters of Faith most fitting for the present which he did for the present allow This I say is all that Baronius doth affirme not that the Pope may change his Decrees about the truth of the articles and mysteries of Fayth as you in your blind auersion would impose vpoÌ„ him catching at words syllables of euery lesse cleere sentence which to be the right iogge (u) Aguntur spiritu maligno in pios vt Satanicâ virulentia incensi EORVM VERBA ET SCRIPTA NON MALOTIO SE INTERPRETARI non possint Loc. commun Martini Lutheri 5. Classe pag. 26. of the Caluinian spirit Luther long agoe noted THE CONCLVSION BEHOLD good store of your Ignorances Impertinencyes Misallegations of Scriptures Wilfull Vnconscionable Falshoods in your producing the Fathers which I offer vnto your Picture to adorne that Crowne which in your Glorious Humour you haue caused to be set ouer your Booke in the second page therof giuing it the Title of Wisdome and Truths Triumph Verily no Iewells and Gemmes can sit the Crowne of such Wisdome and Truth as yours is better then these being made in this Censure Cleere Shining Illustrious by manifest proofe My purpose was to haue discouered many besides these yea more then an hundred no lesse notorious then these about the Nine Points with many other eminent Vntruths but now I perceaue that hereby your Picture would grow though not disproportionable to the greatnes of your Desert yet into a greater bignes they Paper-Images vse to haue which commonly are still lesse then their Patterns I must therefore remayne indebted vnto you for the rest which are many hundreds engaging my selfe to pay the last farthing of this debt whensoeuer the same shall be exacted with sufficient assurance that the performance thereof shall auayle not only to your personall Disgrace but also to the publicke Good by conuersion of so many by you miserably seduced soules Although I must confesse that the former are so many and so cleere as they may sufficiently resolue such as depend on you of their miserable and dreadfull danger and mooue them to returne to the truth if they erre through weaknes of Vnderstanding not through willfulnes of hart For as S. Cyprian sayth (x) Lib. aduer Demetrianum initio Qui ad malum motus est mendacio fallente multò faciliùs ad bonum mouebitur veritate cogente such as haue been simply lead away vnto euill by the fallacy of lying will more easily be brought backe agayne vnto Good by the force of Truth FINIS THE ANSWERE VNTO The Nine Points of Controuersy Proposed by our late Soueraygne of Famous memory vnto M. Fisher of the Society of IESVS AND THE REIOYNDER Vnto the Reply of D. Francis VVhite Minister Et faciam VOS fieri PISCATORES Hominum Matth. 4.19 And I will make YOV FISHERS of Men. Permissu Superiorum M.DC.XXV His Maiestyes Note deliuered vnto M. Fisher. SOME of the principall points which with-hold my ioyning vnto the Church of Rome except she reforme her selfe or be able to giue me satisfaction Are these 1. The worship of Images 2. The Prayings Offering oblations to the Blessed Virgin
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
Christian deuided amongst themselues and notorious changers According to this notion the Church is euer visible sensible to all men euen vnto her very enemies For not only Iewes and Infidels but euen Heretickes know in their conscience and sometimes acknowledge in words that the Church is truly Catholike So long as the Church according to this notion of Catholicke is in the sight of the world the world hath sufficient meanes of saluation They that see with their eyes which Religion is Catholicke may easily find out the truth For it is cleer to common reason that the Catholike Doctrine is the Apostles cleere by common discourse that the Apostles miraculous preaching was of God and that God being the prime verity his doctrine ought to be receaued as the truth of saluation On the other side if the Church according to the notion of Catholike be hidden and the light therof lost there is no ordinary meanes left for men to know what the Apostles taught nor consequently what God by inspiration reuealed vnto them We must begin againe anew from a second fountaine of immediat reuelation from God and build vpon the new planting of Religion with miracles in the world by some recent Prophet And if this be absurd then there must euer be in the world a Church whose Tradition is illustriously Catholicke and consequently shewing it selfe to be the Apostles vnto all men that will not be obstinate visible and conspicuous For the Traditiōs of the Church must euer be famous glorious and most notoriously knowne in the world that a Christian may truly say with S. Augustine de vtilit cred c. 17. I belieue nothing but the consent of Nations and countries and most celebrious fame Now if the Church were hidden secret inuisible in any age then her Traditions could not be Doctrines euer illustriously knowne but rather obscure hidden Apocriphall Ergo the Church the mistresse pillar and foundation of truth must be alwaies visible and conspicuous which if need be may be further proued most euidently Thirdly that this Church is Apostolicall and that apparently descending from the Apostolicall Sea by succession of Bishops (d) The Church that hath a lineall succession of Bishops from the Apostles famous and illustrious whereof not one hath beene opposite in religion to his immediate predecessour proues euidently that this Church hath the doctrin of the Apostles for as in the ranke of 300. stones ranged in order if no two stones be found in that line of different colour then if the first be white the second is white so the rest vnto the last euen so if there be a succession of 300. Bishops all of the same Religion if the first haue the Religion of the Apostles and of Peter the second likewise hath the same and so the rest euen vntill the last vsque ad Confessionem generis humani euen to the acknowledgment of humane kind as S. Augustine l. de vtil Cred. cap. 17. speaketh for how could the Tradition of Christian Doctrine be eminently and notoriously Apostolicall if the Church deliuering the same hath not a (e) The Minister sayth p. 67. circa finem That this note of succession makes nothing against the Church of England because their Pastors and Bishops are able to exhibite a pedigree or deriuation both of their ministery and doctrine from the Apostles This is ridiculous For if they can really exhibite such a pedigree and deriuation of their fayth in all ages from Christ to Luther why do they still keepe vs in suspence and neuer exhibite the same which we so earnestly beg at their hands Let them but name the Church or Pastour that did commit vnto Luther the Ministery of preaching his doctrines against the Roman religion The Roman Church made him priest gaue him cōmission to preach her doctrine but to preach agaynst her Religion who gaue him order That commission to preach seeing he had it not frō any Church as is manifest he had it eyther from himselfe coyning a religion of his owne head out of Scripture vnderstood in his owne manner or from Satan with whome he conferred and vnto whose arguments he yielded as himselfe doth witnes Tom. 7. Wittenberg fol. 228. or els immediatly from God and then he ought to haue made this immediate reuelation knowne by miracles Let not Ministers therfore idly say we can exhibite a pedigree feeding vs with wordes but affoard vs present payment of so long an exacted debt If they know the pedegree of their faith the labour is not great to write the names of their Ancestours in euery age That done they may rest For if we cannot demonstrate that these their pretended Ancestours were eyther Catholike Romans or else opposite one to another in substantiall points and this by as authentike records as they do to prooue they held some points of their Religion the victory shall be theirs Is it possible they should thus delude men by saying we can exhibite and yet neuer do it manifest and conspicuous pedigree or deriuation from the Apostles Which is a conuincing argument vsed by the same S. Augustine Epist. 48. circa medium How can we thinke that we haue receiued manifestly Christ if we haue not also receiued manifestly his Church It is a principle of Philosophy Propter quod vnum quodque tale illud magis but the name of Christ his glory his vertues his miracles are to the world famously knowne frō age to age by reason of the Church her preaching who in her first Pastors saw him with their eies Ergo this Church must needes be more famous more illustrious as able to giue fame euen vnto the being and doctrine and actions of Christ. Fourthly this Church is One that is all the Pastors (f) The Minister pag. 108. lin 14. alleadgeth the differences amongst Schoolemē particularly betwixt Dominicās Iesuits about the manner of explicating the efficacy of Grace as an argument that the Roman Church wants vnity of faith as much as Protestants I answer this is Idle these differences not being in matters of faith If Scholmen should preach different doctrines as matters of fayth condemning ech other as Heretikes and the Church this notwithstanding should alow of both sides as her children then there should be in the Church disunion in fayth But the Roman Church doth not allow such dissonant Preachers only she permitteth them to differ in matters they teach as greater probability and priuate opinion If any preach their priuate probabilityes as Doctrines and as matters of fayth condemning others as heretikes except they recall their censure the Roman Church shutteth them out of her communion not permitting disunion in faith For such permittāce would vtterly discredit the authority of her preaching shew that euen in matters of faith she is a Church to be belieued no further thē seene and Preachers therof deliuer and consequently all her professors and children belieue one the same fayth For if the Preachers and Pastors
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
no Sacrament can subsist tearmed by Deuines Materia Sacramenti This substantiall part is not wanting in the Sacrament giuen in one kind in which there is consecrated bread visible and sensible in the accidents thereof and manducation an action also visible and apparent to sense The second thing required to the substāce of the Sacramēt is Verbum the word that is a forme of speach shewing the diuine and supernatuall purpose vnto which the element is consecrated Neyther is that part wanting in the Sacrament giuen vnder one kind which is consecrated by the wordes of Christ This is my body and the Theologicall principle taken out of Saint Augustin verifyed accedit verbum ad elemētum fit Sacramentum The third thing is Signification euery Sacrament signifying some diuine effect of grace which God worketh by the application therof and the sensible signe euen by nature hath as Saint Augustine Epist. 23. noteth some proportion analogy to signify that diuine effect which to produce it is assumed by Gods omnipotency as an instrument This sacred signification which the holy Eucharist hath is of three kinds and all three are found in the Sacrament giuen vnder one kind First this Sacramēt is a signe of spirituall food for the nourishment and refection of the Soule which signification is manifestly found in Communiō vnder one (n) The Minister very often though out of place as pag. 470. li. 20. pa. 442. obiects If Communion in both kindes be not of the substance of the Sacrament why should Cōmunion in bread or wine be of the substance of the Sacrament Why may not Communion in Cheese be truly a Sacrament as well as Communion in one kind Answere First diuers Protestāts namely Beza and Caluin see Beza epist. 2. epist. 25. teach that though Christ did institute the Sacrament in bread and wine yet in case that bread and wine be wanting one may vse some other proportionable Element as Cheese and Beere Might you not imploy your talent in rayling vpon these men better then on the Councell of Constance Secondly The Protestants allowing of Cheese in lieu of Bread and beere in lieu of wine is to change the substance of the Element wherin Christ did institute the Sacrament and consequently to change the substance of the Institution and Sacrament bringing in an Institution and Sacrament of another substance But to receaue the Sacrament in the kind of bread without wine is not to change the substance of the Element but only whereas the Sacrament for more complete signification was instituted in two elemtēs as for the same reason it was instituted after supper to vse the one element without the other the whole nature of the Sacrament sufficient for all the functions thereof being found in one kind as the Iesuit doth heere demonstrate kind For the Eucharist doth signify this effect of spirituall nutrition because it is a signe of Christ the bread of life the food of Angells the fountayne of grace but by the sole forme of bread Christ is signifyed as present according to his most Sacred body and consequently as most sufficient to feed and refresh the soule Another signification of this Sacrament is vnion and coniunction betweene the faythful as being members of the same body wherof Christ is head fellow-mēbers one with another as S. Paul declares Rom. 12.4 which coniunction the Sacramēt in the forme of bread doth signify For bread being a compound of many graynes of wheate massed togeather in one loafe also made of floure and water mingled one with another signifyes the perfect vnion both of the Church with Christ of the faythfull that are in the Church one with another as Saint Paul 1. Cor. 10. testifyes vnum corpus sumus quotquot de vno pane participamus where he makes no mention of Wine the Sacrament in the forme of bread being alone able to shew worke this signification This Sacrament doth also signify the passion and death of our Sauiour which death and passion is shewed and represented by Communion vnder one kind (o) The Minister sayth pag. 479. That both kinds do more liuely represent Christs Passion then one only Answere What is this to the purpose to proue the Sacrament in one kind substantially imperfect Baptisme by plunging the Childe into water represents Christs death and resurrection more liuely thē Baptisme by sprinkling yet is Baptisme by aspersion a full and entyre Sacrament For receauing the Sacrament in the forme of wine only we haue a sufficient ground to remember the bloud of Christ that was in his passion shed and separated from his body Likewise by participating of the cōsecrated bread we may liuely conceaue the body of Christ as it was depriued of the most precious bloud by the effusion therof on the Crosse wherupon Christ as Saint Paul (p) 1. Cor. 11. v. 14.15 testifyes did after the consecration of ech kind particularly recommend the memory of his passion as knowing that in ech of them alone was a sufficient monument and memoriall thereof The fourth thing required to the substāce of a Sacrament is Causality to wit to worke in the soule the spirituall effects it signifyes This Causality cannot be wanting to the Sacrament vnder one kind wherein is conteyned the fountayne of spirituall life For the cause why the Sacrament in both kindes giueth grace and refresheth the soule is that Christ is assistant vnto them bound by his promise at the presence of sensible signes to worke proportionably spirituall effects in disposed soules But Christ is in the Sacramēt vnder the forme of bread he is able through infinite power and bound by inuiolable promise to worke the effect of grace preseruing vnto life eternall the worthy participant of this Sacrament (q) Hence is refuted what the Minister saith pag. 478. without any proofe That the promise of grace is not made to one kind only vnder the forme of bread Qui manducat hunc panem viuit in aeternum Ioan. 6.55 Not any doubt then may be made but the Sacrament in one kind is full entyre complete in substance by participation thereof prepared consciences do receaue the benefit of celestiall fauour that conserueth the life of the soule with dayly increase in perfection (*) The Minister very often obiecteth as pag. 479. 502. and elsewhere That according to the Tenet of some Scholemen greater benefit of grace it reaped by communion in both kinds Answere First Catholicke Deuines of greater number learning hold the contrary Secondly This is impertinent for the questiō is not whether Communion in both kinds be of greater perfection but whether it be necessary vnto Saluation Thirdly if Cōmunion in both kindes giue more grace yet this excesse may be easily equalled by other diligences as by often receauing in one kind and by obedience to the Church c. The Minister 472. proueth Communion in both kinds to be of greater profit because it is
signifye the same as Or. Because to strike Father apart and to strike mother apart is worthy of death in a sonne therefore the Scripture Exod. 21. saying He that striketh his Father mother let him dye the death is to be vnderstood disiunctiuely his Father or mother This might be proued by other innumerable instances nor can so much as one example be brought where this rule fayleth This supposed I assume But the Scripture teacheth that the eating of Christs body a part by it selfe is sufficient vnto eternall life Iohn 6.52 The bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world And 58. he that eateth me shall liue by me and 59. he that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Ergo the precept Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you is vnderstood disiunctiuely Except you eate his flesh or drinke his bloud Hence the Fathers when they say the Gospell commands drinking of bloud they meane disiunctiuely because they ground the precept vpō this text The Authour of the booke De Coena Domini sayth the law forbad the eating of bloud but the Gospell commands drinking thereof to wit disiunctiuely S. Austine q. 57. In Leuit. In the law men are forbidden so tast of the bloud of the Sacrifices but in the new law from taking the bloud of our Sacrifice by way of nourishment no man is forbidden yea rather all are inuited thereunto that will haue life to wit disiunctiuely that is they are inuited if they will haue life to eate the flesh or drinke the bloud of our Sauiour Other places brought out of the Fathers by you are partly from the purpose partly falsifyed From the purpose are the places which affirme no more then that the body and bloud of Christ be giuen in the Sacrament vnto all Chrysostom hom 18. in ◠ad Cor. the Cup as distributed vnto all Ignatius epist. ad Philadelphenses c. Falsifyed is the Testimony of S. Iustine pag. 497. but specially pag. 482. for thus you cite it Iustinus Martyr sayth That Christians in his age distributed the sanctifyed bread wine to euery one present and he addeth further The Apostles taught that Iesus did command them to do thus You haue corrupted his testimony two or three wayes First by omission for S. Iustin doth mention not only wine but also water The Deacons sayth he distribute vnto euery one present consecrated bread wine and water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherfore if by this testimony you can proue it is a Diuine precept to giue wine you proue also that it is a Diuine precept to giue water cōsequently your selues to be trāsgressors of the Diuine precept who giue it not That this your peruersity to vrge vs with the testimony of S. Iustin which makes not to the purpose or else by the same your selfe are condemned might not appeare you falsified the place citing what pleased you and leauing out what serued not your turne Secondly these words of S. Iustine The Apostles taught that Iesus commanded them so to doe are not ioyning vpon the wordes that mention the giuing of consecrated bread wine water as you would haue men belieue but follow some 16. or 17. lines after are referred to another matter to wit that Christ gaue a Command to belieue the reall presence S. Iustine his true words are these We are taught that as Iesus Christ is made truly flesh by the word of God in the same manner the Eucharisticall foode by the prayer of the word proceeding from him is the flesh and blood of Iesus incarnate for the Apostles in their writings tearmed the Gospells do deliuer that Iesus gaue that preception vnto them For taking bread into his hands and hauing giuen thankes he sayd Do this in remembrance of me this is my body In like manner taking the Cup after thansgiuing he sayd This is my bloud Thus S. Iustine by which it is euident that he sayth that Iesus gaue a precept not of communion in both kinds but of belieuing the Reall Presence Whence your third corruption is discouered making S. Iustine to say that Iesus commanded to doe thus for to do thus is added vnto the text agaynst the drift thereof which manifestly speaketh of a precept to belieue thus not to do thus In like manner you falsify S. Cyprian Pag. 497. you produce these his wordes as making agaynst Communion in one kind In consecrating and administring the Cup vnto the people some do not that which our Lord did appoint and commanded As who should say these men did transgresse the Diuine precept in that they gaue not the Cup vnto laymen Had S. Cyprian meāt this he should not haue sayd they sin in administring but the contrary they sinne in not administring the Cup to the people But S. Cyprian presently declares wherein they did transgresse the Diuine precept to wit in that some did cōsecrate pure water without wine others meere wine without water and gaue the same to the people What is this agaynst Communion in one kind This place proueth they sinne agaynst the Diuine law who consecrate pure water in lieu of wine as some Protestāts teach men to doe and also that they transgresse the Diuine precept who offer vnto God and giue to the people pure wine without admixtion of water as all Protestans commonly do But that Priests are bound by Diuine precept to giue consecrated wine to the people this place doth not so much as insinuate nor will any learned man cite it for the necessity of the Cup except he haue drunke too much of the Cup. we interprete the place disiunctiuely (*) The place of S. Iohn explicated with an Answere to the Testimonyes of the Fathers Vnles you eate or drinke c. Communion vnder one kinde not agaynst the practise of the Primitiue Church §. 5. CERTAINE it is that the Primitiue Church did very often and frequently vse Communion vnder one kinde so that Laymen had by prescription a Right (i) Ad bibendum pocculum Dei iure communicationis admittimus Cyp. l. epist. 2. to receaue in both kindes yea they were bound thereunto by the obligation of Custome not by diuine precept Also because the Manichees being impiously perswaded that Wine was the (k) Aug. de haeres 46. gall of the Prince of darkenes did (l) Leo serm 4. de Quad. superstitiously abstayne from the Chalice the Church in detestation of this errour commanded for a tyme Communion vnder both kinds vpon which occasion Gelasius Pope made the Decree (m) Gelas. apud Gratian. de Consecrat cap. Comperimus recorded by Gratiā Aut integra Sacramenta suscipiant aut ab integris arceantur And why Because such Abstinents nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi that is were superstitious not absteyning out of any deuotiō but out of an impious perswasion of the impurity of Gods creature Wherfore the
and in them that by nature loathed wine And as this is certayne and graunted on our part so it is no lesse certayne that the Primitiue Church did neuer practise the vse of the Cup as pertayning to the essential integrity of the Sacrament or as commaunded by diuine precept but thought the receauing vnder one and both kindes a thing indifferent This may be proued by the consideration of the tyme since Christ ascending frō our dayes vpward whence I gather fiue Arguments First is the Confession of our Aduersaryes amongst whome a Bohemian Protestant (p) Ioan. Przibrau confess Fid. Cath. c. 19. doth professe that hauing the feare of God before his eyes he dares not censure the Roman Church of Heresy in this point (q) Hospin Histor. Sacram p. 2. fol. 112. Hospinian writes that some Protestants confessed that whole Christ was really present exhibited and receaued vnder euery kind and therefore vnder the only forme of bread and that they did not iudge those to doe euill that Communicated vnder one kind (r) Melanct. in 2. edit Comm. impress Argent an 1525. fol. 78. Melancthon As to eate or not to eate swines flesh is placed in our power a thing indifferent so sayth he I Iudge of the Eucharist that they sinne not who knowing belieuing this liberty do vse eyther part of the signes And Luther (s) Luther de Captiu Babylon cap. de Eucharistia They sinne not agaynst Christ who vse one kind seing Christ doth not commaund to vse both but hath left it to the will of euery one And Hospinian alleadgeth (t) Hospin Histor. Sacr. p. 2. fol. 12. Luther affirming it is not needfull to giue both kindes but the one alone sufficeth The Church hath power of ordeyning only one and the people ought to be content therewith if it be ordeyned by the Church (*) The Minister p. 500. sayth Concerning Luther Melancthon c. I answere that your benefactour Coccius to whome you are perpetually obliged for your readings alledgeth some such sayings but how truly it is vncertayne Answer The Iesuit read the sayings he citeth in Luther Melancthon Hospinian not in Coccius vnto whome he is not so much beholding for his readings as you are vnto Chemnitius for yours yea he durst engage his credit that you cannot shew some of the testimonies by him cited in Coccius which sheweth your want of reading and that your desire to cauill is greater then your wit What you add that these sayings are not now foūd in Luther Melancthon is as much as to confesse that wherof the Lutherans accuse you of the Sacramētariā brood that you haue most impudently falsifyed the workes of Luther thogh also Hospinian a Sacramentarian as you are hath these sayings both of Luther other Protestants censuring them in this respect But these testimonyes though they may serue to stop the mouth of a clamorous Aduersary yet be they not sufficient to satisfy any iudicious mā in regard their Authours were men most vncertayne various in their doctrines about Religiō now auerring as Orthodoxe and diuine truth what soone after they fell to abhorre as hereticall impious I add secondly the definition of three generall Councells celebrated before the breach of Luther from the Roman Church The Councell of Florence (u) Concil Florentin in decreto Eugenij 4. wherein were present the Grecian and Armenian Bishops where Concomitancy is defined That Christ is whole vnder ech forme The Councell of Basill (x) Concil Basilien Sess. 30. though they allowed the vse of the Cup vnto the Bohemians defined the lawfulnes of Communion vnder one kind The Councell of Constance (y) Concil Constantiense Sess. 13. gaue example vnto both the former Councells being the first that defined this truth The third Argument is the receaued allowed generall Custome of the Church which spontaneously euen before the Coūcel of Constance did absteine from the Cup as the sayd Councell doth acknowledge which may be proued by the testimonyes of many that liued before the Councell of Constance yea Alexander Halensis (z) Halensis 4. p. q. 11. in 2. a. 4. sect 3. who liued two hundred yeares before the Coūcell of Constance saith That almost euery where Laymen receaued vnder the sole forme of bread And Venerable Bede (a) Beda Histor. Gent. Angl. l. 2. c. 5. l. 4. c. 14. doth signify that in the Church (*) The Minister pag. 502. You are guided by that spirit which is mentioned 3. Kings 22. v. 21. when you affirme that Venerable Bede sayth in the Church of England euer since her conuersion vnder S. Gregory Communiō in one kind was in vse for no such report is found in him Answere Take heed you be not guided by the spirit mentioned Reuelat. 12.11 who so perpetually calumniate your aduersary For he did not affirme that Venerable Bede did so say as though he had made mention thereof in expresse tearmes but that he doth so signify or insinuate which is true for l. 2. c. 5. Histor. Anglor he writes how the sonnes of a certayne Christian King that was deceased being yet Pagans sayd vnto a Bishop Why do'st thou not giue vs that white bread which thou wert wont to giue to our Father and do'st still giue to the people in the Church Which speach they did often at sundry times repeate without any mention of the Cup. What you bring as contrary to this that l. 4. c. 14. he writeth that a certayne man according to a reuelation did presently dye the masse being ended viatico Dominici corporis sanguinis accepto is idle For the Sacrament in one kind contayning in it Christs body bloud both may be tearmed Viaticum Dominici corporis sanguinis the food of the body and bloud of our Lord. of England euer since her first Conuersion vnder Saint Gregory was vsed Communion vnder one kind for the Layty which could neuer haue entred into the Church without being noted marked as an Heresy had not the Church euer held Communion vnder one or both kindes as a thing of indifferency The fourth Argument is drawne from many signes and tokens that the primitiue Church did sometymes vse Communion vnder one kind First the sicke receaued vnder the only forme of bread as may appeare by the History of Serapion related by (b) Euseb. l. 6. Histor. c. 36. ex ep Dionys. Alexandrin ad Fabium Eusebius and the Grecians at this day (c) Genebrardus though they giue the Cup to the Communicants in the Church yet to the sicke they send the Sacrament vnder one kind yea Saint Ambrose as Paulinus (d) Paulinus in vita Ambrosi◠relateth in his life at his death receaued the Sacrament vnder the sole forme of bread and straight after the receauing thereof gaue vp his soule Secondly it was an ancient custome in the Church to giue the Sacrament vnto Laymen (e) Tertullian ad vxor c. 55.
especially vnto (f) Basil. epist. ad Caesar. Patritium Pratum Spiritual c. 79. Eremits to be carryed in most pure linnen Corporalls home to their houses to be takē in the morning before al other meats But there is no signe or token in Antiquity that the faythfull togeather with the consecrated bread did carry away with them cōsecrated wine yea diuers historyes shew the only forme of bread (**) Minister pag. 504. It was an ancient custome to send the Communion to persōs absent in both kinds as appeareth by Exuperius in S. Hierome Tom. 1. Epist. 4. and S. Gregory Nazianzen of his sister Gorgonia Answere Exuperius no laymen but Bishop of Tholosa hauing sold the syluer Ciboriums Chalices of his Church to mayntaine the poore was forced throgh pouerty to keep the Body and Bloud in a basket of Osier in a glasse-Cup so carrying them about when he did administer the same in the Church to the people But that he carryed the blood of our Sauiour in a glasse out of the Church about him S. Hierome doth not say yea he signifies that this vse of Osier-baskets glasse-Cups was in the Church saying Nihil ditius Exuperio nostro qui corpus Domini canistro vimineo Sanguinē portat in vitro qui auaritiam eiecit ETEMPLO nothing is more rich then Exuperius who doth carry the body of our Lord in an Osier-basket and his bloud in a glasse who hath cast Couetousnes out of the CHVRCH Nor is it probable that he carryed the bloud about him in a glasse when he went any iourney exposing the same to manifest danger of being irreuerently spilled specially glasse being so brittle and easely broken and the ancients exceeding sollicitous and anxious that the bloud might not be shed nor any particle of the sacred bread fall to the ground S. Gregory Nazianzen sayth of his sister Gorgonia praying earnestly for the recouery of her health That whatsoeuer of the Antitypes or Images of the pretious body and bloud her hand had hidden that shee did bath mingle with her teares which place Vasquez whome you so commend as learned and intelligent doth shew to be spoken of holy Images of Christs Passion and death not of the blessed Sacrament For Women were neuer permitted to touch the sacred Chalice with their hand nor to keepe consecrated Cups in their houses for the bloud but only white linen corporalls for the body It had been also agaynst the Reuerence ancient Christian deuotion did beare to the pretious bloud of our Sauiour for her to haue powred her teares into the sacred Chalice mingling them with the pretious bloud so that there is no signe in Antiquity that laymen did keep in their priuate houses or did carry about them the bloud of our Sauiour in the forme of wine Therfore in their priuate houses and out of the Church they still receaued in one kind was carryed away and consequently that the Church did not then esteeme of Communiō vnder one kind as of a sacrilegious mayming of the Sacrament as Protestants now doe Thirdly it was an ancient custome in the Grecian (g) Concil Loadicen can 49. Trullen can 52. Church to cōsecrate the holy Eucharist on Saturdayes and Sundayes on the other dayes of the weeke to Communicate ex praesanctificatis of the presanctifyed formes that is consecrated on the Saturday or Sunday before Now it is not probable that they did consecrate wine to endure fiue or six dayes long for feare specially in such hoate Countreys the same should grow sower Wherfore for the most part they did Communicate vnder one kind Fourthly the (h) Leo. serm 4. de Quadrag Manichees liued in Rome and other places shrowding themselues amongst Catholikes went to their Churches receaued the Sacrament publikely with them vnder the sole forme of bread and yet they were not noted nor thereby discerned from Catholiques A manifest signe that Communion vnder one kind was publickely in the Church permitted at the least vpon some iust causes that might be pretended For how could the Manichees still refusing the cup haue been hidden amongst these ancient Christians if they had byn perswaded as now Protestants are that receauing vnder one kind is a sacriledge If one in the Church of England should refuse the Cup but once in a publike Communion in the Church would he not be incontinently noted (i) The Minister pag. 560. First the Manichees were espyed else how could the Pope reproue their practise Secondly Vasquez the Iesuit sayth That these Heretikes receaued the Cup into their hand but dranke no wine And amōg a great multitude some few might hold the Cup to their mouth make shew of drinking and yet receaue no wine Answere The Pope did reproue that practise of the Manichees because he knew it was their Heresy so to doe in that they held wine to be the gall of the Diuell and that Christ did not shed his bloud on the Crosse which also to be their practise such as were conuerted from that heresy did witnesse Vasquez doth not say that the Manichees did only put the Cup to their mouth without drinking and so lay hidden and vnknowne for he was not so simple but he did see this could not be done but the Deacons that gaue the Cup to the Cōmunicants one by one would presently haue perceaued it He sayth that they did drinke of the cōsecrated wine but kept the same in their mouth till they came to some place where without being noted they might spit is out Which I can not thinke to be probable First the Manichees holding wine to be a thing so impure and detestable as the Diuells gall how would they take the same into their mouth Secondly how could they keepe the wine in their mouth so longe but that some part therof would goe downe Thirdly S. Leo bids Catholickes to note the men that omnino altogeather refrayne from the Cup signifying that they might by this their perpetuall abstinence be distinguished from Catholicks that sometymes refrayned But if they tooke still the wine into their mouth kept the same there till they came to a solitary place where they might spit it out securely how could they be discerned by their abstayning from the Cup more then any other Catholicks did vse to doe Hence euen Vasquez doth acknowledge that this argumēt drawne from the dissimulation of heretikes namely of the Macedonian woman related by Sozom. l. 8. c. 5. is probabile valde apparens probable and very apparent to proue that Communion in one kind was arbitrary and a thinge indifferent in the ancient Church The last Argument is practise of the Apostles that is of the first Christians vnder them of whome we read in the Acts of the Apostles (k) Act. 2.42 Erant perseuerantes in doctrina Apostolorum communicatione fractionis panis orationibus speaking of sacred Eucharisticall bread the taking whereof was ioyned with prayer which vnto the newly baptized was
straight giuen after Baptisme And yet there is no mention of wine So that Protestants if they will haue these Christians to haue wine they must out of their owne liberality by way of interpretation bestow it vpon them seeing the wordes of the text do not affoard it them (*) The Minister pag. 507. obiects That sundry Fathers and Authours do not vnderstād these places about Christ the Apostles mentioning the receauing of bread without wine of Sacred Communiō I Answere Diuers Fathers as the Iesuit sheweth vnderstād these places mētioning Communion of bread without wine of Sacramental Communiō and consequently they hold Communion in one kind to be conformable to the example of Christ and the Apostles And though some Fathers hold that these mentioned Communions of bread without wine were not sacred yet their reason is not because Communion in one kind is vnlawfull which reason yet they would haue alleadged had the same been the doctrine of the Christian Church To this Apostolicall practise we may adde the example of Christ who gaue to his two disciples in Emaus the Sacrament vnder the sole forme of bread (l) Luc. 24. Accepit panem benedixit fregit That the bread Christ gaue was Eucharisticall and consecrated the wordes of the text insinuate some learned Fathers (m) Aug. lib. 3. de consens Euangel c. 25. affirme and the miraculous effect of opening their eyes to know Christ and to returne to Hierusalem the Church of the Apostles in all hast confirmes it That they receaued at the hands of Christ the Sacrament vnder one only kind of bread is euidēt by the context of the Holy narratiō which sayth that vpon our Sauiours breaking and giuing them bread they knew him and he straight vanished out of their sight So that heere also if Protestants will haue wine giuen to these Disciples they must by the superabundance thereof in their expositions supply the want thereof in Scripture yea the Scripture in this place is hardly capable of that Exposition the Apostles acknowledging of Christ in the very fraction giuing of bread and our Sauiours departure in the same moment leaues no tyme for him to giue them wine after the bread (n) Beda Theophil in Lucam Hier. in Epitaph Paulae Isych l. 2. in Leuit. cap. 9. These be the warrants that Communion vnder one kind hath being the greatest that may be whereby appeares that the Roman Church is furnisht with all kind of proofe in this point in which she doth seeme to her Aduersaryes to be most forsaken by Antiquity which with all humblenes I submit to your Maiestyes Iudgement For supposing Communion vnder one kind to be good and lawfull that the Church could prescribe it and that she had iust reasons to prescribe it I will let passe without proofe as a thing not doubted of by your Maiestyes Excellent Wisdome THE EIGHT POINT VVorks of Supererogation specially vvith reference to the treasure of the Church IT is hard if not impossible to giue satisfaction in this point vnto any that is not aforehand perswaded of the Catholique Doctrine of Merit THE Minister thogh he speake raylingly against our doctrine of merit yet not knowing what he sayth teacheth as much Merit as we do He graunts a Merit of Congruity in wordes and Merit of Condignity in truth For a work may be Congruous vnto the Reward two wayes First meerly of Gods mercy and goodnes not out of any intrinsecall worthynes thereof This the Deuines tearme Merit of Cōgruity or of meere Impetration Secondly the worke may be congruous in respect of intrinsecall honour and dignity regarded of God and moouing him to recōpence the work according to the measure quantity of this goodnes This is properly the merit of Condignity or which is all one of inward Congruity of the Worke with the Reward Now that the Minister grāts this merit of inherent Congruity and worthynes vnto good workes his wordes manyfest First he sayth p. 169. lin 26. That the merit of Christ doth by grace giue true INHERENT sanctity and purity vnto mens soules and actions Secondly pag. 170. lin 26. That good workes are an ACCEPTABLE sacrifice vnto God and the same are TRVLY good not only comparatiuely but according to the rule of vertue Thirdly pag. 174. lin 25. That in all good works there is a DIGNITY of grace Diuine similitude goodnes and honour Fourthly pag. 174. lin 40. That the reward of good workes is called a Crowne of righteousnes 2. Tim. 4.8 because it is bestowed on them that exercise righteousnes in REGARD of their righteousnes Fiftly pag. 174. lin 18. That God in giuing the reward considereth the mind and quality of the Doer the integrity MEASVRE and QVANTITY of the worke Thus much the Minister grantes Now is this the merit of meer impetration extrinsecall congruity in respect of Gods goodnes and not the merit of INHERENT RIGHTEOVSNES Sanctity purity dignity of workes God hauing promised to reward them with regard had euen vnto the MEASVRE and quantity of that their inherent goodnes Surly M. White no iudicious Protestāt wil grant thus much as you haue done or if he do he will neuer deny merit of condignity or inherēt iustice to be found in good workes And if you grant vnto Good workes the merit of inherent Iustice you grant the thing of merit condigne which granted it is idle to contend about the name specially seing the title of Merit of condignity is not defined by the Church of Rome The Doctrine of Merit declared §. 1. THIS doctrine is much misliked by Protestants as (p) Concerning Merit proud and arrogant yet not so much misliked as misunderstood their dislike growing from misconstruction thereof For Catholiques hold that no worke is meritorious with God of it owne nature but to make the same meritorious many graces are required those most diuine excellent particularly these seauen The first grace is diuine Preordination because God out of his owne goodnes ordeyned man and his actions vnto a supernaturall last end aboue that he might attayne vnto by meere nature without which ordination no worke would haue reference or correspondency with heauenly glory The second is the grace of Redemption by Christ Iesus without whome we and our workes are defiled we being by nature the children of wrath should be so still had not he by his passion and death appeased God giuing vs the inestimable treasure of his merits so that In illo benedixit nos Deus omni benedictione spirituali in caelestibus in quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem eius secundum diuitias gratiae suae quae superabundauit in nobis Ephes. 1.3 The third is grace of Adoption in Baptisme wherby soules are supernaturally beautifyed by participation of the diuine Nature Whence a tryple dignity redounds vnto workes one by the grace of adoption from God the Father who in respect of this Adoption regardes good workes as the workes
the vnitie of the Church may ioyne togeather with your Excellent Wisdome and Learninge to pronounce the sentence Although I be confident that examining Religion by the meere rigour of onely Scripture the Catholicke Doctrines would get the victorie more cleere and expresse testimonies standing on our side then any that ProtestaÌ„ts can bring for theÌ„selues (*) This is further made cleere by the Reioynder so that it is but the face of a Minister to say in this place That our relying on Scripture is Vanitas vanitatuÌ„ as by the former discourse may appeare Although also I be much more confident in the tradition and perpetual practise of the Church interpreting Scripture which by so full coÌ„sent deliuers the Roman Doctrine that partialitie it selfe duely pondering the weight of thinges can hardly in hart and inwardly iudge against them yet my chiefest hope is in these Charitable thoughtes and desires of peace and vnitie in the whole Christian world which the holy Ghost hath inspired into your Brest For suppose that Preconceipts instilled into tender myndes agaynst the faith of Auncestours might so farre preuaile as to make them thinke comparing Catholikes with ProtestaÌ„ts that Scriptures stand equally on both sides yea sifting the matter by Scripture only that Protestants may seeme to haue the vpper hand yet Charitie will moue this question Whether the testimonies and arguments they bring from Scripture are so vndeniably cleere and so vnauoydably strong that no answere or euasion may be found but the Roman (*) The Minister sayth we giue seeming and appering solutioÌ„s but this is done by Sophistry I aske who shall be Iudge Or how can this by tryed by Scripture Church must be refused notwithstandinge so much discord and dissention so much inconstancy incertainty about religion which as reason proueth must and as experience sheweth doth thereupon ensue For if you cast away the Roman Church and her authority noe Church is left in the world that can with reason or dares for shame challenge to be infallible in her definitions if such a Church be wanting what meanes is left either to keepe the learned certainly in peace or to giue vnto the ignorant assurance what is the Doctrine of Saluation the Apostles first preached A Church fallible in her teaching is by the learned to be trusted noe further then they do see her Doctrines consonant vnto Scripture and so they may neglect her Iudgment when they seeme to haue euidences of Scripture against her And if this libertie of contradiction be granted what hope of Vnity remaines when a priuate man may wrangle eternally with the whole Church neuer be conuinced apparantly of teaching against the Scriptures Whereof we haue to many dayly examples If we take out of the world a Church infallible whence shall ignorant men learne which is the Doctrine of saluation that the Apostles deliuered It is as euident as the Sunne shyning at noone Day and the euidence of the thing hath forced some Protestants to acknowledge That the Controuersies of Religion in our time are grown in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue time and leasure Field of the Church Prefat in l. 1. fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them so that nothing remaines for men desiâ—ous of satisfaction in things of such consequeÌ„ce but diligently to search out which amongest all the Societyes of men in the world is the Church of the liuing God the pillar ground of truth that so they may imbrace her communion follow her directions rest in her Iudgement If there be no Church in the world besides the the Roman that can with any colour pretend Infallibity of Iudgement If the most part of men cannot by their examining of Controuersies be resolued in faith and therfore must perish eternally except they finde a Church that is an infallible mistresse of truth in whose Iudgment they may securely rest Certainly those that haue bowells of Charity will accept of any probable answere vnto Protestants obiections and accusations rather then discredit the authority of so necessary a Church which being discredited no Church remaines in the world of credit sufficient to sustaine the waight of Christian that is infallible Beliefe What a misery will it be if it fall out as it is most likely it will fall out that at the Day of Iudgement the most part of English Protestants be found to haue belieued points of Doctrine necessary to saluation not out of their owne certaine skill in Scripture as they should by the principles of their religioÌ„ but (*) The Minister here rayleth but dares not directly answere the Question What shall become of ignorant meÌ„ who belieued the truth vpoÌ„ the credit of their Church not vpoÌ„ their owne infallible knowledge vpoÌ„ the credit of the Church that teacheth them which doth acknowledge her selfe no sufficient stay of assured beliefe For without question men cannot be saued who although they belieued the truth yet belieued it vpon a deceauable ground and consequently by humaine and fallable perswasion and not as need is by a diuine most certaine beliefe grounded vppon an infallible foundation which cannot be had without an infallible Church How dreadfull then must the danger be of liuing out of the lappe of the Roman Church that is of a Church of infallible Authority This Church hauing a most glorious succession of Bishops from the Apostles deserues aboue all other the protection of your Maiesty who by a long line of religious Catholike Ancestors succeed in the right of two Illustrious Kingdomes and being so beneficiall vnto mankind so efficacious to mayntayne Vnity (*) Our Hopes did not dye with our late Soueraigne but still liue in his Royall Issue and of the most Sacred Queene Martyr his Mother we cannot giue ouer hope of your Fauour whom singular preseruation in the wombe of your glorious mother agaynst the barbarous attempts of Hereticall diuision that would haue brought you to an immature end shewes to be by Gods infinite wisdome perordained for some singular good of mankind specially by your meanes to quench wars and dissentions and to bestow the blessings of peace vnion on this land Your Title to the Crowne of England springes from the peacefull coniunction of the two renowned Roses which before were mortall enemies and fought so many cruell feilds that if we consider the great effusion of bloud wherein ech of them were bathed we shall hardly discerne the one from the other by the diuersity of colour Your Maiesties Person is the roote of a more happy vnion of two most glorious Kingdomes by your Sacred Person combined in assured peace which in the hystoryes of former times are by no other markes more famously knowne then by their mutuall warres Nothing remaines to be added for the full consummation of this Ilands happines and your Maiesties immortal Glory but the quenching of discord about religion by bringing them back againe to the roote matrice of the Catholique Church Cyp. lib. 1. epist. 3. ad Cornel. to the Chayre of Peter the principall Sea from which Sacerdotall and Sacred Vnity springs and to which perfidious Errour hath no accesse Wherby your Maiesty shall extend the blessings of peace from this Iland to the rest of Europe from the the body vnto the soule and crowne your temporall peace and felicity with eternall For both which not only I but all of my profession yea all Catholikes wil offer vnto Almighty God our daily praiers FINIS