though he deny the Primacy of S. Peter yet is forced by the euideÌ„ce of the sacred Text to graÌ„t that wheÌ„ce this primacy is proued First p. 157. that S. Peter had the Primacy of spirituall authority vniuersall Iurisdiction ouer the whole Church with the rest of the Apostles Secondly that this was giuen him singularly to wit as appeares by the Ghospell Matth. 16.10 Ioan. 20.21 by the singular order institutioÌ„ Christ applyed to him Now this doth inforce Monarchicall primacy For the three different formes of gouernement Democracy Aristocracy Monarchy are nothing els but three different applications of the primacy of iurisdiction vniuersall to different persons Primacy of vniuersall Iuridiction applyed generally to the whole Commons is Democracy applyed principally to some few chiefe persons of the State Aristocracy applyed singularly to one indiuiduall person Monarchy And what is vnderstood by Monarchy but primacy of power and vniuersall Iurisdiction applyed singularly to one indiuiduall person ouer all the affaires of a whole and entiere state Hence the Apostles were as the Fathers say both equall and inferiour vnto Peter Equall in that they had the same kind of power that Peter had to wit the authority of the Key-bearers of the Rockes of the Pastors of the vniuersall Church nor doe we read in the Ghospell any kind of power giuen to Peter which was not also giuen for kind to the rest on the other side the other Apostles were inferiour vnto Peter as the same Fathers affirme in that they had the same kind of power in a lower degree with subordination vnto Peter as the chiefe no kind of power being giuen to the rest of the Apostles which we doe not expressely reade in the Ghospell to haue been giuen to S. Peter by singular commission order and institution Whence it is consequent that Peter was gouernour of the whole Church with the rest in more eminent degree of power and Iurisdiction then the rest all men being bound to obey him more specially more singularly and aboue the rest The eminency of the rest in the Church was vniuersall power had by commission directed coÌ„monly to them all wherby they all indifferently not one more then the other receaued commission of power in respect of all men of the Church distinct from themselues The eminency of Peter in the Church was vniuersall power giueÌ„ by commission directed singularly to his only person To Peter the sonne of Ionas Matth. 16.18 Wherby he was endued with primacy of Ecclesiasticall power in respect of all men in the Church distinct from himselfe in which number all Christians absolutely are comprehended not one excluded And this is Monarchy Now if Christ did ordayne and institute Monarchicall Gouernement in his Church then the gouernement thereof must be and was euer Monarchicall and that Peter still hath had a Monarchicall successour but if he had such a successour it is by all historyes more euident then the sunne that he had no other but the Roman Bishop What the Minister heere obiecteth agaynst the Roman Bishops Primacy is triuiall stuffe vrged without any new difficulty to wit about the tytle of vniuersall Bishop the Nicene Canon Contention of S. Cyprian with Pope Stephen the controuersy of the Africans about Appellations the Asians resisting Pope Victor All which Instances truly examined proue the primacy most euidently as is shewed by Bellarmine l. 2 de Pontif. lately by Fidelis Annosus de Monarchia Ecclesiastica l. 2. c. 5. 6. Primacy of S. Peter his successours the fundation which Christ layd of his Church necessary for the perpetual gouernment therof Matth. 16.18 Thirdly their questioning the infallible Authority of lawfull (a) The Minister heere rayleth agaynst Councells gathered by the authority of the Pope and in most grosse maÌ„ner falsifieth Cusanus in eight or nine particulars but in fine he dares not make direct answere to the question proposed whether Protestants hold the definitions of Lawfull Generall CouÌ„cels to be infallible or not His answere hereunto is like the oracle of Apollo giuen in generall and doubtfull tearmes to wit that Protestants giue the same authority vnto Councells that the ancient Church did in the margent he cites S. Augustine that Councells of Bishops are not to be equalled vnto Scriptures as doubtles they may not The truth is though he be ashamed to say it in plaine tearmes Protestants hold General CouÌ„cells lawfully assembled to be inferiour not only vnto Scripture but also vnto their exposition thereof For they teach that Councells be not assisted by the holy Ghost that it is most pernicious yea abominable to thinke so of them Luther Tom. 7. Germ. Wittenberg fol. 262. and though they proceed lawfully and be confirmed by the supreme Pastours yet be they fallible examinable refusable and subiect to the Protestant skill in Scripture In so much as the same Luther in his articles art 115. sayth When Councells haue defined then will we be Iudges whether they be to be accepted or not And the same sayth Caluin l. 4. Instit. cap. 9. Hence appeares how idle their pretence is that forsooth they would fayne haue a free Generall Councell To what purpose Surely they can intend nothing els but that they may bring the Councell to be of their humour or els if it be agaynst them to contemne it as not being in their iudgement conforme vnto Scripture It is reason M. White that you first meete amongst your selues You I say that pretend to be reformed and see whether you can agree that Generall Councells are infalliâ—â—◠〈◊〉 by the spirit of Christ so that no man may by his skill in Scripture or any other pretence reiect them This done then speake of meeting with Catholikes in a Generall Councell Otherwise Catholikes by meeting with you are sure to gayne no peace and vnity except they yield vnto you besides by the very yielding to meete with you they must for euer renounce the infallibility of Councells such a diuine stay of peace and vnity in the Church That this perpetuall renuntiation vnto CouÌ„cells must be made by meeting with you is cleere For by admitting you who question the authority of Councells into their Councells they must admit that it is at least questionable among Christians whether such Councells be infallibly assisted by Gods holy spirit or not els they cannot meet with you but must fly from you as damned heretikes If they admit the infallibility of Councells to be questionable they must bid this infallibility farewell for euer it can neuer be established by any ensuing consent of Generall Councels For if a Generall Councell should define that Generall Councells are infallible except we be sure aforehand that Councells are infallible we may doubt whether that Councell doth not erre in defining that Councels are infallible Wherefore this doctrine of the infallibility of lawfull Generall Councels is eyther to be abaÌ„doned for euer togeather with the vnity of the Church that so much depends theron or els
â—each that Blessed Mary was an entyre Virgin only vntill â—er Childbirth But according to the CATHOLICKE FAYTH he came forth of the Virgins woÌ„be the same still resting entyre and as a Bride-grome out of his Bride-Chamber Now you may crow and crake crowne your Booke as you do in your Picture when you are so pressed by your Aduersary that you are forced to defend your Errour by holding ancient Heresyes and by laying the tearme of Sophisticall Inference vpon the Catholicke Fayth of the Creed and of the whole Christian Church In answering Scriptures you contradict your selfe and grant the Iesuit the Question §. 4. THE vanity of your former brag that the Iesuit hath proued nothing by Scripture is further made apparent in that he doth so vrge you with Scripture as you are sometimes forced to contradict your selfe sometimes to grant as much as he doth require against your selfe The Iesuit pag. 98. proueth that the Church of Christian pastours succeeding the Apostles is infallible in her Tradition because our Sauiour saith Matth. 28. Behold I am with you all dayes vntill the consummation of the world You answere pag. 100. That which is promised vpon condition is not absolute vntill the condition be fulfilled The presence of Christ is promised to the Apostles successours conditionally and as they were one with the Apostles by imitation subordinatioÌ„ that is so farre as they walked in their stepps conformed their doctrine and ministery to the patterne receiued from them Thus you in this place But pag. 174. lin 21. speaking of the absolute perpetuity and duration of the Church you say that the place Matth. 28.20 Behold I am with you all daies vntill the end of the world proueth that the Church is vniuersall in respect of time and that it continueth successiuely in all ages This your saying ouerthrowes what you said that the presence of Christ is promised vpon condition wherin the successors of the Apostles might faile For this place Behold I am with you all dayes vntill the worlds end doth shew the Church to be alwaies in the world no other wayes then because Christ according to his promise is alwaies and all dayes to the worlds end with his Church he caÌ„ not be still in the world with his Church except his Church haue still a being in the world So that according to the truth of this place we may aswell or better say the Church shall not be alwaies in the world then that it shall be in the world without Christ or his Diuine assistance to teach men infallibly the truth Wherfore if by this place we cannot as you say we cannot proue that the Church shall be euer absolutely assisted of Christ much lesse doth this place conuince that the Church shall be alwaies in the world or further then conditionally if it walke in â—he Apostles doctrine Contrariwise if this place â—roue that the Church is absolutely alwaies in the world vntill the consummation therof then à forâ—iori more strongely and more directly doth it proue â—hat Christ is absolutely not onely conditionally â—reseÌ„t with his Church all dayes to the worlds end â—o that to answere the Iesuits proofes of his Religion â—y Scripture you coÌ„tradict your selfe yea somtimes â—rant agaynst your selfe as much as he would proue For to proue the same infallibility of the Church â—e bringeth pag. 3. the place of S. Paul (g) 1. Tim. 3.15 that the â—hurch is the grouÌ„d pillar of truth but the ground of â—ertaine infallible Truth such as the Christian is â—ust be certaine infallible You answere pag. 4. lin â— If by the Church wee vnderstand the Church of Christ â—â—uing afâ—er the Apostles the same is by office and calling â—he pillar and ground of truth in all ages This your anâ—were alloweth vnto the Iesuit asmuch as he desires 〈◊〉 can desire to shew the Church to be alwaies infalâ—â—ble For that which is by office and diuine vocation the â—â—llar and ground of infallible truth hath by diuine â—rdination and assistance sufficiency for the perforâ—ance of that office as is most euident The Church â—hich is fallible may erre is not a sufficient pillar 〈◊〉 ground that is hath not sufficieÌ„cy to be the grouÌ„d 〈◊〉 Christian truth which is infallible For how can 〈◊〉 building sure immoueable stand founded vpon 〈◊〉 vncertaine ruinous and tottering foundation â—herfore seing you grant the church succeeding the â—postles to be in all ages the ground of truth by diuine vocation vnto that office you do consequently allow vnto the Iesuit as much as he would proue to wit that the Church succeeding the Apostles is iâ— all ages vntill the worlds end certaine and infallible in her teaching In lieu of answering you confirme the Iesuits Arguments §. 5. THE Iesuit pag. 38. accuseth Ministers of abusing the word of God who to proue the sole sufficiency of Scripture in respect of all men cite the text of S. Paul 2. Tim. 3.15 The Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto saluation For the words of the Apostle are directed particulerly to Timothy saying they are able to make THEE wise vnto saluation whence it is consequent that the Scriptures were sufficient for Timothy and are sufficient for such men as Tymothy was to wit for men learned and aforehand instructed by word of mouth and therupon firmely beleeuing all the most maine and necessary points of Christian doctrine and discipline That the Scriptures for men in this manner taught and grounded in fayth are aboundantly sufficient who will deny Thus the Iesuit Vnto whom you shape this answere pag. 39. Although sentences of holy Scripture are sometimes restrayned to the personall and particular subiect of which they are first spoken yet this is not generall and when the same hapneth it must be proued by better arguments then by the bare Emphasis of a word For God said 〈◊〉 Iosuah a man qualifyed aboue the ordinary ranke I will not leaue nor forsake thee Iosuah 1.5 Yet the promise implyed in this text is generall and common to all 〈◊〉 persons Hebr. 13.5 Thus you confirming the Iesuitâ— â—olution in lieu of confuting therof For as the proâ—ise I will not leaue thee made particularly vnto Ioâ—ue in regard he was a iust man doth not agree vnto â—ll men but onely vnto such as Iosue was to wit â—nto iust men and such as seeke God as he did So the â—ext of S. Paul they are able to make THEE wise vnto â—aluation spoken particulerly vnto Timothy in reâ—ard he was learned iudicious aforehand instruâ—ted grounded in Christian tradition doth agree â—nely to Timothy and such men as Timothy was to wit men aforehand taught and grounded in the â—ayth of tradition On the other side as the promise â—ade to Iosue in regard he was a Iust man cannot â—e challenged of other men that be not iust as he was if they rely theron they deceaue themselues â—o the promise the Scriptures are able to make
Scriptures Fathers speak as they please This your cogging in Scripture is already discouered Now about the Fathers Seauen Testimonies of S. Augustine about Scripture and Tradition falsifyed §. 1. TO note some few of the many Pag. 22. lin 5. to make S. Augustine seeme to fauour your Protestant fancy that men are resolued in fayth by the resplendent Verity and euidence of the Christian Doctrine you cite him as saying (*) Cont. Ep. Fund c. 4. Manifest Verity is to be prâ—fered before all other thinges wherby I am hâ—ld in the Catholike Church In this quotation the word other is cogged into the text to change the sense as if S. Augustine had sayd I haue many motiues to belieue the Catholike Doctrine amongst other the manifest verity of the things reuealed this is the chiefest of all S. Augustines true text is manifest verity so cleerly shewed as no doubt therof can be made praeponenda est omnibus is to be preferred before all these thinges whereby I am held in the Catholike Church Hence it is cleere that the manifest Verity was not the stay and motiue of S. Augustines fayth For what is preferred before all the motiues that stayed him in the Catholike Church was none of his motiues But he saith that manâ—fâ—st verity so cleerly shining as no doubt thereof can be made is to be preferred before all his motiues Ergo S Augustin was not befooled with this foppery that Fayth is resolued finally into the manifest resplendeÌ„t verity of the doctrine and thinges reuealed in Scripture Neere to the same (a) Pag. 21. lin â—2 and in marg lit b. c. place you cite S. Augustine (b) Aug. l. 2. de Baptis c. 3. saying That former councells are corrected by latter Whence you inferre that the Tradition of the Church is fallible For what sentence of the Church is infallible if that of Councells be fallible In which say you some Papists place the soueraignty of Ecclesiasticall authority Heere you shew Ignorance and Falshood Ignorance about the doctrine of Catholikes For though some preferre the Councell before the Pope others the Pope before the Councell in case the whole Councel should be opposite to the Pope in matters of Fayth to be defined which case yet neuer happened yet all preferre perpetual Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles before both Pope and Councell For how can we know that Church definitions made by Pope Councell be infallible but by Tradition Some may say that is cleerly proued by Scripture It is true but how shall we know the texts assumed in this proofe to be the Apostles Scripture but by Tradition How should we be so sure that we truly expound the Texts aright did we not see the Tradition and practise of the Church to haue been still conformable to the sense we giue of those Scriptures Your Falshood is in that you conceale the words that immediatly follow in S. Augustines sentence which had you set down Aug. lib. 2. de Baptis c. 3. Ipsa plenaria Concilia saepe priora posterioribus emeÌ„dari cùm EXPERIMENTO â—erum aperitur quod clausum erat it would haue been euideÌ„t that he doth attribute fallibility and corrigibility vnto Councells only in matters of fact or Ecclesiasticall Lawes about manners For the whole sentence is Amongst plenary Councells the former are corrected by the latter cùm experimento rerum c. when by EXPERIMENT of thinges something is brought to light which before was hidden Now the truth of matters and mysteries of Fayth is not brought to light by tyme and experience but the truth of matters of fact is of which One sayth Quicquid sub terra est in apricum proferet aetas Therefore S. Augustine speakes not of matters of Fayth but of matters of fact or of Ecclesiasticall Lawes about manners which in some cases tyme and experience doth discouer to be inconuenient therefore to be recalled In the same place to prooue S. Augustine (d) Pag. 21. in lit b. c. held that the Church in her perpetuall Traditions may be deceaued you cite him saying (e) Aug. l. 2. cont Crescon c. 21. Eâ—clesiastici Iudices sicut homines plerumque falluntur Ecclesiasticall Iudges as men may be deceaued and (f) Lib 2. de Baptism c. 3. EpiscoporuÌ„ litteras quae post confirmatum Canonem Scriptae sunt c. licere reprehendi Non debet Ecclesia se Christo praeponere vt putet à se iudicatos baptizare non posse ab Illo autem iudicatos posse cùm Ille semper veraciter iudicet Ecclesiastici autem Iudices sicut homines plerumque falluntur the writings of any Bishops since the Apostles may be questioned and called into doubt I do not doubt but you know in your conscience that S. Augustine in both the places is alleadged oppositely to his meaning In the first place he speaketh not about Church-errours in matters of fayth but about errors in matters of fact or Church iudgments concerning criminall causes For this is his whole sentence The Church ought not to preferre herselfe before Christ as to say that men condemned by him as wicked may validely baptize but such as she doth condemne may not seeing He in his iudgements neuer erreth whereas Ecclesiasticall Iudges as being men are often deceaued Who doth not see that you wrong Saint Augustine to bring this his testimony for his holding the perpetuall Tradition of the Catholicke Church hand to hand from the Apostles by the succession of Bishops to be fallible And no lesse iniuriously you produce him in the second testimony For he speaketh of single Bishops considered ech of them by themselues that their writings are obnoxious vnto errour and so may be questioned and examined by Scripture thence inferring that the Donatists should not wonder that he did examine the Epistle of S. Cyprian agaynst the Baptisme of Heretikes so cleere it is he speakes of single Bishops not of Tradition by the full consent of Bishops Pag. 37. lin 33. For only Scripture you cite the same S. August as thus writing (g) August in epist· 1. IoaÌ„ tract 3. The Church hath only two breasts wherwith she feedeth her Children the Scriptures of the Old New TestameÌ„t You corrupt this place by addition false translation First by adding to the text the word only to make men belieue S. Aug. held that no doctrine of Fayth is to be belieued which is not cleerly contayned in Scripture whereas (h) l. 4. de Baptis c. 6. 24. l. 5. c. 22. he hath an expresse principle to the contrary many tymes repeated in his workes Sundry thinges to wit of fayth such as was the doctrine that Baptisme giuen by Heretiks is valide are most iustly belieued to be the Apostles though they be no where written in the Scriptures Secondly S. August sayth not as you traÌ„slate that the Churches two breasts are the Scriptures of the Old New TestameÌ„t
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
of Waldo Wickliffe and Husse Fabulae sunt they are Fables you turne as by him spoken of perpetuall Traditions of the Catholicke and Roman Church The Pharisees did indeed corrupt Scripture But how By Logicall deductions out of the same according to your Protestant and the common Hereticall fashion pretending greater skill then all their Ancestors That they did affirme that their speciall obseruations were Traditions vnwritten from Moyses the Scripture hath not a word yea the thing they most of all obiected agaynst our Sauiour was the written Tradition of Moyses about keeping the Sabboth Day Ioan. 7. From which precept not by Tradition vnwritten but by Logicall inference they concluded that our Lord brake the Sabboth-Day by healing diseased persons thereon So that Pharasaicall Traditions were neuer so much as pretended to be doctrines vnwritten as you imagine but to be doctrines concluded from the text of Scripture by the rules of Reason and Logicke iust according to your Protestant pretence Also what you say that the Fathers Traditions vnwritten be not our doctrines but yours is spoken because you would haue men so thinke though they erre not because you can thinke the same to be so in truth For thus I argue agaynst this your seely Shift The Fathers as appeareth by their wordes vnderstand by Tradition Apostolical vnwritten Dogmata quae peti non possunt è Sacra Scriptura Doctrines of fayth that cannot be gathered froÌ„ the holy Scriptures with such certitude as they may therevpon be belieued as articles of fayth But you pretend and glory that all your Doctrines of Fayth be ex sacris Scripturis petitae so drawne and gathered from holy Scriptures as they are belieued as Fayth only vpon this rule Ergo it is great vanity for you to say that the Fathers by Apostolical Tradition vnwritten vnderstood the Doctrine not of the Roman Church but of your Protestant Separation And if from generality vpon which Ministers whose drift is to deceyue do willingly dwell we descend to particulars we shall find that you reiect those Doctrines customes of the Roman Church as Fabulous dreames and human inuentions which the Fathers expressely and in tearmes affirme to be Apostolicall Traditions To pray for the reliefe of the Soules of the faythfull deceased Protestants esteeme fabulous the (1) (1) Chrys. Homil 69. ad Pop. Fathers affirme it was ab Apostolis sancitum ordayned by the Apostles The binding of the Cleargy-men and those that are in the holy Ministery to single life and from woing wiuing do not Protestants detest as impious (2) (2) Concil Carthag Can. 2. yet the fathers say haec docuâ—runt Apostoli haec seruauit antiquitas this the Apostles taught this was kept by the Ancients That it is damnable Sin for Votaries to marry after their vowes do not Protestants contemne as a fabulous inuention yet (3) (3) Epiphan haeres 61. the Fathers say tradiderunt Sancti Dei Apostoli this is the Tradition of the holy Apostles of God The custome of making the signe of the Crosse on the forhead ProtestaÌ„ts deride as foolish (4) (4) Basil. de Spirit Sanct. c. 27. yet the Fathers affirme hoc tradiderunt Patres nostri in silentio sine literis it was taught by our Fathers the Apostles in silent Tradition without writing The Fast of Lent is it not in neglect and derision with Protestants yet the (5) (5) Hieron Epist. ad Marcell de erroribus Montan. Fathers sayd as we do QuadragesimaÌ„ semel in anno ex Apostolica traditione ieiunamus we fast one Lent a yeare by the tradition of the Apostles Do not Protestants also scorne the feast of Ember-weeke foure tymes in the yeare And yet the (6) (6) Leo de ieiunio sexti mensis Serm. 6. de Pentecost Fathers say ex Apostolica traditione seruantur they are receyued by Apostolical Tradition To fast one fryday or the sixt Day of the weeke in memory of our Sauiours passion Protestants condemne as superstitious yet (7) (7) Epiphan haeres 75. the Fathers say hoc decreuerunt Apostoli the Apostles made this decree and the Church by Tradition from them hath perpetually obserued it The making and blessing of holy water do not ProtestaÌ„ts reiect as magicall Yet the (8) (8) Basil. de spir san c. 27. Fathers say expressely it is a Tradition of the Apostles To mingle water with Wine in the Chalice of the holy Eucharist is thought by Protestants to be fabulous But by the Fathers (9) (9) Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. Dominica institutio the institution of our Lord by Tradition vnwritten deriued to vs. Luther dareth to cast off with a iest the commandement not to receiue the holy Eucharist but fasting that so the body of our Lord may enter in at our mouth before other meates (10) (10) Aug. Ep. 118 ad Ianuar c. 6. yet the Fathers say hoc placuit Spiritu sancto hoc Christus per Apostolos disposuit it pleased the holy ghost it should be so and by his inspiration the Apostles did so appoint What shall I say of (11) (11) Aug. lib. 4. in Iulian. Leo primus Ep. 14. Exorcizandi sunt secundum ApostolicaÌ„ regulam Exorcismes ExsufflatioÌ„s vsed in Baptisme the (12) (12) Origen Homil. 5. in Num. A magno Pontifice Christo eius filiis Apostolis traditam forme of interrogations answeres and other ceremonies That (13) (13) Fabian Ep. 2. ad Oriental Christus instituit they that be baptized be afterwards Chrismed with the oyle of balme (14) (14) Tertul. li. 1. ad vx Apostolica praescriptio Epiphan haer 50. Propter eminentiam celebrationis traditam That they who haue beene maried more then once be not promoted vnto Priesthood out of reuerence vnto that dignity (15) (15) Aug. lib. 17. de Ciuit. c. 4. Hoc votum illi potentissimi vouerant That the Apostles made the vow of Religions perfection That (16) (16) Chrys. homil 17. ad Paph Antiochen A Christo introducta Casian Coenobitarum disciplina tempore praedicationis Apostolorum sumpserat exordium Monasticall profession began by their institution (17) (17) Tertul. de Corona Militis Anniuersarios dies colimus the keeping festiuall Dayes in the honour of Saints deceased (18) (18) Concil Antioc Apostol citat in 7. Synod act 1. The placing the Images of Christ and his Saints in the Church (19) (19) Damascen orat 4. de Imagin Synod Nicen 2. act 7. Their Worship (20) (20) Aug. Serm. 17. de verbis Apost Cyril cathec 5. Mystagog To commend our selues vnto the prayers of Saintes deceased in the holy Sacrifice of Masse These things Protestants detest as Superstitions all which yet the Fathers mantayne to be Apostolicall Traditions metamorphize the word Profitable as to make it signify the same with the word Sufficient which is very hard yet were the text much ouer-short to proue their intent that Scripture alone
ad com Philip. in 1. ad Corinth This may conuince our Minister that his allegations be of no credit and that Iudgement of the Sanctity of a Church is not to be made by the report of zealous complaint but by the euidence of sight ruled by vnpartiall search By which rule one may find in the Catholike Cleargy thousands and thousands that shew admirable charity specially in conuerting Infidells yea that winne the glorious crowne of Angelicall Chastity for which they would neuer haue striuen had not the Church bound them thereunto So that if human infirmity by occasiō of this law make some men impure that otherwise perchance in marriage would haue beene chast so the Grace of God by the same occasiō worketh in innumerable Angelical Saints who had neuer beene such but for the Churches exaction And this haruest makes full recompence for that losse specially seing also many of such delinquents be not lost but saued by Pennance yea become more excellent Saints then they had beene had they neuer fallen Chastity Obedience Charity in vndergoing labours for the help of soules Fortitude in suffering of heroycall Martyrdomes Zeale and Patience in the rough and rigorous treaty of their bodyes by miraculous fasting another austerityes This sanctity shineth not in all children of the Church but in her more eminent preachers professours Which kind of sanctity togeather with miracles if the Church did want she could not be a sufficiēt witnes of the truth vnto Infidells who commonly neuer begin to affect admire Christianity but vpon the sight of such wōders of Sanctity other extraordinary works Holy for doctrine in regard her Traditions be diuine and holy without any mixture of errour For if the Church could deliuer by consent of Ancestours togeather with truth some Errours her Traditions euen about truth were questionable could not be belieued vpon the warrāt of her traditions for who can without danger and securely feed on that dish that may aswell containe poyson as wholsome sustenance And whereas some Protestants affirme that the Church cannot erre in fundamentall points but only in thinges of lesse moment the truth is that in perpetuall Traditions she cannot erre at all If the Tradition of the Church deliuering a small thing as receyued from the Apostles may be false one may call into question her Traditions of moment For like as if we admit in the Scripture errours in small matters we cannot be sure of its infallibility in substātial matters So likewise if we graunt Traditions perpetuall to be false in things of lesse importance we haue no solide ground to defend her Traditions as assured in others of moment Wherfore as he that should say Gods written word is false in some lesse matters as when it sayes S. Paul left his Cloake at Troas erreth fundamentally by reason of the consequence which giues occasion to doubt of euery thing in Scripture euen so he that graunteth that some part of Traditions or of the word of God vnwritten may be false erreth substantially because he giueth cause to doubt of any Tradition which yet as I haue shewed is the prime and originalll ground of Faith more (q) The Minister heere rayleth largely lustily tearming this assertion impudent Antichristian prophane bastardly c. yet the assertion is euident truth his reasons agaynst it are of no force For they goe not agaynst the assertion but proue another thing to wit the excellency of Scripture which none denyes For Tradition Scripture according to different cōparisons are equall superiour the one to the other Compare them in respect of certainty of truth they are equal as the Councell of Trent defineth sess 4. both being the word of God the one Written the other Vnwritten and so both infinitly certayne Compare them in respect of depth sublimity and variety of doctrine the Scripture is farre superiour vnto Tradition Tradition being playne and easy doctrine concerning the common capitall and practicall articles of Christianity wheras the Scripture is full of high hidden senses and furnisht with great variety of examples discourses and all manner of erudition Aug. Epist. 3. Compare them in respect of priority and euidence of being the Apostles the Scripture is posteriour vnto Tradition in tyme and knowledge and cannot be proued directly to be the Apostles therfore Gods but by Tradition as sometime not only Fathers but euen Protestants afffirme As Philosophy is more perfect then Logicke and Rhetoricke then Grammer in respect of high excellēt knowledge yet Logike is more prime originall fundamentall then Philosophy Grammer then Rhetoricke without the rules and principles wherof they cannot be learned Euen so Tradition is more prime and originall then Scripture though Scripture in respect of depth and sublimity of discourse be more excellent then Tradition fundamentall then the very Scripture which is not knowne to be Apostolicall but by Tradition wheras a perpetuall Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by its owne light For what more euident thē that that is from the Apostles which is deliuered as Apostolicall by perpetuall succession of Bishops consenting therein The Propertyes of the Church proued by Matth. 28.20 §. 4. ALL this may be cleerly prooued to omit other pregnant testimonyes by the words of our Sauiour in the last of S. Matthew Going into the world teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to keepe all that I haue commanded you and behold I am with you all dayes euen to the consummation of the world A (r) The Minister pag. 195. lin 4. sayth that this promise is conditionall in repect of Pastours succeeding the Apostles to wit that Christ will assist them conditionally whē they teach and baptize as he hath commanded but that they shall so still teach he doth not promise p. 24. lin 28. This exposition is false first because our Sauiour here promiseth his Presence vnto the Apostles and their successours to baptize and teach vntill the worlds end by one and the same forme of speach and indiuiduall breath so that the promise cannot be conditionall in respect of the successors except it be also conditionall in respect of the Apostles But in respect of the Apostles the promise is absolute as the Minister grants pag. 94. lin 23. Therefore it is also absolute in respect of their successors Not that this or that Pastour may not be deceaued but that they shall neuer deliuer by ioynt consent any falshood as the Apostles doctrine Secondly if the promise be conditionall then the sense is this I will alwayes assist you to teach Christen aright when you teach christen according to my commandement as the Minister expounds pag. 94. lin 22. But this sense is idle and iust nothing as if Christ had sayd Behold I will assist you to teach aright when you teach aright for what is to teach Christian Religion aright but to
firmely any Minister of the Catholicke CHVRCH affirming a booke to be Scripture vntill we see cleerly that he deliuers therein the consent of the Catholike Church which then is euident vnto vs when we see him preach it freely and openly and no Pastour to contradict him therein may deceyue And if it may deceiue how can they be certaine that they are not deceiued seeing they thēselues liued not in the Apostles dayes nor saw with their owne eyes what coppyes the Apostles deliuered But Protestants as they pretend be certaine that they haue the true incorrupt Apostolicall text of Scripture Ergo they haue it vpon the authority of the holy Catholike Apostolicall Church Now the Minor that they haue the Scripture from the Romane is apparant for what other Church did deliuer vnto Luther the text of the Bible assuring him that they had it by Tradition from Auncestors tyme out of mind as giuen originally by the Apostles Which is accordingly acknowledged by (*) Whitaker l. 3. de Ecclesia p. 369. M. Whitaker (d) M. Doue in his persuasion others but particularly by (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word Luther himselfe Ergo the Roman Church is the one holy Catholik Apostolical Church whose Tradition doth deliuer infallibly vnto vs the text of Scripture And if the true Apostolicall Text then also (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word the true Apostolicell sense This I prooue if the Apostles did not deliuer the bare Text but togeather with the Text the true (f) We doe not say that the Apostles did deliuer the true sense of all their Scriptures making a large and entire commentary of all difficil texts as the Minister cauilleth pa. 121. but only that togeather with the text they deliuered the sense about the mayne and most principall points this sense thus deliuered by Traditiō with the text is to be admitted as religiously and reuerently as the text sense of Scripture to be deliuered perpetually vnto posterity then they who by Tradition rereiue from the Apostles the true Text must togeather receiue the true sense But as (g) Chemnit in exam Cōcil Trid. part 1. fol. 74. D. Bancroft in the Suruay pag. 379. principall Protestants affirme No mā doubteth but the Primitiue Church receyued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not only the text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sēse Which is agreable to the doctrin of (h) Vincentius Lyrinen cap 2. the Fathers that from the Apostles togeather with the text descends the line of Apostolicall interpretation squared according to the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense Whereupō S (i) Aug. de vtilit Creden c. 14. Augustine argueth that they that deliuer the text of Christs Ghospell must also deliuer the exposition affirming that he would sooner refuse to belieue Christ then admit any interpretation contrary to them by whome he was brought to belieue in Christ. For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense why may they not also deliuer a false text as receyued frō the Apostles An argument conuincing and (k) Though the Minister pag. 123. storme at this confidence of his Aduersary in tearming it vnanswerable yet by deeds he confirmes the saying to be true in not answering but chāging the force thereof quite another way saying It is this The text of the Scripture may be as easily corrupted as the sense Ergo All they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense may also deliuer a false text In this argument he denyeth the antecedent or assumption I answere First as I sayd the argument is peruerted and the medium or meanes of proofe changed for there is great difference betwixt Being as easy Being as possible seing a thing may be as possible as another and yet not so easy That ten men should conspire to deceaue me is not so easy as that three should so conspire as is euident Yet it is as possible as the other because no reason can be brought to proue that three may so conspire that proues not that also ten may do the like In the same manner though we should grant the sense may be more easily mistaken by the Church then the text yet it is as possible that the Church be mistaken in the sense Because no reason proues that vniforme Tradition can be mistaken in the sense that proues not that it is possible that the Church may be mistaken in the text though perchance not so easily Now if the Church in her vniforme Tradition may be mistaken about the text then is not Traditiō a sufficient ground of infallible perswasion that the text is the Apostles and so fayth is ouerthrowne which hath no other ground to know assuredly the incorrupt Scriptures deliuered by the Apostles but Traditiō as hath been prooued Secondly it is false that the sense and doctrine of Scripture concerning mayne and substantiall articles of fayth may be sooner corrupted and a false sense persuaded to the Church then a false text The reason is manifest because millions of Christians know by Tradition the doctrine of Scripture about mayne points that know not all the texts by which the same is proued yea perchance truly certainly not so much as one For example the doctrine that there are Three Diuine Persons and One God is so ingrauen in the harts of all euen simple Christians as you may sooner pull out their harts then make them belieue that this is not the Christian fayth whence no man can deny the Trinity but he is presently noted by al. On the other side this text 1. Ioan. 5.7 wherby the Trinity is proued There be three that giue testimony in heauen the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one millions do not know and so it is more easy to take from Christians this text then the doctrine therof And the same reason is of any other text the texts being stil commonly farre more vnknowne then the doctrine of the Creed such substantiall points vnanswerable The fourth Argument MY fourth proofe I grōnd vpō a Principle most certayne and set downe by (*) In the summe of the Conference before his Maiesty p. 75. your Gracious Maiesty That the Romane Church was once the mother Church and consequently the one holy Catholike Apostolicall Church all other Churches being her daughters and that she is not to be forsaken further then it can
Bishops turning Christian Religion into open Idolatry could not haue been without famous noâ—e therof according to time and persons deliuered vnto posterity by report written and vnwritten This supposed his discourse is consequent and conuincing for thus the argues Had adoration of the Images of our Sauiour been brought into the Church since the Apostles against the Religion planted by theÌ„ the beginning therof would haue been famously known by historicall traditioÌ„ written or vnwritten But the time of the beginning of this pretended Idolatrizing is not noted by fame nor by any full Tradition deliuered vnto vs. This is proued because Protestants that goe about to set downe the tyme of the first entrance of this worship into the Church by degrees since the Apostles vary among themselues and their best narrations are conuinced of manifest falshood whereby it is cleere they faygne That the best of their disagreing relations be thus false the Answerer sheweth because the best and most esteemed relation may seeme that of M. Iohn White which hath beene so often printed and reprinted and wherwith so many are deluded or if this not the best let our Minister shew a better which he hath neither done nor endeauored to doe But Iohn Whites relation is patched togeather of most intolerable grosse falshoods in euery point wherin he pretends beginning and beginners This the Answerer shewes vnanswerably assignable but because it were longe to set downe all their disagreeing assertions I will only declare what M. Iohn White brother to my aduersary in his booke printed and reprinted many tymes sayth therabout that your Maiesty may by this example vnderstand with how little sincerity the best esteemed Protestant Ministers handle controuersyes to the deceptioÌ„ of many Christian soules his words are these First (s) Iohn White in his waye p. 152. §. 35. n. 13. there was no Image grauen or painted saith (t) In Cathechism Erasmus no not the Image of Christ himself to be set in Churchs this appeareth by the (u) Epiphan ep ad Ioan. Concil Eliber c. 36. testimony of the Ancients Secondly when they began to be vsed the Church of Rome (x) Greg. Ep. 3. l. 7. indict 2. li. 4. ep 9. forbad the Worship of them as appeareth by the Epistles of Gregory to Serenus Polidore (y) De inuen l. 6. c. 13. a Papist confâ—sseth all Fathers coÌ„demned the Worshippe of Images for feare of Idolatry Afterward the Councell of Nice (z) Act. 7. brought in this worshippe decreeing neuertheles that no Image should be adored with Latria Diuine honour At the last Thomas Aquinas (a) 3. p. q. 25. act 3. 4 and the Trent Councell (b) Sess. 25. expounded by the Iesuits (c) Vasquez de adorat l 2 c. 4. Suarez tom 2. disp 54. sect 4. taught that diuine honour should be giuen vnto them Thus he Which in my Iudgement is sufficient to make any Iudicious man mislike Protestant writers that defend their Religion by such palpable vntruthes For to begin with his last saying and so vpward what can be more false then that the (d) Two things you here deuise for defence of your Brother First you say pag. 241. lin 25. that the determination in the Councell in this and in many other articles is like Appollo his riddles so ambiguous as no wonder your Brother was deceaued I Answere that the Councell of Trent allowes onely bowing before Images with inward reference of the adoring affection vnto Christ as any man that shall peruse the decree wil presently perceaue Secondly though the meaning of the Councell were darke obscure yet whether the Councell gaue a command in this forme of words some Images are to be worshipped with latria cannot be obscure nor can any mistake theirin but only misrelate agaynst his knowledge through desire to deceaue Now your Brother chargeth the Councell with giuing a commaÌ„d in this very forme of words in his Way of digressions from the Church digress 49. numero 5 pag. 345. lin 10. The Church of Rom sayth he commands that sâ—me Images be worshipped with Diuine honour the very same that is due to God himselfe The words with Diuine honour are set in a distinct letter and the Councell of Trent is cited as commanding in this forme of speach in the 25. SessioÌ„ therof where no such wordes are found in any part of the Councell Is not this inexcusable lying Secondly for his excuse ibidem lin 33. you say That which induced my Brother to charge the Trent Maisters with defining Diuine worship of images was their silence in condemninge the teachers of such diuine worship but especially the practise of the late Pontificians that since the Councell teach Diuine worship of Images Answer First though later Deuines did teach Diuine worship to be giuen to some Images yet this would not excuse your Brother from being guilty of belying the Councell For your Brother doth not onely say that some Pontificians so hold but that the Church of Rome defines commands Diuine worship of Images citing the CouÌ„cel of Trent Sess. 25. so defining in as many words Is not this kind of lying damnable as being grosse in matter of religion saluatioÌ„ Secondly you eyther ignorantly mistake or wilfully peruert the meaning of those Deuines as the Answerer doth shew in the next Paragraffe Councell of Trent taught that Diuine worship is to be giuen vnto Images there being no such words in the whole Councell As for the Iesuit Vasquez whom he citeth as so expounding the Councell no such doctrine is found in him either in the place quoted by the Minister or in any part of his workes yea the contrary is found l. 2. de adorat disp 9. c. 3. It is not quoth he to be said that diuine honour is giuen vnto Images Neyther doth Suarez the other Iesuit cited expound the CouÌ„cel to giue diuine worship vnto Christs Image but only saith that out of the Councel it may be gathered that the Image of Christ and Christ are honoured by one and the same act of worship which as referred vnto Christ is Diuine worship as referred vnto the Image not diuine worship but inferior veneration For as he declareth in 3. part To. 1. disp 54. Sect. 3. ad 7. Ille actus respectu prototypi est propriè Latria c. respectu viz. Imaginis non est tam perfecta adoratio sed inferior veneratio The worship of Christ and his Image though one and the same Physicall act is virtually two fold being diuine honour towards Christ not diuine but a kind of inferiour honour towards the Image Nor is M. Whites Way pag. 400 Argument good We worship Christ and his Image by the same act but the worship of Christ is diuine honour Ergo the worship of the Image is diuine honour For this proueth onely that the worship of the Image and of Christ being one and the same act is diuine as referred to Christ not
as referred vnto the Image Otherwise if M. White should helpe to pull his fellow-Ministers horse out of the mire moued therunto out of christian charity and friendship one might by the like argument proue that he beareth christiaÌ„ charity towards horses for he reliueth the horse and pleasureth his friend by one and the same acte The pleasuring of his friend is an acte of christian charity towards him Ergo the pullinge of the horse out of the mire is an act of christian charity towards the horse A foolish argumeÌ„t because that one acte is virtually twofold as referred to the man owner of the horse christian charity as referred to the horse only no charity at all but a baser kind of loue and that for his friends sake The like is when we kisse with our corporall lips the feete of the Image of Christ at the same time by deuout and reuerent Imagination kissing his true feet represented by the Image we honour Christ his Image by one and the same Physicall acte and that acte is diuine worship though not diuine as referred to the Image but onely as referred vnto Christ. A thing so easely vnderstood by learned men as I meruaile Ministers vnderstand it not or wrangle in a matter so cleer if they sincerely seeke truth And though the ignorant vnderstand not the tearmes of Theology by which Deuines declare the manner of honoring the Prototype and the Image both by one acte yet may they honour an Image as securely with as little danger of erring as any that vnderstands them For as the Clowne who knowes no more of the nature of motion then that he is to set one foote before another doth moue in the very same manner as Philosophers who explicate that action by tearmes most obscure of intrinsecal and extrinsecall beginning and ending and per vltimum non esse primum non esse so likewise a catholike that vnderstands no more of honouring Christ his Image then that he is by beholding the Image to remember Christ and with pious affectuous imagination to adore him doth honour our Sauiour his Image by one and the same acte as truly verily religiously as the greatest Diuine that can learnedly explicate the manner how that adoration is performed as being done outwardly relatiuely and transitorily vnto the Image affectuously absolutely finally vnto Christ. Secondly wheras he saieth That the councell of Nice brought in the worship of Images yet forbad that any Image should be adored with Diuine honour he both contradicts himselfe and vttereth another manifest falshood He contradicts himselfe in saying that the Nicene councel forbad diuine worship of any Image seing in another place he thus writeth Defence pag. 453. Both the Councell of Nice and the Deuines of the Church of Rome hold the Images of God and our Sauiour and the Crosse must be adored with Diuine adoration (e) The Minister hath not a worde to say in excuse of this contradiction and falshood of his Brother It is apparantly false that the said Nicene councell brought in the worship of Images which might be proued by many Testimonies but this one may suffice (f) Zonaras in Leone Isaurico Paulus Diaconus in miscella lib. 21. Accusabat omnes antecessores Principes quasi Idololatrae fuissent propter adorationem sanctaruÌ„ Iconum that Leo Isauricus before the councell of Nice opposed Image-worshippe not as then beginning but for many yeares before established in the church boasting that he was the first Christian Emperour the rest hauing been Idolators because they worshipped Images so manifestly did he oppose antiquity and so little truth there is in M. Whites (g) The Minister saith that the Nicene Synode brought in the practise of worshipping of Images by definition not simply For the Israelites worshipped molten Images in Dan and Bethel and the Symonians worshipped Images Euseb. Eccles. Historia lib. 2. c. 13. The Gnosticks worshipped the Image of Christ. â—ren l. 1. c. 13. Answer By this may appeare that so you satisfy your spleene â—n comparing vs to Idolaters you care not how little you speake to the purpose The question is who first brought in the worship that for many â—ges hath beene vsed vniuersally by Christians towards the Images of Christ and his Saints Yow answere not the Nicene Synode simply but â—efore that Councell the Israelites worshipped molten Images in Dan â—eâ—hel and the Synomians worshipped Images to wit of Symon Magus and â—elen his strumpet were these the Images of Christ his blessed mother The Gnosticks also worshipped the Image of Christ and of Paul sacrifiâ—ing vnto it and not onely vnto it but also with it vnto the Images of Homer Pythagoras Plato Aristotle and other prophane men as Irenaeus relateâ— li. 2. c. 24. and Epiphan heres 27. the like did Marcellina noted by S. Aug. de Haeres haeres 23. Is this the Catholicke custome of worshiping Images Assertion Thirdly to passe yet vp higher that Images began in Gregory the great his time and that he forbad the worship of them conteines other three falshoods First Gregory is abused who onely (h) What the Minister saith pag. 248. lin 2â— that Gregory did not approue that Images should be worshipped any way is not only against Friar Bale but also against the plaine words of Gregory who saith expressely lib. 7. Epist. 5. that worship or veneration is due to the Crosse of Christ and Image of the blessed Virgin Wherfore wheÌ„ elswher lib. 7. Epist. 10.11 he saith that Images are no wayes to be adored this is to be vnderstood according as himselfe expounds himselfe l. 7. Epist. 53. non tanquaÌ„ Deus Images are not to be worshipped as God And again we prostrate our selues before the Image not as before the deity but we adore him whome by his Image we remember as borne or as crucified or as sitting in glory Where he teacheth two things first that 〈◊〉 must prostrate our selues before our Sauiours Image secondly that 〈◊〉 hart and affection we must worship the diuine Samplar our Sauioâ—â— person commanded that none should worship Images as Gods belieuing as Gentils did that some God-head was affixed to them as he elswhere declareth (*) Lib. 7. ep 53. Non vt eam tanquam Deum colas himselfe And so manifestly did he teach Image-worship establishing pilgrimages vnto them by Indulgence as (*) Bale pagâ—â— of Popes pag. 24. 25. Symonds on the reuelation pag. 57. Friar Bale accuseth him therof Yea M. Symonds and M. Bale write thaâ— Leo 140. yeares before Gregory decreeâ— the worship of Images Secondly Polidore in this point is egregiously falsifyed for he sayth not as the Minister makes him speake All fathers condemned the worship of Images for feare 〈◊〉 Idolatry But his words are Cultum imagnum teste Hieronymo omnes veteres patrâ— damnabant metu Idololatriae all old fatheâ— as Hierome witnesseth did condemnâ— worship of Images for feare of Idolatry by the
old Fathers meaning the Fathers oâ— the Old Testament not of the New whiâ—â— appeares because in proofe of his saying 〈◊〉 brings not the Testimony of (i) The Minister saith pag. 250. lin 11. that Polidore nameth Gregory amongst the old Fathers that condemned the worship of Images for feare of Idolatry as Hierome doth witnes Answere This is false and impossible For Gregory liuing all most two hundred yeares after the death of S. Hierome how could he be one of the old Fathers whom S. Hierome witnesseth to haue condemned Image-worship for feare of Idolatry Gregory theÌ„ is named by Polidore not amongst the old Fathers but as one of the new Fathers that is Fathers of the new Testament as seeming to speake against Image-worship but in truth doth not as hath bene said any Father of the New Testament but onely of the old as of Moyses Dauid Hieremy and other Prophets And the scope of the whole chapter is to declare that the reason why in the old Testament the Fathers misliked the worship of Images of God was because they could not paint him aright Cùm Deum nemo vidisset vnquam because then no man had seen God (k) The Minister saith that the Iewes at least might haue adored the Images of Prophets if such adoration had bene lawfull as the Papists hold Answer In the same manner I argue The Iewes might haue made the Images of their holy Prophets if the making of them had bene lawfull as Protestants hold Let the Minister proue by Gods word they made them I will proue they worshipped theÌ„ Let him I say shew that Images of Prophets were set in the beginning of their Prophesies as his is set in the frontispice of this his Reply and I promise him to proue the same were honoured This is the thinge wherof we require example in Scripture and wherin the Minister is as dumbe as a fish not able to shew one proper Image of an adored person lawfully made that might not lawfully be adored Afterwards God saith Polidore hauing taken flesh and being become visible to mortall eyes men flocked to him and did without doubt behold and reuerence his face shining with the brightnes of Diuine light and euen then they began to paint or carue his image already imprinted in their mindes And these Images they receiued with great worship and veneration as was reason the honour of the Image redounding to the original as Basill writes which custome of adoring Images the Fathers were so farre from reprouing as they did not onely admit therof but also decreed and commanded the same by Generall Councells in the time of Constantine the fourth and Iustinian the second his sonne And therfore what man is there so dissolute audacious as can dreame of the contrary and doubt of the Lawfulnes of this Worship established so long ago by decree of most holy Fathers Thus writeth Polidore and much more to the same purpose in the very place where the Minister Citeth him to the contrary which shewes how notoriously his credulous readers are abused in matters of most moment Hence appeareth the third falshood that in Gregoryes dayes images began to be set vp in Churches which to haue bene in the Churches longe before the Testimonyes of S. Basill Paulinus Lactantius and Tertullian do sufficiently witnes Neither can our Aduersary bringe any cleere testimony of antiquity against this custome For the decree of the Councell (l) The Minister sayth that some Pontificians grant that this Councel forbad the making of images so cleer is their decree agaynst them I Answere such Authors had no reason in the world to be so persuaded of this CouÌ„cell but only the wordes of the decree Now the wordes of the decree be not cleere yea they cannot admit that sense being compared with the wordes that immediatly follow as the Iesuit doth demonstrate In so much as the Minister to frame an argument out of this decree is forced ridiculously to curtall the text take some few wordes leauing the rest Such is his obstinacy agaynst the light of truth of Eliberis that no Picture should be made in the Church least that which is worshipped or adored be painted on walls which the Minister way pag. 345. much vrgeth cleerly signifyeth the contrary For may not Images painted on tables be in Churches and yet neither made in the Church nor painted on walls which kind of Images the Councell doth not forbid And why doth the Councel forbid Images to be made in the Church as pertinent to the fabricke therof or to be painted on Walls but out of reuerence vnto Images for they being holy things and so to be honoured for their prototypes sake the Councel thought it vnworthy of their dignity that they should be made on walls where they may easily be defaced and deformed and by Persecutours for that Councell was held in time of persecution abused He doth also Way pag. 345. much insist vpon Epiphanius epist. ad Ioan. Hicrosol but relates according to his fashion both his fact words vnsincerely Epiphanius sayth he finding an Image painted on a cloath hanging in a Church rent it downe and said it was against the authority of the Scripturs that any Image should be in the Church Thus he vnsincerely as I said not expressinge what kind of Image that was that Epiphanius rent in peeces For Epiphanius saith Cùm inuenissem imaginem hominis pendentem in Eâ—cl sit tanquam Christi aut alicuius Sancti nâ—scio enim cuius erat when I had found an Image of a man hanging in the Church as Christs or some Saints for I know not of whom the Image was Epiphanius (m) Here the Minister rayleth most intolerably crying that the testimonyes are cleere but not so much as endeauours to answer the Iesuits arguments that are demonstratiue as much as any can be in this kind of matter The Ministers arguments on the other side haue no force at all being two proposed in a double interrogation If sayth he pag. 254. lin 2. Epiphanius himselfe did not remember whose Image it was whether of Christ or of a Saint or of some prophane man how knowes this Iesuite that it was the Image of a prophane person I Answere That Epiphanius did know that it was not Christs image nor any Saints but some prophan persoÌ„s thogh he knew not determinately what prophane persons the same was For Epiphanius would not haue vrged the vnlawfulnes of hanging that image in the Church in regard it was a mans Image had he not vnderstood a prophane mans Hence his second interrogation is answered why was Epiphanius silent and did not say it was some prophane mans Answere Epiphanius was not silent that the image he tore in peeces was the image of a prophane man seeing he tearmeth it the Image of a man hanging in the Church as Christs or some Saints And this the complayners knew well inough for if this picture had been Christs or some
there may be great merit and excellent Fayth if it be a truth and on the other side though which is impossible it should be false yet in belieuing it we shall not fall into any damnable errour For although we suppose this vnpossible case yet what can be layd to our charge which we may not defend and iustify by all the rules of equity and reason If we be accused that we tooke bread to be the body of Christ adoring the same as God so committing Idolatry we may defend that both for soule and body we are innocent heerin For seing the body is not made guilty but by a guilty mind euen our body may plead not guilty seing our mind our thoughts our deuotiō were totally referred vnto Christ whom we truly apprehend by faith as veyled with the accidents of bread and so may repell the reproach of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread-worshippers with saying Quae vouit mens est pani nil vouimus illâ Neyther did we belieue that the bread was changed into Christs body vpō slight reasons or mooued by the fancyes of our own head but contrary to our fancyes out of reuerence to the (q) The Minister here contradicting himselfe sayth that Trāsubstantiation is not inuolued in the litterall sense of Gods word And further that the same was neuer defined in Generall Councells For as the Ariās would allow no Councell to be lawfull which condemned Arius so with these mē no Councell is lawfull vpon which Iohn Caluin will not bestow his Blessing Otherwise why should not the Lateran Councell vnder Innocent the third and the second Councell of Nice celebrated aboue eight hūdred years agoe where the substātiue reall presence is defined and the figuratiue condemned be lawful general in which both the Latin and Grecian Church did concurre to define expresse wordes of Christ This is my body A sense declared by most ancient Fathers defined by many Generall Councels deliuered by full consent of our Ancestours so practised in the Church for many ages without any knowne beginning Finally confirmed with the most credible cōstant report of innumerable (r) The Minister sayth that these Miracles be but the lyes of Fryars which he proues by a iest that was rife in the mouth of Wickliffifts Est Frater Ergo mendax Answer The miracles done in proofe of the Corporall and substantiall permanent presence of Christs body in the Eucharist are related by most auncient Fathers and writers of which many whole Townes Cittyes and Countreyes haue been eye witnesses as it were madnes to questiō thē These may be read in Ioannes Garetius who hath gathered them together as also in Iudocus Coccius The Prouerbe He is Fryar Ergo a lyar is true of such Fryars as Martin Luther Bucer Peter Martyr Fryar Barnes and the like founders and pillars of the fifth Gospell And if the matter be looked into without passiō this inference Est Minister Ergo mēdax will seeme more iustifiable euen in Caluins iudgement who sayth that most of them that shew most zeale are ful of falshod fraud lying Hierom Zanchius a famous Protestāt in the Preface of his booke contra Arianum Anonymū saith of Ministers That euen they who are tearmed Pillars of the Ghospell are for the most part impudēt lying companions that out-face the truth euery way thereupon exclayming O Tempora O Mores most euidēt miracles Can a Christian belieue any point of religion vpon surer grounds And if God at the day of Iudgement will condemne none but such as liuing in this world wronged him in his honour why should Catholikes feare any hard sentence in respect of their prōpt credulity of Transubstātiation that is of Gods word takē in the playne proper sense Is it any iniury to his verity that they deny their senses correct their imaginatiōs reforme their discourses abnegate their iudgments rather then not to belieue what to them seemeth his word Is it iniury to his power to be perswaded that he can doe things incomprehēsible without number put the same body in innumerable places at once make a body occupy no place yet remayne a quantitatiue substance in it selfe Is it iniury to his charity to thinke that loue vnto men makes him vnite himselfe really and substantially with them to be as it were incarnate anew in euery particular faythfull man entring really into their bodyes to signify efficaciously his inward cōiunction by spirit vnto their soules Finally is it any iniury to his wisdome to belieue that to satisfy on the one side the will of his Father that would haue him euer in heauen sitting at his right hād on the other side the ardency of his owne affection vnto men desiring to be perpetually with them he inuented a manner how still remaining glorious in heauē he might also be continually on earth with his Church secretly not to take from them the merit of Fayth yet to affoard full satisfaction to his owne loue really by continuall personall presence and most intime coniunction with them On the other side it imports them that thinke Transubstantiation impossible or that God cannot put the same body in different places at once to consider if they erre easy it is for men to erre that with the compasse of their vnderstanding measure the power of God how dangerous inexcusable their errour will prooue when they shal be called to giue vnto their omnipotent maker a finall account particularly of this doctrine so much derogating from him Let them thinke how they will answere if God lay to their charge the neglect of that most prudent reasonable aduise which S. Chrysostome Homil. 83. in Mat. giues Let vs belieue God sayth he let vs not resist his word though the same seeme absurd vnto our cogitation sense for his speach doth surpasse our reason and sense his words cannot deceaue vs but our senses be deceaued easily and often How will they reply if they be pressed with the interrogatory which S. Cyrill l. 12. in Ioan. makes vnto such vnbelieuers If thou couldst not comprehend the diuine operation of God why didest thou not accuse the imbecillity of mans wit rather then the omnipotency of God Or how disputing proposing so many Arguments agaynst Gods power reiecting or questioning the same because they could not vnderstand it neuer called they to mynd the saying (s) August lib. 12. de Ciuit c. 11. of Saint Augustine Ecce quibus argumentis Diuinae omnipotentiae humana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas THE SEAVENTH POINT Communion (*) Note that the holy Eucharist is both a Sacrifice and a Sacrament A Sacrifice as offered vnto God for thansgiuing and remission of sinnes A Sacrament as receaued by mē for the foode sanctification of their soules It is a Sacrifice because a liuely and expresse representation of Christs bloudy Sacrifice on the Crosse. It is a Sacramēt because representing exhibiting Christ Iesus as the full and all-sufficient
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
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