1. Tim. 2 4. But without vnderstanding the qualitie of the Romane Church people may be baptised beleeue and repent and haue all the ordinarie meanes of saluation as appeareth by the Iewes Asts 2 41. and the Eunuch Acts 8 37. and Lydia Acts 16 14. and many Gentiles Acts 13 48. and the elect Ladie and her children 2. Iohn v. 1 2 4. and the Corinthians Galatians Ephesians and the seuen Churches of Asia Apoc. 2 3. c. Occham saieth that after Christs ascension many people were saued before the Roman Church had anie being and AEneas Siluius affirmeth That the first 300 yeares before the Nicene Counsell small regard was had of the Roman Church Iohannes Maior saieth It were ouer hard to affirme that the Indians and other Christans which liue in remote countries should be in the state of damnation because they were ignorant That the Bishop of Rome is head of the Church if they beleeue other necessarie Articles of Saluation And Alchasar saieth Before such time as the publique nuptials betweene the Roman and other Churches were celebrated by a common receiued custome a lesse frequent communion with that Church was sufficient Seconly It is no Article of the Apostles Creed or of any other ancient Creed neither is it delinered in any plaine text or sentence of holy Scripture That all Christian people must receiue their beleefe from the Roman Church or that the same intirely shall in all ages continue in the doctrine and faith receiued from the Apostles yea the contrarie is taught in holie Scripture Rom. 11 22. But if the doctrine aforesaid were fundamentall and of greatest importance the same must haue beene plainely deliuered either in holy Scripture or in all or some of the auncient Creedes IESVIT The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth 2. Tim. 3 15. The eminent Rocke and Mountaine filling the whole world on the top whereof standeth the Tradition of sauing Doctrine conspicuous and immooueable Ergo Jt is the most important Controuersie of all other to know whether the Roman Church be the true Church ANSVVER Foure texts of Scripture are produced to proue that it is the most important controuersie of all other to know whether the Roman Church be the true Church but neither are the places of Scripture expounded rightly neither is the Iesuits islation from them consequent or firme 1 Although it were granted that the totall certaintie of Christiantie dependeth vpon the Church yet because the Roman Church is not the whole Church but onely a part and member thereof Rom. 1 6. and such a member as may erre and proue vnsound Rom. 11 22. The knowledge of the state and qualitie of that Church cannot be simply necessarie and consequently not a matter of greatest importance to be vnderstood 2 The places of Scripture 1. Tim. 3 15. Math. 16 18. Esay 2 1. Dan. 2 35. proue not the question The first place to wit Math. 16 18. is expounded by manie interpreters of Christ himselfe and by the most of the faith which S. Peter confessed touching Christ. And our Sauiour affirmeth not in this Text that the Roman Church of euerie age is a Rocke but that the Church of right beleeuers is builded vpon a Rocke and so the Church is one thing and the Rocke another because nothing is builded vpon it selfe The second place 1. Tim. 3 15. 〈◊〉 that the Church which is the house of the liuing God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pillar and ground of Truth 1. If by the Church we vnderstand the Catholicke Church as it containeth the holie Apostles then this commendation agreeth fully and perfectly to it in respect of the Apostles who were led into all Truth Iohn 16 13. and which taught whilest they 〈◊〉 all Truth and they do at this present day in the Scripture teach the fulnesse of Truth 2. If by the Church we vnderstand the Church of Christ liuing after the Apostles the same is by office and calling the pillar and ground of Truth in all ages And some part or other thereof Truth of God 〈◊〉 to saluation But the present Church is not 〈◊〉 and simply in all things the pillar and ground of Truth but so farre onely as it teacheth the doctrine reuealed by the holie Ghost and groundeth her faith vpon the word of God and this is proued because the Church Apostolicall was free from all errour but succeeding Pastors and Doctors may erre in Ecclesiasticall censures in degrees legislatiue in sermons disputations and other tractats as our Aduersaries themselues confesse and they which propugne the infallible authoritie of the present Church restraine the same to the Pope and Councell of which S. Paul is silent 1. Tim. 3 15. And from hence I inferre That the Church wherein the Apostles taught and gouerned was the ground and pillar of Truth fully intirely and in all things But the present Church is so with limitation conditionally and so farre forth onely as it deliuereth the Apostles doctrine Lastly the Roman Church can challenge no greater priuiledge of Infallibilitie from this Scripture than the church of Ephesus of which the Apostle speaketh litterally in the said Text. But although the Church of Ephesus was by office the pillar and ground of Truth yet the same did afterwards degenerate and depart from the right Faith which argueth that particular Churches such as were the Roman Ephesine Corinthian c. are not in such sort the pillar and ground of Truth as that they are in no danger of errour The other two places Esay 2 1. Dan. 2 35. are principally vnderstood of Christ and his Apostles and they proue not the Iesuits position which is It is the most important controuersie of all other to know whether the Roman Church is the true Church for the present Church of Rome is a Molehill and not the Mountaine prophesied of Esay 2. the same filleth not the whole world but onely a small part of the world neither did the same antiently for 500 yeares at the least fill the whole world for many people both in the East and West were Christians without depending vpon it neither is the same alwaies illustrious for Vertue and Truth but sometimes notorious for Superstition and Vice If our Adnersaries will contend That there is in all ages avisible Church like vnto a great Mountaine filling the whole world vpon the top whereof standeth the Tradition of all true doctrine conspicuous and illustrious 1. The places of Esay and Daniell affirme not this concerning all times and ages of the Church 2. The Scriptures foretell a large reuolt and apostasie from heauenly trueth 3. Our Aduersaries themselues acknowledge that the outward face of the visible Church at some times hath beene and againe may be miserably polluted with foule and enormious scandals and abominations IESVIT If this Church bee ouerthrowne the totall
by the Fathers but diuers obscure and difficill places out of their workes may be brought against them with such a shew that common people shall not know what to say For what Tradition more constantly deliuered by the Christian Doctours than our Sauiours consubstantialitie with his Father according to his diuine nature And yet the new reformed Arrians bring very many testimonies of antient Fathers to prooue that in this point they did contradict themselues and were contrarie one to another which places whosoeuer shall read will cleerely see that to common people they are vnanswerable yea that common people are not capable of the answeres that learned men yeeld vnto such obscure passages What then shall they doe They must answere that Antiquitie did neuer acknowledge such dissention among the Fathers in the point of our Sauiours consubstantiality which they would not haue omitted to doe had there beene any such reall dissention seeing they noted the Fathers opposition in lesser matters ANSWER That which was brought in after the daies of the Fathers could not be confuted by them particularly and in expresse tearmes neither could Antiquitie or fame of Tradition make report to Posteritie of those things which happened afterwards But yet many things vttered vpon other occasion are found in the writings of the Fathers which prooue that our present Romists are degenerated and entertaine a beleefe repugnant to the Primitiue Church But it is obiected that common people cannot know certainely the perpetuall Tradition of Gods Church by such places of the Fathers partly because the exact examining of the workes and sayings of the Fathers requires great labour and skill and so it exceedeth the abilitie of these people partly because many obscure and difficile passages are found in the writings of the Fathers which will rather perplex common people than resolue them whereunto I answere That the rule whereby common people must examine Doctrine is the plaine sentence of holy Scripture and further triall and examination of Controuersies by the Fathers and Ecclesiasticall Writers belongeth to the learned and principally to the Pastors and Doctors of the Church who are to vse their gifts to the instructing of the common people If the Aduersarie shall obiect that Heretickes and deceiuers may impose a false sence vpon the Scripture I answere That notwithstanding this sufficient matter is found in the Scripture to confute hereticall exposition and God alwayes stirreth vp some Pastours or other learned persons to assist common people which haue receiued the loue of truth in true vnderstanding of diuine veritie necessarie to their saluation Secondly If the Scripture may bee abused and prophaned by heretickes Tradition may with greater colour be pretended or abused by them as appeareth by the Pharisees Thirdly Tradition is founded vpon the authoritie of a present Hierarchicall Church which may erre by the confession of many learned Papists But the Scripture is founded onely vpon the authoritie of Christ and his Apostles and is acknowledged to bee sacred and diuine by all Christian Churches IESVIT In the same manner Catholickes doe sufficiently answere Protestants that bring places of Fathers against the receiued Traditions of the Church as the reall Presence Inuocation of Saints and other the like to wit that Tradition deliuered these Doctrines as the vniforme consent of the Fathers and neuer noted such oppositions as Protestants frame out of their writings which is a cleare signe that Protestants either mis-alleadge their words or mistake their meaning For were that contradiction reall Why did not Antiquitie famously note it as it noted and conueyed by fame to posteritie their differences about disputable matters This Answere is full and a certaine ground of persuasion else as I said common people could neuer know the assured Tradition of their Ancestours vpon which they as I prooued build their Christian beleefe seeing as Doctour Field also noteth there bee few and verie few that haue leasure and strength of iudgement to examine particular controuersies by Scriptures or Fathers but needs must rest in that doctrine which the Church deliuers as a Tradition neuer contradicted To discredit therefore a constant receiued Tradition it is necessarie to bring an Orthodox contradiction thereof not newly found out by reading the Fathers but a contradiction by the fame of Antiquitie deliuered vnto Posteritie which kind of contradiction they cannot find against any point of Catholike Doctrine For let them name but one Father whom Antiquitie doth acknowledge as a contradictor of Inuocation of Saints Adoration of the Sacrament Reall presence Prayer for the Dead they cannot certainely though they bring diuerse places to prooue a thing which Antiquitie neuer noted or knew of before that the Fathers be various and wauering about these Points ANSWER The Doctrine of Reall Presence by way of Transubstantiation and the Doctrine of Inuocation of Saints imposed as an Article of the Creed c. were neuer deliuered by any vniforme consent of the antient Fathers neither hath antient Tradition affirmed That the Fathers vniformely taught and beleeued these points And as for later Tradition the authoritie thereof is doubtfull deseruing no credit further than it confirmeth that which it deliuereth by the testimonie of Witnesses more infallible than it selfe They which haue liued in succeeding Ages haue no certaine meanes to assure them what the antient Fathers taught but either their owne Bookes and Monuments or the testimonie of their Coaeualls And later Traditioners may both corrupt the Writings of the Fathers and also by report impose a false Tenet vpon them Our Aduersarie therefore beats the ayre when he laboureth to gayne the Fathers vnto his part vpon the sole Testimonie of latter Tradition and vpon a Negatiue Argument taken from the silence of the Romane Church omitting in partialitie towards it selfe the Narration of such Collections and Oppositions as were made against the Doctrine thereof out of the Fathers But when wee charge the Papalls with Noueltie wee proceed vpon more euident grounds First wee prooue that the Romish Faith opposed by vs hath no foundation or warrant in sacred Scripture Secondly the same is an addition to the antient Rule of Faith Thirdly the said Doctrine is not deriued by perpetuall and vniforme Tradition from the Apostles Fourthly the primitiue Fathers vertually opposed this Doctrine For although these Popish Articles as they are now explicitely maintained were not in perfect being in the dayes of the antient Fathers and therefore they could not so punctually or literally oppose them as wee doe yet in their Disputations Tractats and exposition of Scripture they vtter many things from which wee may collect that they beleeued not these Articles and that the same were no part of the Catholike Faith in their dayes and that if such Opinions had beene thrust vpon the Church for Articles of Faith in their dayes as now they are they would haue opposed them But our Aduersarie pleaseth himselfe immoderately with his Negatiue
no Lye nor his Power any Inconstancie Because therefore Christ hath a true and perfect Bodie both in regard of substance and matter and also in respect of quantitie stature measure posture proportion c. and because euerie true humane bodie by the Ordinance of the Creator who hath formed and constituted the seuerall kinds and natures of things after a speciall manner is determined to one indiuiduall place at one instant and must also haue distinction and diuision of parts with a length latitude and thicknesse proportionall to the quantitie thereof Therefore except God himselfe had expressely reuealed and testified by his Word that the contrarie should be found in the humane bodie of Christ and that the same should haue one manner of corporall being in Heauen and another in the holy Eucharist at one and the same time a Christian cannot be compelled to beleeue this Doctrine as an Article of his Creed vpon the sole Voyce and Authoritie of the Laterane or Trident Councell Some learned Papists confesse ingeniously That secluding the Authoritie of the Church there is no written Word of God sufficient to enforce a Christian to receiue this Doctrine And moderne Pontificians are not able to confirme their present Tenet to wit That Christs humane bodie may be in many vbities or places at one time and that the whole bodie of Christ is circumscriptiuely in Heauen and according to the manner of a Spirit and of the Diuine nature it selfe without extension of parts in euerie crumme of the Sacramentall formes This Doctrine I say Papals are not able to confirme by the vnanimous Testimonie and Tradition of the antient Church Therefore because the same is grounded neither vpon Scripture nor Tradition they begge the question when they alleadge Gods omnipotent power for it must first of all and that vpon infallible Principles appeare That God will haue it thus before his omnipotencie be pleaded that he is able to make it thus But the Iesuites Sophisme whereby hee would intangle vs within the snares of fundamentall Errour when wee denie Christs bodily presence in many places at once proceedeth in this manner No bodie can be truely receiued in many places at once vnlesse the same be corporally present in many places at once The Bodie of Christ is truely receiued in many places at once to wit in euery place where the holy Eucharist is administred Ergo The Bodie of Christ is present in many places at once I answere The Maior Proposition is denyed for there is a twofold manner of true Presence and consequently of Receiuing one Naturall by the hand and mouth of the bodie Another Mysticall and Spirituall by the deliuerie of the holy Ghost and by the apprehension and action of the soule First The holy Ghost truely and verily reacheth and presenteth the Obiect which is Christs Bodie and Blood crucified and offered in Sacrifice for mans Redemption Secondly The reasonable soule being eleuated by a liuely and operatiue Faith apprehendeth and receiueth the former obiect as really verily and truely after a spirituall and supernaturall manner as the bodie receiueth any corporeall or sensible obiect after a naturall manner Iohn 1. 12. Ephes. 3. 17. Fulgentius saith Filium Dei vnicum per fidem recipiunt They receiue the onely Sonne of God by Faith Our Sauiour saith That holy Beleeuers receiue the Flesh and drinke the Blood of Christ Iohn 6. 50 53 54. Credendo by 〈◊〉 v. 35.47 Paschasius hath these words The flesh and blood of Christ c. are truely 〈◊〉 by Faith and vnderstanding It is not lawfull to eate Christ with teeth This Sacrament is truely his flesh and his blood which man eateth and drinketh spiritually 〈◊〉 saith Hold readie the mouth of thy Faith open the iawes of Hope stretchout the bowels of Loue and take the Bread of life which is the nourishment of the inward man Eusebius Emisenus When thou goest vp to the reuerend Altar to bee filled with spirituall meates by Faith behold honour and wonder at the sacred Bodie and Blood of thy God touch it with thy minde take it with the hand of thy heart and chiefly prouide that the inward man swallow the whole Saint Ambrose Comedat te cor meum panis Sancte panis viue panis munde veni in cor meum intra in animam meam Let mine heart eate thee oh holy Bread oh liuing Bread oh pure Bread come into my heart enter into my soule Saint Augustine There is another Bread which confirmeth the heart because it is the Bread of the heart And in another place Then is the Body and Blood of the Lord life to each man when that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament is in very truth spiritually eaten spiritually drunken Now from the former Testimonies it is manifest that the Bodie and Blood of Christ may truely and really bee eaten and receiued by operatiue Faith in the Sacrament And if it bee further obiected That spirituall eating and drinking of the Bodie and Blood of Christ may bee without the Sacrament I answere That the same is more effectually and perfectly accomplished in the Sacrament than out of the Sacrament because the holy Ghost directly and in speciall when the Sacrament is deliuered exhibiteth the Body and Blood of Christ as a pledge and testimonie of his particular loue towards euery worthie Receiuer and the liuely representation and commemoration of Christs death and Sacrifice by the mysticall signes and actions is an instrument of the Diuine Spirit to apply and communicate Christ crucified and to increase and confirme the Faith Charitie and pietie of Receiuers Lastly It is remarkeable that vntill the thousand yeeres and more after Christs Ascension Orthodoxall Christians beleeued that the Bodie and Blood of Christ were truely and really present and deliuered to worthie Receiuers in and by the holy Eucharist according to St. Pauls Doctrine 1. Cor. 10.16 And that the same must be spiritually receiued by Faith or else they profited nothing But the manner of Presence which some Modernes now obtrude by Consubstantiation or by Transubstantiation was not determined as an Article of Faith And to say nothing of Consubstantiation the defence whereof inuolueth them in many absurdities which vndertake for it it is apparant that Transubstantiation is a bastard plant and vpstart weed neuer planted by the heauenly Father but the same sprang vp in the declining state of the Church and it is perplexed and inuolued with so many absurdities and contradictions to Veritie formerly receiued that our Aduersarie was transported with partiall folly when he presumed to ranke the refusall of this new and prodigious Article among fundamentall Errours IESVIT EIghtly Their denying the Sacrament of Penance and Priestly Absolution the necessarie meanes for remission of finnes committed after Baptisme ANSVVER THe Obiector by Penance vnderstandeth not Repentance as it is a vertue for Protestants beleeue true
ought to know them and thud God himselfe forgiuing sinnes knoweth them Psal. 69.6 But they which forgiue sinnes declaratiuely and by publishing Gods iudiciall Act like as a Cryer pronounceth the sentence of a Iudge and by applying the Word and Sacraments to penitent persons vpon the holy and worthie receiuing whereof the holy Ghost himselfe conferreth the grace of Remission may performe that which belongeth to their office without distinct knowledge of all the particular sinnes whereof the penitent person hath repented himselfe in the sight of God as appeareth in Baptisme and generall Confession ioyned with Contrition And when a Priest applyeth the word of Absolution hee knoweth not whether the person confessing his sinnes performeth the same truely and with contrition of heart or not Iohn Medina Cardinall Caietan and Iansenius acknowledge the weakenesse of this Argument to prooue Auricular Confession And Vasques saith That a man can hardly find among those which maintaine Auricular Confession out of the place of Ioh. 20. 23. which doe effectually conclude the same from thence Ioh. Medina treating of Auricular Confession saith The Romane Catholike Doctors haue laboured till they sweat againe to find proofe for this veritie He might well haue said They laboured to as good purpose as the man who sought to finde Nodum in Scirpo or A Needle in a Bottle of Hay Mich. Palacius saith Diuines are perplexed in finding places of Scripture or other conuincing arguments to prooue Auricular Confession to be of Diuine Institution and it is worthie admiration what contention is about this matter and how badly Authors agree concerning the same Our Aduersaries labour tooth and nayle to prooue from the former Text in S. Iohn That Priests exercise a Iudiciall Power when they absolue sinners But if this were graunted they gaine nothing for this Iudiciall power is exercised according to the word of Christ And if that word absolue contrite and penitent persons vpon internall Confession to God himselfe and vpon their generall Confession before men without secret Confession then it followeth not That because a Priest exerciseth a Iudiciall power when hee absolueth Ergo Penitents must confesse all their knowne sinnes A penitent person may haue mortall sinnes which he remembreth not Psal. 19.13 and when vpon profession of his repentance he is absolued those sinnes are pardoned Psal. 103.3 and the Priest in giuing Absolution exerciseth a Iudiciall Act according to the Popish Tenet and yet those finnes are not disclosed or manifested vnto him Secondly The present Romish Doctrine concerning the absolute necessitie of Auricular Confession is not Catholique The Greeke Church both of antient and later times reiected the same as appeared by Nectarius S. Chrysostome and by the testimonie of learned Papists which affirme the same concerning that Church The Glosse vpon Gratian saith Auricular Confession is not necessarie among the Grecians Greg. Val. Lib. 2. d. Miss cap. 4. saith That Panormitan and Gerson maintained that secret Confession was not necessarie Andreas Vega Very many learned Catholikes haue doubted of this necessitie of Confession by Diuine Law Maldenat sum q. 18. ar 4. There be also among Catholikes which thinke there is no Diuine Precept touching Auricular Confession to wit all the Interpreters of the Decrees and also Scotus B. Rhenanus and Petrus Oxomensis denyed the said Confession to be of Diuine Institution And Gratian himselfe hauing disputed the Question pro con concludeth in this manner I leaue it to the Readers choyse which opinion to follow because each opinion to wit the one holding Confession to be of Diuine Institution and the other Ecclesiasticall hath fautors both wise and religious Now if Auricular Confession is not certainely and infallibly of Diuine Institution then it is impossible for the same conioyned with Absolution to be a Sacrament because Sacraments of the New Testament were immediately instituted by Christ and haue their institution matter forme visible signes and promises expressely and manifestly deliuered and appointed in the Scripture of the New Testament From hence I argue If that which Romists tearme Sacramentall Penance haue no word of Institution no visible and corporeall Element no expresse forme or word of Consecration neither any Sacramentall effect appropriated vnto it by Christ and his Apostles then the same is no Sacrament of the New Testament But all and euerie of these Conditions are wanting in Popish Penance Ergo The same is no Sacrament of the New Testament If Penitencie be not affirmed by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church to be a Sacrament properly taken then that the same is such in our dayes is not Catholique Doctrine But learned Pontificians haue narrowly searched euerie Sentence of Antiquitie concerning Penitencie and cannot yet produce one place where the same is plainely and expressely affirmed to be one of the Sacraments of the New Testament properly taken to wit such as is Baptisme and the holy Eucharist Therefore the present Doctrine of Romists concerning Penitencie That the same is a Sacrament is neither grounded vpon the Scripture nor the perpetuall Tradition of the Church And our Romish Aduersarie is the eight time guided by a lying Spirit when he accuseth vs of fundamentall Error because wee denie Popish Penance to be a Sacrament IESVIT NInthly Their denying the Catholique Church expressely set downe in the Creed which of all the other Articles is with greatest danger denyed For the standing out against this makes men Heretikes and without erring against this no man is guiltie of Heresie whatsoeuer Doctor Field to the contrarie saith That an errant against a fundamentall point is an Heretike though hee erre without pertinacie whereof he brings not any syllable of proofe And yet his Doctrine is against the whole consent of Diuines and expressely against S. Augustine who saith That a man holding with Photinus whose errors were most fundamentall against the Trinitie and the Godhead of Christ thinking hee holds Catholique Doctrine is not yet an Heretike till warned that hee holds against the Catholique Church hee chuseth to perseuere in his error ANSWER WEe beleeue stedfastly the Article of the Apostles Creed concerning the Catholique Church and denie onely the false sense which Romists impose and the absurd inferences which they draw from this Article And whereas the Iesuit affirmeth That this Article is with greatest danger denyed because the standing out against it makes men Heretikes c. Both the Proposition it selfe thus rawly and confusedly deliuered and the Confirmation are false The Article of the Catholique Church is not the most fundamentall and prime Article of the Creed for many other Articles are about a more principall and excellent Obiect to wit immediately concerning God the Creator and Christ Iesus the Sauiour and Redeemer and God the Holy Ghost c. whereas the Obiect of the Article in question is concerning the Creature The
in it selfe Js it iniury to his charitie to thinke that loue vnto men makes him vnite himselfe really and substantially with them and to be as it were incarnate anew in euery particular faithfull man entering really into their bodies to signifie efficatiously his inward coniunction by spirit vnto their soules Finally is it an iniury to his Wisedome to beleeue that to satisfie on the one side the will of his Father that would haue him euer in heauen sitting at his right hand on the other side the Ardencie of his owne affection vnto men desiring to be perpetually with them he inuented a manner how still remaining glorious in heauen he might also be continually on earth with his Church secretly not to take from them the merit of faith yet to afford full satisfaction to his owne loue really by continuing 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 easie it is for men to erre that with the compasse of their vnderstandings measure the power of God how dangerous and vnexcusable their errour will prooue when they shall 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 answer if God lay to their charge the neglect of the most prudent and reasonable aduise which S. Chrys. giues Let vs beleeue God saith he let vs not reiect his Word though the same seeme secret and absurd vnto our cogitation and sense for his speech doth surpasse our reason and sense his words cannot deceiue vs but our senses be deceiued easily and often How will they reply if they be pressed with the Intergatory which S. Cyril makes vnto such misbeleeuers If thou couldst not comprehend the diuine operation of God Why didst thou not accuse the imbecility of mans wit rather than the omnipotencie of God Or how disputing or proposing so many arguments against Gods power reiecting or questioning the same because they could not vnderstand it they neuer called to mind the saying of S. Augustine Ecce quibus argumentis diuinae omnipotentiae humana contradicit infirmitas ANSWER This third and last consideration is a meere declamation grounded vpon a vaine supposition for it presumeth as granted the opinion of Transubstantiation to be most probable and reasonable as being declared by many antient Fathers defined by generall Councells c. But this supposition is a begging of the question for not so much as one antient Father or generall Councell did euer declare or define the same as it will plainely appeare to all iudicious Persons which shall compare and apply the sentences of Fathers and antient Councells to the Popish definition of Transubstantiation And the said Doctrine is not grounded vpon our Sauiours words and the miracles which Romists venditate to authorise the same are eyther Fryars fables or reports misapplyed and wrested to a contrary end And that there should be merit or at leastwise lesse perill in adhering to this doctrine rather than to any other may bee proclaimed ouer and ouer againe by Romists but it deserueth credit when they demonstrate That an opinion which is not grounded vpon diuine Reuelation and which containeth so many difficulties as cannot be solued and the beleefe whereof is vnnecessarie can be imbraced with safetie and expectation of reward To the words following in the Iesuit That he might also bee continually with his Church secretly it is answered That excluding Transubstantiation Christ Iesus is continually with his Church secretly by his grace spirit and mysticall vnion and he dwelleth in the hearts of iustified persons by faith Epkes 3. v. 17. S. Chrysostome S. Cyril and S. Augustine in the places obiected affirme that we are not to beleeue our dull and carnall sence when it suggesteth vnto vs that which is repugnant to faith and when it acknowledgeth no other force and operation in the holy Sacraments but that which is sensible and naturall But embracing this doctrine of the holy Fathers we cannot from thence extract the fancie of Transubstantiation Learned Papists themselues acknowledge the intricacies and difficulties of this Article many of them affirme that secluding the authoritie of the Romish Church there is nothing in diuine Reuelation compelling to beleeue it The doctrine is not Catholike or Antient The Propugners of it vntill the late Trident Councell disagree in that which is maine and substantiall in it and for auoiding one figure they make many Therefore it standeth not with Christian Wisedome to imbrace or maintaine this doctrine and Romists are more confident than prudent in imposing the same as an Article of the Creed censuring the Noncredents as hainous Heretikes My finall conclusion about this Article is That doctrine which is not expresly taught or formally deduced from holy Soripture which no antient Councell or Church for the first 600 yeares plainely taught and vnto which many aduerse passages are extant in the monuments of antiquitie also which is repugnant to sence and common reason and hath no apparent vtilitie ought not to be imposed as an article of diuine faith But such is the doctrine of Romish Transubstantiation Therefore it ought not to be imposed as an article of diuine faith and the Roman Church should either cancell this part of their new Creed or be lesse censorious in obtruding of it THE SEVENTH POINT COMMVNION VNDER ONE KIND AND THE ABBETTING OF IT BY CONCOMITANCIE IESVIT YOur most Excellent Maiestie in the Proposition of this Controuersie shewes your deepe insight into Theologicall difficulties perceiuing a maine ground whereon the Catholicke opinion of the lawfulnesse of Communion vnder one kinde standeth to wit Concomitancie which being granted Communion vnder one kind is iustified ANSVVER IF his Sacred MAIESTIE should yeeld you Concomitancie yet vpon that ground Communion in one kinde could not be iustified Neuerthelesse we denie both 〈◊〉 and Communion vnder one kinde IESVIT § 1. The Doctrine of Concomitancie prooued THe Doctrine of Concomitancie is that vnder the forme of bread not onely the bodie of Christ but also his precious blood and blessed soule are truely and really contained the bodie directly and by vertue of the words of Consecration the blood and the soule consequently for being contained within the bodie of Christ they must needs Concomitate that is follow the bodie in what place soeuer the same bee neither can any that acknowledges the reall Presence denie this Concomitancie without falling into many absurdities as I prooue by three Arguments ANSWER THe bodie of Christ is considered two wayes First According to the nature of a perfect liuing bodie secondly As it is represented and exhibited in the Sacrament If we consider it the first way the blood of Christ cannot properly be said to be
S. August Enchirid. c. 5.6 c. Donatist Lib. 7. cap. 50. Wicked people may be called Gods House because of externall calling and visible profession 2. Tim. 2. 20. Sed non sunt de compage domus They are not of the frame of the House Heb. 3. 6. August d. Bapt. Lib. 7. cap. 50. All they which couet earthly things preferring worldly felicitie before God they which seeke their owne and not those things which are Iesus Christs ad vnam Ciuitatem illam pertinent quae dicitur Babylonia mystice habet Regem Diabolum belong onely to that Citie which in a mysterie is called Babylon and hath the Deuill the Head Aug. sup Psal. 61. Wicked persons saith S. Augustine Epist. 50. figuram membri tenent retaine the figure or outward shape of a member sed reuera corpus Domini non sunt but they are not in truth the bodie of Christ August d. Doct. Christ. Lib. 3. cap. 32. In corpore Christi non sunt quod est Ecclesia They are not in the bodie of Christ which is the Church August c. Crescon Lib. 2. cap. 21. But they which are not of the Body of Christ nor of the house of God really and in truth doe not constantly preserue or faithfully deliuer Apostolicall Traditions neither are they one or holy nor yet such as the Spirit of God infallibly and alwayes directeth in their publicke Doctrine OBSERVAT. V. The qualities of vnitie holinesse veritie Apostolicall succession and other the like are not alwayes found in the true Church equally or in the same degree and measure of perfection but according to a latitude and inequalitie of intension and remission and more or lesse so that although the sounder part of the Church hath alwayes the substance of truth sanctitie and vnitie yet this veritie of Doctrine vnitie of Charitie sanctitie of Manners is greater larger and more sincere and perfect in some persons and ages of the Church than in others These qualities were in their greatest perfection when the Apostles themselues liued they were in great measure in the ages immediately abutting vpon the Apostles But the holy Fathers complaine of the decrease and decay of them in after times And Papists deplore the extreme diminution of them in their dayes OBSERVAT. VI. It falleth out sometimes in the outward state of the visible Church that wicked persons which are not sound parts of Gods house nor liuing members of Christs mysticall bodie being more in number and greater in power doe possesse the chiefe places of publicke Iudicature and Ecclesiasticall gouernment and being thus exalted and withall abetted by worldly power and swarmes of time-feruers whom they aduance and honour to accomplish their owne ends it may heereby fall out that the outward state of the visible Church shall be ordered and swayed according to the lust and will of wicked rulers And then good men may be disgraced depressed and persecuted the simple and they which are negligent vnlearned and secure may be deluded and errour and superstition craftily and couertly be brought in and that is fulfilled which Gregory saith Dum mali praepositi suam contra veritatem honorem exigunt ab omni rectitudine corda sequentium abducunt When wicked rulers seeke their owne glory more than truth they misleade their followers from all course of righteousnesse This happened in the Iewish Church when the Scribes and Pharises and other hypocrites and errants were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 master-builders Math. 21.41 And the euill seruant beareth rule in the houshold and oppresseth his fellow-seruants Matth. 24. 49. Diotrophes excommunicates and vsurpes according to his owne will 3. Ep. Ioh. 9. 10. The Arrians in the dayes of Constantius and Valence did all the former in the greater part of the Christian world The same happened in the Church of Rome especially after the thousand yeere one man vsurped ouer the Christian world making himselfe on earth chiefe and sole commander ouer things diuine and humane his power was so exorbitant and boundlesse that he trode vpon the necke of kings throning and dethroning crowning and decrowning them as himselfe listed his dominion was so absolute and vast as that no man might reprooue or withstand him All men were reputed heretickes or schismatickes which would not say and sweare as he commanded in Synods and Councels causes were transacted according to his will and remission of sinnes and right to life eternall were intailed to his chaire IESVIT This principle is consequent vpon the former and out of it sixe things may be clearely prooued First that there is alwayes a true Church of Christ in the world for if there be no meanes for men to know that Scriptures and other substantiall Articles came from Christ and his Apostles and so consequently from God but the Tradition of the Church then there must needs be in all ages a Church receiuing and deliuering these Traditions else men in some ages since Christ should haue beene destitute of the ordinarie meanes of saluation because they had not meanes to know assuredly the substantiall Articles of Christianitie without assured faith whereof no man is saued ANSVVER By true Church we may vnderstand either an vniuersall maltitude of Beleeuers totally in respect of all persons or distributiuely in regard of them which principally rule and command free from errour in publicke doctrine Or else a choise and select number of Beleeuers liuing either in the common fellowship of the generall visible Church or vnited in particular Congregations by themselues teaching and professing right Faith in all capitall points and readie to imbrace all diuine Truth when the same is manifested vnto them If the name of true Church be taken in the first sense or for an Hierarchicall Church wherein the principall commanders teach and maintaine truth intirely and sincerely then the Proposition to wit There is alwayes a true Church of Christ in the world is denied for it is possible that the greater Prelates to wit Popes Cardinals mitred Bishops and Abbots of which the Hierarchicall Church principally consisteth shall bee reprobates blinde guides a generation of vipers wolues in sheepes cloathing and such as being armed with the title of the Church persecute the true Church And that this is possible it appeareth First by the example of the arch-rulers of the Iewish Church which in some ages corrupted true Religion and persecuted the seruants of God 2. Chron. 36. 14. Moreouer all the chiefe of the Priests and the people transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen and polluted the house of the Lord c. v. 16. They mocked the messengers of God and dospised his word and misused his Prophets c. Reade 2. Kings 16. 11 16. Ierem. 2.8 Esay 56.10 Malach. 2.8 Ierem. 20.1 23.1 2. Machab. 4.10 Ezek. 34.4 Mark 6.35 Math. 3.7 Matth. 23. 13. Luk. 12. 1. Matth.
controuerted or doubtfull But personall succession may bee found in a false Church as appeareth by the Iewish Church in the time of the Pharisees and by the Churches of the East in the dayes of the Arrians and our Aduersaries affirme the Greeke Church to be vnsound notwithstanding it is apparently descended from the Apostles by a lineall succession of Bishops Cardinall Bellarmine perceiuing the weight of the former Argument departeth from the common opinion of other Papists saying That although personall succession alone or by it selfe is not a proper note of a true Church yet the absence thereof prooueth a nullitie of the Church in them which want it But if this be so then personall and locall succession must bee expuged out of the Calendar of Churches notes for all proper notes argue and demonstrate their subiect both 〈◊〉 and negatiuely also they demonstrate the same of themselues without the assistance of other things If therefore externall succession prooueth not a true Church except right Faith bee concurring and if as Bellarmine teacheth it rather serueth to prooue there is not the true Church where it wanteth than to argue a true Church where it is then the same is not proper and conuertible and consequently it is no essentiall marke because to bee proper and conuertible are of the being of notes according to the Cardinals owne description It is likewise remarkeable that the ancient Fathers doe not onely or principally vnderstand personall succession when they mention succession in their writings because they argue affirmatiuely from succession and not negatiuely onely Therefore Romists in this disputation shall doe well to begin with the questions which concerne Doctrine and prooue that they haue succession of Doctrine in all those Articles wherein they oppose other Churches before they mention locall and personall succession but the manner of these men is to obserue a contrarie proceeding and from the latter to conclude the former which is against good reason and against the Custome and manner of the ancient Fathers IESVIT For how can the Tradition of Christian doctrine be eminently and notoriously Apostolicall if the Church deliuering the same hath not a manifest and conspicuous pedigree or deriuation from the Apostles which is a conuincing argument vsed by Saint Augustine how can we thinke that we 〈◊〉 receiued manifestly Christ if wee 〈◊〉 not also 〈◊〉 manifestly his Church It is a Principle of Phylosophie Propter quod vnumquodque tale illud magis But the name of Christ his glory his vertue and miracles are to the world famously knowne from age to age by reason of the Church and her preaching that in her first Pastours saw them with their eyes Ergo This Church must needes be more famous more illustrious as able to giue fame vnto the being and Doctrine and actions of Christ. ANSVVER I haue shewed in the former Section that the visible Church is principally called Apostolicall because it imbraceth the doctrine of the holy Apostles And euerie Church is Apostolicall so farre foorth onely as it consenteth with the Apostles in Doctrine Sacraments Inuocation and in that which is substantiall in Ecclesiasticall policie And in a precedent Section I haue declared That the visible Church may at some times bee more or lesse Apostolicall holy c. But it is not at any time simply or principally Apostolicall because it hath externall personall succession Occham a famous Schooleman and some others with him affirme That a true and Apostolicall Church may consist of a few lay people and if all the Prelates and Clerkes throughout the world should become hereticall God may raise vp Pastours either extraordinarily or else hereticall Bishops 〈◊〉 Pastours the Church may be reformed by them But to the Argument I answere as followeth First if the same were wholly granted nothing could bee concluded against the Church of England from it because the Bishops and Pastours of this Church are able to exhibite a Pedigree or deriuation both of their Ministerie and Doctrine from the Apostles 1. Of Ministerie in that they haue for substance the same descent of externall Ordination which the Romane Church hath 2. Of Doctrine because they maintaine the Primitiue Faith and accord in the same with the soundest part of the Catholicke Church in all ages And where we may seeme to discent from the Antient the same is either in things humane and adiaphorous or in matters which were not fully discussed or in points which were not deliuered by an vnanimous consent or in things which are reprooued by plaine demonstration of holy Scripture and wherein the Fathers permit libertie of dissenting and the Papists themselues take the like libertie Secondly the Iesuits Interrogation How can the Tradition of Christian Doctrine be eminently and notoriously Apostolicall if the Church deliuering the same hath not a manifest and perspicuous pedigree or deriuation from the Apostles is answered this may be performed two waies 1. By the historie and monuments of the Primatiue Church whose descent and pedigree from the Apostles was perspicuous 2. The same may be made manifest by the Scriptures of the Apostles which are diuine and authenticall Records of all Apostolicall Doctrine and contain in themselues many liuely and effectuall Arguments proouing to such as read and examine them with diligence and vnderstanding that they are the Doctrine of the holy Ghost and consequently the worke of the Apostles And the maiestie and lustre of heauenly Doctrine is such that if it be propounded by meane and obscure persons it will appeare illustrious euen as a rich Iewell if the same be deliuered by a poore Artificer doth manifest his owne worth and therefore the sequell of the Iesuits Argument is denied for it followeth not because the Doctrine of Christ must be illustrious that the Church which deliuereth the same must be alwaies so Thirdly S. Augustine in the place obiected Epist. 48. confuteth the Donatists which confined the Church vniuersall to one countrie only excluding the rest of the world from the communion thereof against this error he saith How can wee thinke that we haue receiued Christ made manifest if we haue not also receiued his Church made manifest From hence nothing can be inferred but that we receiue the true Church not only at one time or in one place but at all times and in all places where it is manifest and that Christ is reuealed and made manifest by the Doctrine of the Apostles and that this Doctrine must be preached although not at one time yet successiuely throughout the whole world But all this which S. Augustine speaketh being granted prooueth not that the true Church shall be notoriously eminent and visible at all times neither doth this Father say that Christ cannot bee manifest but by such a Church only as can lineally deriue her pedigree by Records and Tables from the Apostles And howsoeuer Papists boast of their owne pedigree yet when their
much as one day till the consummation of the world ANSWER The place of Saint Matthew chapter 28. 19 20. prooueth First that the holy Apostles receiued a Commission and Mandate from Christ to preach the Gospell to all nations both Iewes and Gentiles and to baptise them In the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost Marke 16. 15 16. Luke 24.27 Acts 1.8 Rom. 1.14 Secondly that our Sauiour promised his Apostles a perpetuall presence and assistance of his diuine power and grace both in regard of the gifts of edification Acts 2. 4. And in respect of the grace of inward sanctification Iohn 17.17 Thirdly because the Apostles were mortall and not to remaine alwayes personally vpon earth and other Pastors must succeed in the office of Ministerie the promise of Christ touching his spirituall presence and assistance of grace is extended to these successours and when they teach and baptise in such manner as Christ commanded diuine grace is present to their Ministeriall actions and the holy Ghost co-worketh with them Fourthly But yet succeeding Pastors receiued not the same measure of diuine Grace with the Apostles neyther had they immediate and Propheticall reuelation but onely a measure of Grace ordinarie mediate and in some sort conditionall Also the said Promise Matth. 28. 20. was common and equall to all the Apostles and to the successors of one Apostle as well as of another to the successors of Saint Iames and Saint Iohn c. as well as to the successors of Saint Peter Fifthly Notwithstanding the said promise Bishops and Pastors succeeding the Apostles were in respect of themselues subiect to errors and their iudgement in matters of Faith was not absolutely infallible like the Apostles but so farre forth onely as they walked in the footsteps and followed the Doctrine deliuered by the Apostles Our Sauiour promised that he would be alwayes with the Apostles euen to the consummation of the World partly in their personall Teaching whiles they themselues liued in the World and partly in their permanent Doctrine contained in the Scriptures of the New Testament when the same was truly deliuered by their successors And he will be also with succeeding Pastors all Ages according to such a measure of Grace and assistance as is sufficient for the edifying of the Church if they for their owne part be studious to learne diuine Truth from the holy Apostles and carefull to preach the same to others But his promise concerning immunitie from error and mortall offences is not so absolute to successors as it was to the Apostles themselues Sixtly Many antient Expositors affirme That the Promise of Christ Matth. 28.20 is especially made to the iust and faithfull and some of them say to the Elect onely And Occham affirmeth That if there should be found in the whole World but one Orthodox Bishop or but one such Priest and a small number of Lay people professing right Faith in Articles essentiall and willing to embrace all other Diuine Vertie when the same should be manifested vnto them this were sufficient to make good Christ his Promise Matth. 28.20 In the next passage our Aduersarie inferreth and deriueth certaine Propositions from the former Text of Matth. 28. 20. First hee saith There is still a Christian Church all dayes not wanting so much as one day in the World till the consummation thereof I answer That there is still in the World a common Christian Church wherein some beleeuers hold the substance of right Faith But there is not perpetually in the World a Church the more potent and maior part whereof beleeueth and professeth right Faith without error in all points and so infallible in all her Doctrine as was the Primitiue Church which enioyed the immediate and actuall preaching of the Apostles IESVIT Secondly This Church is euer visible and conspicuous For the Church which alwayes teacheth and christeneth all Nations to which Christ saith I am alwayes with you not with you sitting in corners or hidden vnder ground but with you exercising the Office enioyned you in the words precedent Docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos c. ANSWER The Church is euer visible according to some degree of visibilitie but this Scripture teacheth not that the true Church is alwayes largely and gloriously visible The same doth not actually in euerie Age teach and christen all Nations and the Roman Church for sundrie Ages past teacheth and christeneth few or none within Natolia and other large Prouinces liuing in subiection to the Grand Seignior or Emperour of Constantinople And as Christ doth not say verbally in this Text I am alwayes with you sitting in corners so he doth not say I am alwayes with you when you are carryed vpon mens shoulders and tread vpon Emperours neckes and diuide and share the Kingdomes of the World and gather endlesse Riches by selling Pardons and preaching Purgatorie But yet of the two it is farre more agreeable to the Diuine Goodnesse who is a Father of the poore and oppressed to be present to his little flocke in persecution and when it flyeth as a Lambe from the Wolfe and hideth it selfe from the Oppressor Apoc. 12. 14 than that hee hath entayled his perpetuall presence vpon ambitious and oppressing Tyrants which stiled themselues Pastors and were rauening Wolues Scribes and Pharisees imposing insupportable burthens vpon others and not moouing them with one of their owne fingers And there is no cause why the good God which was present with Daniel in the Lyons Denne and with Ionas in the Whales Belly and with Ioseph in the Dungeon and with Iob vpon the Dunghill should in the dayes of the oppressing Antichrist withdraw his presence and assistance from his poore flocke yea although it were sitting in corners and hidden vnder ground IESVIT Thirdly This Church is euer Apostolicall for to his Apostles Christ said I am alwayes with you vntill the consummation of the World not with you in your owne persons but with you in your successors in whom you shall continue to the Worlds end Ergo a lawfull companie of Bishops Pastors and Doctors succeeding the Apostles must be perpetually in the World ANSVVER First The Church may be called Apostolicall because of Faith Plantation and Externall Ordination of Pastors According to Faith and Doctrine in all the maine and substantiall Articles the true Church is euer Apostolicall In regard of Plantation the Primitiue Church was Apostolicall because it was immediately planted and watered by the holy Apostles But Tertullian affirmeth That many particular Churches were not thus planted by Apostles or Apostolicall persons and yet they were truly Apostolicall by reason of consanguinitie of Doctrine with the holy Apostles According to the third manner to wit in respect of Externall Ordination and Imposition of Hands receiued from Bishops lineally succeeding the Apostles a false and corrupt Church may be Apostolicall as I haue formerly prooued And it is
must be Doctrines vnchanged comming from the Apostles ANSVVER This Proposition may hold in prime and essentiall Articles of Doctrine but not generally in all Doctrines and some learned Papists hold that it is possible for the visible Church of one age to erre or be deceiued by a blamelesse and inuincible ignorance in points of Doctrine the expresse knowledge whereof is not necessarie to Saluation IESVIT But it is most cleere and confessed by the Protestants whose testimonie plentifull in this behalfe if need require shall be brought First that the Doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestants refuse haue beene vniuersally receiued for many ages a thousand yeares agoe at least euer since Boniface the third ANSWER It is neither cleere in it selfe nor yet confessed by Protestants that the Doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestants refuse haue been vniuersally receiued for 1000 yeres at least c. The article of the Popes Supremacie and of Purgatorie Adoration of Images forbidding married Priests to liue with their wiues were euer opposed and reiected by the Greek Church The Doctrine of the Trident Councell concerning the Canon of the holy Scriptures and the preheminence of the vulgar Translation before the Hebrew and Greeke Text was not vniuersally 〈◊〉 for a thousand yeeres The temporal authoritie of the Pope the merit of Condignitie publicke seruice in an vnknowne language Iubilees and Popes pardons Communion in one kind Transubstantiation Blessing or baptising of Bells c. were not generally receiued in the Church vniuersall for a thousand yeeres at least And a great number of Beleeuers which in this West part of the world haue alwayes denied and resisted these Articles and among other opponents there were a people called Waldenses Leonistae pauperes de Lugduno c. many in number and largely diffused through diuers Countries who denied the foresaid Popish Articles and whose Doctrine in the most points was consonant to that which reformed Churches doe now professe Reinerius an Inquisitour of the Church of Rome liuing about the yeere one thousand two hundred fiftie foure in a Booke Printed at Ingolstade writeth in this manner of the Waldenses which hee calleth Leonists Among all Sects which are or haue formerly beene none is more pernicious to the Church than that of the Leonists First because it continued longer than any other for some say it hath lasted euer since Pope Siluester others say euer since the Apostles Secondly because no Sect is more generall than this for there is scarce any countrey in which it is not found Thirdly whereas other Sects deterre men with their horrible blasphemies this Sect of the Leonists maketh a great shew of godlinesse because they liue righteously before men and beleeue all things rightly touching God and concerning all other Articles of the Ceed onely they blaspheme the Romane Church and Clergie in which thing the Laitie is forward to giue credit vnto them IESVIT Secondly That Protestants cannot tell the time when the Church of Rome began to change and deuiate from the Apostolicall Doctrine deliuered by succession Ergo the Roman Church neuer changed her Faith ANSWER If the Antecedent were true yet it followeth not Ergo the same Roman Church neuer changed her Faith For although we cannot tell the time when the progenitors of Abraham first began to change and deuiate from the Doctrine of Noah and Sem yet it is certaine that they had changed their Religion Iosh. 24. 2. And were not the Sodomites transgressors of the Law of Nature because the first beginning of their transgression cannot be knowne How many wicked Customes haue beene common in the World whose authors and first beginners were vnknowne to Posteritie The time is not knowne when the late Iewish Church did first change and corrupt the sense of the Morall Law and brought in the Traditions condemned by our Sauiour and yet they had corrupted and changed the same Matth. 5. 6. 7. 15. 19. 23. If a Tenant haue by himselfe and his predecessors long held an House which is now in decay and readie to drop downe the Landlord by this Law of the Iesuits Ergo shall neuer compell the Tenant to make reparation vnlesse he be able to demonstrate to the Tenant in what yeere and moneth euerie Wall and Rafter began to decay A Physician shall not purge a malignant humor out of a diseased bodie vnlesse hee or his Patient be able to name the time and manner of that misdiet which bred the first seed of this distemper IESVIT So that her Doctrines are to be receiued as Apostolicall supposing the Maior of this Argument be true That Doctrines vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne are to be beleeued as Apostolicall which is a Principle set downe by Saint Augustine allowed by Doctor Whitgift late Archbishop of Canturburie who in his Bookes written by publike authoritie against Puritans citing diuerse Protestants as concurring in opinion with him saith Whatsoeuer Opinions are not knowne to haue begun since the Apostles times the same are not new or secundarie but receiued their originall from the Apostles But because this Principle of Christian Diuinitie brings in as M. Cartwright speaketh all Poperie in the iudgement of all men I will further demonstrate the same though of it selfe cleare enough ANSWER If the Maior of this Argument were graunted to wit Doctrines vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne are to be 〈◊〉 as Apostolicall yet the inference is false because the Romane Doctrines opposed by vs were neuer vniuersally receiued but by many eyther not heard of or reiected and contradicted Neyther is the former Principle sufficiently prooued out of S. Augustine First because hee speaketh in all the places obiected of Customes and matters of Fact and Practise the right and Doctrine whereof is found in holy Scripture Secondly the Iesuit conueyeth into his Proposition certaine words to wit Doctrines vniuersally receiued c. which are not found in S. Augustine And this Father did neuer allow that the vniuersall Church should beleeue any thing as Doctrine of Faith which was not contained expressely or deriuatiuely in holy Scripture And in the same bookes out of which these Obiections are collected he confuteth rebaptising by Scripture and confirmeth the lawfulnesse of Infants Baptisme by Scripture So that his meaning is when matters being in common vse and practise are questioned the right and lawfulnesse hath warrant from the Scripture although no especiall example be found in the written Bookes of the Apostles of such practise yet the generall custome and vse of the vniuersall Church in all Ages argueth that such practise receiued it beginning from the Apostles For example That the Apostles baptised Infants is not particularly reported in their Writings but sufficient grounds are found in them to prooue the necessitie and to warrant the practise thereof In this and in all other the like cases Quod vniuersa tenet Ecclesia nec
Argument concluding That because no Historicall and expresse opposition was made against these Doctrines by the antient Fathers therefore the Tradition of the present Romane Church concerning these Doctrines is Apostolicall As if a man should conclude That because no expresse opposition was made against the Pharisees by the antient Iewish Church therefore their Traditions were diuine But if the sequele of this Argument be good then the Proposition following is necessarie to wit Euerie Doctrine against which the antient Fathers haue not made expresse and literall opposition is Apostolicall But this is false because some Heresies sprang vp in the Church after the decease of the antient Fathers and against those they could make no such opposition vnlesse they had beene endued with Propheticall inspiration But if as our Aduersarie obiecteth euerie Doctrine is Apostolicall against which the antient Fathers made no expresse and Historicall opposition then the Articles following which Protestants maintaine are Apostolicall to wit The Romane Bishop and Councell may erre The substance of Bread and Wine remaine in the holy Eucharist after consecration The common Prayer and Seruice of the Church which the vnlearned frequent ought to be vttered in a knowne Language These I say and the like Articles according to the Iesuits Argument must be Apostolicall because no expresse Historicall or literall opposition was made against them by the antient Fathers But the Iesuit will peraduenture except That euerie Doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of the Romane Church against which the Fathers haue made no expresse opposition is Apostolicall and not euerie other Doctrine This verily or any thing else as wilde and absurd may be pretended but it must be prooued before it can merit any credit And if the Romane Church may erre and change her Doctrine after the decease of the antient Fathers then the Doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of the Romane Church is of the same qualitie with the Doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of other Churches But the first is true Rom. 11. 22. and there is nothing promised in Diuine Writ to the Romane Church to free the same from Error more than to the Churches of 〈◊〉 Antioch Ephesus c. For Hierusalem was the prime Mother Church Esa. 2. 3. Luc. 24. 47. and the first Seat of all the Apostles Ephesus was the Episcopall Sea of S. Iohn and it was once a Ground and Pillar of Truth 1. Tim. 3. 15. and Antioch was the Episcopall Sea of S. Peter Baron Annal. to 1. anno 39. nu 20. And yet euerie one of these Apostolicall Churches are departed from their antient integritie Wherefore except Romists can demonstrate by diuine testimonie that their Prelates and Pontifes haue singular and ample promises beyond other Apostolicall Churches they begge the question when they arrogate sole perfection infallibilitie and immutabilitie to themselues THE SECOND PART of the Iesuits Disputation concerning the supposed Errors of the PROTESTANTS IESVIT THe Conclusion of this Point shewing that Protestants erre fundamentally ANSVVER THis Conclusion is inferred vpon false Premises and therefore it is a Lying Conclusion And if Protestants erre not in all or any of the Articles obiected eyther materially or pertinaciously then they erre not fundamentally IESVIT Out of all this appeares that the Romane is the true Church and consequently that Protestants haue fundamentall Errors about Faith ANSWER If the Antecedent were graunted yet the Consequence is not necessarie for the Church of Africa in the dayes of Saint Cyprian was a true Church and yet they which beleeued otherwise touching rebaptising than that Church erred not eyther materially or fundamentally IESVIT Errours are fundamentall that is damnable either in regard of the matter because against some substantiall Article of Faith the knowledge whereof is necessarie for the performance of a required Christian dutie or in regard of the manner they are held to wit so obstinately as in defence of them one denies the Catholicke Church ANSVVER The distinction of errours into fundamentall and preterfundamentall is collected out of the Scriptures 1. Cor. 3. 12. Phil. 3. 15 16. 2. Tim. 2. 18. Col. 2. 19. Heb. 6. 1. And the same is found in the Fathers and in the Schoolemen in tearmes aequiualent As all verities according to St. Augustine are fundamentall without the knowledge and faith whereof people cannot attaine saluation so likewise all errours directly opposing and destroying right Faith concerning those necessarie and essentiall verities are fundamentall 1. Tim. 6. 3. 1. Cor. 15. 4 c. Gal. 5. 2. All necessarie and essentiall veritie either concerning Faith or good manners according to St. Augustine is deliuered in plaine places of holy Scriptures and therefore they which accuse others of fundamentall errour must produce plaine and manifest Scripture against them And if after such ostension Errants continue obstinate they are guiltie both before God and men of damnable Heresie and deserue the title and punishment of Heretickes These things being premised concerning the Subiect of the Iesuits Proposition I denie that errours in secondarie points defended against the common tenet of the Catholike Church are alwayes fundamentall for 〈◊〉 Cyprian with 80. Bishops of Affrica did stifly defend Rebaptising against the common iudgement of the Catholicke Church and yet S. August freeth them from the guiltinesse of damnable errour Secondly if all such errour be damnable yet the Protestants are innocent because they defend no errour great or small wilfully or obstinately neither doe they oppose but humbly submit themselues to the iudgement of the true Catholicke Church The Pharisees of Rome enroabe themselues with glorious titles but where doth the word of Christ endow them with priuiledges beyond other Churches shew vs out of the holy Euangelists or the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles that you are the onely Catholicke Church All fundamentall veritie is deliuered in the plaine Texts of Scripture Aug. d. Doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 9. And all fundamentall errour is condemned by manifest Scripture Et Catholica fides in Scripturis manifesta est The true Catholike faith is manifest in the Scriptures Aug. d. Agon Christ. c. 28. Ecclesia nonin parietibus consistit sed in dogmatum veritate Ecclesia ibi est vbi vera fides est The Church of Christ consisteth not of outward Titles and walles but of the veritie of Doctrine Wheresoeuer true Faith is there is the Church saith S. Hierom sup Psal. 133. Where Faith is there is the Church saith Saint Chrysostome Where right Faith is not there is not the true Church Et Ecclesia est Hierusalem cuius fundamenta posita sunt super montes Scripturarum And the Church is Hierusalem whose foundations are placed vpon the mountaines of the Scriptures Eruite igitur aliquid manifestum quo demonstretis Ecclesiam If therefore Papals will force vs to beleeue that they are the only Catholicke Church and that we must follow their Pope
though he lead vs to hell bring something euident and manifest out of the holy Scripture Si diuinarum Scripturarum earum scilicet quae canonicae in Ecclesia nominantur perspicua firmatur Authoritate sine vlla dubitatione credendum est 〈◊〉 vero testibus vel testimonijs quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur tibi credere vel non credere liceat c. If saith S. Augustine it be confirmed by the perspicuous authoritie of those diuine Scriptures which are Canonicall it must without all question be beleeued but as for other witnesses and testimonies by which any thing is persuaded to be beleeued it is lawfull for thee to beleeue or not beleeue them as thou shalt perceiue them to deserue credit IESVIT Fundamentall errours of the first kinde Protestants haue 〈◊〉 particularly these Nine ANSWER Malice alwayes fighteth against Vertue and laboureth to impose and rub off her owne faults vpon it and all they whose brests and minds are inhabited by Satan testifie their venemous rage with furious words If this Traducer be able to conuince the Protestants of Nine or of any one fundamentall errour wee must acknowledge that we are in a perillous state but if hee onely depraue and falsifie our doctrine or affirme that to be fundamentall errour which is diuine veritie then he prooueth himselfe to be one of his Ministers of whom S. Gregory speaketh Perfidious dealing is in the Tabernacle of Antichrist whereby he gainesayeth the faith of the Redeemer IESVIT First their Doctrine against Traditions vnwritten whereby the foundation is ouerthrowne on which wee beleeue all other substantiall and fundamentall points as hath beene shewed ANSVVER Either you wilfully falsifie or ignorantly mistake the Protestants Doctrine concerning vnwrttten Tradition First we admit in generall all vnwritten Traditions agreeing with the holy Scripture which are deriued from the Apostles and deliuered vnto vs by the manifest and perpetuall testimonie of the Primitiue Church and by the vniforme consent of succeeding Churches in all ages Secondly we beleeue in particular the historicall Traditions of the Primatiue and succeeding Churches concerning the dignitie authoritie perfection authors number and integritie of the bookes of Canonicall Scripture and also the Historicall Tradition of the said Church concerning the perpetuall virginitie of the blessed Virgin Marie and concerning the baptisme of infants and all other genuine Traditions which maintaine the Faith and Doctrine contained expressely or by consequent in the Scripture Thirdly we embrace such exposition of holy Scripture as being consonant to the rule of Faith and to the text of Scripture is affirmed by antient Tradition to haue descended from the holy Apostles Fourthly we beleeue the rule of Faith contained in the Apostles Creed both vpon the authoritie of Christs written word and also vpon the voice and testimonie of vnwritten Tradition If it shall then be demanded Wherefore do the Romists and you so eagrely contend about the question of Traditions and wherein lies your difference we answer as followeth First we yeeld the highest and most soueraigne authoritie to the sacred Scripture and make the voice and sentence thereof a supreame rule and iudge of supernaturall Veritie and we make Tradition vnwritten subordinate and ministeriall to holy Scripture admitting the same so farre forth only as it is conformable to the Scripture and reiecting the contrarie Secondly we affirme that the Canonicall Scriprure containeth all supernaturall Veritie necessarie to saluation and being receiued and vnderstood is a sufficient and perfect rule of Faith and the sole doctrine thereof is sufficient to instruct the whole Church and euery member thereof to saluation And that Tradition vnwritten maketh no addition or increase of new Articles of Faith but is only an helpe and instrument to deliuer applie and interpret the doctrine expresly deliuered or intended by the holy Ghost in the Scripture Thirdly we receiue no Tradition as diuine or apostolicall but such as hath the plaine manifest and vniforme testimonie and approbation of the Primatiue Church But our Aduersaries either equall or preferre vnwritten Tradition before the Scripture and they make Tradition a diuers and larger part of the rule of Faith containing many Articles which are neither expressely nor inuoluedly reuealed in the Scripture and they make the present Roman Church an infallible witnesse of such Tradition affirming that we are bound to beleeue euerie Article which the said Church deliuereth as a Tradition with the same assurance of Faith wherewith we beleeue any written testimonie of S. Paul or the holy Euangelists And many of them teach That it is not necessarie to deriue Tradition by a perpetuall descent and current through all ages but the voice of the present Church is sufficient to make any Article ctedible and authenticall to vs Lastly many particularopinions of antient Fathers which they deliuered coniecturally or probably onely and concerning which they haue not affirmed that they were diuine or apostolicall Traditions are ranked by latter Pontificians in the number of diuine 〈◊〉 and made parts of the vndoubted word of God And thus the present Roman doctrine concerning Traditions vnwritten is a Seminarie of Errour and by pretext hereof Pontificians obtrude vpon the Church many prophane fabulous and superstitious 〈◊〉 fansies and nouelties repugnant to holy Scripture and the antient Catholicke Faith Let therefore impartiall Readers consider whether this Romish doctrine debasing the sacred Scripture and aduancing humane Traditions tendeth not to the corrupting of Christian Faith and consequently whether the same be not rather a fundamentall Errour than an Orthodoxall Veritie And on the contrarie whether the doctrine of the Protestants maintaining the supreame authoritie of the sacred Scripture which is Gods vndoubted word and withall yeelding to genuine Tradition the credit and honour which the antient Church gaue thereunto is not fundamentall Veritie and a soueraigne meanes to preserue right Faith IESVIT Secondly their questioning the infallibe authoritie of lawfull generall Councels thereby casting downe the foundation of Vnitie in Gods Church ANSWER They which will not permit generall Councels to assemble or to proceed lawfully and which oppose the decrees of antient Councels are the Romists and not the Protestants First The moderne Popes vsurpe the whole right and authoritieof calling and conuocating Councells contrarie to the antient custome and practise of the Church Secondly They receiue and admit no Assessors and Iudges in Councels but onely their fast friends to wit men aforehand oblieged by solemne oath to proceed according to the will and purpose of the Pope Thirdly The Pope alone is appointed the authenticall Iudge of all causes and matters which are concluded in Councels he approoueth or refuseth whatsoeuer himselfe pleaseth and all other Iudges and Assessors are onely his shadowes and creatures Fourthly Whereas in words and tearmes they seeme to aduance
of Saints and Angels IESVIT I Haue ioyned these two Controuersies together hoping I might doe it with your Maiesties good liking the maine difficultie of them both being the same to wit Worship and Inuocation of Angels and Saints For I am most fully persuaded that if your Maiestie did allow Inuocation of any Saint you would neuer denie that Deuotion vnto the Blessed Virgin Mother of God whom you honour and reuerence aboue the rest though perchance you may dislike some particular formes of our Prayers that seeme to giue her Titles aboue that which is due to a Creature about which I shall in the end of this Discourse endeuour to giue your Maiestie satisfaction ANSVVER ALthough it were granted that some kind or manner of Petition or Compellation made by the Church Militant to the blessed Saints and Angels were lawfull and that we might request them to be Comprecants and to make intercession to God in our behalfe yet the Inuocation of them according to the practise of the Romane Church wherein they pray first of all to Saints and in the last place to Christ and their excessiue worship by Vowes Oathes Offertures conioyning their satisfactions with Christs and confidence in their merits and adoring their Images cannot be iustified for this manner of Deuotion hath no foundation expresse or infolded in Diuine Reuelation and the Primitiue Church did not appoint or practise the same And it encroacheth so neerely vpon the Office of Christ our sole Redcemer Mediator and Aduocate that without expresse and manifest Precept or approbation of the Holy Ghost wee may not esteeme it lawfull The Doctrine of our Church concerning Inuocation and Adoration of the blessed Trinitie our accesse to God by Supplications and Prayers in the name of Iesus Christ our dependance vpon the sole Merits and Satisfactions of our all-sufficient Redeemer and Sauiour haue Precept Example Promise Reasons and Warrantie deliuered in the expresse manifest and indubitate Word of God Ioh. 14. 13 14. cap. 16.24 1. Ioh. 2.1 Heb. 4. 15 16. 1. Pet. 2.5 Heb. 13.15 Also wee haue certainetie of Faith That Christ Iesus our Intercessor and Aduocate hath distinct and perfect knowledge particular and generall of our qualitie state and actions Heb. 4.13 His office is to make intercession for vs Rom. 8.34 Heb. 7. 25. He inuiteth vs most louingly to come vnto him Math. 11.28 Our heauenly Father alwayes heareth him Iohn 11. 42. His compassion towards vs exceedeth the pietie of any creature Ioh. 10. 11. 15. 13. Heb. 4 15. Wee may more safely and with greater comfort speake to our Sauiour than to any Saint or Angell the holy Spirit helpeth our infirmities and teacheth vs to make intercession according to the will of God Rom. 8.26 27. Therefore our praying to God in the name of Christ onely our supplication to the Father to accept vs for the sole merits of our Sauiour is a most safe and faithfull deuotion and our assurance is grounded vpon the word of faith and hauing such promises we cannot be deceiued in our hope 2. Tim. 2.13 Tit. 1. 2. But on the contrarie Romish inuocation directed to Saints Angells and the blessed Virgin their oblation of the merits and satisfaction of creatures with many other branches of their holy seeming deuotion haue neither precept example or promise in the large booke of God notwithstanding the same booke is most abundant in teaching the dutie and forme of prayer And some of our best learned Aduersaries confesse that the doctrine of inuocation of Saints is neither expresly nor infoldedly taught in holy Scripture Therefore his most excellent Maiestie our Soueraigne Lord and King to whose sacred person the Iesuit directeth his former speech may with vnspeakeable ioy and comfort glorie that he is in this article a defender and propugner of that faith which is taught from heauen by the holy Ghost and Papisticall inuocation is no plant growing in the Paradise of holy Scripture by their owne confession neither haue they any meanes infallible to ascertaine themselues and others that the same is a plant which the heauenly Father hath planted or that their deuotion in this kind is necessarie profitable or acceptable to God IESVIT In which question I will suppose without large and particular proofe being able to prooue it by testimonies vndeniable if neede be That worship and inuocation of Saints hath beene generally receiued in the whole Christian Church at least euer since the dayes of Constantine A thing so cleere that Chemnitius doth write in this sort Most of the Fathers as Nazianzen Nissen Basill Theodoret Ambrose Hierome Austin c. did not dispute but auouch the soules of Martyrs and Saints to heare the petitions of those that prayed they went often to the monuments of Martyrs and inuocated Martyrs by name And seeing these Fathers praysed and practised this custome as receiued from Ancestours and as a matter of faith condemning the contradictors thereof as Nouelists and Heretikes to wit Aerius and Vigilantius as is confessed I may further conclude that that custome did not then begin but was come downe from the Apostles which is confirmed by testimonie of the Magdeburgians in acknowledging that in the Fathers next 〈◊〉 the Apostolicall times were found Non obscura vestigia Inuocationis Sanctorum as appeareth by the testimonie of Saint Ireneus tearming the 〈◊〉 Virgin the aduocate of Eue that is of her children ANSVVER You presuppose that which notwithstanding your facing you will neuer bee able to prooue to wit That innocation of Saints according to the doctrine and practise of the late Roman Church hath beene generally and vniuersally receiued as an article of faith or necessarie dutie euer since the dayes of Constantine neither hath Chemnitius whom you alleadge affirmed this but rather said the contrarie First he saith That in the Primitiue Church vntill two hundred years after Christ this doctrine and practise was vtterly vnknowne Secondly he affirmeth that about the yeare 240. some seedes of this doctrine began to be sowne in the Church by Origen Thirdly He saith expresly that for three hundred and fiftie yeeres and vpward the publike practise of Inuocation was vnknowne in the Church And then about the yeere 370 it began to be spoken of in publicke assemblies by Basil Nyssen and Nazianzen vpon occasion of their Panegyricall Orations Fourthly He addeth That notwithstanding these Orations it was not generally and vniuersally receiued in those times but both doubted of and also reprooued and condemned by some and about the 400. yeere Saint Chrysostome interposed and laboured to reduce people to the antient forme of Inuocation And proceeding in his Historicall Narration he sheweth out of Nicephorus lib. 15. cap. 28. that Petrus Gnapheus Anno 470 condemned by the first vniuersall Synode of Heresie was the first Author among the Grecians of mixing
Mercie floweth into the admirable Vessell and Basin the Virgin Marie and the other part to wit of Iustice which was poured vpon the Altar he hath left vnto Christ. Thus writeth Benzonius a famous Romane both by birth and Religion in our dayes Blasius Viegas a moderne Iesuit applyeth also this absurd comparison of Assuerus and Esther to Christ and the Virgin Marie And these Authors with the rest whom they follow doe not intend onely to teach That the blessed Virgin is very gracious with Christ in respect of her intercession but that shee hath a right and authoritie as a Queene Regent to distribute mercie and benefits where shee pleaseth and to dispence with the Lawes of Iustice when there is cause as appeareth by the words of Ozorius the Iesuite citing out of Nunne Bridgets Reuelations Christs words following My mother in my Kingdome ruleth as a Queene c. and therefore shee may dispence with Lawes made by me when there is iust cause And by this speech Nunne Bridget intendeth to shew that Christ did vse the helpe of his mother Marie in ruling his Kingdome now this Osorius was a Iate Preacher in Portugall Our English Iesuits when they returne to vs dissemble and cloake this Superstition not because they dislike it for they and the rest are all Birds of a feather and feed their silly chicks with the same carraine but they prudently consider that such notorious blasphemies being published would appeare odious and hinder their successe in beguiling vnstable soules and minister greater aduantage to their Aduersaries therefore like the Steward in the Gospell commended for his craft but not for his honestie when their Tenet is an hundred they write downe fiftie and when their Doctrine is blasphemous they confesse a pettie ouersight or vnfitnesse in the phrase and manner of speaking But if in good earnest they disliked the former assertions why hath not the grand Senior of Rome siue cum Concilio siue sine Concilio condemned rased and purged out these sacrilegious blasphemies especially because in other Authours their expurgatorius Index hath Eagles eyes and a line or sentence cannot escape these Critickes if there appeare obloquitie or antipathie to their inueterate forgeries Now for a Conclusion of the former Question let it be obserued That the Aduersarie is deficient in the demonstration of his Popish Tenet concerning Inuocation of blessed Saints and Angels for he hath produced no Diuine Testimonie from sacred Scripture no Tradition from the Apostles no plaine and resolute definition of approoued Councels or Primatiue Fathers no sufficient argument of naturall reason yea the mayne Principles of his Doctrine are litigious and dubious amongst Pontificians themselues Hee hath strugled playing fast and loose with our Arguments and spent himselfe in soluing or rather in eluding of obiections but he confirmeth not his owne St. Augustine saith That in things diuine or which concerne saluation they offend grieuously Qui certis incerta preponunt which preferre vncertainties before that which is indubitate Nostra fides certa est ex Doctrina Apostolica nouo veteri Testamento confirmata Our faith concerning the direct inuocation of the deitie by Christ our Mediatour of intercession is right and a certaine Apostolicall Doctrine confirmed by the Old and New Testament The Popish Appendix concerning Inuocation of Saints wanteth all Scripture proofe and whatsoeuer else may be pretended for it is dubious and litigious therefore our Doctrine is of faith and the Popish Tenet of humane opinion or presumption THE FOVRTH POINT THE LITVRGIE AND PRIVATE PRAYERS FOR THE IGNORANT IN AN vnknowne Tongue IESVIT THe Custome of the Romane Church in this Point is agreeable to the Custome of the Churches in all ages and also of all Churches now in the world bearing the name of Christian though opposite vnto the Romane only those of the pretended reformation excepted which constāt concurrence is a great figne that the same is very conforme vnto reason and not any where forbidden in Gods Word which will easily appeare if we looke particularly vnto the same ANSVVER YOu lay your foundation of this Article vpon two apparant vntruths for the Doctrine and custome of the present Romane Church is not onely not agreeable but opposite both to the Doctrine and Practise of the antient Catholicke Church and also to the custome of other Churches which are not absolute Protestants First It is the common voyce of the Fathers That the Liturgie and Seruice of the Church was in their dayes and ought to be vsed in a knowne tongue Origen saith That in his dayes euery nation prayed to God in their owne Language the Grecians in Greeke the Romanes in Latine and all other people in their proper tongue Iustin Martyr Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus affirme That the Priest and the people prayed ioyntly and in common in the publicke Seruice which argueth that the people vnderstood the Prayers And St. Cyprian requires That peoples hearts and words agree and that they heare and vnderstand themselues when they pray to God Saint Basil saith When the words of Prayer are not vnderstood by them which are present the minde of the Precant is vnfruitfull neither doth any man hereby reape any profit St. Chrysostome St. Ambrose affirme the like And St. Augustine requireth people to vnderstand what they pray and sing for if there be onely sound of voyce without sence they may bee compared to Parrats Owsells or Popiniayes And some of the best learned Papists to wit Thomas Aquinas Lyra Cassander acknowledge That in the Primatiue Church the common Seruice was vsed in the vulgar tongue Secondly it is false according to the Tenet of Bellarmine himselfe that all other Churches which differ from the Protestants haue their publique seruice in Hebrew Greeke or Latine Bellonius and Aluares affirme the contrarie of the Armenians and Abissines and Eckius of the Indians and Sigismundus Baro and Hosius of the Russians and Ledesma of the Egyptians and Armenians And AEneus Syluius reporteth That when Cyrillus and Methodius had conuerted the Saluons vnto Christ were suitors that they might administer the common Prayers and Seruice among them in their vulgar tongue The Pope in the Conclaue consulting about this matter a voice was heard as it were from Heauen saying Let euerie Spirit praise the Lord and let euerie tongue acknowledge him and hereupon they were permitted to vse their owne tongue And it appeareth by the Decretals that the Roman Church in former times did ordinarily appoint this for the words of the Canon are For as much as in many places within one Citie and one Diocesse there be nations mingled together speaking diuers tongues c. We therefore commaund that the Bishops of such Cities and Diocesses prouide meet men to minister the holy Seruice according to the diuersitie of their
Luc. 18 38 39. Esa. 6. 3. Psal. 136. Math. 26. 39. to 45. Marc. 14.39 Luc. 22. 42. Ergo Repetition of Paternosters Creedes and Aues according to the formes prescribed in the Romish Primers and Rosaries are pious and lawfull I answer Granting that repetitions in prayer and thanksgiuing which agree with the examples of sacred Scripture are pious and lawfull but the Illation from these to the Roman Battalogees is inconsequent because the repetitions in question differ from the patterne expressed in holy Scripture First in the kind and obiect for this latter are in part directed to creatures and not onely to the Creator and of this deuotion there is no example in Scripture Secondly they are multiplyed to an excessiue and portentuous number and doubtlesse the Romists exceede and transcend their brethren the Pharisees in the number and vaine repetition of such superstitious Orisons Thirdly the Creed and Aue-maries are no prayers or thanksuings either formally or vertually Fourthly our A duersaries maintaine That if these repetitions be vsed without vnderstanding of the words and consequently without present actuall attention they are pious and effectuall But the Romists cannot produce approoued examples out of holy Scripture of such repetitions and therefore their argument from example concludeth not It is also apparent that the repetitions which are practised among Papals in manner aforesaid doe rather resemble the superstitious Battalogie of the Pharisees Math. 6.7 than the deuout prayers and thanksgiuings recorded for our instruction in holy Scripture IESVIT Jf any thinke to merit by reason of the number of his prayers hee is ignorant of the doctrine of the Catholike Church which attributes no merit to prayers in regard of their number further than the number awakes in vs deuout thoughts which is the onely thing that by the number we aime at Wee say Paters Aues and Creedes to the number of three in memorie of the blessed Trinitie seeking Gods fauour and grace by glorifying that incomprehensible Mystery to the number of fiue in memorie of the fiue speciall wounds our Sauiour receiued that pierced into and through his sacred body to the number of 33 in remembrance of the 33 yeares our Sauiour wrought our saluation vpon earth giuing him thankes for his labours desiring the application of his merits stirring vp our selues to the imitation of his vertues The like reason mooueth vs to pray in the number of sixtie three Angelicall salutations to call to mind the yeeres the Mother of God liued on earth according to one probable opinion And because the opinion that she liued seuentie two yeeres now begins to be much followed many Catholickes therupon particularly in Spaine haue thereupon increased the Corone of our Ladie to seuentie two Aue-Marias a manifest signe that they neuer attributed merit vnto the number of sixtie three but onely to the deuout memories of the blessed Virgins vertues exercised in the yeeres shee conuersed in this world giuing to God thankes for his great graces bestowed on her The Psalter of our Ladie and the Iesus Psalter containe one hundred and fiftie repetitions of Prayers the one of Aue-Marias the other of Iesu Iesu Iesu in imitation of the deuout Royall Prophet whose Psalter containes Psalmes in Gods praise to the samè number ANSVVER The true Catholicke Church which the Roman is not maketh no Prayer meritorious in condignitie for what can be imagined more absurd than to maintaine that beggers doe merit by crauing and receiuing almes And the number of Pater Nosters Aues and Creeds which moderne Romists prescribe is a nouell Inuention and was of small esteeme vntill the dayes of Friar Dominicus It was expected that the Iesuit would haue confirmed his Romish deuotion by the Testimonie of antiquitie and by the practise of Apostolicall Churches in the best ages thereof But in place hereof hee reciteth onely what the practise of the moderne Romists is in repeating Pater Nosters Aues and 〈◊〉 to the number of three fiue and thirtie three sixtie three seuentie two c. But these deuices are voluntarie and grounded vpon vncertaine causes for what connexion is there betweene the Antecedent to wit the fiue wounds of Christ and sixtie three or seuentie two yeeres of the blessed Virgins Temporall life and the deuotion inferred and proportioned because Christ had fiue wounds and the Virgin Marie liued seuentie two yeeres in the world therefore it is a seruice pleasing God and such a meanes to honour the blessed Virgin as God accepteth for satisfaction merit and impetration There appeareth small difference betweene the former practise and that which some Romane Casuists censure as superstitious to wit to place vertue and to ascribe effects to the precise number of words and syllables when the same is not appointed by God IESVIT Neither are we in this point of repeating Prayers vpon Beades or little stones in a certaine number for the causes before mentioned destitute of the example of Saints that liued in the best ages of the Church Palladius in his Historie setteth downe some examples of Saints praying in this kinde yea the Centurie Writers and Osiander acknowledge the example of Saint Paul a most holy Monke liuing in the fourth age after Christ that In dies singulos trecentas orationes Deo velut tributum reddidit 〈◊〉 ne per imprudentiam in numero erraret trecentis lapillis in sinum coniectis ad singulas preces singulos eijcit lapillos consumptis igitur lapillis constabat sibi orationes lapillis numero pares abs se expletas esse Which example of so great a Saint so knowne and notorious and neuer censured by any Father may more than abundantly suffice for satisfaction in a matter of no more moment than this for wee are not curious in this point nor doe require of any man that he say his Prayers in a certaine number so as that he may not say more or lesse as his deuotion serues him ANSVVER Palladius his writings are of small credit and this Authour was long agoe censured by the Antient Paulus the Monke in Sosomene made three hundred Prayers to God but not any to the blessed Virgin and his vsing of stones when he said his Prayers is an onely example not paralelled in Antiquitie But singular examples are no rule neither doe they alwayes prooue the thing done to be lawfull for Batheus a Monke in the same Historie vsed such abstinence that wormes bred in his teeth Pior another Monke refused after fiftie yeres absence to looke vpon his naturall sister Ammonius being sollicited to bee a Bishop cut off his owne eare to make himselfe vncapable These and the like examples are not censured by the Historian reporting them and yet it is more than probable that it is not safe for others to imitate them In like sort Paulus his beades are a matter of singularitie rehearsed by Sozomene rather for noueltie than
Luc. 22.18.1 Cor. 10.16 11.26.27.28 Secondly the same affirmeth not that the substance of Bread and Wine is abolished Thirdly naturall reason sheweth that accidents must haue a subiect of inhaerencie and that bare formes and shadowes of things cannot nourish without corporall substance Fourthly the sences of Tast and Feeling discerne apparantly a corporietie in the elements receiued In this case there is no reason to imagine that our sences are deluded or that God almightie by miracle worketh in a contrarie manner to the course of nature and to that which he hath otherwise reuealed in his word It is not sufficient for Romists to affirme That God vseth a miraculous course in these things and to palliate absurdities repugnant to sence reason and scripture vnder pretext of Gods omnipotencie but they must prooue by diuine Reuelation that he will doe this for God effecteth not all things by his omnipotencie which men may imagine to be possible In the wordes of our Sauiour This is my Bodie This cuppe is the new Testament in my Bloud c. there is not a sillable concerning accidents without a subiect or concerning any miracle wrought in the Sacrament by omnipotencie neither is there any such doctrine elsewhere reuealed And if Christs words be expounded figuratiuely according to S. Augustine Tertullian Theoderit Origen Bertram c. they make nothing for corporall presence by indistance of place and if they be vnderstood literally they prooue not Transubstantiation for Bread may be called the bodie of Christ by an inusitate forme of speaking which according to the Tenet of some learned Diuines is no trope or figure And if neither of these expositions content our Aduersaries they might haue beleeued the words of the holy Text as they sound literally and a reall presence of Christs Bodie and Bloud wrought by the power of the holy Ghost without defining and determining the expresse manner how For if they beleeue that accidents subsist without a substance and nourish and are tasted and felt and passe into the stomach and yet are not able to expresse the distinct manner how and if they beleeue a substantiall presence of Christs indiuiduall humane bodie in many hosts and yet are vnable to declare the maner how Why might they not haue suspended other questions concerning the distinct manner of presence and maintained onely a true and mysticall presence the distinct manner whereof is incomprehensible in this life and not haue disturbed the peace of the Church by defining as an article of Faith such a doctrine as hath no foundation in diuine Reuelation to make it appeare certaine and infallible IESVITS 1. Consideration The first is grounded vpon the supposall of two things most certaine First that the Primitiue Church preaching vnto Pagans Iewes and other Infidels the rest of Christian mysteries as the Trinitie the Incarnation the Resurrection of the bodie did most carefully keepe as much as might be from their knowledge the mysteries of the Eucharist yea Catechumens and Nouices were not before Baptisme fully taught or instructed therein Secondly the reason moouing the Primitiue Church to be carefull in this point was least Catechumens and Infidels being fully acquainted with the whole mysterie the one should be scandalized and the other mocke thereat Hence it was accounted such a haynous offence that Christians should discouer this secret vnto Infidels or dispute about the difficulties thereof in their presence The Councell of Alexandria relating the crimes of Arians number this as one of the greatest They were not ashamed in publique and as it were vpon a scaffold to treat of the mysteries before Catechumens and which is worse before Pagans And a little after Jt is not lawfull to publish the Mysteries before them that are not initiated for feare least Pagans out of ignorance mocke and Catechumens entring into curiosities be scandalized And againe Before Catechumens and which is more before Iewes and Pagans blaspheming Christianitie they handled a question about the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour S. Ambrose saith To declare the mysteries vnto them that be Catechumens is not Tradition but Prodition seeing by such declarations danger is incurred least they be diuulged vnto Jnfidels that will scoffe at them This supposed I infer that the seeming absur dities of the Catholique reall presence should incourage a true Christian mind to beleeue it for a true Christian desires to beleeue and firmely cleaue vnto the reall presence that was beleeued by the Primitiue Church But this was a reall presence accompanied with many so seemingly grosse absurdities that the Church had no hope to satisfie Infidels therein or to keepe them from blaspheming but by concealing the mysterie from them and consequently they held the Catholique not the Protestant Doctrine in this point The Protestant Doctrine that makes Christs bodie present spiritually by Faith vnto the deuout Receiuer that communicating thinks sweetly of Christs passion and death containes no mysterie to be concealed in respect of the seeming absurdities ANSWER In the daies of the Fathers Heathens Iewes and Heretickes might enter into the Church and heare the publicke Sermons and preaching as appeareth by the fourth councell of Carthage and Infidels might read the bookes and tractates of the Fathers But the Fathers in their sermons to the people and also in their written bookes deliuered the Doctrine of the holy mysteries as appeareth by Ireneus Iustin Martyr S. Cyprian Gregorie Nissen Cyrill of Hierusalem S. Chrysostome S. Augustine S. Ambrose c. Neither is it apparant that the said Fathers taught any other secret Doctrine touching the holy mysteries than such as they preached in their Homilies and penned in their Bookes and therefore these Homilies and Bookes being publique it appeareth not that the Primitiue Church was more carefull to conceale the Doctrine of the Eucharist than of Baptisme or of the Trinitie The Obiections out of Athanasius and S. Ambrose shew that it was held vnlawfull in those ages to treat or dispute of the holy Eucharist intempestiuè that is before Heathens which were not at all instructed in the first Principles of Religion or to treat of this Doctrine in prophane places or auditories But what is this to Transubstantiation For it was held vnlawfull in the Primitiue Church in maner aforesaid that is in an vndue time order place to treat or dispute of the mysteries of Baptisme or of other profound mysteries belonging to Christian faith Also if it were granted that some antient Fathers beleeuing a reall Presence did therefore conceale the doctrine of the holy Eucharist Ratione scandali because of offence of Infidels arising vpon many difficulties and seeming contradictions to sence and common reason it followeth not from hence that those Fathers beleeued Popish Transubstantiation for many difficulties and repugnances to sence and common reason are found in Consubstantiation as well as in Transubstantiation and sundrie places of the Fathers may with more
at the day of Judgement to iustifie our not beleeuing any part of Gods word by reason of the seeming absurditie thereof ANSWER You are not able to demonstrate that God will haue vs beleeue that the whole Organicall body of Christ hauing the stature quantitie and magnitude of a perfect mans body is contayned in the compasse of a small Hoast or in a crum of Bread for that Christ Iesus hath a true and perfect body differing in kind from a Spirit from an Angell and from an immateriall substance diuine reuelation teacheth but that the same indiuiduall and corporeall substance partaketh the spirituall manner of Angelicall existence and the diuine immensitie simplicitie and omnipresence as Bellarmine affirmeth is not reueiled vnto vs by the holy Ghost neither can the same be inferred ex Reuelatis from any plaine and euident truth which God hath reuealed Neither is it reuealed that the Abstracted formes and accidents of Bread and Wine subsist or are tasted and felt or nourish the body and are afterwards corrupted according to the manner of corporeall food hauing no substantiall or materiall nature in them Therefore this large tract wherein the Obiectour laboureth to prooue a possibilitie of the former by diuine miracle and omnipotencie is vnworthy our examination for we make no question of Gods omnipotent power in effecting whatsoeuer himselfe pleaseth as hath beene formerly answered Pag. 181. Yet the Fathers and Schoolemen very well teach vs That such things as implie a contradiction and falsitie are not the obiect of diuine power and they teach vs further that there is a twofold power in God Ordinata Absoluta one according to the order which himselfe hath fixed by his word and will the other according to the infinitenesse of his essence and which exceedeth his will Now according to the power of God measured and regulate by his word and will all things are impossible which God will not haue to be And thus we say that it is impossible that the whole body of Christ can be in one crumme of Bread or substantially present in many places at one instant and accidents cannot subsist or be tasted felt and nourish and be conuerted into the substance of mans body without a materiall subiect of inherencie to sustaine and giue force vnto them But on the contrarie we dispute not what God is able to effect by his absolute power neither is this question of any vse in the matter now in hand for the naturall kind of the things themselues created by God and the Doctrine of holy Scriprure teach vs what is the reuealed will of God but that hee changeth this Ordinance which himselfe hath fixed no Diuine Testimonie or Reuelation affirmeth or teacheth The sole pretext which Papals haue to palliate the absurdities pursuing Transubstantiation at the heeles are the words of Institution But there is nothing coactiue in the said words to prooue this Romish Article by the confession of the best learned Papists as I haue formerly prooued pag. 414. And besides many other Reasons This Argument out of our Sauiours words is most strong against Transubstantiation If nothing bee found in our Sauiours words This is my Bodie which prooueth the conuersion of the substance of bread into Christs bodie more than which is likewise found to change the quantitie and accidents then Popish Transubstantiation being onely a conuersion of substance and not of quantitie and accidents cannot be concluded out of our Sauiours words But nothing is found in our Sauiours words This is my Bodie c. proouing any more the conuersion of substance than of quantitie and accidents for our Sauiour tooke the whole bread both according to the substance and also according to the quantitie and accidents thereof into his hands and blessed and consecrated the same intirely with the like thankesgiuing and pronuntiation of words and performed all things to the one as well as to the other Therefore if our Sauiours words prooue Transubstantiation of the substance of Bread and Wine they must likewise prooue conuersion of the quantitie and accidents into Christs bodie and blood But by the confession of Papals they doe not the latter for the quantitie and accidents are not conuerted into Christs bodie and blood and consequently they doe not the former Now this being apparent the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation hath no foundation in our Sauiours words This is my bodie c. I supersede therefore to examine the Obiectors particular Arguments among which one is learnedly borrowed from the flies wing which according to Romish Phylosophie may be thinned extended and inlarged to make a case such perhaps as Base Viols haue to put the whole world into Euery punie in our Vniuersities can distinguish betweene Mathematicall or Potentiall diuision of a bodie and Physicall or Actuall Aristotle himselfe teaching vs that there is Minima caro though there be not Corpus minimum But this fictious Cosmotecture and case may well bee paraled to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and they are twinnes the one as credible and infallible in Theologie as the other in Philosophie But if our Aduersarie would be pleased to respite vs from beleeuing Transubstantiation as an Article of our Creed vntill his vast words cap-case made of a flies wing bee finished hee shall finde vs more flexible and prone to credite his Romish Doctrine in this and other Articles IESVIT Secondly Wee cannot imagine the bodie of Christ to bee really combined vnto the consecrated formes and not to bee polluted by such indignities as may happen vnto the formes yet wee haue seene or may see things able to make this not to seeme incredible for holy men often by Prayer so purifie their soules and by contemplation bring their spirits to such an independencie of their sences that neither bitter meates offend their tastes nor loathsome sents their smell nor shrill cries their hearing yea burnings and torturings are not perceiued their spirit being eloyned through Diuine vnpolluted affection from the contagion of the bodie vnto the substance whereof it still remaines most really vnited This being so cannot the glorious bodie of Christ graced with most Diuine Ornaments flowing from the excessiue blisse of the soule made spirituall impassible and insearchable bee really present vnto the formes of consecrated bread and yet free immune and wholly independent of any contagion or corruption that may happen to those formes especially the bodie of Christ not being so strictly and substantially tied vnto the formes as the spirit is to the bodie it informeth but is present vnto them as an Angell assistant is to the bodie wherein he worketh What dishonour can it bee to attribute to Christs most venerable bodie this spirituall manner of Angelicall presence yea rather a participation of the Diuine Immensitie for as God by his incomprehensible Immensitie exists euery where no lesse pure in the sincke than in the Sunne no lesse sweete in the dunghill than in a Garden of odoriferous
rewarder of them that seeke him F. I asked How then it happened as Mr Rogers saith that the English Church is not yet resolued what is the right sense of the Article of Christ's descending into Hell B. The English Church neuer made doubt that I know what was the sense of that Article The words are so plaine they beare their meaning before them Shee was content to put that Article among those to which she requires subscription not as doubting of the sense but to preuent the Cauills of some who had beene too busie in crucifying that Article and in making it all one with the Article of the Crosse or but an Exposition of it And sure the B. thinkes and so doe I That the Church of England is better resolued of the right sense of this Article than the Church of Rome especially if she must be tryed by her Writers as you trie the Church of England by Mr Rogers For you cannot agree whether this Article be a meere Tradition or whether it hath any place of Scripture to warrant it Scotus and Stapleton allow it no footing in Scripture but Bellarmine is resolute that this Article is euerie where in Scripture and Thomas grants as much for the whole Creed The Church of England neuer doubted it and S. Augustine prooues it And yet againe you are different for the sense For you agree not whether the Soule of Christ in triduo mortis in the time of his death did goe downe into Hell really and was present there or virtually and by effects onely For Thomas holds the first and Durand holds the latter Then you agree not whether the Soule of Christ did descend really and in essence into the lowest Pit of Hell and place of the Damned as Bellarmine once held probable and prooued it or really only into that place or Region of Hell which you call Limbum Patrum and then but virtually from thence into the Lower Hell to which Bellarmine reduces himselfe and giues his reason because it is the common opinion of the Schoole Now the Church of England takes the words as they are in the Creed and beleeues them without further dispute and in that sense which the antient Primitiue Fathers of the Church agreed in And yet if any in the Church of England should not be throughly resolued in the sense of this Article Is it not as lawfull for them to say I conceiue thus or thus of it yet if any other way of his Descent be found truer than this I denie it not but as yet I know no other as it was for Durand to say it and yet not impeach the Foundation of the Faith F. The B. said That Mr Rogers was but a priuate man But said I if Mr Rogers writing as he did by publike Authoritie be accounted onely a priuate man c. B. The B. said truth when he said Mr Rogers was a priuate man And I take it you will not allow euerie speech of euerie man though allowed by Authoritie to be printed to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome This hath beene oft complained of on both sides The imposing particular mens Assertions vpon the Church yet I see you meane not to leaue it And surely as Controuersies are now handled by some of your partie at this day I may not say it is the sense of the Article in hand but I haue long thought it a kind of descent into Hell to be conuersant in them I would the Authors would take heed in time and not seeke to blind the people or cast a mist before euident Truth least it cause a finall descent to that place of Torment But since you hold this course Stapleton was of greater note with you than Rogers is with vs and as he so his Relection And is it the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which he affirmes The Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell and that there is a Catholike and an Apostolike Church If it be then what will become of the Pope's Supremacie ouer the whole Church Shall hee haue his power ouer the Catholike Church giuen him expressely in Scripture in the Keyes to enter and in Pasce to feed when he is in and when he hath fed to confirme and in all these not to erre and faile in his ministration And is the Catholike Church in and ouer which he is to doe all these great things quite left out Belike the Holy Ghost was carefull to giue him his power Yes in any case but left the assigning of his great Cure the Catholike Church to Tradition And it were well for him if hee could so prescribe for what he now claymes But what if after all this Mr Rogers there sayes no such thing as in truth he doth not His words are All Christians acknowledge he descended but in the interpretation of the Article there is not that consent that were to be wished What is this to the Church of England more than others And againe Till wee know the natiue and vndoubted sense of this Article is Mr Rogers Wee the Church of England or rather his and some others Iudgement of the Church of England F. But if Mr Rogers be onely a priuate man In what Booke may wee find the Protestants publike Doctrine The B. answered That to the Booke of Articles they were all sworne B. What was the B. so ignorant to say The Articles of the Church of England were the publike Doctrine of all the Protestants or That all Protestants were sworne to the Articles of England as this speech seemes to implie Sure he was not Was not the immediate speech before of the Church of England And how comes the subiect of the speech to be varyed in the next Lines Nor yet speake I this as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest Doctrines against which they ioyntly take exceptions against the Romane Church as appeares by their seuerall Confessions Nor did the B. say That the Booke of Articles onely was the Continent of the Church of Englands publike Doctrine Shee is not so narrow nor hath shee purpose to exclude any thing which shee acknowledges hers nor doth shee wittingly permit any crossing of her publike declarations Yet shee is not such a Shrew to her Children as to denie her Blessing or denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some particulars remoter from the Foundation as your owne Schoolemen differ And if the Church of Rome since shee grew to her greatnesse had not beene so fierce in this course Christendome I persuade my selfe had beene in happier peace at this day F. And that the Scriptures onely not any vnwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith B. The Church of England grounded her Positiue Articles vpon Scripture and her Negatiue Refute where the thing affirmed by you is not affirmed in Scripture nor directly
Doctrine by Principles of Diuine Reuelation because Humane Testimonie is not sufficient to myse Articles of Faith And I rest assured that each intelligent person will obserue by reading this Worke that the Aduerfarie notwithstanding he is well verst in Controuersie and hath in substance said as much as his Cause will permit yet he is deficient of Diuine proofe in euery Article and farre more specious in eluding our Arguments than happie in confirming his owne But if it be certaine that Popish Faith wanteth the Suffrage of Diuine Testimonie then we haue sufficient cause to reiect their Doctrine And if wee could not demonstrate that the Articles which they maintaine against vs were contra verbum Dei contradictorie to the Word of God yet if by deficiencie of proofe on their side it appeare they be extra praeter without or besides the Word of God they cannot be the obiect of Diuine Faith Lastly I entreat all of our part to prayse God for the benefit of true Religion maintayned in our Church to auoid Contention among themselues for in all Ages the same hath proued pernicious and scandalous Also to be as deuout in the way of Pietie as Aduersaries seeme to be in the way of Superstition And because it hath euer beene an Honor to our Profession to be loyall and obedient to higher Powers let this be still an indelible Caracter of euery true Brittish Protestant to reioyce in the peaceable and happy Gouernment of his most sacred Maiestie let vs all so far as it is possible by our feruent votes and prayers striue to adde encrease to his dayes and happines Far be it from any of our part in their secret thoughts to misconster his actions or to entertaine the least iealousie of any abatement of his wonted loue to true Religion planted among vs for assuredly he vnderstands the Mysterie of Poperie too well to thinke any otherwise of it than formerly he hath done and no subiect can lay the Cause of Religion more neere their heart than his most Religious Maiestie doth And we haue all great cause to glorifie God who hath blessed our Church with such a wise and constant Defender of the Faith Now my Conscience vrgeth me to deliuer thus much concerning his Maiestie because the Aduersarie in some passages of his ensuing Treatise as by reading you shall obserue rhetoriseth suspitiously intending no doubt to raise some iealousie in credulous minds contrarie to this which I haue spoken My selfe therefore through the gracious Clemencie of his Maiestie being admitted to approach so neere as to be an eare-witnesse of his admirable Iudgement and constant Resolution in point of Religion and hereby certainely knowing that the Jesuit departing from the King added no improuement to his Popish Cause but vanished with foile and disgrace J trust J shall incurre no Censure from men iudicious and louers of Truth for certifying that which J obserued by mine owne experience And thus commending my Labors to the blessing of the Almightie to the examination of my Superiors in the Church and to the perusall of those which desire to read them I addresse my selfe to the ensuing Disputation April 10. 1624. THE CATALOGVE OF QVESTIONS DISPVTED in this Worke. 1. WHether of all other it be the most important Controuersie to vnderstand the Qualitie of the Romane Church Fol. 1. 2. Whether Diuine Faith be resolued finally into vnwritten Tradition or into Scripture 12 3. Touching the Visibilitie and Notes of the Church in generall 49 4. Whether the Romane Church is the Onely Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church 103 5. Whether Protestants erre fundamentally in the Faith 146 6. Whether Protestants erre fundamentally about Tradition 149 7. Whether they doe the like in their Doctrine about Generall Councels 152 8. Whether they erre by denying Papall Supremacie 157 9. Whether they erre in point of Iustification 161 10. Whether they erre in point of Merit of Good Works 169 11. Whether they doe the like concerning the Sacrament of Baptisme 175 12. Whether they erre in the Doctrine of Reall presence 178 13. Whether they doe the like about Penance and Absolution 185 14. Whether they erre about the Article of the Catholique Church 193 15. Touching Worship of Images 209 16. Concerning Inuocation of Saints departed 287 17. Touching prayer of the ignorant in an vnknowne Tongue 365 18. Concerning repetitions of Pater-Nosters Aues and Creeds with reference to Merit 384 19. Concerning Transubstantiation 390 20. Of Communion in one kind 459 21. Of workes of Supererogation and Popes Pardons 510 22. Of deposing Kings and giuing away of their Kingdomes by Papall power directly or indirectly 569 IESVIT TO THE KINGS MOST EXCELLENT MAIESTIE Most Gratious and dread Soueraigne A Conference about Religion betweene Doctour White and me was occasion that your Maiestie called mee to your Gratious presence not disdaining to dispute with one so meane and vnworthie as my selfe imitating his benignitie whose Vicegerent you are and according to the phrase of holy Scripture his Angell And as it is the propertie of the good Angell first to strike feare and terrour into them to whom hee appeares but in the end to leaue them full of comfort In like sort your Maiestie For though the first salutation carried a shew of seueritie yet your dismissing me was benigne and gratious not onely pardoning my earnestnesse in defending the part of the Catholike Church but also saying You liked me the better ANSVVER MIrum est si in facie hominis tantum interuallum inter frontem linguam vt frons non comprimat linguam It is strange saith St. Augustine that there should be such a great distance betweene the front of a man and his mouth that the shame of his forehead should not represse the impudencie of his tongue It is vntrue that his Royall Maiestie at the Cloase of the Conference whereof you speake gaue you any applause or the least occasion to coniecture That hee was taken with any passage of your Disputation For you propounded nothing to demonstrate your owne Tenet or to confute ours worthie of the great Presence to which you were admitted But you kept your selfe within your Trenches and sometimes you were driuen to dissemble your owne Tenet other-while according to the Romish manner by wyre-drawne distinctions and euasions to elude the waight of his Maiesties Arguments making good the saying of Maxentius Mens contentioni Indulgens non sanari sed vincere cupiens auersa ab eis quae rectè dicuntur tantum intenta est in hoc vt inueniat quod pro partibus suis loquatur A contentious mind desirous of victorie and not willing to be reformed but auerse from right sayings only deuiseth how to elude Truth and to speake for his owne part And as for those words of his royal Maiestie I like you the better they were vttered vpon this occasion When the Iesuit being pressed about the point of Temporall authoritie c. did at the first
Granting that some vulgar people and nouices in Faith may attaine beleefe concerning such verities of Christian Doctrine as are absolutely necessarie to Saluation by the Tradition of their Ancestors and Teachers without distinct and explicit resoluing their Faith into the Text of holy Scripture or the particular Bookes or Sections thereof But withall I deny that they can haue sauing Faith without resoluing the same into the doctrine of the Scriptures For example It is an Article of Faith necessarie to be beleeued by all Christians of riper yeres that Iesus Christ is the 〈◊〉 of the World and the same Article is reuealed and taught in many Texts of holy Scripture If a simple rurall person beleeue this Article taught him by his parents and other teachers he beleeueth the Doctrine of the Scripture and vertually grounds his Faith vpon the Scripture although hee know not the Bookes of the Scripture or the particular sentences contained in the same A man which drinketh water flowing from a fountaine or seeth day light although he haue no distinct knowledge of the fountaine or sight of the Sunne which is the cause of light yet hee receiueth water mediatly from the fountaine it selfe and his light principally from the Sunne so likewise rude and illiterate Christians reape the benefit and fruit of the Scriptures and vertually ground their Faith vpon them although they be not able distinctly to looke into them or to resolue their Faith into the seuerall parts and testimonies contained in them OBIECTION Vulgar andilliterate persons do not know or vnderstand the Scriptures neither can they be certaine by their owne knowledge that the same are truely translated in such points as the y are bound to beleeue therefore they cannot ground their Faith finally and lastly vpon the Scriptures ANSVVER 1. If this Obiection were good vulgar people could not ground their diuine Faith vpon Tradition because they haue not distinct knowledge of Tradition or of the qualitie or deriuation thereof Therefore I distinguish of Knowledge out of Bonauenture that the same is two fold to wit either confused and generall or distinct and speciall and a thing may be knowne two waies either in it selfe or in another If vulgar and illiterate people could know and vnderstand the Scriptures neither confusedly nor distinctly neither in themselues nor in any other thing then it were impossible that they should resolue their Faith into them but if they may know them by teaching of others and vnderstand the Doctrine of the Scriptures to be diuine by the light of heauenly veritie resplendent in the same and by the inward testimonie of the holy Spirit co-working with that Doctrine then it is possible for them to resolue their Faith into the Scripture because they which actually resolue their Faith into the Doctrine of the Scripture doe virtually and mediatly resolue the same into the verie Scripture euen as he that actually beleeueth the kings proclamation doth virtually beleeue the kings authoritie although he know the king or his authoritie confusedly and in generall only The Text of holy Scripture and the distinct sayings and sentences thereof are the principall and finall externall ground whereupon the whole bodie of the Church must ground their Faith But as there is a diuersitie of the members of the Church 1. Cor. 12.20 so likewise there is a difference betweene them in the manner of resoluing Faith for the stronger and firmer members are able to resolue their Faith distinctly into Scripture but the weaker members whose Faith as Bonauenture speaketh is diminuta seeble and imperfect in respect of the distinct apprehension of the obiect of Faith are guided by the stronger as children by a nurse And these little ones are taught the truth of heauenly Doctrine 1. By their parents or ecclesiasticall teachers and they know the Scriptures to be truely translated not by their owne skill but by crediting others which are able to iudge But being thus farre directed and persuaded by humane meanes then the light of Gods word it selfe by the power of Grace persuadeth them as a diuine cause to yeeld full assent to all such verities as are necessarie to be beleeued by them to saluation IESVIT And this is that which Protestants must meane if they haue any true meaning when they say that the common people knew Scriptures to be truely translated by the light of the Doctrine shining in true Translations to wit by the light of Doctrine receiued by Tradition of Ancestors and thereupon so firmely beleeue as they will acknowledge Scriptures to be truely translated so farre and no farther than they perceiue them consonant with the Faith deliuered vnto them so that their last and finall resolution for substantiall points is not into Scripture truly translated into their vulgar tongue but into Tradition by the light whereof they discerne that their Translations are true more or lesse according to the measure of knowledge they haue by Tradition ANSVVER The summe of the former obiection is Vnlearned people are not able without the helpe and instruction of others to resolue their Faith into the Scriptures Therefore the Scripture is not the finall and greatest stay and ground of Faith The Argument is denied for as in Arts and Sciences an vnskilfull person cannot resolue his knowledge into the first principles vntill he be taught the meaning of words and the sence of rules and precepts but when he is taught and vnderstandeth these then he maketh resolution into the very first principles themselues So likewise in beleeuing the Obiect of Faith must be taught the sence of the words and matter declared the grounds and reasons of credibilitie deliuered and then the beleeuer principally and immediately settles the resolution of his Faith not vpon these helps and instruments which are only dispofitiue and adiuuant causes but vpon the first principles themselues expressely or deriuatiuely contained in holy Scripture And whereas Dr. Ioh. Wh. is produced affirming in the behalfe of all Protestants that common people know Scriptures to be truely translated by the light of the Doctrine shining in true Translations First Dr. Wh. in the place assigned speaketh not in particular of common people but of the true Church in which are found many persons skilfull and learned Secondly he deliuereth other meanes besides the light of Doctrine whereby the Church may know that Translations are true to wit knowledge of Tongues rules of Art ministerie of the Word to which I adde analogie of Faith the testimonie of the 〈◊〉 Church and best learned in all ages All these are helpes and instruments of right Translations and when the Scriptures are translated they manifest their Author and sacred authoritie to such as in a right manner are conuersant in hearing or reading them And this is not only the Tenet of Protestants but besides the antient Fathers of moderate Papists themselues There is saieth one of them
such power in Scripture inspired of God that the maiestie of God shineth in it And this speech is the same in effect with that of Constantine the great reported by Theoderet Hist. li. 1. ca. 24. Obseruans fidem diuinam adipiscor lumen veritatis sequens lumen veritatis agnosco diuinam fidem Marking the diuine Faith I obtaine the light of Truth and following the light of Truth I acknowledge diuine Faith Quod est manifestatiuum alterius simul potest manifestare seipsum sicut lux quo actu prodit colores prodit seipsam cum ego quicquam loquor eadem locutione manifesto rem loguelam sayth Petrus de Lorca 22. q. 1. ar 1. disp 4. n. 8. That which is a manifestator of another thing may together manifest it selfe as appeareth inlight which doth manifest it selfe by the same act whereby it sheweth colours and by speech for when I speake by one and the same speech I manifest the thing spoken and mine owne speaking The same is affirmed by Peresius Canus Fra. Petigianus and it is so farre from being vnlikely that the holy Scripture when it is receiued doth manifest it selfe and his author that it is most absurd to imagine the contrarie for the Scripture is a diuine light Psal. 119.105.2 Pet. 1.19.2 Cor. 4. 6. And it is the voice and speech of God Luc. 1. 71. And the Iesuit cannot persuade any reasonable man to thinke that God almightie who bestowed tongues and voices vpon men with abilitie so to expresse themselues that others might vnderstand their voice and know them by it should speake himselfe in the Scripture so darkely and secretly that people when they are eleuated by grace cannot discerne the same to be his word or voice We know other creatures to be Gods worke by footsteps of his power wisdome and goodnesse appearing in them The holy Scripture excelleth all created things in wisdome and perfection it cannot therefore be destitute of signes and impressions to manifest vnto them which are inspired with grace vnto beleeuing that God himselfe is the author IESVITS 3. Argument If the mayne and substantiall points of Christian faith must be firmely knowne and beleeued before we can securely reade and truely vnderstand the holy Scriptures then the mayne and substantiall points of faith are beleeued not vpon Scripture but vpon Tradition precedently vnto Scripture This is cleare because true faith is not built but vpon Scripture truely vnderstood of man neither can Scripture vntill it be truely vnderstood of a man bee to him a ground of assured persuasion But we cannot vnderstand the Scripture securely and aright before wee know the substantiall Articles of faith which all are bound expresly to beleeue the summarie comprehension of which point is tearmed The rule of faith Tertul. de prescrip c. 13. ANSVVER The sequel of the Maior is denied It followeth not that although the mayne and substantiall points of faith must be firmely knowne and beleeued before we can securely reade and truely vnderstand the holy Scriptures in the particular texts and sections thereof therefore the said substantiall points are not beleeued vpon Scripture but vpon Tradition vnwritten The reason of the inconsequence is for that the mayne and substantiall points of faith may be knowne and beleeued by the doctrine of the Scripture touching the said points deliuered to people by those which haue faithfully collected the same into a Summarie out of the particular and distinct sentences of the holy Scriptures And they that beleeue this doctrine of the Scriptures may attaine the knowledge and faith of substantiall points of Christianity before themselues can reade and vnderstand the said Bookes yet they resolue not their faith into vnwritten Tradition according to the Popish meaning where by vnwritten Tradition is vnderstood doctrine of faith neither expresly nor inuoluedly contained in holy Scripture but into the doctrine of the Scripture collected and deliuered vnto them by others and vertually and immediately into the holy Scripture it selfe as I haue formerly shewed in answer to the second Argument That which followeth in the obiection touching the rule of faith prooueth not that Christian beliefe is resolued lastly and finally into vnwritten Tradition because the rule of faith is not such vnwritten Tradition as is neither exprefly nor by consequent contained in Scripture but a Summarie of the principall Articles of Christian 〈◊〉 contained in the Apostles Creed and which may be gathered out of the plaine texts and sentences of holy Scripture and therefore all they which resolue their faith into the said rule refolue the same also into the plaine doctrine of the Scripture And that the rule of faith is such it appeareth First by the branches and Articles of that rule which are I beleeue in God the Father Almighty c. And in Iesus Christ his onely Sonne our Lord c. With the rest of the Articles of the Apostles Creed reade 1. Cor. 15.1 2 3.1 Tim. 3.16 And Tertull. in the place alleaged by the Iesuite and in his Booke d. vel virg rehearsing the ancient rule of faith doth not mention any one Article which is not expresly or by deriuation contained in holy Scripture Secondly the rule of faith extendeth not it selfe beyond the bounds of the Gospel Gallath 1.8 Tertul. de prescript c. 6. but all the mayne and substantiall Articles of faith necessary to bee beleeued generally to saluation are contained in the plaine places of Euangelicall Scripture as both 〈◊〉 Augustine and learned Papists themselues affirme wherefore if the rule of faith be only a summarie comprehension of the mayne and substantiall Articles of Christianity and all these Articles are contained in holy Scripture then it followeth that the rule of faith is not vnwritten Tradition alone according to the Popish meaning but a Summarie of beleese contained in the plainer sentences of holy Scripture either expresly or by deduction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 li. 3. d. doct Christ. c. 2. saith Let a man seeke the rule of faith which he hath learned of 〈◊〉 places of Scripture and of the authoritie of the Church now the plainer places of Scripture are a part of Scripture and the authority of the Church exceedeth not the bounds of the Scripture according to St. Hierom. com Mich. c. 1. And Durand the famous Schooleman 2. dist 44. q. 3. n. 9. Out of the former definition of the rule of faith it followeth That because according to our Aduersaries doctrine the beleefe of Christians touching all maine and substantiall points of faith is resolued into the rule of faith and the said rule exceedeth not the limits of holy Scripture being onely a summarie comprehension of the principall heads of Christian doctrine collected from the plainer places of Scripture and propounded by the authority of the Church confined to Scripture that therefore the finall resolution of faith is not made into Tradition vnwritten
an vniforme Tradition of all ages that the place of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 3. 12. is vnderstood of Popish Purgatorie or Math. 16. 19. Iohn 20.23 of Iubilees and Indulgences or the place of Acts 10. 13. Rise Peter and kill of murthering Princes or of the temporall dominion of the Pope If the Papists would impose no other sence vpon the Scripture than such as is confirmed by vniforme Tradition the difference betweene them and vs would easily bee composed but these men euerie day hatch nouell expositions and when they are hunted out of one they flie to another They glorie of antiquitie succession vniforme Tradition and cry Victoria Inuincible Vnanswerable before the combate is finished but they are compelled to forge Authours to impose false expositions vpon the Texts of Fathers sometimes to abridge sometimes to inlarge the Tomes of Councells and to purge and corrade Ecclesiasticall writers old and new and yet being vnable to preuaile by all the former they are forced in many cases to presse the bare authoritie of the Pope and his adheres to warrant their Tradition IESVITS 3d. Argument My third proofe I ground vpon a principle most certaine and set downe by your most gratious Maiestie That the Roman Church was once the Mother Church and consequently the One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church all other Churches being her daughters and that she is not to be forsaken further than it can be prooued that she departed from her selfe that is from the Mother and originall Doctrine deliuered by the Apostles ANSWER This principle whereupon you ground your third Argument is neither true in it selfe nor yet confessed by his excellent Maiestie in the place whereunto you referre vs His Maiestie affirmeth That wee ought not to depart from the Church of Rome in Doctrine or Ceremonie further than she had departed from her selfe in her best estate and from Christ her head This sentence of our most religious King is consequent vpon S. Pauls doctrine Rom. 12. 18. Rom. 14. 13. and the same is consonant to Charitie and Reason and argueth a mind desirous of Concord and Peace and averse from vnnecessarie Innouations And as this moderation is commendable in all men so it is most agreeable to him that is a Father of peace whose word is Beati Pacifici But whereas you incroach vpon his Maiesties speech adding a glosse which is not warranted by the Text and infer a conclusion which the premises affoord not you are herein iniurious both to the Author you alleage and to the Truth The Roman was neuer by diuine institution the Mother Church in regard of all Christians neither Vniuersall in respect of an absolute command and iurisdiction ouer all particular Churches as is challenged by the Canon Dist. 12. c. 1. Non decet c. But it was once a Mother Church as the Seas of Patriarches are stiled Mother-Churches or a Mother-Church respectiuely to such people and nations as were conuerted by her preaching and other Churches were stiled with that title as well as the Roman Theoderet speaking of the Church of Hierusalem saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We make knowne vnto you that the most reuerend and godly Cyrill is made Bishop of Hierusalem which is the Mother of all Churches The Roman Church once a Metropolitan or patriarchall Mother Church since the daies of Hildebrand is suspected to be the Mother spoken of Apoc. 17. 5. and some of your owne part haue said that in these latter times Nontam se matrem exhibet quam Noueream she behaueth her selfe more like a stepdame than a naturall mother her brests haue beene verie drie for sundrie ages past and she depriued her children of a principall portion of the food of life and in steed of milke deliuered them water mixt with chaulke Her publicke readings and seruice were in an vnknowne tongue the holy Scriptures were closed vp that people might not cast their eies vpon them fabulous legends were read and preached in steed of Gods word and hereby it came to passe as some of their owne Authors say That the greater number of people vnderstood no more concerning God and things diuine than Infidels or Heathen people IESVIT But she cannot be prooued to haue changed her Doctrine since the Apostles by any monuments of Historie or Antiquitie yea the contrarie in my iudgement may be most euidently prooued in this sort ANSVVER If by monuments of Historie and Antiquitie be vnderstood Human or Ecclesiasticall Monuments it is inconsequent to inferre that the present Roman Church hath not changed her doctrine since the Apostles although this could not be demonstrated by monuments of Historie c. for there remaineth a more firme and demonstratiue Argument to prooue this to wit the holy Scripture and if the present doctrine of the Roman Church disagree with the Scripture then it is changed from that which it was antiently The rule by which we must trie doctrines is the word of God and not humane Historie and the word of God is true and abideth for euer whereas humane Historie is fallible contingent and corruptible 1. It is not absolutely necessarie that humane Histories of all matters should be composed and the world continued many ages without any written Historie Secondly When the same are written they cause onely humane Faith Thirdly they may totally perish and be suppressed or corrupted by the enemies of Truth Fourthly Historie may be repugnant to Historie and that which is affirmed by some may be contradicted or contrauerted by others and the largenesse and difficultie of the Monuments of Antiquitie may be such as that few people can be able to read and examine them and if they which read and compare them be opposite in iudgement each to other the greater part of people shall be perplexed and cannot know how to resolue themselues Our Aduersaries teach vs That the principall Monuments of Antiquitie to wit the ancient Councels haue not beene faithfully preserued Many things supposititious haue beene added to the workes of the Antient and bastardly Bookes and Sentences passe vnder the titles of Fathers Our Aduersaries being a party whose doctrine is to be examined according to their owne challenge by Monuments of Antiquitie haue presumed to correct purge and alter such Records Lastly when the testimonie of Historians repugnant to their present Tenet is produced against Papals they despise and reiect them to wit Eusebius Socrates Sozomene c. Baronius a new vpstart censureth all Historians Pighius after one thousand yeares controls the testimonie of generall Councels and it is a rule among them that the antient Fathers then much lesse Histories are not to be 〈◊〉 any 〈◊〉 than they 〈◊〉 the keyes and 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 Church IESVIT The Doctrines that were for diuers ages vniuersally receiued in the Christian Church and no time of their beginning is assigneable
repugnant to Catholike faith and most conformeable to pietie To Elysius I adde Cassander a moderate and peaceable Romane in his Booke d. Baptismo Infantum which with many authorities and weightie Arguments defendeth the same doctrine concerning Infants against the common straine of rigorous Pontificians And thus againe our braine-sicke Aduersarie fighteth against pietie and humanitie obiecting that against Protestants as a fundamentall errour which moderate Romists themselues propugne as the more safe and tollerable Doctrine IESVIT SEauenthly Their errour against Reall Presence which they denie or else the mayne Article of the Creed That Christ is still in heauen at the right hand of his Father for they will not allow a bodie in two places at once ANSWER THe more learned Iesuites themselues acknowledge That Protestants beleeue the reall Presence of Christs Bodie and Blood in the holy Eucharist and our Diuines deliuer their Faith concerning the Sacrament in this manner God forbid wee should denie that the flesh and bloud of Christ are truly present and truly receiued of the faithfull at the Lords Table it is the Doctrine wee teach others and comfort our selues with The difference then betweene Papals and vs is not concerning the obiect or matter receiued in and by the Sacrament but touching the manner of Presence and the manner of Receiuing Caluin saith thus concerning the difference That the bodie and bloud of Christ are communicated to vs in the holy Eucharist none of vs denie the question is concerning the manner of this communication The sacred Scripture neither expressely nor yet by any formall consequence teacheth the Doctrine of Transubstantiation as some learned Papists themselues confesse neither is this Doctrine any part of the antient Catholique Faith as some other among them say The Fathers are against Transubstantiation The mysticall signes saith Theodoret doe not after sanctification depart from their owne nature but remaine in their former substance figure and forme The Sacraments which wee receiue of the bodie and bloud of Christ saith Pope Gelasius are a diuine thing and by them wee are made partakers of the Diuine Nature and yet for all that the nature of Bread and Wine ceaseth not to be After consecration saith S. Chrysostome it is deliuered from the name of Bread and reputed worthie to be called the Lords Bodie notwithstanding the nature of Bread still remaineth The signes as touching the substance of the creatures are the same after consecration which they were before saith Bertram To the other part of the Iesuits speech Or else the maine Article c. I answer first we cannot graunt That one indiuiduall Bodie may be in many distant places at one and the same instant vntill the Papals demonstrate the possibilitie hereof by testimonie of sacred Scripture or by the antient Tradition of the Primitiue Church or by apparent reason And if they shall except saying That they make not Christs bodie locally present in many places at once but substantially onely wee say with Augustine Spacia locorum tolle corporibus nusquam erunt quia nusquam erunt nec erunt Take away their places from bodies and the bodies shall be no where and if they shall be no where they shall haue no being And in another place Corpora non possunt esse nisi in loco Bodies cannot be but in some place And againe Christus homo secundum corpus in loco est de loco migrat cum ad alium locum venerit in eo loco vnde venit non est The man Christ is in a place according to his Bodie and hee passeth from place to place and when hee commeth to another place hee is not in that place from whence hee came The Papals paralogize saying That because circumscription and localitie are not of the essence of the bodie therefore by the omnipotent power of God the bodie may be without them But if this illation be good then wee may likewise inferre That because to be created made or begotten is not of the definition of humane bodies therefore humane bodies by the omnipotencie of God may be increate and without beginning The learned Iulius Scaliger speaketh in this manner Tametsi quod non includitur in definitione abesse potest à definito in definitione non omne tamen abesse potest à re definita Propria enim quae vocantur in definitione non ponuntur à re tamen abesse nequeunt cuius propria sunt Etsi namque sunt natura suis subiectis posteriora non tamen re c. Qua necessitate coniunctum cum corpore locum arbitror Although that which is not included in the definition may be separated from the thing defined in the very definition yet it cannot be parted from the subiect or thing which is defined for the essentiall properties of things are not placed in the definition yet they cannot be diuided from the subiect whose properties they be And although by posterioritie of nature they follow the subiects yet indeed they are inseparable And thus place or circumscription is inseparably conioyned with a bodie Secondly The bodie of Christ in the Eucharist hath magnitude and quantitie as Aquinas and other Schoolemen commonly teach But things which haue magnitude and quantitie are diuisible and limitted and confined to a certaine space and measure equall to their bulke and materiall substance also they haue distance of parts and are extended at leastwise in order to themselues and bounded by their owne termination compasse or surface although nothing extrinsecall to them should containe them outwardly as is instanced in the highest Heauens When Sophisters say That Christs bodie hath quantitie and not the manner or nature of quantitie they deliuer plaine Chimaera's and Fictions For as a thing cannot be a substance and want the proper nature and manner of a substance so likewise a bodie cannot haue quantitie and want the proper manner and condition of quantitie And whereas to elude so manifest Veritie Papists flye to the Omnipotencie of God saying That although in nature it be impossible for one and the same bodie to be in many places at once yet because God is omnipotent hee is able to effect it Wee answer first it implyeth a contradiction That God should destroy the nature of a thing the nature of the same thing remaining safe Secondly wee say with Tertullian The power of God which we must stand of is his Will and that which he Will not he cannot And S. Augustine Christ is said to be omnipotent in doing what he Will. Nothing is impossible to God because it exceedeth his power saith S. Ambrose but some things are repugnant to his Will and some things to his veritie Tit. 1. 2. And the impossibilitie of these things proceedeth not of Infirmitie in God but of Might and Maiestie because his Truth admitteth
prime foundation of Christianitie is Christ himselfe 1. Cor. 3. 11. 1. Pet. 2.6 The Church is the seruant and Spouse of Christ the House of God whereof Christ himselfe is the grand Lord and Builder But wee haue learned in the Gospell That the seruant is not greater than his Lord Ioh. 13. 16. Hereupon S. Augustine Enchyrid cap. 56. Good order requireth that the Church be placed after the Trinitie as an House after the Inhabiter his Temple after God and the Citie after the Founder And if the Aduersarie replie That although it be a lesse Article in regard of the Obiect yet the denyall thereof is of greater consequence because it maketh men guiltie of Heresie c. I answere Granting that the denyall of the whole Article being rightly expounded maketh men Heretickes but I denie that a Christian which beleeueth this Article is no Hereticke if hee beleeue and maintaine any Errour against the plaine Doctrine of the holy Scripture which hee knoweth or which hee is bound Necessitate 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 to know beleeue and maintaine Saint Hierom vpon the Galathians saith Whosocuer to wit in waightie points vnderstandeth the Scriptures otherwise than the sence of the holy Ghost whereby they were written requireth may bee called an Hereticke although hee depart not out of the Church Tertullian saith Whatsoeuer in points Diuine and Sacred is repugnant to Veritie is Heresie Albertus saith Hee is an Hereticke which followeth his owne opinion and not the iudgement of the Scripture Occham Hee is an Hereticke which with a pertinacious minde imbraceth any Errour the contradictorie doctrine whereof is contained in holy Scripture Two things constitute an Hereticke First Errour and false Doctrine as the materiall Secondly Malicious and pertinacious adhearing to the same or defending the same as the formall A man may haue both these without any explicite denying the Article of the Catholicke Church For the Trueth which hee gainesayeth may be plainely deliuered in the holy Scripture and hee may reade the same and haue sufficient meanes to know it in the Scripture and maliciously or inordinately resist the holy Ghost speaking by the Scriptures Act. 7.51 Our Sauiour condemneth some for Heretickes calling them false Prophets Murtherers and Theeues Mat. 7.15 Ioh. 10.5 Not because they opposed the present Church for some of these were principall Rulers of the Iewish Church Mat. 23.1 but because they taught and beleeued contrarie to the Scriptures Mat. 22.29 Saint Augustine d. Bapt. c. Don. li. 4. c. 16. speaketh not altogether as the Iesuit 〈◊〉 him but saith onely That hee would not affirme of such a person who being baptised in the 〈◊〉 Church beleeued as Photinus the hereticke did supposing the same to be Catholicke Faith that he was an hereticke he absolutely affirmeth not that such a person was no Hereticke but that hee would not pronounce him an Hereticke before hee was conuicted And hee speaketh of Heretickes not as they were in foro coeli according to the iudgement of God but in foro Ecclesiae according to Ecclesiasticall Censure Neither doth hee speake of persons sufficiently conuicted by plaine euidence of holy Scripture and maliciously and inordinately resisting the Truth but of simple Errants misled and seduced through ignorance or infirmitie Doctor Field whose learned Treatise of the Church is nibbled at by Papists but yet remaines vnanswered by them is censured by this Obiectour for saying without any Proofe that an Errant against a fundamentall point is an Hereticke though he erre without pertinacie But the Iesuit reporteth amisse when hee saith Doctor Field deliuered this Assertion without Proofe for in the Margine of his Booke he confirmeth the same by the testimonies of Gerson and Occham two famous Doctors of the Roman Church And it is remarkeable that the Iesuit censuring the Doctour himselfe produceth no Argument out of diuine Authoritie to confirme his owne Position but resteth onely vpon the single testimonie of one Father which as I haue alreadie shewed speaketh not to his purpose IESVIT Hence Jinferre that Protestants erre fundamentally according to the second kind of erring to wit in the manner in all points they hold against the Romane Church which I haue prooued to be the true Catholicke Church For he that holds any priuate opinion so stiffely as rather than forsake them he denyes and abandons the Catholike Church a mayne Article of his Creed erreth fundamentally as is cleare But Protestants hold their priuate opinions so stifly as thereupon they haue denied and abandoned the Catholicke Church to wit the Romane ANSWER The mayne Proposition of this Section to wit Protestants 〈◊〉 fundamentally according to the second kinde of erring c. is denied and the Assumption of the Syllogisme whereby the Obiectour laboureth to prooue the same is palpably vntrue For Protestants maintaine no priuate opinion either stiffely or remissely whereby they haue denied and abandoned the true Catholicke Church First They maintaine no doctrine as matter of Faith but that which is deliuered in holy Scripture and which consenteth with the Primitiue Church either expresly or virtually But such doctrine is not priuate opinion because the holy Ghost which is the supreame gouernour and directour of the Church and the Prophets and Apostles which were inspired from heauen are the Authours thereof Secondly The Romane Church is not the Catholicke Church but an vnsound part of the generall visible Church as it is prooued by the Learned of our part whereunto the Aduersaries haue as yet made no replie IESVIT Neither doth it import that they retaine the word hauing reiected the sence seeing not the letter of the Creed pronounced but the matter beleeued makes men Christians Neither is it enough to say that they beleeue the Church of the Elect seeing the Church of the Creed is not the Church of the onely Elect a meere fancie but the visible and conspicuous Church continuing from the Apostles by sucsion of Bishops which thus I prooue ANSWER We retaine both the words and the sence of the Article and the Catholicke Church in the Apostles Creed in respect of the militant part thereof is a Church of right beleeuers and especially of iust and holie persons and principally and intentionally and as it comprehendeth both the militant and triumphant the congregation of all the elect for this Church is the mysticall and liuing bodie which Christ saueth Ephes. 5. 23. It is the Church of the first borne which are written in Heauen Heb. 12.23 It is the Church builded vpon the Rocke against which the gates of Hell shall not preuaile either by Haeresie Temptation or mortall Sinne Math. 16. 18. Math. 7.24 And if it be a meere fancie to hold this then Gregorie the Great with many other of the antiēt Fathers were fantasticks for teaching in this manner But the Church of the Creed is not alwaies the Church Hierarchicall for the Church in the
hath at any time among vs beene infected with the Humaniformian errour by hearing or reading the Bible I maruell also why you ranke not the Apostles Creed among prohibited Bookes as well as vulgar translations of the Bible for ignorant people rehearsing the article He sitteth at the right hand of God might more easily imagine God to be corporeall than by reading Scripture because herein that which in one Text is deliuered metaphorically is plainely and spiritually declared in other Texts and the like is not done in the briefe summarie of the Creed But on the contrarie many of your owne Doctors formerly cited complaine of the brutish superstition committed by sundrie of your people in worshipping Images It may be they thinke not the Images which they adore to be verie God for Heathen people were scarcely so rude yet they may beleeue they are the seat of God and that some diuine maiestie and power is inhabiting in them or that they are diuine instruments to conuey graces and benefits to people which adore them and that in worshipping them they merit saluation and the like Now as for the letter of sacred Scripture if any rude person should sucke errour from thence the offence is taken and not giuen for the reading thereof is lawfull and holy But when Roman Masters impose adoration of Images vpon simple people if these be ensnared by that action the scandall is actiue and it is extreme presumption in the Roman Clergie to prescribe a forme of worship neuer approoued or commended but alwaies censured by holy writ which being omitted can hurt none but being obserued endangereth many Lastly you censure Tertullian for holding the Deitie to be corporeall but S. Augustine to whom you referre vs expoundeth his Tenet more fauourably affirming that he was no Heriticke in this point because he may be expounded as speaking figuratiuely and by Corpus a bodie he might vnderstand a thing substantiall reall immutable quia non est nihil non est inanitas non est qualitas c. he is not nothing an inanitie a qualitie or accident but abideth firme and inuariable in his nature Neither yet affirmeth S. Augustine either of himselfe when he was a Manichee or of Tertullian that they were lead into their error by reading the Scripture And it is more probable that the Manichees sucked their false opinion from the Gentiles rather than from the letter of the Scriptures because they wholly reiected the old Testament in which principally is found the description of the Deitie by figures of things corporeal neither regarded they Apostolicall Scriptures but coined a Gospell according to their owne fancie IESVIT More our Children and ignorant people are in the Catholicke Church often and plentifully instructed against such errors as by our Catechismes may appeare and particularly by Jesuits who make a solemne vow to keepe their Institutes specially about teaching the rudiments of Faith vnto common and ignorant people Hence it is that in townes where they dwell and villages about on Sundaies and holy daies besides their Sermons for people more intelligent they teach without faile vnto children and men of ruder sort the forme of Christian Doctrine and vse all industry by giuing rewards vnto children and by bestowing almes on poore people to make them willing and diligent in this learning In the English Church what is done for the instruction of the ignorant in their rudiments of Faith by Ministers and Pastors as I know not much so will I say nothing but only that the time they spend in the praises of sole Faith and about the secrets of Predestination and in long bitter inuectiues against our Doctrines misvnderstood if not purposely misrelated might in my opinion more profitably bee spent in declaring the Creed and prime Principles of Christianitie in plaine and Catechisticall manner ANSVVER How plentifull your instruction of ignorant people at this present time is I will not examine but it is not long since some of the best learned of your part affirmed That throughout the whole Christian state there was so extreame sloath concerning these things that one should finde many in all places expresly knowing no more concerning God and things Diuine than Pagans And Espenceus vpon the 2. Tim. 3. n. 17. pag. 118. saith Are children well and religiously educated yea according to that Propheticall derision Esay 65. Children of an hundred yeeres that is aged and decrepite Christians trust as much and yeeld as much to Saints as to God and thinke that God is lesse mercifull and harder to bee intreated than Saints I knew saith this Authour an antient and noble Knight who being demanded What hee beleeued concerning the holy Ghost confessed freely like 〈◊〉 Ephesians Acts 19. That he 〈◊〉 not whether there was any holy Ghost Also the Catechismes of Ledesma Bellarmine c. are extant wherein few instructions are found sufficient to preuent the former errour whereinto ignorant people may easily fall You descend in the next place to depresse the English Church accusing the Pastors thereof of negligence in teaching the Principles of Christian Faith and spending their time in the praises of sole Faith and about the secrets of Predestination and making Inuectiues against your Doctrine misvnderstood But you looke vpon vs with an euill eye and your Aspersions are enuious First the Canons of our Church impose catechising no lesse than preaching and the negligence of delinquents in discharging this duty is punishable by Ecclesiasticall censures Secondly the faith which our Ministers are to preach according to the doctrine of the Church of England is a liuely and operatiue Faith and this Faith alone and no other can iustifie and saue the soule Thirdly it is not lawfull for Preachers to spend their time in confuting Papists vnlesse they vnderstand their Tenet and are able to prooue the same to be wicked and false And although our Tenet concerning Predestination be no other than what Saint Augustine and his schollers maintained against the Pelagians and which hath beene holden Orthodoxall by the best learned in the Church of Rome it selfe yet our Church is most cautelous in preuenting offences which may ariseby vndiscreet handling of this doctrine and a most prouident restraint is made among vs in this behalfe by superiour authoritie I might here retort vpon the Aduersarie the abuses of his owne Church in all or some of these kinds but this were to wander from the disputation and to giue occasion of further excursion to one Cui verbosa lingua est cor vero obtenebratum as S. Cyril anciently spake IESVIT Besides it is easie for the Romane Church to keepe her children from beleeuing that Images be Gods or true liuing things or that any diuinitie or diuine vertue resides in them as may be prooued conuincingly in my iudgement by experience had of her power in this kind about a point more difficile For what may seeme more euident than that a consecrated Host
vpon the Doctrine and by the power of the holy Ghost is farre more vnreasonable than to forsake that which is exhibited by a dead and dumbe picture Thirdly your counterfeit Athanasius is a child of darkenesse not placed at all in the workes of Athanasius by your selues read the seuerall impressions of this Author at Rome Paris Basill c. Anno 1520 1555 1564 1572 1581 1582 1598 1608 and there is no such worke of his to be found and therefore Harding Turrian Gretsar and your selfe abuse the world in alleading such bastardly stuffe IESVIT And therefore the danger of ignorant peoples erring by Jmages is without reason so much insisted vpon by Protestants their English Translation being as I haue shewed a more dangerous blocke for fooles to stumble at and so fall into damnable errors If they presume that by diligent instruction they may and would haue vs thinke that they doe preserue their people from that error why should they not thinke that the Roman Church being so potent with her children can keepe them from the foolish error of attributing life and diuinitie vnto dead and dumbe Images and that shee will so doe being so strictly commanded by the Councell of Trent to vse her greatest diligence in this point that ignorant people fall not into error by any Image which otherwise haue many profits and vtilities ANSWER It is possible for ignorant people notwithstanding admonitions to worship Images not thinking actually of the Prototype and in this case their worship is terminate in the verie Image But it is needlesse for vs to insist vpon the matter of abuse for if the thing it selfe to wit adoration of Images be vnlawfull then it is in vaine to deliuer precepts and cautions to moderate excesse in the performance of it But that adoration of Images is vnlawfull it hath formerly beene prooued by the words of the morall Law and the perpetuall practise of the Iewish Church and of the Primitiue Church for certaine ages which neither worshipped Images and which reiected in a manner all vse of them in religion IESVIT About which J will not inlarge my selfe but onely mention some of them The first is an easie and compendious way of instruction in which respect they are tearmed by S. Gregorie The Bookes of the vnlearned and as another Gregorie saith The silent Pictures speakes in the wall and profiteth very much ANSWER This reason whether it be true or false serueth onely to commend the Historicall vse of Images and yet some learned Papists reiect this kind of teaching by Images and Pictures Among which Durand saith Ei autem quod dictum est quod Imagines sunt Laicorum literae obuiat illud Euangelij habent Mosen Prophetas The sentence of the Gospell They haue Moses and the Prophets let them heare them is repugnant to that which is spoken by some Images are lay-mens Bookes IESVIT The second is to increase in men that keepe and honor them the loue of God and his Saints which effect S. Chrisostome experienced as he testifieth saying J loloued a Picture of melted waxe full of Pietie And S. Gregorie the Great saith They inflame men that behold them in the loue of their Lord and Sauiour The third is to moue and incite men to the imitation of the vertues of Christ and his Saints which vtilitie S. Basill doth declare and highly esteeme in his Sermon of the fortie Martyres And examples might be brought of men reclaimed by sight of godly Images euen in the 〈◊〉 of sinfull affection The fourth is to stay our thoughts vpon Christ and his passion that our imaginations in prayer may not so easily wander which vse of Images Catholickes in their deuotions do often experience Finally that in his Jmage wee may honour Christ the honour of the Image redounding to the originall and who crowneth the Kings Image honoureth the King whose Image it is saith S. Ambrose In which kind memorable is the deuotion of our victorious and religious King Canutus who tooke the Diademe that he vsed to weare on his owne head and there with crowned an Image of Christ crucified which in his daies was deuoutly reserued in the Church of S. Peter and S. Paul in Winchester and afterwards would neuer haue any crowne come on his head out of humble reuerence to his crucified Lord. ANSWER It is againe to little purpose to examine the places of the Fathers here produced concerning the vtilitie which may follow vpon the visible aspect of Pictures Images for all these testimonies serue only to commend Historicall vse but they prooue not Adoration Also the vtilitie of Images mentioned by them is spoken onely according to their humane opinion But that Images by diuine institution haue such vtilitie or that God Almightie hath promised in his word any such effects and blessings vnto them is not affirmed by the Fathers neither can it be warranted by diuine reuelation S. Ambrose Serm. 10. in Psalm 118. treateth of the liuely Images of God to wit iust persons poore afflicted people the members of Christ these Images he exhorteth vs to honour illustrating his Doctrine by an humane similitude which is He that crowneth the Image of the Emperour honoureth him whose Image he crowneth c. Then he applieth the former similitude saying By honouring the liuely Images of Christ we worship Christ himselfe But speaking of dead Statues and Pictures he addeth Gentiles lignum adorant quia Dei Imaginem putant sed inuisibilis Dei Imago non in 〈◊〉 est quod videtur Gentiles adore wood thinking it the Image of God but the Image of the inuisible God is in that which is inuisible and not in it which is seene As for your storie of Canutus the first Danish king raigning in England wherewith you close vp your question of Images you name no Author that so we might haue examined the qualitie of Canutus his action and if the same happened according to your report yet it is not antient because it was a thousand yeeres and more after Christ Neither is the consequence necessarie that because he placed his Crowne vpon an Image of the Crucifixe therefore he worshipped the Image for Iacob powred oyle vpon the top of a Pillar Gen. 28.18 yet his Oblation was made onely to the Deitie and not to the Pillar Lastly Let it be obserued that our Aduersarie hath manifested wonderous weakenesse in this Romish Article concerning worship of Images for he hath not throughout his whole disputation produced one plaine Text of holy Scripture or one cleare sentence of Antiquitie proouing the necessitie or lawfulnesse of Iconolatrie Wherefore I conclude that this doctrine is destitute of all diuine authoritie written or vnwritten and consequently that they are impostors which impose the same as a necessarie dutie vpon the Church of Christ. The Second and Third Point PRAYINGS AND OFFERING OBLATIONS TO THE B. Virgin MARY WORSHIPPING AND Inuocation
word of any definition of the Church therefore Ea Res That thing by which he answered was a Foundation of prime and settled Scripture Doctrine not any definition of the Church Therefore that which he tooke from the Foundation of the Church to fasten the Stone that shooke was not a definition of the Church but the Foundation of the Church it selfe the Scripture vpon which it builded as appeareth in the Mileuitan Councell where the Rule by which Pelagius was condemned is the Rule of Scripture Rom. 5.12 Therefore S. Augustine goes on in the same sense That the Disputor is not to be borne any longer that shall endeuour to shake the Foundation it selfe vpon which the whole Church is grounded Secondly If S. Augustine did meane by Founded and Foundation the definition of the Church because of these words This thing is founded This is made firme by full authoritie of the Church and the words following these To shake the foundation of the Church yet it can neuer follow out of any or all these Circumstances and these are all That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall in the Faith For first no man denyes but the Church is a Foundation That things defined by it are founded vpon it And yet hence it cannot follow That the thing that is so founded is Fundamentall in the Faith for things may be founded vpon humane Authoritie and be verie certaine yet not Fundamentall in the Faith Nor yet can it follow This thing is founded therefore euerie thing determined by the Church is founded Againe that which followes That those things are not to be opposed which are made firme by full Authoritie of the Church cannot conclude they are therefore fundamentall in the Faith For full Church Authoritie is but Church Authoritie and Church Authoritie when it is at full Sea the time that included the Apostles being past and not comprehended in it is not simply Diuine therefore the Sentence of it not fundamentall in the Faith And yet no erring Disputor may be endured to shake the Foundation which the Church in Councell layes But plaine Scripture with euident sense or a full demonstratiue argument must haue roome where a wrangling and erring Disputor may not be allowed it And there 's neither of these but may conuince the definition of the Councell if it be ill founded And the Articles of the Faith may easily prooue it is not fundamentall if in deed and veritie it be not so And the B. hath read some bodie that sayes Is it not you That things are fundamentall in the Faith two wayes One in their Matter such as are all things as be so in themselues the other in the Manner such as are all things that the Church hath defined and determined to be of Faith And that so some things that are de modo of the manner of being are of Faith But in plaine truth this is no more than if you should say Some things are fundamentall in the Faith and some are not For wrangle while you will you shall neuer be able to prooue That any thing which is but de modo a consideration of the manner of being onely can possibly be fundamentall in the Faith And since you make such a Foundation of this place I will a little view the Mortar with which it is laid by you it is a venture but I shall find it vntempered Your assertion is All Points defined by the Church are fundamentall your proofe this place Because that is not to be shaken which is setled by full authoritie of the Church Then it seemes your meaning is that this Point there spoken of The remission of 〈◊〉 sinne in Baptisme of Infants was defined when S. Augustine wrote this by a full Sentence of a Generall Councell First If you say it was Bellarmine will tell you it is false and that the Pelagian Heresie was neuer condemned in an Oecumenicall Councell but only in Nationalls But Bellarmine is deceiued for while they stood out impudently against Nationall Councels some of them defended Nestorius which gaue occasion to the first Ephesine Councell to excommunicate and depose them And yet this will not serue your turne for this place For S. Augustine was then dead and therefore could not meane the Sentence of that Councell in this place Secondly And if you say it was not then defined in an Oecumenicall Synod plena Authoritas Ecclesiae the full Authoritie of the Church there mentioned doth not stand properly for the Decree of an Oecumenicall Councell but for some Nationall as this was condemned in a Nationall Councell and then the full Authoritie of the Church here is no more than the full Authoritie of this Church of Africke And I hope that Authoritie doth not make all Points defined by it to be Fundamentall You will say Yes if that Councell be confirmed by the Pope And I must euer wonder why S. Augustine should say The full Authoritie of the Church and not bestow one word vpon the Pope by whose Authoritie onely that Councell as all other haue their fulnesse of Authoritie in your iudgement An inexpiable omission if this Doctrine concerning the Pope were true F. Secondly J required to know what Points the B. would account Fundamentall Hee said All the Points of the Creed were such B. Against this I hope you except not For since the Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the two Regular Precepts by which a Diuine is gouerned about the Faith since your owne Councell of Trent decrees That it is that Principle of Faith in which all that professe Christ doe necessarily agree Et Fundamentum firmum vnicum not the firme alone but the onely Foundation since it is Excommunication ipso iure for any man to contradict the Articles contained in that Creed since the whole body of the Faith is so contained in the Creed as that the substance of it was beleeued euen before the comming of Christ though not so expressely as since in the number of the Articles since Bellarmine confesses That all things simply necessarie for all mens saluation are in the Creed and the Decalogue What reason can you haue to except And yet for all this euerie thing Fundamentall is not of a like neerenesse to the Foundation nor of equall Primenesse in the Faith And the B. graunting the Creed to be Fundamentall doth not denie but that there are Quaedam prima Credibilia Certaine prime Principles of Faith in the bosome whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded vp One of which since Christ is that of S. Iohn Euery Spirit that confesseth Iesus Christ come in the flesh is of God And one both before the comming of Christ and since is that of S. Paul He that comes to God must beleeue that God is and that he is a