Christian deuided amongst themselues and notorious changers According to this notion the Church is euer visible sensible to all men euen vnto her very enemies For not only Iewes and Infidels but euen Heretickes know in their conscience and sometimes acknowledge in words that the Church is truly Catholike So long as the Church according to this notion of Catholicke is in the sight of the world the world hath sufficient meanes of saluation They that see with their eyes which Religion is Catholicke may easily find out the truth For it is cleer to common reason that the Catholike Doctrine is the Apostles cleere by common discourse that the Apostles miraculous preaching was of God and that God being the prime verity his doctrine ought to be receaued as the truth of saluation On the other side if the Church according to the notion of Catholike be hidden and the light therof lost there is no ordinary meanes left for men to know what the Apostles taught nor consequently what God by inspiration reuealed vnto them We must begin againe anew from a second fountaine of immediat reuelation from God and build vpon the new planting of Religion with miracles in the world by some recent Prophet And if this be absurd then there must euer be in the world a Church whose Tradition is illustriously Catholicke and consequently shewing it selfe to be the Apostles vnto all men that will not be obstinate visible and conspicuous For the Traditiōs of the Church must euer be famous glorious and most notoriously knowne in the world that a Christian may truly say with S. Augustine de vtilit cred c. 17. I belieue nothing but the consent of Nations and countries and most celebrious fame Now if the Church were hidden secret inuisible in any age then her Traditions could not be Doctrines euer illustriously knowne but rather obscure hidden Apocriphall Ergo the Church the mistresse pillar and foundation of truth must be alwaies visible and conspicuous which if need be may be further proued most euidently Thirdly that this Church is Apostolicall and that apparently descending from the Apostolicall Sea by succession of Bishops (d) The Church that hath a lineall succession of Bishops from the Apostles famous and illustrious whereof not one hath beene opposite in religion to his immediate predecessour proues euidently that this Church hath the doctrin of the Apostles for as in the ranke of 300. stones ranged in order if no two stones be found in that line of different colour then if the first be white the second is white so the rest vnto the last euen so if there be a succession of 300. Bishops all of the same Religion if the first haue the Religion of the Apostles and of Peter the second likewise hath the same and so the rest euen vntill the last vsque ad Confessionem generis humani euen to the acknowledgment of humane kind as S. Augustine l. de vtil Cred. cap. 17. speaketh for how could the Tradition of Christian Doctrine be eminently and notoriously Apostolicall if the Church deliuering the same hath not a (e) The Minister sayth p. 67. circa finem That this note of succession makes nothing against the Church of England because their Pastors and Bishops are able to exhibite a pedigree or deriuation both of their ministery and doctrine from the Apostles This is ridiculous For if they can really exhibite such a pedigree and deriuation of their fayth in all ages from Christ to Luther why do they still keepe vs in suspence and neuer exhibite the same which we so earnestly beg at their hands Let them but name the Church or Pastour that did commit vnto Luther the Ministery of preaching his doctrines against the Roman religion The Roman Church made him priest gaue him cōmission to preach her doctrine but to preach agaynst her Religion who gaue him order That commission to preach seeing he had it not frō any Church as is manifest he had it eyther from himselfe coyning a religion of his owne head out of Scripture vnderstood in his owne manner or from Satan with whome he conferred and vnto whose arguments he yielded as himselfe doth witnes Tom. 7. Wittenberg fol. 228. or els immediatly from God and then he ought to haue made this immediate reuelation knowne by miracles Let not Ministers therfore idly say we can exhibite a pedigree feeding vs with wordes but affoard vs present payment of so long an exacted debt If they know the pedegree of their faith the labour is not great to write the names of their Ancestours in euery age That done they may rest For if we cannot demonstrate that these their pretended Ancestours were eyther Catholike Romans or else opposite one to another in substantiall points and this by as authentike records as they do to prooue they held some points of their Religion the victory shall be theirs Is it possible they should thus delude men by saying we can exhibite and yet neuer do it manifest and conspicuous pedigree or deriuation from the Apostles Which is a conuincing argument vsed by the same S. Augustine Epist. 48. circa medium How can we thinke that we haue receiued manifestly Christ if we haue not also receiued manifestly his Church It is a principle of Philosophy Propter quod vnum quodque tale illud magis but the name of Christ his glory his vertues his miracles are to the world famously knowne frō age to age by reason of the Church her preaching who in her first Pastors saw him with their eies Ergo this Church must needes be more famous more illustrious as able to giue fame euen vnto the being and doctrine and actions of Christ. Fourthly this Church is One that is all the Pastors (f) The Minister pag. 108. lin 14. alleadgeth the differences amongst Schoolemē particularly betwixt Dominicās Iesuits about the manner of explicating the efficacy of Grace as an argument that the Roman Church wants vnity of faith as much as Protestants I answer this is Idle these differences not being in matters of faith If Scholmen should preach different doctrines as matters of fayth condemning ech other as Heretikes and the Church this notwithstanding should alow of both sides as her children then there should be in the Church disunion in fayth But the Roman Church doth not allow such dissonant Preachers only she permitteth them to differ in matters they teach as greater probability and priuate opinion If any preach their priuate probabilityes as Doctrines and as matters of fayth condemning others as heretikes except they recall their censure the Roman Church shutteth them out of her communion not permitting disunion in faith For such permittāce would vtterly discredit the authority of her preaching shew that euen in matters of faith she is a Church to be belieued no further thē seene and Preachers therof deliuer and consequently all her professors and children belieue one the same fayth For if the Preachers and Pastors
as by the word of God we know may be graunted only it doth rashly apply Gods extraordinary fauours to persons without sufficient warrant The second errour is that though Baptisme be the ordinary meanes of saluation for Infants yet in defect therof there is also another ordinary meanes for their saluation to wit the fayth of their Parents This errour is grosse because it presumes without the word of God written or vnwritten to appoint an ordinary meanes of saluation for Infants This doctrine is taught by Protestants but no Catholike holds it Caietan once held it with submission vnto the Church which hath razed it out of his bookes The third errour is that the children of faythfull Parents are iustifyed by the promise made to their seed and are Gods adopted children before they be borne so that Baptisme doth not truly regenerate them make them Gods children but is sayd to regenerate and adopt because it is a seale and signe of this grace of adoption which children had before Baptisme yea brought with them into the world This errour is fundamentall and damnable which Protestants hold and will hold in despite of their Church and yet dares she not say they are not her children Caluin de vera Eccles. reform inter eius opuscula fol. 759. writeth The Issue of the faythfull is borne into the world holy and sanctifyed because their children being yet in the wōbe before they draw breath be adopted into the couenant of eternall life For it is necessary that the grace of adoption go before baptisme which grace is not the cause of halfe-saluation but bringeth perfect and full saluation which is afterward signed by Baptisme Thus Caluin What the Minister brings out of the sayd Caluin to proue he held that Baptisme doth truly sanctify to wit that children are regenerated by Baptisme is idle For vnto it Caluin himselfe hath made answere l. 4. Institut c. 15. §. 2. When sayth he Baptisme is sayd to regenerate to renew to sanctify to saue men the meaning is not that our purgation saluation is made by water or that water hath vertue to purify to regenerate to renew but only because by that signe we conceyue knowledge and certitude of such gifts for what is giuen by the message of the Ghospell is signed and sealed by Baptisme Heere also I conclude that eyther the Minister and his Church erres fundamentally or at least they must grant foure thinges First that Caluin and his part erre fundamentally Secondly that Culuinists cannot be saued except they repent themselues of their Religion Thirdly that amongst Protestants there is dissention about fundamentall matters Fourthly that the Protestants do not exclude from their communion such as hold substantiall Heresy necessity thereof for Infants to whom they grant saluation without Baptisme Seauenthly their Errour agaynst the (*) The Minister sayth that Protestants only deny the manner of the Reall Presence to wit Trāsubstantiation not the substance thereof because they hold that the body of Christ is truly really and effectually present to the worthy Receauer but present by the apprehension of the soule and by operatiue fayth pag. 178.179 seq pag. 390. 395. I answere that as the Answerer sayd this Presence by fayth is not Reall nor true but only pious Imagination at the most as is proued in the sixt Poynt Reall presence which they deny 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 body in two places at once Eightly their denying the Sacrament of (e) The Minister pag. 189. sayth that Protestants allow auricular Confession and Priestly Absolution but deny it to be a Sacrament or of necessity in proofe whereof he citeth the Augustane Confession Answer If the Minister approue the Augustan confession he must approue priestly absolution to be truly a Sacrament and of necessity being commanded of God euen as Baptisme is For thus they write Cap. de numero vsu Sacramentorum The true Sacraments are Baptisme the supper of the Lord Absolution which is the Sacrament of Pennance For these rytes haue the same commandement of God and promise of grace proper to the new Testament Thus they so euen by the Iudgement of this Confession which they esteeme as containing the fundamētall doctrine of their Religion our Minister and his Church erre fundamentally Pennance and Priestly Absolution the necessary meanes for remission of sin committed after (f) Agaynst this Sacrament the Minister disputeth largely but his arguments are triuiall which he takes out of Bellarmine concealing the Solutions which who will may there read in his first booke of the Sacrament of Pennance What he brings out of some Catholike Authors affirming that it is hard to prooue cleerly this Sacrament the Answer is That to proue the Sacrament of Pennance and the necessity thereof for sinnes after Baptisme by the perpetuall Tradition and practise of the Church is not hard but easy which you may see fully performed by Bellarmine but to prooue the same by some text of Scripture so cleerly as some cauill may not be taken at the argument this is difficill And no wonder seing our Minister pag. 541. lin 9. doth graunt that euen the Principall articles of Religion cannot be so prooued by Scripture but seeming Solutions may be giuen Baptisme Ninthly their denying the Catholike Church expresly set downe in the Creed which of all other Articles is with (g) Other articles are more necessary thē this as sole obiects of necessary diuine affection in this respect are more dangerously denyed But as the meanes of knowing necessary obiects nothing more necessary then this true Church nor any thing more euident therefore the deniall thereof is most dangerous in respect of heresy yea the Article without resistance whereof no man can be Heretike greatest danger denyed For the standing out agaynst this makes men heretikes without erring agaynst this no man is guilty of heresy whatsoeuer Doctour Field to the contrary sayth that an Errant agaynst a fundamentall point is an Heretike though he erre without (h) What the Minister sayth that a man may be pertinacious obstinate against Scripture not against the Church is impossible For eyther he seeth his doctrine to be agaynst Scripture or not if he see his doctrine to be contrary to the Scripture yet holds it he doth Iudge the Scripture not to be Christs nor of God consequently he is pertinacious agaynst the Churches Tradition which as hath been sayd is the stay of our Fayth in this point If he see not his exposition to be agaynst Scripture but is deceyued by conference of places he is not Heretike vntil knowing his exposition to be condemned by the Church he persist therein For what is pertinacious wilfulnes but to resist lawfull authority which we know to be agaynst vs pertinacity wherof he brings not any sillable of proofe
crime with which some Protestants charge vs that our receauing vnder the sole forme of bread is to iumpe in opinion with the Manichees we may as D. Morton confesseth reiect as iniurious saying That it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine but the reason of their forbearance that was iudged hereticall Morton Protestant Appeale lib. 1. cap. 4. pag. 140. (*) Agaynst this explication of the place of Gelasius it is obiected that the same doth not agree with the reason of the Canon For Gelasius sayth men are not to be permitted to receaue but in both kinds because the diuision of one and the same Sacrament cannot be done without sacriledge The whole decree is this We find that some men hauing taken the portion of our Lords body refrayne from the Cup of the holy bloud Which men because they are imbued with I know not what superstitiō let them without any question receaue the whole Sacraments or nothing at all for the diuision of one and the same mystery cannot be vsed without a great Sacriledge I Answere first Gelasius doth not say no man is to be permitted to receaue in one kinde but only no superstitious abstinent Secondly his reason is not ōly because the deuiding of the Sacramēt is Sacriledg but quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi because they are proued to be imbued with a certayne superstitious opinion to wit that the creature of wine is impure The discourse then of Gelasius is because these men are superstitiously conceyted that the creature of wine is the Diuells gall therefore by them the deuiding of the holy mystery receauing the consecrated Bread without the Cup sine grandi sacrilegio fieri non potest cannot be done without great Sacriledge Whēce he concludes proculdubio arceantur let such men be kept from Communion in one kind without any question mercy or indulgēce As if he had sayd Vnto men Orthodoxally conceited about the creature of wine Cōmunion in one kind may be granted sometimes vpon iust causes as if they be by nature abstemij that cannot endure wine But men that be superstitiously persuaded agaynst the nature of wine proculdubio arceantur let Communion in one kind be denyed vnto them without question and granted in no case because in respect of them Communion in one kind is euer Sacrilegious The Minister also in this place keepeth a styrre and would make the world belieue that the Iesuit Vasquez doth maynly oppose himselfe agaynst the Iesuit Answerer about this place of Gelasius The Iesuit sayth he is confuted by a learned and intelligent man of his owne Society to wit Vasquez who sayth that some of his party apply the place of Gelasius agaynst Manichees but this exposition agreeth not with the last clause of the Canon Answere You shew great desire to discredit your aduersary yet cannot you doe it so much as in this trifle with truth For in citing the censure of Vasquez you leaue out the principal word which being set down would haue marred your market Vasquez not only sayth that some of his side explicate the place of Gelasius of lay Manichees but also addeth his Iudgment about the same saying probabiliter explicant this their explication is probable Do not you see your falshood in citing and vanity in vrging this censure of Vasquez If this explication be probable euen by the Iudgment of Vasquez how is the Iesuit confuted by Vasquez of his owne Society as not answering your argument sufficiently Is it not sufficient that Catholicks bringe probable solutions vnto your arguments agaynst Christian customes defined in Councells and receaued in the Church before you or your Luther were borne You your selfe say pag. 11. That no man is to reiect the Doctrine and custome of the Church or the exposition of Scripture commonly and anciently receaued vpon vncertayne and probable reasons If the Iesuit hath answered your arguments probably as euen by this censure of Vasquez he hath then be your arguments at the most but probable and consequently your reuolt from the Church of Rome grounded thereon dānable Who now is condemned by Vasquez his Censure But Vasquez sayth that the Iesuits explication though it agree fitly to the rest of the decree of Gelasius yet cannot be fitted to the last branch thereof where Gelasius sayth that the diuision of the one and same mystery is Sacrilegious in it selfe and in nature Quare mihi magis placet altera explicatio Wherefore sayth Vasquez vnto me another explication seemeth more probable I Answere First Gelasius doth not say that the diuision of the mystery is in itselfe in nature a Sacriledge nor can it be very probably sayd that he did so meane For what sense is there in this discourse To deuide the Sacrament by receauing in one kind is a Sacriledge of his owne nature and absolutely in it selfe therefore let not these men be permitted in any case to receaue in one kinde quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi because they are conuinced to hold superstitious Doctrine about the impurity of the creature of wine Besides had Gelasius meant that Communion in one kind is a sacriledge absolutely in it selfe he would haue decreed that not only superstitious mē but absolutely all men should be kept frō the same proculdubio without any question Wherfore Gelasius his decree cannot be better sensed then thus Because these men are conceyted superstitiously agaynst the creature of wine their receauing in one kind without the Cup can not but be impious Therefore proculdubio arceantur let not Communion in one kind be giuen vnto them in any case though vnto Orthodoxe people vpon iust reasons the same may be granted Secondly suppose all that Vasquez would cōclude to wit that another exposition is more probable what haue you gayned Surely nothing for this other exposition better liked by Vasquez is that Gelasius spake not of laymens receauing but of Priests that celebrate and consecrate affirming that it is sacrilegious in it selfe for Priests to cōsecrate without receauing in both kinds If the Iesuit Vasquez in this exposition and doctrine seeme to you learned intelligent be it so in Gods name you are satisfyed and your Aduersary contented for he did neuer meane to say that this explication is improbable specially the same being giuen by Gratian who read that Epistle of Gelasius which now it not extant This custome was the cause that Cyprian (o) Cyprian de Coena Domini sayth that the Law forbad the eating of bloud but the Ghospell commands the same should be drunke not only because some Christians to wit Priests are bound to drinke the bloud of Christ but also because Christ in his Ghospell did institute the Sacrament of his body bloud in both kinds whence grew the Custome of the primitiue Church to receaue in both kindes by custome there grew further an obligation to drinke of the cup except there were some iust cause of abstinence as in the sicke
c. mother who falling into the hands of your Religion you held her so fast you griped her so hard as you droue the breath out of her body made her Sacred bloud run about her Annoynted Shoulders The Roman Religion in opposite hath giuen her by your paynting a Vizard and is made to stand treading vpon Crownes and Scepters to signify that she is by doctrine and practise a Deposer Contemner of Kings This Fancy would indeed be a Truth could you proue that Wickliffe Luther Caluin Beza Knox Buchanam Wittingham Goodman the like (b) See Bancroft Danger Posit VVhit l. 1. c. 4. l. 2. c 1. ProtestaÌ„ts Apolog. â—reface were Roman Catholikes Or could you shew that they were Papists of whom (c) Beza Ep. Theolog. 68. Beza sayth putting himselfe in the number What Churches should we now haue in the world had not this course been held to wit of erecting Churches by force of Armes in despite (*) ProtestaÌ„ts haue murdered fiue Catholik Kings or Princes They haue deposed Nine from their Kingdomes wholly or in part They haue set vp their ReligioÌ„ at the least in fourty towns by force of Armes expelling the Magistrates murthering Priests Religious Persons breaking downe Images and burning Churches They haue byn at the least twenty seueral times in the field against their Catholik Soueraygnes six or seauen times against their soueraygnes that were preseÌ„t in persoÌ„ All which may be proued by the testimony of Protestants if the margeÌ„t did permit Read Bancrofts Dangerous positioÌ„s Osianders Epitom Histor. Centur. 16. the â—rotestaÌ„ts Apolog. Preface of Princes and Magistrats So plainly doth he acknowledge your Churches to haue been euery where planted by treading vnder foote the CoÌ„mands Edicts the Swords Gouernments the Crownes and Scepters of Kings The fourth opposition The Protestant Gentlewoman holdeth a pillar vnder her left Arme with a bough of palme in the same hand whereas the Roman hath on her left hand a Camelion sitting Your meaning is that you forsooth are stronge Constant in your Religion but we weake wauering ready to change for feare of persecution Your Constancy indeed is knowne that you are in your doctrines as immutable as the Moone In what point of Religion saith (d) Andraeas Duditius See Epist. Theol. Bezae epist. 1. 3. an emineÌ„t Protestant be they that impugne the Roman Bishop firme and constant They COYNE MONETHLY FAITHS they are carryed away with the wind of euery doctrine What their ReligioÌ„ is to day one may know but what it will be to morrow neyther themselues nor any mortall man can tell And whereas you make this your Gossippe to haue on her left side the pillar of Religion on her right the Crowne could any thing be more fit to expresse your Church of England For in her Religion Kings haue the better vpper hand of God the Apostolicall sentence We must rather obey God theÌ„ men is turned backward her Doctrine is mutable with the Princes pleasure that she may be better resembled by a Weather-cocke theÌ„ by a Pillar For what constaÌ„cy can she haue that preferrs a Temporall Crowne before Christian Truthâ— The fifth Opposition betweene these two Women is in respect of the Tytles that are set ouer their heades yours being tearmed Veritas Vniuoca and ours Mendacium Aequiuocum Veritas vniuoca being in English Verity taught by the professours thereof with one voyce with vniforme consent I thinke the Reader will smile at your good Inuention that you could find no truer Tytle for your Gospell For what more notorious to the world then that your reformed Professours are Vniuocall in the doctrine they preach as diuine truth euen as the builders of Babel were Vniuocall in language after the diuision of their toÌ„gues Vnto the Roman ReligioÌ„ which doth detest lying about any the least thing which coÌ„demnes Equiuocall Ambiguous speach in the affayre of Religion in matters of Bargayne in familiarity of (e) See the Treatise tending to Mitigation Speach why doe you tearme her Mendacium Aequiuocum Vpon no other ground but in regard she teacheth that a Christian to defend his life and goods from the Tyranny of Oppressours may sometymes vse ambiguous and reserued speach A practise expressely allowed in Scripture as (f) Gregor in exposit l. 1. Reg. c. 16. His verbis ostenditur quòd Tyrannorum saeuitia atque versutia quandoque est PIA FRAVDE deludenda sic tamen Tyranni deludendi sunt vt caueatur culpa mendacii Quod tuÌ„c bene perficitur cùm illud quod fit asseritur sed quod fit sic dicitur vt celetur quia ex parte dicitur ex parte reticetur sayth S. Gregory The Scripture sheweth that the crafty cruelty of Tyrants is sometymes to be deluded by PIOVS FRAVD so sauing our selues from their malice that we tell not a Lye which then is well performed wheÌ„ what is done is affirmed yet so affirmed as what is done is also coÌ„cealed the thing being vttered in part and in part not vttered but retayned in mind I hope I haue cleerly discouered the falshood inanity of your Frontispiciall Emblemes and Pageants which occasioned my setting this Picture before the Reioynder the rather also to make your Image perfect and complete in the Entrance of both our â—ookes put togeather that the Reader may behold in the one the Out-side in the other the In-side of your Venerable Selfe If Caluin (g) Caluin lib. de scandalis sayd true of Ministers Praeclarum quidem zelum simulant they can make an excellent fayre shew of Zeale I will not deny but your Paynters curious hand hath elegantly set forth your Out-side For he hath paynted in your Face a fayre shew of Zeale of Modesty of Wisdome of Grauity specially in your demure looke Veluet cap and gray Beard so combed and handsomely composed as your Wife may seeme to haue had her fingar in the trimming thereof aswell as in the setting of your Ruffe But quid si intus excutias What if we looke into the In-side Heere your Paynters Pensill fayled him which defect some body perchance your selfe vndertooke to supply with his Poeticall Quil setting these verses vnder your Picture and the Picture of your Booke wearing a Crowne Wisdome Grace see in that modest looke Truth 's Triumph Errours downfall in this Booke But this is not liuely paynting of your In-side to the eye but only Verball Assertion of your hidden Worth to the eare which if one will reiect as the fabulous coÌ„ceyt of a Poet what can be replyed Or if you be Author of the Verses your selfe some perhaps will attribute these prayses not vnto Truth but vnto your Fawning with ouer-fauourable Fancyes vpon your owne Learning Triumphing before the Victory and vsurping a Crowne without right What then shall I doe how may I set forth the true vndeniable figure of your In-side Your (h) Reply pag. â—74 selfe say
for theÌ„ it would follow that she hath no milke in her two breasts but written doctrine but he sayth her two breasts are the two Testaments of Diuine Scriptures Hence you may gather that in ech of her breasts in ech of the Testaments the milke of Scripture is contayned but that only the milke of writteÌ„ doctrine is in them contayned you cannot from this text truly cited inferre therefore both by addition and transposition of wordes you help the dyce To proue That the Tradition of the Church hath no credit or authority but from Scripture and that though this Tradition might be false yet Fayth would subsist because there remayneth allwayes an higher and more soueraigne Iudge to wit God speaking in the Scripture To proue this I say you (i) Pag. 90. in margin lit c cite this text of (k) Augustin lib. 11. 〈◊〉 Faust. c. â— Tanquam in sede quâ—dam in sublimi collocata est cui seruiâ—t omnis Fidelis pius intellectus S. Augustine It is placed as it were in an high throne of authority vnto which euery faythfull and pious vnderstanding must be subiect What is this Why doe you not name it Because you durst not set downe the wordes that immediatly precede which make cleerly agaynst you to wit these (l) Excellentia Canonicâ—â— authoritatis Veteris Noui Testamenti Apoâ—stoloruÌ„ confirmata temporibus per SVCCESSIONES EpiscoporuÌ„ Propagationes Ecclesiarum tanquam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est c. The Canonicall authority of the Scriptures confirmed in the Apostles dayes is by SVCCESSIONS of Bishops propagations of Churches placed in an high throne of authority c. How directly is this testimony of S. Augustine agaynst that which you would proue thereby How hath Tradition no credit or authority but from Scripture if the Scripture by successiue tradition of Bishops hand so hand froÌ„ the Apostles hath gotten quoad nos in the persuasion of the Christian world the high seate of Diuine authority to be honoured as Gods word vnto which euery maÌ„ must yield If this successiue Tradition on which as S. Augustine teacheth our persuasion about the authority of Scripture dependes be made weake fallible by Protestants how shall the Scripture be able to keepe her credit and authority in our Fayth Verily it cannot except Christians will cease to rely on the authority of God reuealing and on doctrine deliuered by the succession of Bishops hunt after Diuine and Apostolicall Scripture by the sent and smell of the doctrines deliuered therein as you doe Likewise by addition of the Particle Only you falsify the saying of (*) Pag. 95. lin 31. in Marg. lit Paschasius For whereas he (m) Paschas in Matth. c. 28. Cum electis semper adfuturum se promittit sayth Christ promised to be with his Elect all dayes vntill the consummation of the world you cite him as saying Only with the elect More grossely in the same place you falsify Druthmarus for whereas (n) In cap. 28. Matth. he sayth Christ is with the Reprobate by the presence of his Godhead but with the Elect in another manner you make him say Christ promiseth to be only with the elect contrary to his meaning who teacheth that the presence and perpetuall assistance of our Sauiour are so vnited vnto his Church her Pastors that they may not erre but still teach all that he coÌ„manded but that presence whereof that Text properly speaketh is not only affoarded vnto the Elect but vnto wicked men for the Saluation of all worthy Communicants as your selfe (o) Pag. 52. lin 14. affirme You (q) See pag. 105. rayle bitterly against the Iesuit for prouing that your Protestant Church cannot be the true Church nor part thereof because you seuered your selues from the Roman Church and did not ioyne vnto any preexistent Christian Society of Pastors but aparted your selues froÌ„ the Communion of the whole world For this his argument you rayle agaynst the Roman Church for a whole leafe pag. 106. and 107. Where thus you conclude your foule Foliall Inuectiue They since their Synode of TreÌ„t haue proceeded from euill to worse (s) The Minister in proofe of all this bringes nothing only in the Margent he nameth the Massacre of Paris Was that done by the Fathers of the Councell of Trent Doth that proue obscuring and out-facing of Truth Had not the Protestants then slayne been Traytors agaynst their king Was not the king informed of their plot to murdâ—r him his mother his brethren the cheiefest of his Nobles If to preuent his owne instant death the king did by martiall law without Iuridicall forme proceed agaynst knowne Rebells iâ— this such a thing as yow may say It surpasseth all perfidious Stratagems and immane Cruelty of Infidels what idle Eloquence is this obscuring outfacing the truth with forgery and sophistry They haue conspired agaynst Kingdomes and States they haue surpassed professed Infidells in perfidious stratagems and immane cruelty And whereas they expelled vs by Excommunication and chased vs away from them by persecution yet this Roman Aduocate taxeth vs with Schisme Apostasy neuer remembring what (*) lib. 5. de Baptism c. 1. S. Augustine long since deliuered The Sacriledge of Schisme is then committed when there is no iust cause of Separation Thus by long continued fierce bitter blasts of false reproach you diriue your vnwary Reader vpoÌ„ the hidden rocke of a falsifyed sentence of S. Aug. as though this most Diuine Doctour had insinuated the lawfullnes of reuolt separatioÌ„ from all ChristiaÌ„ Churches What can be more false He disputeth agaynst the Donatists who had seuered themselues from the Christian world pretending that CaeciliaÌ„ Bishop of Carthage other Catholikes had giuen vp the Holy Bibles to the fire S. Aug. doth conuince them of Schisme two wayes First because this pretence were it true is not iust for there can be no iust cause of separation from the whole world and of beginning a new distinct Christian Church These be his wordes (t) Augustin ep 48. ad Vincent Fieri non potest vt aliqui iustam causam habeant qua communionem suam separent à coÌ„munione Orbis terrarum eamue appellent Ecclesiam Christi quòd se iuste ab omnium geÌ„tium communione separauerint Ibid. Nos ideo certi sumus neminem se à coÌ„munione omnium Gentium iuâ—â—è separare potuisse c. We are certayne that none could iustly separate themselues from the Communion of the whole world And againe It is no way possible that any should haue reason to separate themselues from the coÌ„munion of the whole World and so tearme themselues the Church because vpoÌ„ iust cause they haue deuided theÌ„selues from the Society of all nations Thus S. Aug. What can be more direct agaynst that doctrine for which you cite him Or more efficacious to conclude that you Protestants are guilty of damnable Schisme Secondly sayth
â—f his spirit inwardly mouing the heart of man to â—dhere vnto an infallible externall ground of assurance proposed vnto him God by the helpe of his grace making him apprehend diuinely of the authority thereof This second manner of inward assurance is ordinarily giuen vnto euery ChristiaÌ„ without (r) Triden sess 6. Can. 3. Arausican 2. Can. 6. which no man is able to belieue supernaturally and as he ought vnto Saluation The first manner of assurance is extraordinary and immediate reuelation such as the Prophets had Wherfore Protestants if they callenge this first manner of inward teaching assurance they approue Enthusiasme immediat reuelatioÌ„ which in the Swenkfeldians they seeme to condemne If they challenge only the second manner of inward teaching and assurance then besides inward light they must assigne an externall sufficieÌ„t ground why they belieue these Scriptures to be the Apostles then I aske what ground this is besides Tradition Secondly they wil obiect that though they haue no infallible ground besides the teaching of the Spirit yet they are not taught immediatly in Propheticall maÌ„ner because they are also taught by an external probable motiue to wit the Churches tradition I Answere that except they assigne an externall infallible meanes besides Gods inward teaching they cannot auoyde but they challenge immediate reuelation For whosoeuer knoweth thinges assuredly by the inward teaching of the spirit without an external infallible motiue vnto which he doth adhere is assured prophetically though he haue some externall probable motiues so to thinke S. Peter had some coniecturall signes of Simon Magus his peruersity incorrigible malice yet seing (s) Act. 8.32 In felle amaritudinis obligatione peccati video te esse he knew it assuredly we belieue he knew it by the light of prophesy because besides inward assurance he had no externall infallible ground If one see a man giue publickly almes though he perceaue probable tokeÌ„s signes that he doth it out of a Vayne-glorious intention yet cannot he be sure therof but by the light of immediat reuelation because the other tokens are not grounds sufficient to make him sure For if a man be sure haue no ground of this assurance in any thinge out of his owne hart it is cleere that he is assured immediatly only by Gods inward speaking Wherfore ProtestaÌ„ts if they will disclayme in truth and not in wordes only from immediate reuelation and teaching they must eyther grant tradition to be infallible or else assigne some externall infallible ground besides Tradition whereby they are taught what Scriptures the Apostles deliuered Thirdly they will say they know the Scriptures to be from the Apostles by an externall infallible ground besides Tradition to wit by certayne lights lustres euidences of truth which they see to blaze emane from the thinges reuealed in Scripture by which they are sure that the doctrin thereof is heauenly I Answere If they did see such lustres and lights that cleerly not only probably conuince the doctrine of Scripture to be heauenly truth they be not indeed assured by immediate darke reuelation but by an higher degree of heauenly knowledge to wit by the supernaturall light and euidence of the thinge belieued which is a paradox and pretence farre more false and sensibly absurd then is the challenge of immediate reuelation or Enthusiasme as hath beene shewed Wherefore seing that God hath chosen no externall meanes besides Catholicke Tradition to make men know perpetually vntill the consummation of the world what doctrins Scriptures the Apostles published it is cleere vnto euery Christian that this is the meanes by him chosen which he doth assist that it cannot be obnoxious vnto errour so that precedently and independently of Scripture the Catholicke tradition of Christian pastors fathers is proued to be infallible through Diuine speciall assistance and therefore a sufficient ground for Fayths infallible assurance The Fourth Principle proued §. 6. IF we be resolued that sauing truth is that which God reuealed that he reuealed that which the Apostles published the doctrine published by then the Catholicke Christian Tradition our search is ended when we haue found the Christian Catholicke Church Heere the fourth Enemy of true Christian Religion offers himselfe to wit the Willfull Ignorant These kind of men not only hold agaynst Pagans the doctrine of saluation to be that only which was reuealed of God agaynst Iewes the reuealed of God to be only the Apostles but also in wordes they condemne the Heretikes professe that no doctrine is truly Apostolicall but the Catholick yet in resoluing what doctrin is the Catholicke they follow the partiality of their affections These are tearmed by (t) De vtil cred c. 1. S. Augustine Credentes haereticorum Belieuers of Heretikes building vpon the seeming learning and sanctity of some men being therein so willfull as to venture their soules that such doctrine is Catholike not caring nor knowing what they say nor what the word Catholicke put into the Creed by the Apostles doth import Some be so ignorant as to thinke that the word Catholicke doth signify the same as conforme vnto Scripture And so what doctrine is Catholicke they resolue by the light and lustre of the doctrine or by the in ward teaching of the spirit whereby they fall vpon the principle of Heresy and become not so much belieuers of Heretikes as Heretikes Some vnderstand by the word Catholicke Doctrine truly Catholicke that is deliuered froÌ„ the Apostles by Christian worlds of Fathers vnto Christian worlds of children yet are so blind as to giue this Title vnto Sects lately sprung vp which through pretended singular Illuminations gotten by perusing the Scripture haue chosen formes of fayth opposite one agaynst another reformed agaynst the forme to them deliuered by their Ancestors These Sects I say they tearme Catholicke which not to be Catholicke in this sense is as euident as that night is not day Some through willfull ignorance no lesse grossely deuide the name of Catholicke according to the diuision of Countryes naming the Catholicke doctrin of the Church of France of the Church of England c. Which speach hath no more sense then this A fashion euer since Christ vniuersally ouer the world newly begun and proper vnto England Agaynst this Enemy true Religion is resolued in this fourth principle The Catholicke Tradition of doctrine from the Apostles is the Roman By Roman we vnderstand not only the Religion professed within the Citty Diocesse of Rome but ouer the whole world by them that any where acknowledg the primacy of Peter and his successours which now is the Roman Bishop About this principle fayth is assured by a fourth perfection belonging vnto God as he is prime Verity reuealing truth which is that he cannot permit that the knowing of sauing doctrine be impossible Hence I argue God being Prime Verity reuealing cannot permit the meanes of knowing his sauing truth to be hidden nor a false meanes to
saith he is Apostolical against which the ancient Fathers made no expresse opposition then these Protestant articles are Apostolicall that the Roman Bishop and Councell may erre that the substance of bread wine remayne after consecration that common prayer ought to be vttered in a known language I answere Not euery doctrine against which the Fathers doe not expresly oppose is Apostolicall for some heresies were not thought of in that tyme as this Protestant persuasion That Common prayer must be sayd by the publike Minister in a language vulgarly vnderstood of euery woman and that it doth not suffice that the more principal persons of the Church vnderstand it word by word and the rest being instructed doe for matter and substance though not word by word So not euery doctrine not opposed but euery doctrine that is taught confessedly as Christian doctrine by some anciēt Fathers was neuer expressly by name opposed by any of the Fathers Doctrine I say thus taught neuer opposed as such deliuered by full Tradition is infallibly Apostolicall Such are our doctrins as may be proued euen in the particular exāples brought by the Minister as for the contrary particularly in this first instāce of their doctrine That the Roman Bishop Councells may erre For was this Protestant doctrine neuer opposed by any Father doe not the Magdeburgians Centur. 4. col 550. acknowledge the auncient Ecclesiasticall Canon that the Councels are not to be celebrated without the sentence of the Roman Bishop And the Fathers held such Cōncells had the holy Ghost so as they could not erre so cleerly as Luther complaynes Postill Wittemb Dom. 8. post Trinitatem fol. 114.6 § 3 Gregory Augustin and many other holy Fathers erred in taking from vs power to iudge our Teachers commanding vs to belieue the POPE and Councells For this misery is very auncient in the Church Thus he This answere is full and a certayne ground of perswasion else as I sayd common people could neuer know the assured Tradition of their Auncestours vpon which they must as I prooued build their Chistian beliefe seing as D. Field in the epistle Dedicatory also noteth There be few and very few that haue leasure or strengh of Iudgenent to examine particular controuersyes by Scripture or Fathers but needes must rest in that doctrine which the Church deliuers as a Tradition neuer contradicted by any Orthodoxe Fathers To discredit therfore a cōstant receaued Tradition it is necessary to bring an Orthodoxe contradiction thereof not newly found out by reading the Fathers but a contradiction by the same of antiquity deliuered vnto posterity which kind of contradiction they cannot find agaynst any point of Catholike doctrine For let them name but one Father whom Antiquity doth acknowlege as a Contradictour of Inuocation of Saints Adoratiō of the Sacrament Reall Presence Prayer for the dead they cannot certainly though they bring diuers places to proue a thing which Antiquity neuer noted or knew of before that the Fathers be various and wauering about these points The Conclusion of this point shewing that Protestants Erre fundamentally §. 6. OVT of all this appeares that the Roman Church is the true Church and consequently (u) The Minister cauilleth at this cōsequence but it is euident for the Church is but One in which only saluation is had and if the Roman be this Church Protestants are not saued out of it that Protestants haue (*) The Minister in making answere vnto this Paragraffe is from the beginning to the end not only exceeding bitter and full of rayling but also impertinent not vnderstanding the state of the cōtrouersy nor what the Iesuite vndertaketh to proue The Iesuites conclusion bendeth against some Protestants with whom he dealt in his Conferences holding there is no fundamentall difference betwixt the Roman Church and the Protestant that men may be saued indifferently in the one and the other Protestant doctrines wherein they differ from the Roman though they should be errours not being fundamentall and damnable errours The Iesuits intention was agaynst these men not to proue absolutely that Protestants erre for then he would haue proued the Nine obiected articles to be errours by such testimonyes of Scriptures and Fathers as would haue puzzeled the Minister but supposing as giuen and not granted by his aduersaryes Dato non concesso that Protestants erre he vndertaketh to shew their errours to be mayne fundamental and damnable and that the mantayners therof cannot be saued and so no saluation to be had but in the one Catholike Church Hence it is euident that the Ministers labour to shew that the Protestant doctrines be not errours is impertinent for this the Iesuite did not intend to proue but supposing they are errours to proue they are damnable and fundamentall errours agaynst Adiaphorists that hold there is no fundamentall difference betwixt the Protestant and Roman Church fundamentall Errours about fayth Errours are (x) The Minister sayth that errours fundamentall must be conuinced to be such out of Scripture citing to this purpose the saying of S. Augustine De doctrin Christian. lib. 2. cap. 3. In these thinges that are cleerly deliuered in Scripture are contayned all those things which contayne fayth and good manners I answere S. Augustine sayth not that all necessary thinges are contayned expressely in Scripture not in particular and distinctly but in generall and according to the genericall name of necessary vertues as his words fully set down declare which are these All things that contayne fayth and good manners to wit hope and charity No doubt but the genericall dutyes of Fayth Hope Charity are expressely euen in so many words set downe in Scripture though not all particularityes about them seing now all Protestants graunt that some things are contayned in Scripture inuoluedly and implicitly that is in other tearmes intricately and obscurely fundamentall that is damnable eyther in regard of the matter because agaynst some substantiall matter of fayth the knowledge whereof is necessary for the performance of a required Christian duty or in regard of the manner they are held to wit so obstinately as in defence of them one denyes the Catholike Church Errours fundamentall of the first kind Protestants haue diuers particularly these Nine First their doctrine agaynst Tradition vnwritten wherby the (y) By Tradition is vnderstood Doctrine known precedently independently of Scripture though perchāce the same be written This doctrine precedētly knowne vnto Scripture the Minister professeth that Protestants deny pag. 105. lin 24. consequently they erre fundamētally For here by they be forced to make the resolution of their fayth by the euidence of the thing and light of the matter agaynst the first ground of Christiā Religiō that in this life we walk by faith not by euidēce as hath been shewed Foundation is ouerthrowne on which we belieue all other substantiall and fundamentall points as hath been shewed Secondly their denying the (z) The Minister