God revealed it reserving to his owne private â—udgement or to that of his first Patriarchs Luther Calvin Chillingworth c. the decision of this controversie VVhether God revealed it or no But the Catholick believes absolutely and doubts not but God revealed what the Church proposeth as revealed submitting his judgement in matters of Faith to whatsoever the Church doth define or declare 4 The obstinacy of Heresie may be well compared to the obstinacy of Rebellion Heresie being indeed a Rebellion of private and proper judgement against Gods authority and veracity appearing sufficiently in his Church Put the case that a Province of Spaine or France did reject any Lawes or Ordinances made by their King and intimated by his Officers to the people and proclaimed in the same Provinces In case these Lawes and the said Officers who have all the exterior signes or markes whereby the Kings authority is usually discerned were contemned by the people not because they doubt of their Kings legiflative power but because they will not believe he made such Lawes or gave any such Commission to his Officers would not the people notwithstanding all this pretended ignorance be Rebells and obstinate against their Soveraigne would it excuse them from the guilt of Rebellion to alledge in their owne behalfe that they did not thinke or believe the King commanded any such thing as his Officers pretended and proclaimed Their very excuse involves obstinacy and Rebellion The obedience and duty which Subjects owe to their King must be extended also to his Officers they must obey their Soveraigne not onely when himselfe commands but also when the Officers that have the ordinary signes of his authority do command in his name 5 This is the case of Hereticks They protest if they had thought or believed that the Doctrine of the Roman Church was revealed by God they would embrace it with all their heart But they do not consider that this very If or doubt is their crime and heresie What reason or prudent ground have they to doubt that Goâ— doth speake by the Roman Church as Kings do by theâ— Officers No Officers or Ministers have more authenâ—tick and credible signes of their Kings authority the the Roman Catholick Church hath of Gods Commission and trust of proposing his Revelations and interpretinâ— his meaning of Scripture as is demonstrated in the 14â— and other Chapters Now its sufficient to know that thâ— signes of the true Church are Miracles Sanctity of Doctrine and life conversion of Nations continuall succession from thâ— Apostles to the present age both of Pastors and Doctrine c. These signes are obvious to our senses and may bâ— perceived by all people Clounes Souldiers and other illiterate persons that will inquire and examine the history of their owne Countrey or the Religion of their Ancestors Whatsoever amongst all the Christan Churches hath these signes That Church must be heard obeyed and believed as having Gods authority and Commission to decide all doubts and controversies of Faith whosoever believes not her Definitions and obeyes not her Decrees is an obstinate Heretick and Rebell CHAP. V. Of the Catholick Church 1 SEeing the obstinacy of Hereticks is against Gods Revelations as they are proposed by the testimony of the Catholick Church it s required something be said of this Church That there is a Catholick and visible Church in this world is granted tacitely by all Hereticks seeing every Sect oâ— them pretends to be the whole or at least one part of the Catholick Church 2 The Catholick Church is a multitude or Congregation of men whose testimony doth so sufficiently propose their Doctrine to be Gods Word and the true meaning thereof that it is evidently imprudence and infallible damnation in any person whosoever not to acquiesce iâ— the said testimony and not to believe without the least doubt what it proposeth as Divine Revelation There are but two wayes to convince the understanding of man the one is evident and cleare reason the other is authority To some things its necessary even for salvation we give our assent though no evident and cleare reason appeareth authority that is the testimony of lawfull witnesses must be taken for reason and supply the want of it It is unreasonable and damnable not to honour our Princes and Parents though they have no other evidence or reason to shew that they are our lawfull Princes or Parents but the authority and testimony of lawfull witnesses God therefore having decreed that men should believe some mysteries above reason commanded all to believe under paine of damnation whatsoever the Church saith he revealed It is not unreasonable that God should condemn us for not believing the testimony of the Catholick Church in matters of Faith which are above reason seeing we shall be condemned if we believe not the testimony of our Neighbours concerning our Princes and Parents Is it a lawfull excuse for any man to say If I had believed such a man to be my Soveraigne I would obey him or such a woman to be my Mother I would honour her If there be lawfull witnesses for Prince or Parents their testimony is to be believed the very not believing them is a crime though there be no more evidence for it then the said testimony Therefore à fortiori the not believing the testimony of the Church confirmed with so many signes in matters of Faith is a crime and obstinate heresie 3 Some Protestant Divines of the English Church are so civill as to admit of us Roman Catholicks and so eharitable as not to exclude any Christians from being a part of the Catholick Church yet we have reason to thinke that it s no civility or kindnesse but interest that moves them to open the dore to us because if they reject us themselves can not pretend to be a Church having neither succession of Bishops nor without begging our testimony any solid proofe that Scripture is Gods Word What Bookes of Scripture they are pleased to accept of as Divine Revelation they do it upon our score and word but the sense which we delivered to them with the said Books as the most principall part of Gods Word they do refuse never being able hitherto to give any tolerable reason why they take our word more for the letter oâ— Scripture then for the sense and meaning of it If we deserve credit in one why not in both being no lesse against our conscience and as much in our power to corrupt the letter as the sense But of their obstinacy in this particular and others I shall discourse more at large when speake of Protestancy Now I will proceed in the discovery of the true Church CHAP. VI. VVhether all Christians be the Catholick Church or whether it may be composed of any two or more Congregations of them if not agreeing in all matters whatsoever which any one Congregation or Church pretends to be revealed by God 1 THis is as much as to demand Whether Catholicks and Protestants
3 Another proofe that no private spirits interpretation of Scripture can be the true one being contrary to the publick testimony of the Church which went before it and Puritans pretend to reforme may be borrowed from Saint Peter who giveth to understand Pet. 1.20 that no private interpretation can be the true sense of Scripture The reason is cleare because there is none if not confirmed in grace who may not be an obstinate Heretick against the true sense of Scripture in controverted texts but no man can be obstinate against his owne private interpretation and the sense of his private spirit Therefore he can not be an Heretick if the private interpretation of Scripture against the publick testimony of the precedent or present Church which he impugneth be the true meaning and sense of Gods Word 4 Perhaps Puritans will grant that its impossible for any of them to be an Heretick seeing their spirit is infallible If this be granted it s also impossible for any other to be an Heretick or obstinate against their spirit or interpretation because he who is obstinate may be convinced and it s not possible to convince any man but by cleare reason or at least by lawfull witnesses Cleare reason Puritans can not pretend for their spirit because it s against reason to believe it Lawfull witnesses for it there can be none or no more then one which is not enough nor allowed as lawfull in a mans owne case Though every Puritan giveth not onely a testimony of his owne but also of his Brethrens spirit yet he is no lawfull witnesse for any other mans spirit because he hath no better evidence or ground for the testimony he gives then the other mans owne word in commendation of his owne spirit he neither seeth the spirit of the other nor any signe whereby it may be made credible onely he may witnesse that the man whose spirit it is sayeth it is of God but one mans word in his owne case is no sufficient evidence for a lawfull testimony Therefore there are no lawfull witnesses for the private spirit and consequently none can be obstinate against us because none can be convinced that it is of God Whence it followeth that the spirit can be no sufficient proposall of Gods Word or sense and therefore no inspired Congregation of Protestants can be the Catholick Church CHAP. X. VVhether that Congregation of persons which live in communion with and subjection to the Roman Church be the Catholick and true Church of God 1 THis question seemeth to have beene resolved by what is said in former Chapters Because iâ— there be a Catholick Church Vide summam Concâ—liorum A.F. longo in Conâ—il â—â—orâ—n 〈◊〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 and that is noâ— all Congregations of Christians taken together nor any Protestant Church in particular the dispute can onely be now between the Greek Church and the Roman but the Grecians having so many times altered their Faith so many of their ancient Patriarchs being condemned Hereticks and all their Church being legally convicted of Schisme and Heresie in three generall Councells of Florence Lions and the Lateran they can not pretend to be the true Church which never erred I do not speake of that part of the Greeke Church which communicates with us Roman Catholicks because that is part of the Roman But suppose the Roman Church were not the Catholick I see not what advantage Protestants may have by pleading for the Grecians seeing these agree not with them but are altogether against the pretended Reformation and condemne it as Heresie as appeares by the answer of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Protestants of Germany mentioned by Bellarmine lib. 3. de Euchar cap. 21. in fine 2 To prove therefore that the Roman Church is the true Catholick it must be made appeare that it proposeth sufficiently its Doctrine of Faith as Divine Revelation this sufficient proposall can not be done by cleare and evident reason because the mysteries of Christian Religion are above humane capacity Therefore it must be done according to what hath beene said in the 4. Chap. by authority and the testimony of lawfull witnesses But lawfull witnesses in matters of Faith are onely they whose testimony hath beene confirmed by miracles as hath beene demonstrated in the 2. Chap. Therefore we must prove also miracles if we intend to prove that the Roman Church is the whole Catholick and that it proposeth sufficiently its Doctrine as Divine Revelation Now to the proofe of the assertion 3 That Doctrine is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation which is delivered to us as such by the testimony of lawfull witnesses confirmed by miracles But the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is delivered to us as Divine Revelation by the testimony of lawfull witnesses and their testimony is confirmed by miracles Therefore it s sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation and by consequence the Church of Rome is the true Catholick 4 If the Minor or second proposition be proved my intent is concluded That the Roman Church hath lawfull witnesses of its Doctrine to be Divine Revelation hath this difficulty A lawfull witnesse requires not onely knowledge of what he testifieth but also honesty both qualities are necessary an honest foole being as little to be credited as a knowing knave But how can the Roman Church now extant in the 17. age of Christianity have lawfull witnesses of the Doctrine and sense of Scripture which Christ and the Apostles taught the world so long since Though honesty can not be denyed to many Roman Catholicks yet the knowledge what the Apostles taught which is required for a lawfull witnesse of the true Church can not be granted to any seeing none is now living on earth that conversed with the Apostles This argument doth equally impugne all Churches yet none can answer it but we Roman Catholicks 5 It concernes all the world even our very adversaries to grant that the Roman Catholicks have lawfull witnesses with sufficient knowledge of what Religion and sense of Scripture was taught by the Apostles in the primitive Church nay which is more that no other Church pretending to Reformation can have sufficient knowledge required for lawfull witnesses of the true Religion sense of Scripture and Doctrine of the primitive Church If the Roman Church hath not sufficient knowledge for lawfull witnesses of Christ and the Apostles Doctrine no hereditary King or Prince can have a title or right to his crowne because the right descended to them by inheritance doth depend upon a lawfull testimony averring that they are the true heires of such a man who reigned perhaps three or four hundred yeares ago Henry the IV. of France proved himselfe by lawfull witnesses to be the heire of Saint Lewis But who couldbe a lawfull witnesse that Henry the Great descended of Saint Lewis All France did give a lawfull testimony of it because it was a constant tradition in the whole Kingdome descended from Saint Lewis his time to this present
to judge that God will do so extraordinary a favour to Protestants who are out of the Church and have not the helpe of the true Sacraments as to give them an act of contrition in the last houre 4 I have often said that I can not but admire to see any person of solid judgement and good understanding a Protestant The more I consider the grounds beginning and progresse of these new Religions the more I am confirmed in my admiration What matter can then be of greater wonder then to see wise men preferre the testimony of some few wanton and dissolute Priests and Friars to the testimony of the grave and ancient Fathers of the Catholick Roman Church Let the Councell of Lateran be confronted with Cranmer and the six or seven Ministers who invented the English Church and with the Parliament that confirmed it Let both the Councells of Lateran and that of Trent be compared with the petty Assemblies of Ministers in the English Protestant Church or in the Kirke of Scotland Dort or any other pretending Reformation Shall a few Ministers know better the Catholick tradition the sense of Scripture and Fathers then the Councell of Lateran wherein sate two Patriarchs and the Pope 70. Metropolitans 400. Bishops 800 Conventuall Priors all learned men out of the most parts of Christendome Shall one Apostate Paulo Dolce his word be taken concerning the Councell of Trent and preferred to the testimony of all the Catholick Churches which hath accepted all its Decrees in matters of Faith I speake not of other Councells nor of the cleare testimonies of Fathers which are obvious to all persons who understand Latin in Bellarmine Coccius and other Authors 5 Most of all I admire to see any person stick to the Common prayer Booke or to that Church as if it were the true Catholick How is it possible that God should permit the publick exercise of Catholick Religion and Church to be brought so low and to so narrow a compasse as we see the Common prayer If Antichrist reigne were come or the Turke had possessed the whole world then it might be thought that the Church fled to the wildernesse and became almost invisible but when through the mercy of God we see Christianity flourish not onely in Europe but in all other parts of the world how is it credible that God should permit the true and pure exercise of Catholick Religion to be invisible 6 Therefore I judge it a duty of conscience and charity to warne all Protestants that they may be pleased to reflect upon the Authors and first Apostles of their Reformation Is it credible that God would make choice of such wicked persons as they were knowne to be to reform his Church Suppose there were some abuses in the Court of Rome must therefore the Popes authority be tread under foot Must Kings loose their Crownes because some Courtiours are lewd If Luther had beene appointed to preach for Indulgences he had never writ against them the Pope or the Church of Rome If Henry the VIII had prevailed with the Pope to declare null his mariage with Queene Catharine of Spaine he had never made himselfe spirituall Head of the Church of England If Calvin had obtained the Bishoprick of Geneva Puritans had never beene so fierce against Episcopacy If Queene Elizabeth had not beene declared illegitimate by the Doctrine and Church of Rome the Common prayer and Reformation had ended with Edward the VI. who begunne it Doth not the world see that these pretended Reformations of Religion were onely pretexts for Princes to obtaine their politick ends and for dissolute and incontinent Clergy to gaine authority whereby their liberty and vices might not onely be excused but applauded by the ignorant and common people Let Protestants therefore examine how things past because ignorance in so important a matter can not be warranted by relying upon other mens judgements seeing they may so easily informe their owne 7 Neither ought they to sooth themselves with that no lesse usuall then groundlesse excuse Agree you Clergy men amongst your selves and we will agree submit our judgements c. But untill then we are not obliged seeing our Ministers are learned and honest men We Catholicks declare to all the world and the same must Protestant do that the Church out of which there is no salvation may be so easily discerned from all false Sects by signes so visible and obvious to all persons though illiterate that to trust to Ministers testimony in so important a matter is damnable negligence especially seeing we charge them of not believing Clergy men nor ordained As for the Protestant Ministers being learned and honest men its certaine that either we or they want learning or honesty and that either they or we impose upon the people manifest falshoods which may easily be discovered by any person that desires to be saved Let our Doctrines and Tenets be examined and it will clearly appeare that the Protestant Faith doth tend to liberty of believing and doing what every man thinkes convenient which is an infallible marke of Heresie and damnation CHAP. XIV VVhether Protestancy be manifestly against reason and common sense and how may the most learned Protestants be convinced in disputes of Religion by every illiterate Roman Catholick SECT I. 1 THe true Christian and Catholick Religion is so evidently credible that all others must necessarily be evidently incredible It is not in Religion as in cases of morall Divinity Two contrary opinions in morall matters may be prudently followed each of them as probable because there are learned men that patronize both If there were two or more Gods and they could differ in opinion or judgement men might accommodate themselves to which they pleased But seeing there is but one God there must be but one Faith and one Religion This one Faith is more then any probable opinion it is an undoubted and prudent assent of the understanding to whatsoever is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation An undoubted and prudent assent doth suppose there can be no prudent probability in any other contrary Faith or Church for if once we grant that two Religions are probable or prudently credible we have none at all because we reserve a doubt of both and are indifferent for any True Faith admits no doubts or indifferencies Supposing this no prudent Protestant can take ill that which I intend to prove in this Chap. unlesse he will have Catholicks acknowledge that they have one true Faith or Christian Religion 2 If it be proved that Protestancy is contrary to reason it s evidently demonstrated to be a false Religion because whatsoever is against reason can not be true The true Christian Faith doth perfect the understanding and not deceive that faculty of man whereby he is distinguished from brute beasts God is the Author both of Reason and Religion one must be subordinate to the other its true Faith is above Reason but never stands in opposition with it
there must be good correspondence betweene both Rationall creatures are saved by a rationall way There is a generation of men that thinke none can enter into the true Church by Faith if he leaves not his wits behind him at the doore so great an antipathy they conceive is betweene Faith and Reason that to embrace the one is to renounce holy and exclude tâ—e other This errour proceeds from confounding the mystery believed with the beliefe It s very certaine that the truth of Divine mysteries ought not to be censured by human understanding because they are above its reach that which seemeth to man very improbable may be an infallible verity But that we fall not into extreames on the other side its fit we know that no person is bound to believe any mystery he understands not before he seeth reason to believe it though that reason cleares not the mystery yet it makes manifest our obligation to believe it None is bound to part with his ovâ—ne Religion or opinion before he knoweth upon what score There is nothing so much and so properly our owne as our thoughts our lands and all other properties may be forced from us our thoughts can not they remaine free though our selves should be slaves Seeing therefore its a right of nature not to part with our owne goods being in possession unlesse better evidence be produced by others then we can shew for them the same right must be extended to our thoughts even in matters of Faith because the Law of grace doth rather perfect then destroy the Law of nature and equity 3 To prove that Protestancy is manifestly against reason it s enough to prove that it is manifestly against reason to believe as Protestants do There is not one article of any Protestant Church opposite to the Roman Catholick Faith that is not manifestly against reason in this sense This assertion may be proved first because Protestancy is Heresie as hath beene proved in the 12. Chap. and Heresie is manifestly against reason for Heresie involves obstinacy and an obstinate man is manifestly unreasonable because he is guided by his will not by his understanding None can properly be obstinate if not convinced convinced none can be but by cleare reason or by lawfull witnesses to whose testimony evident reason commands all men give credit and submit their judgements if there be not cleare evidence against it All Common-wealths do acquiesce in and take the word of honest men in both publick and private affaires as in punishing Malefactors disposing of inheritances c. That the Catholich Church hath a great multitude of lawfull witnesses and testimonies against Protestancy hath beene demonstrated Therefore Procestancy is manifestly against naturall reason which dictates to all rationall creatures to conform themselves to the testimony of lawfull wicnesses when they have no evidence against the said testimony Protestants can not pretend evidence of reason against Catholick Tenets because they are above reason Evidence of the private spirit is ridiculous and incredible to others therefore unfit for the true Catholick Church as hath beene proved in the 9. Chap. There remaines onely their pretended evidence or clearnesse of Scripture which hath beene alsoo confuted in the 8. Chap. Other lawfull witnesses against ours they have none unlesse we grant that an invisible Church never heard of before Luther hath lawfull testimonies And as for the sentences of some Fathers which they wrest in their owne behalfe we produce others against them of the same Fathers in which they explaine themselves Therefore it s manifestly against reason to believe as Protestants do because they have no prudent ground for Protestancy their Faith is not above reason but below it that is unfit to be embraced by any rationall creature 4 Another manner of proving Protestancy to be manifestly against reason is by this cleare principle When witnesses and testimonies are contrary they onely are to be believed who confirme what they say with visible and evident signes Reg. 3 Salomon judged that the child about whom there was so great a dispute betwixt the two women did belong to her who shewed a visible and sensible horror against the dividing of the infant into two parts Though the other was confident enough in testifying the child was her owne yet because her testimony was not confirmed by any exteriour and visible signe the contrary testimony was preferred and believed by Salomon If we will judge of Religions as wise and rationall men we must examine which of all Christian Churches testimony is confirmed with evident and visible signes No Protestant Church all of them being invisible for so many ages can pretend so evident and visible signe The Roman Catholick Church doth not onely pretend to visible signes but they are so evidently appearing in the said Church that no Protestant can deny them without forfeiting his judgement or his ingenuity The visible signes of the true Church must have so evident a relation to God the Author of both Church and Faith that whosoever will reflect upon the said signes can not prudently deny that they are a sufficient proofe of God being the Author of the Doctrine or Faith confirmed by them There can not be a more rationall and sufficient proofe of any Doctrine being taught by Christ and his Apostles then a continuall succession from them to us both of Pastors and Doctrine delivered from age to age by the Doctors of the Church See this in Esay 59.21 Psal 45.16 Ephes 4.11.12 5 As for our succession of Pastors it is confessed by Protestant Our succession of Doctrine from the Apostles to this present must also be granted because they could never tell us though continually pressed in that particular point when did the Roman Church fall from the true and sincere Faith which confessedly it once professed And And truly before Protestants prove that the Roman Faith was changed in any age they must first prove that all the Pastors and Doctors of that age did conspire together to damne both themselves and posterity or if they did not conspire to so incredible a thing it must be necessarily said that in that age wherein the first change of any article of Faith happened all the Catholicks of the world weremad or slept for the space of a hundred yeares because if they were awake and sober its impossible but in some parts of the world nay in every part and Countrey some learned and honest men would contradict so damnable and abominable practises and advertise future ages of the innovation of Christian Religion contrary to cleare Scripture and the knowne beliefe of all Catholicks in former ages It s as evident therefore that we Roman Catholicks have not changed that Faith which we received from the Apostles as it is evident that there was not any age wherein all the world conspired to damne themselves and their posterity or as it is evident that there was not any age wherein all the world was so benummed stupified or
propension to make our selves Scripture as our selves shall interpret it or which is the same the Rule or Judge of Controversies Therefore it s no supernaturall action nor no meritorious act to believe after this manner as Protestants do for men have no difficulty in believing themselves and they believe themselves not God when their own interpretation of Scripture is followed against that of the Church It remaines now a reason be given Why do Protestants believe the most obscure and difficult mysteries of Christian Religion if their Faith be meerly historicall How can they without a supernaturall power and favour believe that the Scripture is Gods Word the Trinity the mystery of Incarnation c. To this doubt I answer that as I said in the beginning of this Chapter there is no difficulty in believing the most improbable and extravagant things when they are told us by persons we credit and are not contradicted by any whose testimony we value In matters of Religion Protestants value no men but Christians and such mysteries as they believe are not contradicted by any Christians at least in our parts of the world They believe therefore all they believe because they have been told so by their Parents and others who had the charge of instructing them and not because God revealed it which is the onely motive of Christian and supernaturall Faith It s a received principle that he who denyes one article of Christian Religion believes none at all It can not be said that he believes none with historicall beliefe as Protestants believe the mystery of the Trinity Incarnation and Scripture to be Gods Word The meaning of all Divines is that he who denyes one article of Faith believes none at all with Christian or supernaturall beliefe This is most true for to believe like a Christian is to believe the mysteries of Christian Religion because they are sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation by the testimony of the Church not of every Church but of the true Catholick one which onely giveth lawfull authority and sends Preachers and Doctors to instruct the people God hath not promised his helpe and supernaturall inspiâ—ations which are necessary to believe with Christian Faith to them who are unsent uncalled unconsecrated but onely to such lawfull Ministers as are appointed and ordained by them who derive their Doctrine and succession from the Apostles through a never interrupted line That no Church but the Roman Catholick doth propose sufficiently as Divine Revelation the Doctrine which they preach hath been proved in the 8. Chapt. whence it followeth that out of the Roman Catholick Church there can be no true Faith nor salvation and that to deny one article of Faith in the least matter is to deny all because the motive of our beliefe is denyed as much in a little matter as in the greatest See the 7. Chap. The motive being denyed or rejected nothing can be believed with Christian Faith because of the motive depends all An infallible argument of denying the motive of Christian Faith is to contemne the testimony of that Congregation of men which hath the signes of being the true Catholick Church as a legall and orderly succession of Doctors and Doctrine conversion of Nations Miracles and markes of so eminent and extraordinary sanctity of life that the like was never found in Heathen Philosophers but farre exceeds all that hath beene discovered in any that wanted supurnaturall grace as is the entire renunciation of all the worldly pleasure profit and honour an inflamed affection towards God and his glory with an unfatigable zeale of the salvation of soules and desire of suffering for Christs sake whereof we Catholicks alone have an infinite number of undeniable examples No other but the Roman Church can as much as pretend to have the signes of the true Church as miracles remarkable either in number or quality c. Therefore whosoever denyes one article of the Roman Religion denyth also the motive of Catholick Faith which as we have proved is proposed onely by the testimony of the Roman Catholick Church and consequently he who doth not stick to it believes nothing at all with Christian and supernaturall Faith The very Devils and damned soules have the Protestant or historicall beliefe God who is Author of all graces and favours both naturall and supernaturall grant to all Protestants that pretious gift of Faith without which it is impossible to please His Divine Majesty or to obtaine the end whereunto we were all created FINIS
her securitie then was it time to make him Antichrist and to pursue his party with fire and sword The title of the ensuing Kings not being questioned by the Pope made him an object of lesse hate and his adherents subject to lesse crueltie and the Religion was fashioned to the humor of the Prince yet with some regard to popular faction Lastly the liberty of warre giving licence to those infinite Sects which lay lurking in every corner of the English Church to sally forth and to appeare to the world in their different colours every one tooke notice how few were grounded on those Tenets whereon the Church of England is built and how by leaving the true proposall of Gods Word and the ancient rule of Divine Faith men come to be so unsetled in all points of Faith that their Religion is as changeable as private fancies and publike factions And that all may see how the curse of Cain the first father of Hereticks as being the first opposer of Gods true Worship is fallen by inheritance upon our English Protestants their last change is to turne into Quakers whose Sect is nothing else but Protestancy fallen into a Paulscy and inclining to a suddaine Apoâ—lexy THE INDEX OF THE CHAPTERS CHAP. I. How Protestancy begunne and came into England CHAP. II. Of the nullitie of the English Protestant Clergy CHAP. III. Of Heresie CHAP. IV. In what doth the obstinacy of Heresie consist CHAP. V. Of the Catholick Church CHAP. VI. VVhether all Christians be thâ— Catholick Church or whether it may bâ— composed of any two or more Congregation of them if agreeing not in all matters whatse ever which any one Congregation or Church pretends to be revealed by God CHAP. VII VVhether the testimony of tâ—â— Catholick Church be infallible not onely 〈◊〉 Protestants terme them in fundamentall bâ— also in not fundamentall articles of Faith CHAP. VIII VVhether any reformed 〈◊〉 Protestant Church of the world be the Catholiâ—â— and Apostolick Church And whether thâ— pretended clearnesse of Scripture doth sufâ—â—ciently propose their doctrine as Divine reveâ—â—tion CHAP. IX VVhether any Puritanicall Congregation be the Catholick Church by reason of their pretended spirit CHAP. X. VVhether that Congregation of persons which live in communion with and subjection to the Roman Church be the Catholick and true Church of God CHAP. XI VVhether Transubstantiation and the lawfulnesse of the worship of Images be sufficiently proposed by the testimony of the Roman Catholick Church as Divine revelation and whether Protestants have any lawfull exceptions against them CHAP. XII VVhether Protestancy be Heresie CHAP. XIII VVhether any Protestants may be saved CHAP. XIV VVhether Protestancy be manifestly against reason and common sense and how may the most learned Protestants be convinced in disputes of Religion by every illiterate Roman Catholick SECT II. A Dialog between a learned Protestant Minister and a Catholick Cloune CHAP. XV. Of the difference between Christian Faith and the historicall beliefe of Protestants A TREATISE OF THE NATURE OF CATHOLICK FAITH AND HERESIE WITH Reflexion upon the Nullitie of the English Protestant Church and Clergy CHAP. I. How Protestancy begunne and came into England IN the yeare 1516. there was no other Religion in our parts of the world acknowledged Catholick and Apostolick but that which Protestants are now pleased to call Popery In the yeare 1517. Leo the X. Bishop of Rome following the â—cample of other Popes granted and published Indulgenâ—â—s to all such as voluntarily contributed towards the war â—gainst the Turke who at that time was growne formiâ—able and threatned all Christendome having added Syria â—â—d Egipt to the Otteman Empire 2 The Archbishop of Mentz to whom the Pope comâ—itted the businesse of Indulgences in Germany appointed one Iohn Tetzel a Dominican Friar to preach in the publishing of them notwithstanding that for a long time before this office had beene given to the Augustin Friars The preferment of Tetzel was ill taken by Martin Luther who being an Augustin Friar and a famous Preacher expected himselfe should have beene the man named to preach and publish the Indulgences but seeing his hopes frustrated he resolved to write as much against Indulgences and the Pope as he had prepared to preach in favour of both 3 Therefore taking occasion of some abuses which are unavoydable in things that passe through many hands he printed certaine Conclusions and Libells against Indulgences These were condemned and burnt as hereticall by Iohn Tetzel Luthers Competitor who at the same time exercised the office of Inquisitor in Germany This fire did so warme Luther and added such flames to his hot disposition that most parts of Europe felt the smart of it For being once engaged and enraged by Tetzels Declaration against him he would not recant his first error but added others by denying Purgatory the Popes authoritie merit necessitie of good workes c. 4 Amongst others who writ against Luthers novelties one was Henry the VIII King of England composing a learned Booke in defence of the seaven Sacraments the Popes supremacy and his spirituall jurisdiction over all Christendome this Booke moved the Pope to adde to Henry the VIII titles that of Defender of the Faith which had beene the most glorious of all his titles if he had not so violently opposed afterwards the Popes primacy which he then so piously maintained against Luther But being weary of his wife Queene Catharine despairing to have issue male by her and enamoured of Anne Builen because the Pope refused to declare his marriage with Queene Catharine invalid he made himselfe Pope of England challenging all spirituall jurisdiction within his owne Kingdomes and by Act of Parliament made it treason to acknow ledge any spirituall jurisdiction of the Pope in his Dominions himselfe being proclaimed spirituall Head of the English Church This was the occasion and beginning of the pretended Reformation Henry the VIII notwithstanding did stick to the old Religion in all points the Popes primacy onely excepted because he thought no other of the new Religion was necessary to marry Anne Bullen and to enrich himselfe by the spoile of Monasteries He persecuted all other novelties and herefies in such a degree that though many crept into England in his reigne yet very few durst professe them because as many as did were burnt by his command 5 To King Henry the VIII Sect. 2 succeeded his sonne Edward the VI. a child of 9. years old his unkle the Earle of Hartford was made Protector both of the King and Kingdome he was inclined to Zuinglius his heresie Twenty dayes had scarse passed after his Protectorship but his fingars did so eagerly itch to be doing and tampering about innovation in Religion Horinshed Stow and others an 1547. as upon the sixth of March next following he sent away Commissioners into all parts of the Realme to pull doâ—â—ne Images and other Ecclesiasticall ornaments He also invited out of Germany divers Sectaries of what Religion soever but especially
It s very credible that if Master Laud had found successe in his first attempts he would in time reforme the forme of the English Ordination and thrust in some words expressing the power of Priests and Bishops seeing he and others of the Protestant Clergy of late Kallend an 3. Ed. Vl. c. 12. Mason pag. 94. did differ so much in opinion concerning Priesthood and Episcopacy from those who lived in King Edward the VI. time and in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths reigne He could not misse with six Prelats and six other men learned in Gods Law whereof the greater number might devise as warrantable a forme of making Bishops and Priests as was devised by the same number in King Edwards time Yet all had beene in vaine because neither Master Laud himselfe nor any of the rest then living could consecrate others even with the Catholick forme seeing none of them all had valid Ordination as hath beene demonstrated Therefore it was thought expedient to cover the want of the reality of true Ordination with an exterior formality of long cloakes and surplises and supply the want of Sacrifice with crosses and candlesticks upon the Altars 26 Master Mason commends much the wisdome of the English Church that so discreetly and religiously pared away all superfluous Ceremonies in Ordination and saith it was a singular priviledge of Master Parker that being the 70. Archbishop after Saint Austin the Apostle of England yet of all that number he was the onely man that received Consecration without the Popes Bulls and superfluous Aaronicall ornaments How discreet and religious the English Church was in paring away pretended superfluities in Ordination can not be determined by Master Mason untill he makes appeare that all is superfluous in that kinde which he and the Puritans who made the English Rituall in King Edward the VI. time fancied superfluous It is not the part of any particular Church to pare away any thing that hath beene delivered to them by antiquity to be observed Though some words have beene added to ancient formes of Ordination for their greater explanation or solemnity yet none were ever so rash as to pare away any especially those that seemed to signifie the power and authority intended by the Ordainer 27 To conclude this matter I say with Saint Ierome Ecclesia non est quae non habet Sacerdotem How can the Protestant Church be the true Church seeing it hath not any one Priest or Bishop Though it were not evident that it hath no valid Ordination yet so many manifest uncertainties and doubts as themselves must acknowledge concerning their Ordination doth demonstrate the nullitie of their Church For if there remaine but one solid and prudent doubt of the validity of Ordination of any Church its impossible it should be the true Catholick and Apostolick because a doubtfull Clergy makes a doubtfull Church and a doubtfull Church is no Church The first step to Christian and Catholick beliefe is the well grounded credibility excluding all prudent doubts of that Church whereof we are members if we have any prudent ground to doubt of the Clergy we have the same to doubt of our Church and of the Faith or Doctrine proposed by its testimony and the true Faith admits of no such doubts Therefore Protestants before they can prudently believe to have true Faith or be in the Catholick must cleare all the doubts heretofore objected against their Ordination which I will briefly summe up 28 First they must prove clearly that the story of the Nags-head was a fable and consequently that Master Neale and the other Catholicks who said they were eye-witnesses of what passed were impudent Impostors and content to be convicted as such in the same place and time that they invented so palpable a lye Secondly they must make appeare evidently that all the Catholicks of that time both Bishops Priests and others who believed Master Neale and suffered much for conscience were all runne mad because they believed so great a foppery or if they did not believe him they were most wicked and sacrilegeous persons to engage posterity by their relation and testimony to reordaine the Protestant Clergy Thirdly they must demonstrate that all the first Protestant Bishops and others consecrated by them did conspire not to contradict the story of the Nags-head and their owne invalid consecration for the space of fifty and odde yeares to the great discredit of themselves and their whole Church where as they might easily stop their adversaries mouths by producing witnesses and Records of the pretended solemne Congregation at Lambeth being so often demanded in printed Bookes by whom and how were they ordained Fourthly it must be made appeare to the world that Bancroft Bishop of London could be ignorant of the publick Registers of Parkers Ordination at Lambeth himselfe being so much concerned in it and in the knowledge of it if he were not ignorant of the publick Registers why did he answer so fondly and contrary to the very Protestant principles that a Priest might ordaine Bishops in case of necessity Fifthly it must be manifestly proved that not onely Bancroft was ignorant of the publick Registers but that all the Bishops of England who were present in the late Parliament knew nothing of them whereas Doctor Morton pretended Bishop of Durham affirmed publikely in the upper House that the first Protestant Bishops were consecrated at the Nags-head This answer all the rest approved by their silence and were glad to have that retiring place against the Presbyterians who proved clearly that they were not consecrated at Lambeth as Master Masen pretends But if Doctor Morton and the rest of the Bishops knew any thing of Masons Booke and Registers as infallibly they did why did not they stick to that This proves evidently that none of them did give credit to Masons new found Registers 29 Sixthly supposing Master Masons forged Records were true it must be made cleare that there was in their Ordination a competent number of true Bishops and consequently that the Bishops of Edward the VI. were validly consecrated notwithstanding the Declaration of the contrary by publick Acts and sentences in Queene Maryes reigne Seventhly if there was not a competent number of true Bishops whether in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths reigne there as any such necessity as Protestants pretended having then in England 14. Catholick and true Bishops Eighthly it must be made appeare that Barlowe was consecrated who was the principall Consecrator of Parker for if he were how is it possible that in all the Registers of England and Wales there should be no mention of his Consecration Lastly it must be proved clearly that the forme used in the ordaining of Protestant Ministers and Bishops is valid It will be a very hard taske to cleare all these doubts and exceptions How unfortunately was Charles the First late King of England misinformed in matter of his Bishops and Clergy What scruple could he have had if he had knowne
the truth to give way to the Parliament to pull downe Parliament Bishops who were so farre from being de Iure Divino that they were not so much as de Iure Ecclesiastico 30 And thus much I thought fit to produce at the present in confutation of what either hath or may be said in behalfe of the English Protestant Clergy and report me to the judgement of the impartiall Reader how much he ought to rely upon their ministery that by so many titles is proved to be null But though any person should not be convinced of the nullitie of their Ordination he can not but harbour a prudent doubt thereof there being so evident reasons and motives for it as have beene set downe in this Chapter Now to receive the Sacraments from Priests of so doubtfull authority is without all doubt a damnable sacrilege it being a thing in the highest degree against the light of reason and the rules of Faith to expose to so manifest hazard the reverence of the Sacraments and the remedy of our soules It is time now to passe from the historicall relation of the introduction of a new found Heresie and the intrusion of a new fashioned Clergy to a more strict and Scholasticall examination of the nature of Heresie and Catholick Faith CHAP. III. Of Heresie 1 BEfore Protestancy be compared with Heresie its necessary to declare what Heresie is Catholick Divines commonly define it to be an obstinate errour against any Doctrine of the Catholick Church But because Protestants do not agree with us in determining what the Catholick Church is that we may not be engaged in a new dispute before we explaine what we have in hand I thought fit to define Heresie in such a sort that the definition may seeme indifferent to all Christians and suppose or beg nothing to favour Catholicks or condemne Protestants because if adversaries agree not in some principles they can not come to an issue to end the Controversies 2 The definition is this Heresie is an obstinate errour against the VVord of God or the true sense thereof sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation How shall it be knowne when any verity is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation The bare word or testimony of men doth not seeme to be a sufficient proposall of Gods revealed truths because every Sect give their word and testimony in favour of their owne Religion assuring us that God revealed the doctrine and interpretation of Scripture which they follow And yet the contrary is evident seeing God can not reveale the contradictions nonsence and contrary Tenets which are taught in so contrary Religions Therefore the testimony of men if not confirmed by some supernaturall signe or miracle can not be a sufficient proposall of Divine Revelation 3 But if any Doctrine be testified by lawfull witnesses to be Divine Revelation and their testimony be confirmed by miracles all men are bound to believe that the said Doctrine was revealed by God This is the reason why the perfidious Jewes did sinne grievously in not believing the Doctrine of Christ being confirmed with so many evident miracles It is not necessary every person see a miracle that the true Faith and Doctrine of the Catholick Church be sufficiently proposed to him as Divine Revelation it s enough that he can not prudently deny or doubt that miracles have beene wrought in confirmation of the Doctrine proposed Christs Doctrine was sufficiently proposed as Divine to many Jewes who were not present at his miracles it s enough they were credibly reported Saint Augustine proved that miracles were wrought in confirmation of Christian Religion by this ingenious Dilemma Either the world believing such strange and improbable things to human sense as our Faith teacheth and so contrary to our naturall inclinations did see them confirmed by miracles or no. If they did see miracles we have our intent If they did believe without seeing any miracle we have our intent also because that very beliefe is the greatest of all miracles for how is it possible that sober and wise men should be so mad as to believe and embrace a new and strange Doctrine so repugnant to their senses and contrary to their liberty and naturall inclinations if they had not beene wrought upon by some supernaturall power and signes In one word therefore we may conclude that onely Faith or Doctrine is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation which is not onely proposed as such by the testimony of a Church but of such a Church whose testimony hath beene confirmed by unquestionable miracles either seen by the believer or at least so credibly reported to him by the testimony of honest and learned men that it were want of prudence in any person whosoever to deny the truth and sufficiency of such a testimony and proposall CHAP. IV. In what doth the obstinacy of Heresie consist 1 THere was never any Heretick so madly obstinate as to give God the lye to his face and in plaine termes all Sectaries acknowledge him to be Truth it selfe and therefore not capable of deceiving or of being deceived The obstinacy of Hereticks is against Gods verities not as they are uttered immediatly by himselfe but as they are proposed by his Church If God himselfe were pleased to speake immediatly to men in such a manner that it were evident and cleare to them the words and sense which the Church proposeth were dictated by himselfe we should be little troubled with Heresies none would be obstinate All the obstinacy of Hereticks proceeds from the difficulty they finde in believing that God doth speak or declare his sense by the Church this once granted our understanding hath no difficulty to ubmit by an implicite Faith to whatsoever the Church proposeth as Gods Revelation or Word 2 Against cleare evidence there can be no obstinacy the object of it must be involved in some obscurity otherwise the will which is the source of obstinacy could not master the unstanding He who denyes what is cleare and evident is more mad then obstinate There is nothing more generally acknowledged or more cleate and evident to the understanding of all Christians then this proposition If God said or meant any thing it s very true The obstinacy therefore of Hereticks doth not contest with this cleare and confessed truth it onely doubteth or denyeth that God said or meant any such thing as the Church pretends but no Heretick ever denyed or doubted but that if God meant or said what the Church pretends it must be true 3 The difference therefore betweene an Heretick and a Catholick is not that the Heretick denyes or doubts all that to be true which he thinks God revealed or meant but the difference consists in this that the Heretick doth obstinatly deny or doubt that God said or meant what â—he Church proposeth as Divine Revelation and the Catholick doth firmely believe he did say and meane whatsoever the Church proposeth as revealed The Heretick believes what the Church proposeth onely conditioâ—ally If
both may be part of the Catholick Church Protestants as wâ— have seen in the former Chapter say that aâ—â— Christian Congregations are parts of the Catholick Church as well as we Roman Catholicks Thiâ— assertion they ground upon the signification of the worâ— Catholick which is as much to say as Vniversal In the saâ— me sense they explicate Catholick Tradition to be onelâ— that which is contradicted by any Christian Church According to this opinion no Congregation of Christian can be Hereticks because Hereticks must be obstinate against the Doctrine of the Universall or Catholick Church but no Christians can be obstinate against thâ— Doctrine of the Catholick or Universall Church seeinâ— themselves are part of it and they can not be obstinate against themselves or their owne Tenets and Doctrine therefore none can be Hereticks This absurd and hereticall sequele is a sufficient refutation of the Protestant principle and their explication of the word Catholick 2 But let us prove directly that neither all Christians nor any two Churches dissenting in their testimonies concerning whatsoever matters of Faith can be the Catholick Church My proofe is this The testimony of the Catholick Church concerning what is pretended to be revealed or not revealed by God must oblige all persons who are informed of it to believe what it saith and proposeth But if all Christians or any two Churches not agreeing in their testimonies suppose Roman Catholicks and Protestants be parts of the Catholick Church the testimony thereof can not oblige any sober person to believe what both say and propose First because one Church contradicts the other and its impossible to believe contradictions at one and the same instant Secondly when witnesses do not agree in their testimonies if they be of equall authority no man is obliged to believe either side but rather is bound in prudence to suspend his judgement Therefore if the Catholick Church be composed of all Congregations and Churches of Christians or of any two Churches not agreeing in their testimonies concerning matters of Faith no man is obliged to believe the testimony of the Catholick Church but rather to suspend his judgement and credit nothing which sequele is absurd and contrary to the Doctrine not onely of Catholicks but also of Protestants Therefore the Catholick Church must not be all Congregations of Christians or any two dissenting but one onely Congregation of persons who agree in one Faith CHAP. VII VVhether the testimony of the Catholick Church be infallible not onely as Protestants terme them in fundamentall but also in not fundamentall articles of Faith 1 THough we Catholicks say that all articles of Faith if once sufficiently proposed are in one sense fundamentall because under paine of damnation they must be believed yet in ananother sense we admit a distinction betweene fundamentall and not fundamentall articles of Faith Fundamentall articles may be called such as no ignorance of them can excuse men from damnation for not being believed Not fundamentalls may be called such articles as if proposed must be believed but if not proposed sufficiently the ignorance of them is excusable 2 But whether these articles be both called fundamentall or onely the first sort of them our controversie with Protestants is the same and the question is not set here out of its proper place because the resolution of it is necessary to answer an objection which Protestants make against the Doctrine of the former Chapter All Christians say they do agree in fundamentall points of Faith as in the Trinity Incarnation c. what great matter is it if they agree not in other things of little importance without the knowledge and sufficient proposall whereof they may be saved as Purgatory Transubstantiation c Why should we be obliged to believe things that are not absolutely necessary for salvation especially seeing Roman Catholick Divines do not deny that ignorance of not fundamentalls is not damnable Therefore all Christians though dissenting in not fundamentalls may be called Catholicks and the universall Church because they agree in all necessary articles of Catholick Religion and though their testimonies do not agree in Purgatory v.g. being an article of Faith why should their disagreement in that petty point invalid their testimony concerning the mystery of the Trinity Incarnation and other fundamentall articles 3 This discourse and objection of Protestants hath damned many a soule because they did not examine the truth of it as they ought But to declare the fallacy of it something must be said of the Churches infallibility Most Protestants do grant that the testimony of the Church is infallible in proposing the fundamentall articles of Christian Religion as in delivering Scripture to be Gods Word and in declaring the mystery of the Trinity c. because Christian and Catholick Faith must admit of no doubts concerning the truth of fundamentalls and if the Church be not infallible in proposing those to us we must necessarily doubt of their truth for though we doubt not that whatsoever God said is true yet we can not but doubt whether he revealed or meant any such thing as the mystery of the Trinity or Incarnation if we do not believe that the Church is infallible in proposing the said mystery God therefore in his Providence can not permit the Church to erre or deceive us in fundamentalls seeing its necessary for our salvation not to doubt of the truth of fundamentall mysteries but if the Church may erre in proposing them we can not but doubt of their truth This reason say Protestants can not be applyed to not fundamentalls because they are not absolutely necessary for salvation and our salvation is the onely motive that God had to make the Church infallible in proposing articles of Religion Therefore none is bound to believe that the Church is infallible in not fundamentalls 4 If the onely motive that God had to make the Catholick Church infallible were our salvation this discourse of Protestants might have some colour of truth but Gods motive in all his actions is not onely our salvation but in first place his owne honour and glory There is nothing concerns Gods honour more then that whatsoever is sufficiently proposed as revealed by him be credited by us without the least doubt whether the matter be great or of little importance Therefore the Churches infallibility and our obligation of believing it ought not to be measured by the greatnesse importance or absolute necessity of the matter proposed in order onely to our salvation but also by the sufficiency of the proposall in order to Gods honour and veracity If a matter not absolutely necessary for salvation be as sufficiently proposed to be revealed by God as the mystery of the Trinity the obligation is as great of believing the one without any doubt as the other The reason is cleare because there is as great an injury done to God by denying or doubting of his veracity and revelation in a small matter as in a great In believing
we are as much bound to have a regard to Gods honour as to our owne salvation and his honour is as much concerned in being believed without the least doubt concerning Purgatory as concerning the Trinity if both mysteries be equally or sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation 5 Seeing therefore that the selfe same Roman Catholick Church and testimony which proposed sufficiently in the yeare 1516. to Luther and all other Protestants since that time Scripture the mystery of the Trinity c. to be Divine Revelation did in the same yeare and doth now also propose Purgatory Transubstantion and other points which Protestants call not fundamentall to be revealed by God its evident that there is as great obligation of believing without any doubt Purgatory Transubstantiation and others not thought fundamentalls by Protestants as the fundamentalls But these articles which Protestants call not fundamentall can not be believed without some doubt if the Church be not infallible in proposing them as they themselves must grant by force of the parity made with their fundamentall articles Therefore the Catholick Church is as infallible in its testimony concerning not fundamentall articles being Divine Revelation as it is in fundamentalls or if not it must be fallible in both 6 Yet if matters be well considered we shall finde that its impossible to deny any article of Faith though not absolutely necessary and therefore in the opinion of Protestants of little importance but a necessary and fundamentall article must be denyed together with it There is no article of Faith more fundamentall and necessary for salvation then Gods veracity They who deny Purgatory v.g. deny Gods veracity because they who deny any thing that is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation deny Gods veracity whether the matter proposed as revealed by him be great or small Neither can Protestants give any other reason why by denying the Trinity Gods veracity is denyed but because the Trinity is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation Therefore if Purgatory or Transubstantiation be as sufficiently proposed as the Trinity by denying them and others the like Gods veracity is also denyed So that all articles of Faith if sufficiently proposed are fundamentall and necessary for salvation 7 My second answer to the discourse and argument of Protestants is that witnesses contradicting themselves in circumstances though of little importance are not to be prudently credited in the maine points wherein they agree The testimony of the two old Judges was not valid in the crime of adultery objected by them against Susanna Dan. 13. because though their testimonies did agree in the crime and in what was materiall to condemne her yet they varied in some circumstances not materiall What did it import as to the guilt of Susanna whether she committed adultery under a Fig-tree or a Pine Though it was a circumstance very indifferent and of little importance in it selfe yet the incoherency in it did prove that the two old mens testimonies in the maine were invalid Therefore although not fundamentall articles were not necessary for salvation yet the incoherency in such little matters doth invalid the Catholick Churches testimony even in fundamentalls and the maine points of Christian Religion Therefore it must be granted that the testimony of the Catholick Church either is not prudently credible and infallible in necessary and fundamentall articles or that it is prudently credible and infallible in not fundamentalls It followeth also out of the premises that the Catholick Church can not be all Churches of Christendome because there are not two of them whose testimonies concerning Faith do not differ at least in not fundamentall points of Religion and by consequence the testimony is absolutely incredible because incoherent Against what hitherto hath beene said some may object that the Fathers unanimously testifying fundamentall articles to be revealed by God ought to be credited though they contradict one another in matters not fundamentall Therefore the same may be said of many dissenting Churches or Congregations of Christians why should not the Catholick Church be composed of all Christians agreeing in the principall points of Christian Religion though they agree not in others of lesse importance The example of tke Babylonian Judges in the case of Susanna can not be applyed to the Catholick Church they were not credited by Daniel in the fact which they unanimously testified because the circumstance wherein they varied was so concomitant and connected with the fact it selfe that it was impossible to see one and not the other Therefore the contradicting themselves in the circumstance of the tree did demonstrate that they never saw Susanna commit adultery But no such connexion appeares betweene fundamentall and not fundamentall articles of Christian Religion the Trinity or Incarnation may be sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation by the testimony of both Protestant and Roman Church though Purgatory or Transubstantiation be onely held by Protestants to be onely a probable opinion of the Roman Clergy and consequently not sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation because it wants the concurrence of a considerable part of Christianity in the testimony which it gives of those and the like not fundamentall Tenets To the first part of this argument I say that the Fathers in their greatest differences agree in submitting their judgements to the Sea Apostolick or to a generall Councell as to the visible and infallible Judge of Controversies Not to Protestant Churches each one pretending to be Independent of the other and of the Roman also Such independency and obstinacy of judgement is wholy inconsistent with unity of Faith and identity of Church Now to the second part concerning Susanna and the two old Judges I answer that all mysteries of Christian Religion are connected in the motive of beliefe so that we can no more discover a matter of Faith without the motive then a matter of fact without its circumstance Wherefore the motive being the same in all they are all united to the motive and consequently so inseparable one from another that denying one you deny all as denying the motive whereon all and every one do rely If the greatnesse of the matter proposed or the number of proponents and not the quality of the proposall did authorise and induce the obligation of believing whatsoever the Catholick Church testifieth to be Divine Revelation the aforesaid argument might trouble Catholicks but seeing that both the testimony of few and matters not absolutely necessary for salvation may be confirmed with supernaturall signes and with true markes of the Catholick Church and Doctrine there is no necessity of obtruding upon it any Protestant Congregation thereby to give more credit Christians were not very many in the beginning of the primitive times and yet they filled up the number of the Catholick Church The Arrians were thought to be more numerous then the Catholicks and yet it was never thought necessary by any Orthodox to have the concurrence of their suffrage or testimony concerning Religion and declaring what
was fundamentall and not fundamentall I see no reason why the Catholick Church of this age should court Protestants more â—hen the Church of the fourth and fifth age did Arrians Nestorians c. I am sure the Arrians were more in number then Protestants and much more learned they had a more certaine Ordination of Priests and Bishops and many of them were of as good life and conversation as any Protestants are or were since the beginning of the pretended Reformation Why therefore should Protestants be a part of the Catholick Church and not Arrians or Nestorians If Protestants be admitted as part of the Catholick Church the Turkes Jewes and all others who believe there is one God may with reason complaine that they also are not looked upon as Catholicks For they and we agree in the two fundamentall articles which onely according the opinion of many learned Divines are necessary necessitate medij to wit that there is a God and that he is Remunerator Turkes and Jewes believe this therefore they agree both with us and Protestants in fundamentalls Let us all therefore be parts of the Catholick Church And though Jewes or Turkes be not baptized that can not prejudice them according the principles of Protestants their implicit or conditionall faith will excuse them as well as Protestants from damnation If God revealed the necessity of Baptisme or that Scripture is his VVord saith a Turke I believe both but untill that be made cleare unto me I am not more bound to believe either absoluly and without doubt then Protestants are to believe Transubstantiation I see no reason why this implicite and conditionall faith should not save Jewes and Turkes as well as Protestants if the mysteries not believed by either be equally proposed Therefore Protestants are no more part of the Catholick Church then Turkes or Jewes I am certaine we have no more need of the testimony of the one then of the other to establish what ought to be believed as Catholick Faith or what articles are fundamentall CHAP. VIII VVhether any reformed or Protestant Church of the world be the Catholick and Apostolick Church And whether their pretended clearnesse of Scripture doth sufficiently propose their doctrine as Divine Revelation 1 IN the fifth Chapter num This definition of the Church is clearly insinuated in Scripture Act. 1. v. 8. Luc. 24.48 Ioan. 18.37 Act. 5.32 Act. 2.32 Act. 4.33 Rom. 10. Math. 28. c. 2. it hath beene said that the Catholick Church is a multitude or Congregation of persons whose testimony doth so sufficiently propose their Doctrine or Faith to be Gods Word and the true meaning thereof that it is evidently imprudence and infallible damnation in any person whosoever not to acquiesce in the said testimony and not to believe without the least doubt what it proposeth as Divine Revelation The testimony of the true Catholick Church must not be credible onely to silly soules that believe any thing they heare by reason of their ignorance or because they were not rightly informed it must be credible to the most prudent and informed persons by reason that the said testimony is confirmed with so cleare signes and markes of Gods providence in planting and propagating the Faith professed by the true Church that all circumstances considered no informed and prudent person may judge any other Church to have as much as a probable appearance of the true one when they are compared with the Catholick 2 How the Protestant Churches and Reformation did beginne hath beene said in the first Chapter which supposed let us now examine whether any person can prudently believe that either the Protestant Church of England or that of Stratzburg or Zurick or Geneva be the true Catholick Church of God The ground of the beliefe of these and all other reformed Churches are reduced to two one is cleare Scripture pretended against the Roman errours as they call them the other is the private Spirit whereby they interpret the true sense of Scriptures to be contrary to the Tenets and Doctrine of the Roman Catholick Church This is all the evidence which Protestants have to prove that each of their owne Congregations is the true Spouse of Christ and that the Church of Rome is the VVhore of Babylon Miracles they do not pretend to and as for the two other signes which most of their Authors brag of that is the sincere preaching of the Word of God and the lawfull administration of the Sacraments these two can not be knowne nor perceived untill that whereupon they depend be first known to be the true sense of Scripture or the true Faith be knowne But when the true Faith is knowne we have no more need of signes to bring us to the knowledge of it or the true Church that professeth it then a Pilot hath of markes to be guided by into the haven after he is within safe and at anchor Therefore these two signes of Protestant are not true signes because they are as unknowne and as hard to be found out as the Church it selfe which â—s contrary to the nature and essence of a true signe 3 As for the first ground of Protestancy and Reformation which is the pretended clearnesse of Scripture against the Doctrine of the Roman Church it can as little confirme the testimony of the Church of England or Zurick c. as the Turkes Alcoran First they tell us that Scripture is against Transubstantiation Purgatory worship of Images c. We deny it and bring at least as cleare texts of Scripture for our selves as Protestants do against us They say the words and sense of Scripture are so cleare against our Doctrine that none can deny them Yet we reply that we are not so impious nor obstinate as to maintaine Doctrine point blank against Gods Word and sense Now the question is whether the testimony of Protestant Churches against us or ours in our owne behalfe and defence concerning the clearnesse of Scripture be most credible to sober and prudent men I answer that the testimony of Catholicks of the obscurity of Scripture against Transubstantiation worship of Images c. is not onely more credible then the testimony of Protestants to the contrary but also that the testimony of Protestants saying that Scripture is cleare against Transubstantion worship of Images Purgatory c. may be demonstrated to be false 4 That this may not be thought a vaine undertaking suppose that our controversie with Protestants concerning the clearnesse and obscurity of Scripture in controverted points is to be understood after all combinations and confronting of texts which seeme to have relation oâ— dependence one of the other I suppose also that somâ— Catholick Doctors have read and considered Scripture and all controverted texts as diligently as Protestants aâ— may appeare by their printed Bookes wherein they answer all Objections made by Luther Calvin Iewell c. 〈◊〉 thinke it also no discredit for Protestants to admit thaâ— at least some of our learned men and
age That is to say in every Century or age there were honest men and lawfull witnesses who testified that Henry the IV Ancestors descended from Saint Lewis though one onely age could remember or see Saint Lewis yet the next ensuing did see the first and heard their testimony the third did see the second c. In every age did live men whose testimony might be relyed upon It must be granted therefore by all that the knowledge which is grounded upon a continuall and never interrupted tradition is sufficient for lawfull witnesses 6 That the Roman Catholick Church hath a continuall and never interrupted tradition of its Faith and sense of Scripture being taught by Christ and the Apostles can not be denyed by our adversaries it being evident to the world that they who contradicted any article of this Faith we now professe in former ages were looked upon and condemned as Hereticks which is an infallible argument that we in every age received our Doctrine from the former not as the word of men but as the Word of God or as Divine Revelation for if it were not believed as Divine Revelation why should we condemne men as Hereticks because they denyed it Neither do Protestants deny that we believed our tradition and the testimony of our Church to be grounded upon Divine Revelation they onely say we were mistaken and that both our tradition and testimony of the Roman Church was fallible But then we urge that they acknowledge both were infallible in delivering to them the Scripture and testifying that it was the Word of God therefore in delivering and testifying all the rest seeing the same testimony delivering many things together must be of equall authority in all and equally believed by them who accept of it as a lawfull proofe All our pretended Reformers had no other ground in the yeare 1517. to believe Scripture as Divine Revelation but the testimony of the Roman Church Therefore they ought to believe all the rest or not to believe Scripture 7 I said it concernes also our adversaries to grant that their reformed Churches have no lawfull witnesses in matters of Faith because there can not be that sufficient knowledge which is required in a lawfull witnesse of Faith without tradition whereby it may appeare that the Faith and sense of Scripture of this age doth agree with that of the primitive Church If once our adversaries acknowledge lawfull witnesses of things past long since without a constant and never interrupted tradition every man whose spirit of ambition moves him may pretend to be true heire of any hereditary crowne or estate and without further proofe then his owne word and spirit or some obscure text of Scripture will exclude Kings and others whose rights are grounded upon tradition But if tradition be so necessary to preserve and make credible the testimony of men in matters of estates and rights in the Common-wealth it can not be superfluous to make credible the testimony of men concerning matters of Faith 8 It remaines now we prove that the testimony of the Roman Catholick Church hath beene confirmed with supernaturall signes or miracles But seeing there are in the Roman Church lawfull witnesses who prove that the Faith which they now professe is the same with that of the primitive Church miracles also are proved by the same witnesses it being granted by Protestants themselves that miracles were wrought in the primitive Church to confirme the Faith which Christ and his Apostles taught Yet in the Roman Catholick Church there are now lawfull witnesses and have beene in every age since Christs preaching that there have beene miracles done in confirmation of the Roman Faith This is evident to all who read the Ecclesiasticall Histories of present and past times Neither can our adversaries deny that we have lawfull witnesses for miracles now wrought in our Church even in confirmation of that Doctrine wherein we differ from them and reported by so credible testimonies See the 13. Chap. that it were imprudence in any person whosoever to deny them which is enough to propose sufficiently our Doctrine as Divine Revelation But Protestants do not believe our miracles because they imagine that they are against Scriptures that is against their owne interpretation of it and that some miracles have beene false and forged We do not say that all things which the common people thinke to be miracles are really true miracles but we affirme that true miracles there are in our Church and very frequent confirming that very Doctrine which Protestants reject the forgery or knavery of some particular wicked men in feigning miracles can not prejudice all especially such as are seene and experimented by persons of knowne integrity and learning able to discerne betweene true and false miracles otherwise it will follow that all the new Testament must be called in question or denyed to be Gods Word because Saint Thomas his pretended Ghospell or Nicodemus his writings are condemned as forged or Apocryphall That no reformed Church of Protestants can have lawfull witnesses to propose sufficiently their Doctrine as Divine Revelation is evident because for the space of 1500. yeares they were without any visible Church or tradition therefore their witnesses also are invisible and by consequence not lawfull or credible Fox and others made a certaine Catalogue of men who opposed the Doctrine of the Roman Church in former ages but they were known Hereticks and did neither agree amongst themselves nor with Protestants in their Tenets or Religion as hath beene demonstrated by Father Persons in his Examination of Fox his Kalendar and by many others 9 I conclude therefore that seeing Protestants grant there is and hath alwayes beene a Catholick Church upon earth and that Church must have lawfull witnesses testifying their Doctrine to be Divine Revelation it being evident that no Congregation of men can produce any such lawfull witnesses but the Roman Catholicks amongst whom I include also them of the Greeke Church who agree with us it s also evident that there can be no Church Catholick but the Roman CHAP. XI VVhether Transubstantiation and the lawfulnesse of the worship of Images be sufficiently proposed by the testimony of the Roman Catholick Church as Divine revelation and whether Protestants have any lawfull exceptions against them 1 THere are so many Bookes printed in defence of these Catholick Tenets that I judge it superfluous to treate of them ex professo I will onely answer some exceptions that Protestants have made against them to my selfe in diverse occasions That the Roman Church doth propose these articles sufficiently as Divine Revelation is cleare because it proposeth them by the same testimony and confirmed by the sames signes whereby it proposeth Scripture to be Gods Word this last proposall Protestants themselves grant to be so sufficient that no man may in prudence deny it Therefore the same must be said of all the rest and in particular of Transubstantiation and worship of Images 2 But let us
time invented when the Councell defined it The Church doth not make new articles of Faith when it defines any controverted Doctrine it onely declares that such Doctrine was delivered to the primitive Church though perhaps it was not proposed generally to all Churches and Catholicks it groundeth the definition upon Scripture or Tradition The same which Protestants object against the word Transubstantiation did the Arrians against Consubstantiality in the Councell of Nice saying it was a novelty and not in Scripture 11 The lawfulnesse of worshipping Images is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation by the second Councell of Nice in these words VVe do unanimously professe to stick to Ecclesiasticall traditions which are in force eather by custome or writing whereof one is the making of Images Which is agreable to the Ghospell and profitably invented for the beliefe of Gods true Incarnation This supposed following the beaten rode and the steps of our Divine and holy Fathers and observing the tradition of the Catholick Church wherein the holy Ghost doth inhabitate we define that holy Images ought to be worshipt c. of Christ of our Lady Angells Saints c. For so the discipline of our holy Fathers doth conclude as also the tradition of the Catholick Church which from one end to the other hath received the Ghospell 12 Notwithstanding this cleare testimony of the Catholick Church Protestants confound the worship of Images with idolatry not distinguishing between an Image and an Idol Idol signifies the likenesse of a false God Image is the likenesse of any thing that doth or may exist translating in the English Bible Image for Idol and make the poore ignorant people believe that we Catholicks dare not set downe in our Cathechismes the first Commandement at full as it is in Scripture because it forbiddeth worship of Images whereas out of the very text it appeares that God forbids onely the likenesse of any thing to be adored as God or made to that purpose In Canisius the Jesuite his Cathechisme is set downe the first Commandement as it is in Scripture In all other Cathechismes the substance of the first Commandement is set downe for in adoring but one God is implyed we must not worship any other things as Gods It might be as well objected against our Cathechismes that in the last Commandement we put in briefe onely these words Thou shalt not covet another mans goods omitting oxes and asses c. which these wise Objectors put us in minde of Cathechismes being briese instructions for childrens memory require the shortest expression of the substance of every Commandement 13 But when Catholicks urge Protestants with the same Commandement because they have their owne statues and pictures made which are as much prohibited by the Commandement as the statues or Images of Saints they can finde an explanation for the text and distinguish betweene civill and religious worship we honour say they Kings and Princes Images with a civill worship onely and not religiously as ye do the Images of Saints which religious worship is due to God alone I would faine know why can not religious worship have a latitude and be more and lesse supreme and inferror as civill worship hath Its civility not onely to worship Kings but also noble men and others ho are their servants but the supreme civilâ— worship is due onely to the King himselfe an inferior deâ— gree is due to his servants to every one according his calling What inconveniency is it to hold the same with proportion of religious worship The supreme religiouâ— worship which is called Latria is due to God alone why may not there be an inferior degree of religious worshiâ— due to Saints and their Images religious worship being onely an exterior acknowledgement of some religious oâ— supernatur all excellency in the person worshipt Saint Poter is knowne because he was a Saint and not because hâ— was a Fisher Sure Protestants will not deny that thâ— Saints who enjoy God have a supernaturall excellencâ— bestowed upon them by his Divine Majesty Thereforâ— the Saints and by consequence their Images may be hoâ— noured with a religious worship of an inferior degree 14 As for the danger of idolatry amongst the commoâ— people we Catholicks have no reason to apprehend any having so long experience of the contrary We resort more to the Church or Chappell where one Image is the another according the graces which we receive our selâ—s or the miracles which we credibly heare to be done 〈◊〉 others To perswade us not to believe any such miraâ—es is to take away all beliefe and society amongst men â—s evident some miracles done at these Images are true â—ough some may be false For its impossible that all the â—atholicks and many Hereticks should conspire togeâ—er to deceive the world and damne themselves for a â—ing which if false imports most of them nothing If â—ere be miracles the worship of Images can not be unâ—wfull because God induceth not men by miracles to â—nne rather there is an obligation of believing that it is â—ry lawfull And as for the danger of idolatry there is 〈◊〉 more in worshipping Images then there is that the â—mmon people of England should cry up an Image or atue of the King for their King and rebell with it aâ—inst himselfe CHAP. XII VVhether Protestancy be Heresie BY Protestancy I meane all and every point of that Doctrine of Protestants wherein they differ from any Tenet which Roman Catholicks hold as a point of Faith The articles of Christian Religion in which they and we agree â—n not be properly called Protestancy because they are infferent to both and were believed by us Roman Cathoâ—ks long before any Protestants were seene or heard of 〈◊〉 the world Most of the articles of Protestancy are neâ—tive that is not ot believe Transubstantiation Purgatory 〈◊〉 lawfulnesse of praying to Saints or worshipping them in â—ir Images c. so that to be a Protestant is not to beve Protestants on the other side say that to be a Caâ—lick is to overbelieve and to be a Protestant is to beâ—ve onely that which is necessary But then we aske who all be Judge of what is necessary and superfluous Not â—man Catholicks say they because they are a part and â—cerned By the same reason we may exclude all Proteâ—nts from judging and not onely Protestants but all Christians because every Church of Christendome pretends to believe all that is necessary all therefore and evâ—ry one may be excepted against as a part and concerneâ— So that if Roman Catholicks be excluded from determâ— ning what is necessary to be believed we must be judge by the Turks Pagans or Jewes in the controversies 〈◊〉 Christian Religion and of Scripture Me thinks we Caâ— tholicks are beter conditioned more prudent and moâ—â— provident in our beliefe then Protestants because thougâ— we should believe too much we can not be damned foâ— want of necessary beliefe we may lend some to oâ— Neighbours and reserve to
our selves as much as is neceâ— sary But Protestants stand upon such nice termes witâ— God and the Church that if they come not short of whâ— is necessary as twenty to one they will their Neighbouâ— shall be nothing the better for their beliefe 2 I might urge this argument in a serious way and vâ— home if this were its proper place But to returne to thâ— question whether Protestancy be Heresie I answer thâ— all opinions or Tenets whether negative or affirmativâ— that Protestants hold contrary to that which the Româ— Catholick Church believes as an article of Faith are Hâ— resies which I demonstrate in this manner Whatsoevâ— opinion is contrary to any Doctrine sufficiently propose as Divine Revelation is Heresie but all Protestants prper Tenets or opinions are contrary to some Doctriâ— sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation Therefore 〈◊〉 Protestants proper Tenets or opinions are Heresies Thâ— first proposition is granted by our very adversaries anâ— hath beene proved in the 3. and 4. Chap. The second 〈◊〉 cleare by what may be borrowed from the same Chapter and from the so and I apply to our question by this syâ— logisme All the proper Teners of Protestancy are coâ— trary to some Doctrine which the Roman Catholiâ— Church doth testifie to be Divine Revelation that is 〈◊〉 have beene revealed by God to the primitive Church bâ— the testimony of the Roman Catholick Church is a sufâ— cient proposall of any Doctrine to be Divine Revelatioâ— Therefore all Tenets or opinions proper to Protestancâ— are contrary to some Doctrine sufficiently proposed Divine Revelation 3 If the second proposition of this last syllogisme argument be demonstrated Protestancy is demonstrated â—o be Heresie Therefore I prove it in my judgement â—ery clearly That testimony is a sufficient proposall of Sods revealing any Doctrine to the primitive Church which testimony is confirmed by miracles and hath conâ—inued without interruption being exhibited in every â—ge from the time of the Apostles to this present by hoâ—est and knowing men But the testimony of the Roman Catholick Church hath all this Therefore it s a sufficient â—toposall of any Doctrine to be Divine Revelation or to â—ave beene revealed by God to the primitive Church That the testimony of the Roman Church is confirmed by â—â—iracles even in those very points of Doctrine wherein â—rotestants differ from us is so evident that no prudent â—an if not obstinate can deny and is particularly proved 〈◊〉 the 13. Chap. For how is it possible that all the world â—as I said before should conspire to abuse Protestants and â—amne themselves by feigning miracles and that not â—nely in this age but in every age since the primitive Church The forging of some is no prudent proose that â—ll are forged If there are no miracles in the Roman Caâ—olick Church in confirmation of Transubstantiation Purâ—atory Worship of Images c. there is no Faith to be given my men whosoever 4 Now it remaines onely to be proved that there hath â—een a continuall succession of honest and learned men â—f the Roman Church in every age since the primitive Church to this present who did beare witnesse that the Doctrine which every respective former age delivered to â—he next ensuing and we believe as Faith was revealed by â—od to the first Christians But this being evident by the â—ondemning as Hereticks all those who in any age held â—rotestant Tenets and being also proved in the 10. Chap. â—s superfluous and troublesome to repeate it here againe Whosoever desires to be informed more at large and of â—very point in particular let him read the Protestant Apoâ—gy for the Roman Church There he will finde what I â—ay to be so cleare that our very learned Adversaries are â—orced to acknowledge it and recurre to that old and â—esperate shift of Hereticks who say that the word of â—en is not to be believed as if the word of the same men who assure us that Scripture is the Word of God were credible in that but in nothing else Of this we have saiâ— enough before in the 5. Chap. 5 Yet I will not omit to argue against Protestants aâ— Saint Augustin did against Jewes and Pagans with that inâ— genious Dilemma whereof I made mention in the 3. Chap Either the first learned and honest men who adored thâ— Blessed Sacrament believing there was no bread in it worshipt Images c. did see miracles to confirme thesâ— pretended novelties which crept in as Protestant say tâ— the Church or they did see no miracles to confirme them If they did see miracles I have my intent If they did seâ— none I have also my intent because the greatest of all mâ— racles is that wise and learned men should without anâ— miracles seene adore for God that which seemes to be piece of bread and worship a statue or picture which 〈◊〉 not onely contrary as Protestants say to cleare Scripturâ— but also to common sense and reason By the same Di emâ— ma I prove that every point of the Doctrine of Catholick against Protestants was sufficiently proposed as Divinâ— Revelation Either it was sufficiently proposed to the firâ— Christians who believed it or not If it was Protestancâ— is Heresie If it was not how is it possible that not onely the first who believed or taught these superfluities buâ— all the wise and honest men of the world for many age before the pretended Reformation should impose upon themselves unnecessary articles as necessary and therebâ— betray posterity and damne themselves for believinâ— things which had no ground in Scripture nor were testiâ— fied to them by any credible testimonies of the Christianâ— who went before them to be Divine Revelation All thaâ— Protestants can say in their owne defence hath beene conâ— futed in the 3.4.7.8 and 9. Chap for all must be reduceâ— to three heads 1. That Scripture and Fathers are cleaâ— against Roman Catholicks 2. That the private spirit iâ— for Protestants 3. That Protestants are neither obstinate nor Hereticks because they do not believe that God reâ— vealed Transubstantiation Purgatory c. All these threâ— evasions and more have beene confuted in the foremeâ— tioned Chapters to which I remit the Reader 6 I do not see what exception Protestants can adde tâ— their former against the testimony of the Roman Cathâ— lick Church unlesse they say I that it is not make anâ— thing prudently credible as Divine Revelation because we Catholicks can not make appeare by reason how what we say is true as how accidents can be without their proper subject c. but upon this score they may as well reject the mystery of the Trinity Incarnation as Transubstantiation The Catholick Church is not the Author of the Doctrine it proposeth it s onely a witnesse as Christ himselfe declared when he sent the Apostles to preach Ye shall be my witnesses in Hierusalem c. Act. 1. Onely God who is the Author of Catholick Doctrine can give a cleare reason of some mysteries and
though the Church can not its testimony ought to be believed Many Clownes who unanimously say they have seene an Eclyps or extravagant inundation of the Sea deserve credit though they be no Philosophers or Mathematicians and consequently can not give any cleare reason of an Eclyps c. Therefore the testimony of Catholicks ought not to be rejected concerning Transubstantiation or any other mystery though they can not give cleare reason for it it s enough for them to recurre to Gods omnipotency 7 But how say Protestants can we be called Hereticks or obstinate if we are content to submit our judgements and believe what is sufficiently proposed as Gods Revelation We onely deny that the Roman Church doth propose sufficiently as Gods Revelations their Decrees in the Councells of Trent and Lateran c. To this I have answered in the third Chap. and now againe do affirme that there is no Prince who doth propose his commands and sense concerning any matter more sufficiently by his subordinate Ministers then God doth his Word and sense of Scripture by the Roman Church Because there hath not beene onely a continuall succession of this Doctrine we professe from the primitive Church to this present which neither the Greeke Church See Chap. 9. nor any other can pretend to having changed the Doctrine of Faith more then once but because there do appeare such evident signes of the Roman Churches being appointed by God to declare to all the world the true Faith and sense of Scripture that it must be obstinacy in the highest degree to doubt of the sufficiency of the Roman Churches proposall and testimony First the conversion of Nations by Roman Catholicks in all parts of the world is evident Secondly no other Church doth pretend to miracles but we alone Thirdly we heare of no eminent sanctity confirmed by prophecy and other supernaturall signes in any Church but in ours Fourthly there is no unity peace or end of controversies but amongst us all submitting our judgements in matters of Faith to any generall Councell approved by the Pope Fifthly no Church hath continuall tradition and succession of Doctrine but we Roman Catholicks 8 All these signs are marks of the true Catholick Church and are so obvious to our senses that idiots may take notice of them if they will but inquire and spend as much time in that as in reading the History of their owne Countrey or of informing themselves of their Ancestors This is the true reason why no Protestants can pretend ignorance of the true Church nor rely upon the word of their Ministers If they inquire not they will be damned for being ignorant If after due inquiry made they become not Roman Catholicks they will be damned for Heresie not onely for denying the truth of our Doctrine and Faith but also the sufficiency of its proposal He is a rebell who denyeth that the accustomed exterior signes of the Princes commission and authority which are seene in his Officers is not a sufficient proposall of his will and pleasure to have the said Officers obeyed as his Judges or Deputies c. I see no reason why the same ought not to be grated with proportion in our case unlesse Protestants thinke that Princes ought to be more respected in their Ministers then God in his Church or that there is greater evidence required to believe that God doth speake by his Church then to believe that Princes do speake by their subordinate Ministers Truly though this greater evidence were required Protestants can have no excuse because the signes of the Roman Church are greater evidence that it alone is the true one by which God declares and speaketh his minde then the signes of any Magistrate in a Common-wealth or Kingdome are of the true regall authority of the said Magistrate by which Kings and Princes declare their minde to the Subjects See more in the 4. and 5. Chapters CHAP. XIII VVhether any Protestants may be saved 1 THough Protestancy be Heresie all Protestants are not Hereticks there is a difference saith Saint Austin betweene Hereticks and them who believe Hereticks The greatest wits may be misinformed if they rely upon other mens informations 2 To the question proposed I answer that such Protestants as never had any occasion to doubt whether their owne Religion be the true one may be saved if they never committed a mortall sinne because they are baptised and dye in the grace of God which they received in the Baptisme Now whether there be any Protestants who never committed a mortall sinne the Lord knowes this I am sure of that there are very few in any part of the world who have not great reason and many occasions to doubt of their owne Religion Because amongst them or neare unto the places where they live there are Catholicks who as Christians and true Friends advertise them of the falshood and novelty of their Sect. And though the Protestant Ministers assure them that they are in a safe way of salvation when others as honest and learned as the Ministers tell them the contrary they are bound under paine of damnation at least to examine the truth and grounds of both Religions according their capacity and possibility which if they do sincerely that is setting aside all regard of honour interest conveniency and all other temporall affections which obstruct the understanding God in his providence will give them knowledge of the truth and resolution to embrace it 3 But in case Protestants contemne the charitable warnings given them by Catholicks of the Schisme and Heresie wherein they are involved and neglect Gods inspirations of examining the truth there is no question to be made that if they dye in that condition they are damned because though they were brought up Protestants they had reason to doubt of their Religion seeing as honest and learned men as those that gave them their education and instruction advertised them seriously of their danger And not to examine whether the danger be reall or not in a matter of so high concernment is not excusable no ignorance can be pretended after they are admonished by sober and honest men I conclude therefore that onely such silly soules as believe the Pope hath hornes and the Jesuits cloven feete can be excused by ignorance from damnation for not believing as Catholicks doe because if any such be they are so simple that they believe all which the Minister sayes as Gods Word and that nothing ought to be called in question How many Ministers there be who deserve this credit and esteeme of infallibility even amongst the least prying and simple people let their owne Parishes and the world define This I dare say that there are few Protestants who commit not at least one mortall sinne and that is enough to damne them though their invincible ignorance as schoole men speake may excuse their want of true Faith But the want of Charity is as damnable as the want of Faith and we have no reason
against our Doctrine Cath. So have ye against ours and by your consequence ye must not judge of it Ye are best be judged by the great Turke if ye will not admit of the Pope to be Judge of Controversies in Religion Yet it s not credible that God would have us be judged by Turkes or Jewes What thinke you Master Doctor Min. But why should the Pope or Roman Church judge us Protestants and we not judge them Cath. Your Protestant Churches are not yet come to yeares of discretion Our Church was in possession of judicature before yours was born ye must produce better evidence then we can shew before you can rationally pretend to deprive us of what we possessed these 16. hundred yeares 19 Min. I never met with a more obstinate Clowne then thou art Cath. Why do you say I am obstinate Is it because I take not the word of your English Church that is of 12. or 7. men in matters of Faith and Sacraments against the testimony of all Catholick Councells and the tradition of the whole Church Min. I wonder that thou didst not make mention of tradition before now Woe to them that prefer the traditions of men before the Word of God! Cath. I do not take Scripture as you interpret it to be the Word of God Our Preachers teach us that the Word of God must necessarily involve Gods meaning and sense But ye Protestants intrude your own fancies and dreames and make them a part of Gods Word rejecting the true sense and meaning of Scripture which the Catholick Church had learned of the Apostles and preserved from the first age of Christianity to this present Minist What a calumny is this Name but one fancy or new interpretation of ours intruded into Scripture Cath. Do not ye say that the respect we give to Images is idolatry or at least forbidden in Scripture as a thing inclining men to idolatry The Catholick Church condemned long since this fancy of yours as heresie and ye make the common people believe that we are idolaters for holding that sense of Scripture which hath been taught and practised in the Church since the beginning as learned men assure us and they say the second Councell of Nice do testifie 20 Min. Worship of Images is dangerous and therefore forbidden in Scripture Cath If that be so how did all the Church approve of it for so many ages and stick to it still notwithstanding your contradictions We have men of conscience and learning how is it possible they should damne themselves and others for worship of Images Min. I see there is no ground to be expected by discoursing with thee because when thou art pressed with Gods cleare Word thou dost recurre to the tradition and practise of the Church and to I know not what miracles Therefore I fear God hath delivered thee over to Sathan as an obstinate and reprobate Heretick Cath. Make it appear to me that your sense of Scripture is Gods meaning and then I will not contradict your Doctrine But I see no prudent ground to believe that your new interpretations contrary to the practise and tradition of the ancient Catholick Church should be dictated by God On the contrary side ye can not deny that we Catholicks have all the reason in the world to stick to our old sense of Scripture confirmed by so many miracles and testimonies of antiquity 21 Let this suffice to shew how illiterate Catholicks may convince the most learned Protestants Our cause is so good and cleare that common sense is enough to defend it and confound our greatest and most able adversaries No Catholick Clowne can be convinced by any learned Protestant if he be not more then ordinarily simple Truly there is nothing more incredible then that all the visible Churches of the world should have beene forsaken by God and in damnable errours for so many ages as Protestants pretend and that to reform the world God should pick out amongst all men the most â—icked who continued or rather encreased their abominable and scandalous conversation after they begun to preach their new Ghospell See the lives of all new Reformers in the three Conversions of England and in the prudentiall Ballance if you doubt of this assertion Is it not a meere foppery to thinke that 12. or 7. men who modeld the new Church of England in Edward the VI. time should judge better of Christian Faith matter and forme of Sacraments and of religious ceremonies then the Councells of Lateran and Trent and all the world in former ages Is it not impossible and contrary to Christs owne promises that the exercise of true Religion and Faith should be as invisible as the English Church is at this present in times wherein Christianity through the mercy of God doth flourish in all parts of the world The Catholick Church was never brought to be invisible by the Arrians though by them much persecuted Let any Catholick Clowne but reflect upon these and other things visible to all the world and he may confidently dispute and convince the most learned Protestant CHAP. XV. Of the difference between Christian Faith and the historicall beliefe of Protestants THat supernaturall Faith is a speciall gift of God is granted even by Protestants themselves The superuaturality of it consists not in believing an extravagant and improbable object because that may be done naturally For there is nothing however so false and improbable to the understanding that will not at length be believed by men if constantly reported to them by others of whom they have a good opinion and not contradicted by any whose testimony they value The Turks believe that Mahomet was a great Prophet and Saint The Jews believe that the Messias is not yet come The Puritans believe that every one of themselves is inspired with a Divine spirit c. And though every one of these stories be false improbable and also contradicted by Catholicks yet because these Sectaries have a good opinion of their owne Congregation and a very bad one of us Catholicks they believe the first reject and contemne the second Turks Jews and Puritans do not believe these fond articles of their own Religion with any supernaturall Faith their beliefe is meerly historical just as children believe the history of the Knight in the Sunne Don Quixote de la Manche c. All Christians have not supernaturall and Christian Faith Many who received it in their Baptisme loose it by heresie Hereticks are called Christians because they are baptized and not because they are endued with Christian beliefe They believe some mysteries of Christian Religion but with a meere historicall Faith They assent to the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation not because God revealed them but because they are pleased to judge it very probable or certain that God revealed some such thing That their owne fancy or opinion and not Gods Revelation doth move Protestants to believe what they do believe of Christian Religion is evident
heare the exceptions of Protestants against each of these mysteries Against Transubstantiation they object the evidence of our senses it never being read in Scripture say they that God by a miracle deceived mens senses or made appeare to them one thing for another Moyses and Aarons rod in Egypt was really converted into a serpent and seemed so also to the senses of the spectators The Magicians rods seemed to be serpents to the senses but really were not From hence they conclude that by false miracles and illusions the senses may be deceived but never by true supernaturall signes or miracles Against Transubstantiation they object also novelty of the word and of the thing defined which was in the Councell of Lateran first and after in the Councell of Trent 3 As for worship of Images they looke upon it as idolatry or at least as a thing inclining the common people to it and therefore both dangerous and unlawfull Some object also novelty against it the first time say they worship of Images was heard of being some 800. yeares ago in the second Councell of Nice 4 Now to their first exception and the evidence of their senses against Transubstantiation I answer that the senses are not deceived because according to common Philosophie their proper object which are the accidents do remaine But seeing divers both Catholicks and Protestants do deny that there be any accidents separable from their proper substance my second answer is That there are two sorts of miracles Some miracles are wrought not to be seene but to be believed because they are not onely miracles but also mysteries of Christian Faith The Incarnation or Union of God and man in one person is one of the greatest miracles yet it was not done to be seene or manifested to our senses in this life but being concealed from them to be believed The miracle of Transubstantiation is called by Christ himselfe Mysterium Fidei a mystery of Faith it was not done to be perceived by our senses but to be believed by our understanding 5 Other miracles there are which have been wrought by God to the end they may move us to believe not themselves for they are seene and manifest but some other revealed truth these miracles are patent to our senses because they give us sufficient evidence that the mysteries of Faith may prudently be credited as Divine Revelation Such was Moyses his miracles in Egypt the rod was not turned into a serpent that Pharao and the Egyptians should believe what they did see with their eyes but that they should believe somewhat else to wit that Moyses was sent by God 6 Supposing this difference betweene miracles there can be no difficulty in answering the objection made by Protestants against Transubstantiation Miracles which are not wrought principally to the end that they may be believed by Faith but rather to the end they may be evidently seene and by their meanes other mysteries believed can not deceive the senses because then they would be of no use Gods providence and end in working them would be frustrated Miracles which are together mysteries of Faith and are done that they may be believed and not seene must not appeare evidently to our senses but rather be concealed from them otherwise we should have evidence and beliefe of one thing in the same time The mystery of Transubstantiation is a miracle not to be evidently seene but to be believed Therefore it s no mervaile that it be not patent to our senses when Christ turned water into wine he did it in such a manner that the sense perceived it to be wine because from that evident and sensible miracle they might inferre and believe that he was the true Messias But when he changed bread and wine into his owne Body and Bloud there was no appearance of change it seemed to remaine still bread because the insensible change of one substance to another was a mystery to be credited and not to be seene The Manna which was a figure of the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar did savour to the Jewes whatsoever they fancied though it remained the same substance it was before I see therefore no reason why we Christians should give more credit to our palat then the Jewes who had as much reason to doubt of the Manna as we of the Sacrament nay we have lesse because Christs words are so absolutely and cleare This is my Body if it be his Body it is not bread being impossible that Christs Body should be bread 7 Seeing God will not have the mystery of Transubstantiation be evident to our senses it s not to be thought either superfluous or incredible that the species or appearance of bread and wine worke the same effects which their substance would have done if it were present for God is as coherent in supernaturall things as in naturall its necessary therefore for the concealment of this mystery and for the merit of Christian Faith that no want of the substance of bread and wine may be perceived in the Sacrament by any curious experience of men who would eate and drinke onely conscerated species The not manifesting this great mystery to our senses requireth that the same effects be worked by the species as by bread and wine 8 Some Protestants thinke it a contradiction that one body be present in many places together But all Catholicks hold that Christs Body and Bloud have a spirituall presence in the Sacrament which once granted there can be no difficulty in believing that our Saviours Body and Bloud may be in many places at the same time because it s granted to all things which have a spirituall presence 9 If any inquires how can a body have a spirituall presence I answer him with demanding how can a spirit have a corporall presence How can an Angel have the appearance and presence of a young man whereof there are many examples in Scriptures Whence it followeth that our senses may be deceived or to speake more properly may give occasion to the understanding to be deceived not onely in the mystery of Transubstantiation but also in others expressed in Scripture which is contrary to what our adversaries object Angells seemed to the eyes of Abraham Iosue Tobias and others to be young men and yet they were not men but spirits 10 As for their saying that Transubstantiation is a novelty brought into the Church by the Councell of Lateran an 1215. it s a mistake because the very condemning of of Berengarius as an Heretick for impugning this mystery doth demonstrate it was no novelty but believed as an atticle of Faith not onely before the Councell of Lateran but since the Apostles For otherwise how were it possible that the Patriarchs of Hierusalem and Constantinople 70. Metropolitanes 400. Bishops and 800. Conventuall Priors who were present at that Councell should all agree to declare Transubstantiation to have beene revealed by God to the primitive Church and yet the same to be at the same
yours Cath. Because we never heare of any cleare and undeniable miracles I am sure ye have none to confirme the articles wherein ye Protestants differ from us no nor any that lookes like miracles when they are compared with ours 14 Minist Seeing thou dost not desire to speake of miracles let us returne to Scripture Grant that the texts of Gods Word which we bring against Popery were not cleare must they not therefore be believed because forsooth they are obscure Christian Faith must be obscure honest fellow Doth not thy Parish Priest instruct thee thus Cath. My Pastor and Confessor both tell me that the mysteries of Christian Faith are obscure but never incredible Min. Now friend I have caught thee Is it not incredible that there is no bread in the Sacrament of the Altar Why therefore dost thou believe Transubstantiation as a mystery of Faith Cath. It is rather incredible there should be any bread in the blessed Sacrament for if there were why should all Catholicks deny a thing that hath so great appearance Whether bread be there or no Priests have the same almes for saying Masse no gaine acrues to them by Transubstantiation On the other side its impossible that all Catholicks should be so mad as to contradict their own senses if God had not commanded them not to credit their eyes and tast in this Divine mystery but rather to rely upon his words and believe that the blessed Sacrament is his Body if it be Christs Body it can not be bread because our bodies are no bread and Christs Body is of the same nature with ours 15 Min. Alas poor ignorant soule Christs words must be understood spiritually he himselfe told the Disciples that his words are spirit and life Cath. Iohn 6. I heard our Pastor the last Sonday explaine that same text to confirme Transubstantiation For he said that Christ is in the Sacrament truly and really but with a spirituall presence and that we receive his very Body and Bloud though not in a corporall manner there is some difference quoth he betweene eating of Christs Flesh and eating a piece of beefe This onely was Christs meaning when he said that his words were spirit and life which no way can prejudice Transubstantiation though some Puritans thinke that they are contrary to the reall presence Whether bread be there or no Christs true Body and Bloud is received in the Communion according Protestants so that it concerns them as much as Catholicks to interpret these words of Christs as we do unlesse ye will become Calvinists by saying that ye eate Christs Body by Faith that is ye believe to receive him when ye do not which is a lying and false Faith or that ye receive his grace but not himself and that is to deny in plain termes the reall presence All this did our Pastor teach in the Cathechisme 16 Min. Well in this matter none is bound to believe your Pastor or his Cathechisme we believe that Christ is really present in the Sacrament but how he is there we do not examine neither ought the Roman Church or the Councell of Lateran impose Transubstantiation upon us as a thing necessary to be believed Cath. I have heard talke much of that Councell of Lateran they say there were present thereat the Pope and two Pattiarchs of the East 70. Metropolitans 400. Bishops and 800 other learned men out of all parts of the world If Transubstantiation was not a necessary article of Faith they did very ill to declare it one and condemne as Hereticks all such as denyed it Yet me thinks the testimony of so many learned men is of greater weight I pray Sir pardon me if I offend you I do not intend it then the testimony of any reformed Church to the contrary I never heard of such a Councell in any Protestant Church It s true I heare that the Ministers of Stratzburg and of the Church of Zurick look as reverendly as the Protestant Church of England and have set forth as exact a Confession of their beliefe as ye have done of yours in the 39. articles but I could never learn that any of you had such an Assembly as the Councell of Lateran or of Trent Therefore ye can not blame Catholicks to preferre the testimony of these Councells before the testimonies of the Church of Stratzburg Zurick or that of England which was modeld as our Priests tell us by six Bishops and six other men or the major part of them seven of them were sufficient to cast Christian Religion take away Sacraments alter the matter and forme of them and change the ancient ceremonies Without doubt its more reasonable to rely upon the Councell of Trent then upon the twelve or seven persons that invented the Common prayer Booke and the Ritual of the English Church 17 Min. Hast thou ever heard of one Fr. Paulo who writ the History of the Councell of Trent and describes how the holy Ghost was sent in a bag thither from Rome Cath. I have heard much of that man they say he was no Saint at least of our Church and had a spleene against the Pope If what he writes were true not onely the Bishops and others who were in the Councell of Trent had beene mad or Impostors but all the Catholicks of the world who accepted the same as a true Councell ought to be declared and recorded naturall fooles It s more credible that Fr. Paulo was a lying Knave then that all the Catholicks of the world are naturall fooles or that all the Bishops of the Couuncell were Impostors Therefore I can not believe his History of the Councell of Trent Truly his expression of the holy Ghosts journey in a bag proves him to have been a profane fellow They say his history is both solidly and elegantly confuted by Palavicini the Jesuite It s strange to me how sober Protestants can believe such fopperies and wicked practises of the chief Prelats and persons of the Catholick Church 18 Min. Hold there friend Dost thou thinke that onely the Roman Catholicks are the whole Catholick Church ye are but a part Cath. I am sure Roman Catholick alone were the whole Catholick Church before that Luther and Calvin begun their pretended Reformation They and all ye Protestants differ from us in Faith Therefore ye are no part of the Catholick Church that was called so in the year 1516. If God hath Instituted another Catholick Church since and ye make that appear I am content to call ye Catholicks but untill then Master Doctor you must excuse me Min. Ye and we believe the same things onely ye differ from us in some petty matters not necessary to be believed as Transubstantiation Cath. Do you call that a petty thing which the Catholick Church defined to be a matter of Faith who shall be the Judge of what is necessary or not necessary to be believed Min. Not your Pope nor his Councels because y are a part and have a prejudice