alwayes directeth in their publike doctrine But wicked persons sayth S. Augustine retayne the figure or outward shape of a member but they are not in truth the body of Christ Non sunt de compage domus Dei they are not of the frame of the house of Christ. Ergo. Thus you How false and absurd this your Doctrine is I will not stand to shew by Scriptures and Fathers which are cleere and plentifull in this point For though Christ as he is the head and fountaine of sanctifying Grace cannot haue wicked and damnable members that receiue influence from him yet as he is the head and fountaine of all spirituall gouernement and authority he may haue damnable subiects and members and from him power and authority may flow vnto them But omitting this I will make your Folly and Ignorance apparent by prouing that this your argument is inept in respect of forme in the matter so absurd as you contradict your selfe you ouerthrow your owne Church you crosse the maine streame of Protestant Doctrine First your argumeÌ„t eueÌ„ in respect of form is fond for you change the medium or means of proofe arguing from the time preterite to the present (i) Reply pag. â—00 in fine Wolues hypocrites impious Persons BE NOT the true Church Romish Prelats HAVE BEEN Hypocrites Wolues and impious Persons Ergo. The Romish Prelates be not the true Church Who doth not feele this manner of arguing to be inept as good no better then this A sucking Child is not a Preacher and Minister of the word Francis White hath been a sucking Child Ergo. He is not a Preacher or Minister of the word Hence though your paradoxe that the Church which hath a wicked man for Pastor cannot be the true Church were true your tale that some Popes haue been wicked were also graunted yet it is not hence consequent that the Romane Church is not now the true Church but at the most that it was not the true Church for the tyme that it had some wicked Pope for supreme Pastour Secondly you contradict your selfe about the doctrine that wicked Pastours cannot faithfully preserue and deliuer the true word of saluation for pag. 52. you thus write to the contrary The promises of Christ made to the Church concerning his presence assistance to his Sacraments preached and administred according to his commandement are fulfilled when WICKED Persons execute the office and performe the worke of outward Ministry For although the wicked like the CarpeÌ„ters of Noahs arke reape no benefit to theÌ„selues yet God almighty CONCVRRETH with their ministery being his owne Ordinance for the saluation of all deuout Communicants Thus you If this be true as it is most certaine then may wicked persons faythfully and constantly deliuer Apostolicall Traditions about matter of Saluation This sequele I proue They with whose ministery God doth concurre for the saluation of all deuout worthy coÌ„municants being bound so to do by his promise doe constantly and faithfully deliuer Apostolicall Traditions concerning the doctrine of saluation and are infallibly directed so to do This is euident because when God concurreth with his Ministers to teach the truth they neuer erre nor deliuer in matter of fayth and saluation false doctrine But God doth still and infallibly concurre with them with whom to concurre he hath bound himselfe by promise euer and alwayes euen to the consummation of the world Wherfore if God hath bound himselfe to his Church that he will concurre euen with the wicked Ministers of his word in their teaching for the saluation of all deuout worthy communicants as you affirme pag 52 lin 18. then wicked persons may deliuer faithfully constantly Apostolicall traditions concerning fayth and saluation and are infallibly directed so to do which you deny pag. 54 lin 6. manifestly contradicting your selfe within lesse then a leafe Thirdly you ouerthrow your owne protestant Church For if that caÌ„not be the true Church directed by God according to his infallible promise wherin wicked men haue sitten as visible rulers gouernours then Protestants and all of their communion cannot be the true Church out of which saluation is not had For I hope they will not be so impudent as to deny but they haue had some wicked meÌ„ for their rulers and Pastours Was not King Henry the eight ruler Gouernour of the Protestant Church and yet their owne Historyes paint him forth as a monster for beastlines cruelty and impiety Was not Cranmer a most wicked persecutour and murtherer of diuers Saints not only of Catholikes but of sundry Foxian martyrs who were by him sent to the fire And yet he was a ruler gouernour in the Protestant Church Wherfore the argument which you set in distinct letters lines as of speciall weight may be with the same force forme applied against your Protestant Church in so many words only by placing the words Protestant in lieu of Romish Wolues Hypocrites impious Persons are not the holy Catholike Church Protestant Prelates and Visible Rulers haue been Wolues Hypocrites impious persons Ergo. Protestants are not the Holy Catholike church out of which there is no saluation Fourthly what more opposite to the common streame euen of the Protestant Doctrine then that that Church cannot be the temple house of God in which wicked and impious men sit or haue sitten as visible rulers Commonly all Ministers foolishly I confesse yet earnestly endeauour to proue that the Pope is Antichrist because he sitteth in the Temple and Church of God as Christs Vicar and as her supreme Visible Head Ruler vnder Christ which Doctrine you your selfe suppose as certaine pag. 588. were you make this Exclamation What a misery will it be if it fall out as it is certaine it will that at the Day of Iudgement the greatest part of English Romistes be found to haue followed the man of sinne the sonne of perdition who exalteth himselfe aboue all that is called God so that he sit in the temple of God shewing himselfe as if he were God Thus you I vrge not the folly of this your Exclamation in that it is a fond supposition of the Question yea a taking of that as certaine which not onely Catholiks but also learned Protestants deny Your selfe haue you not lately since the writing of this Reply approued (k) The Appeale vnto Caesar of Richard Montague a Booke by Order of his Maiesty in which that Authour doth often and earnestly (l) Second part c. 5. pag. 141. professe not to beleeue the Pope to be that Antichrist further affirming that Protestants out of affection haue been to violently forward to pronounce the Pope is that man of sinne sonne of perdition yea that some out of violent and transported passion no doubt make it an Article of their Creed wheras their arguments be so far from the force of demonstratiue as they are not persuasiue Thus this Authour in that Booke which you haue
be so adorned with the markes of the true as the true become indiscernable from it But if the Roman be not the true Catholicke Tradition the true Catholicke Church and Tradition is hidden yea a false Church hath so cleerly the markes of Catholicke that no other can with any colour pretend to be rather Catholicke then it that is to haue doctrin deliuered from the Apostles by whole worlds of Christian Fathers vnto whole worlds of Christian Children Hence eyther there is no meanes left to know assuredly the sauing truth or else the meanes is immediat reuelatiō that is inward teaching of the spirit without any externall infallible meanes or else Scripture knowne to be the word of God and truly sensed by the light lustre and euidēce of the things which wayes of teaching it is certayne God doth not vse towards his militant Church succeeding the Apostles For teaching of diuine and supernaturall truth by the light lustre and shining of the thing or doctrin is proper vnto the Church triumphant Inward assurance without any externall infallible ground to assure men of truth is proper vnto the Prophets and the first publishers of Christian Religion Hence I conclude that if God be the Prime Verity teaching Christian Religion darkely without making men see the light and lustre of thinges belieued and mediatly by some externall infallible meanes vpon which inward assurance must rely then he must euer conserue the Catholicke tradition and Church visible and conspicuous that the same may without immediat reuelation and otherwise thē by the lustre of doctrin be discerned to wit by sensible markes If any obiect that the senses of mē in this search may be deceaued through naturall inuincible fallibility of their organs and so no ground of fayth that is altogether infallible I Answere that euidence had by sense being but the priuate of one man is naturally and physically infallible but when the same is also publicke and Catholicke that is when a whole world of men concurre with him then his euidence is altogether infallible Besides seing God hath resolued not to teach men immediatly but will haue them to cleaue vnto an externall infallible meanes to find out this meanes by the sensible euidence of the thinge he is bound by the perfection of his Veracity to assist mens senses with his prouidence that therein they be not deceaued when they vse such diligence as men ordinarily vse that they be not deceaued by their senses Now what greater euidence cā one haue that he is not deceaued in this matter of sense that the Romā Doctrine is the Catholicke that is Doctrine deliuered from the Apostles by worlds of Christian Ancestors spread ouer the world vnanimous amongst themselues in all matters they belieue as Fayth what greater assurance I say can one haue that herein he seeth aright then a whole world of men professing to see the same that he doth Some may agayne obiect I belieue the Catholicke Church is an Article of Fayth set downe in the Creed but Fayth is resolution about thinges that are not seene I Answere An article of Fayth may be visible according to the substāce of the thing yet inuisible according to the manner it is belieued in the Creed The third article He suffered vnder Pontius Pilate was crucifyed dead and buried according to the substance of the thinge was euident vnto sense and seen euen of the Iewes and is now belieued of their posterity But according to the manner as it is belieued in the Creed to wit that herein the Word of God by his auncient Prophets was fulfilled that this was done in charity for the saluation of Man in this manner I say that visible Article is inuisible and belieued in the Creed In like māner that there is in the world a Catholicke Church and that the Roman is the Catholicke Church Pagans Iewes Heretikes if they shut not their eyes agaynst the light do cleerly behold But that herein the word of God about the perpetuall amplitude of his Church is accomplished that this is an effect of Gods Veracity to the end that the meanes to learne sauing truth may not be hidden this is a thing inuisible according to this notiō the Catholicke Church is proposed in the Creed Secondly propositiōs of fayth must be inuisible according to the Predicate or thinge belieued but not euer according to the subiect or thing wherof we belieue The thinges the Apostles belieued of Christ to wit that he was the Sauiour of the world the Son of God were thinges inuisible but the subiect and person of whome they did belieue was to them visible seen yea God did of purpose by his Prophets fortell certayne tokens whereby that subiect might by sense be seen and discerned from all other that might pretend the name of Christ or els his coming into the world to teach the truth had been to no purpose In this sort the Predicate or thing belieued in this article the holy Catholicke Church to wit Holy is inuisible but the Subiect to wit the Catholicke Church which we affirme and belieue to be holy in her doctrine is visible and conspicuous vnto all Yea God hath of purpose foretold signes and tokens whereby the same by sense may be cleerly discernable from all other that may pretend the title of Catholicke For were not this subiect the Catholicke Church we belieue to be holy and infallible in her teaching visible and discernable from all other that pretend the name of what vse were it to belieue that there is such an infallible teaching Church in the world hidden we know not where as a needle in a bottle of hay The End of the Resolution of Fayth THESE thinges supposed the Reader will haue no difficulty to discerne how friuolous the Ministers exceptions are agaynst the resolutiō of fayth in respect of belieuing doctrines to be the Apostles into Perpetuall Tradition and how solide the Iesuits discourse was which here ensueth THE FIRST GROVND That a Christian resolution of Fayth is builded vpon perpetuall Tradition deriued by succession from the Apostles §. 1. BEFORE I come to the proofe of this principle some things are to be presupposed which I thinke Protestants will not deny First that no man can be saued or attayne to the blissefull vision of God without firme and assured apprehension of diuine supernaturall truth concerning his last end and the meanes to arriue thereunto Secondly that this assured apprehension is not had by a (e) The Minister heere graunteth that Fayth is not had by cleere euident sight but afterward he sayth the same is resolued by the resplendent verity of the doctrine cleare and euident sight nor gotten by demonstration or humane discourse by the principles of reason nor can be sufficiently had by credit giuen to meerly humane authority but only by Fayth grounded on the word of God reuealing vnto men things that otherwise are knowne only to his Infinite wisdome Thirdly that God
firmely any Minister of the Catholicke CHVRCH affirming a booke to be Scripture vntill we see cleerly that he deliuers therein the consent of the Catholike Church which then is euident vnto vs when we see him preach it freely and openly and no Pastour to contradict him therein may deceyue And if it may deceiue how can they be certaine that they are not deceiued seeing they thēselues liued not in the Apostles dayes nor saw with their owne eyes what coppyes the Apostles deliuered But Protestants as they pretend be certaine that they haue the true incorrupt Apostolicall text of Scripture Ergo they haue it vpon the authority of the holy Catholike Apostolicall Church Now the Minor that they haue the Scripture from the Romane is apparant for what other Church did deliuer vnto Luther the text of the Bible assuring him that they had it by Tradition from Auncestors tyme out of mind as giuen originally by the Apostles Which is accordingly acknowledged by (*) Whitaker l. 3. de Ecclesia p. 369. M. Whitaker (d) M. Doue in his persuasion others but particularly by (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word Luther himselfe Ergo the Roman Church is the one holy Catholik Apostolical Church whose Tradition doth deliuer infallibly vnto vs the text of Scripture And if the true Apostolicall Text then also (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word the true Apostolicell sense This I prooue if the Apostles did not deliuer the bare Text but togeather with the Text the true (f) We doe not say that the Apostles did deliuer the true sense of all their Scriptures making a large and entire commentary of all difficil texts as the Minister cauilleth pa. 121. but only that togeather with the text they deliuered the sense about the mayne and most principall points this sense thus deliuered by Traditiō with the text is to be admitted as religiously and reuerently as the text sense of Scripture to be deliuered perpetually vnto posterity then they who by Tradition rereiue from the Apostles the true Text must togeather receiue the true sense But as (g) Chemnit in exam Cōcil Trid. part 1. fol. 74. D. Bancroft in the Suruay pag. 379. principall Protestants affirme No mā doubteth but the Primitiue Church receyued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not only the text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sēse Which is agreable to the doctrin of (h) Vincentius Lyrinen cap 2. the Fathers that from the Apostles togeather with the text descends the line of Apostolicall interpretation squared according to the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense Whereupō S (i) Aug. de vtilit Creden c. 14. Augustine argueth that they that deliuer the text of Christs Ghospell must also deliuer the exposition affirming that he would sooner refuse to belieue Christ then admit any interpretation contrary to them by whome he was brought to belieue in Christ. For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense why may they not also deliuer a false text as receyued frō the Apostles An argument conuincing and (k) Though the Minister pag. 123. storme at this confidence of his Aduersary in tearming it vnanswerable yet by deeds he confirmes the saying to be true in not answering but chāging the force thereof quite another way saying It is this The text of the Scripture may be as easily corrupted as the sense Ergo All they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense may also deliuer a false text In this argument he denyeth the antecedent or assumption I answere First as I sayd the argument is peruerted and the medium or meanes of proofe changed for there is great difference betwixt Being as easy Being as possible seing a thing may be as possible as another and yet not so easy That ten men should conspire to deceaue me is not so easy as that three should so conspire as is euident Yet it is as possible as the other because no reason can be brought to proue that three may so conspire that proues not that also ten may do the like In the same manner though we should grant the sense may be more easily mistaken by the Church then the text yet it is as possible that the Church be mistaken in the sense Because no reason proues that vniforme Tradition can be mistaken in the sense that proues not that it is possible that the Church may be mistaken in the text though perchance not so easily Now if the Church in her vniforme Tradition may be mistaken about the text then is not Traditiō a sufficient ground of infallible perswasion that the text is the Apostles and so fayth is ouerthrowne which hath no other ground to know assuredly the incorrupt Scriptures deliuered by the Apostles but Traditiō as hath been prooued Secondly it is false that the sense and doctrine of Scripture concerning mayne and substantiall articles of fayth may be sooner corrupted and a false sense persuaded to the Church then a false text The reason is manifest because millions of Christians know by Tradition the doctrine of Scripture about mayne points that know not all the texts by which the same is proued yea perchance truly certainly not so much as one For example the doctrine that there are Three Diuine Persons and One God is so ingrauen in the harts of all euen simple Christians as you may sooner pull out their harts then make them belieue that this is not the Christian fayth whence no man can deny the Trinity but he is presently noted by al. On the other side this text 1. Ioan. 5.7 wherby the Trinity is proued There be three that giue testimony in heauen the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one millions do not know and so it is more easy to take from Christians this text then the doctrine therof And the same reason is of any other text the texts being stil commonly farre more vnknowne then the doctrine of the Creed such substantiall points vnanswerable The fourth Argument MY fourth proofe I grōnd vpō a Principle most certayne and set downe by (*) In the summe of the Conference before his Maiesty p. 75. your Gracious Maiesty That the Romane Church was once the mother Church and consequently the one holy Catholike Apostolicall Church all other Churches being her daughters and that she is not to be forsaken further then it can
it is to be held as a knowne perpetuall Christian Tradition deliuered by full practise independently of the definition of any Councell neuer permitting the same to examination as one of those articles wherof Luther sayth comment in Psalm 82. fol. 546. Generales articuli recepti in tota Ecclesia satis auditi excussi approbati sunt c. ferendus non est qui vâ—lit eos in dubium reuocare sed velut blasphemus indicta causa inaudita damnandus Generall Councels therby casting downe the foundation of vnity in the Church Fourthly their denying the foundation of true (b) This is the most essentiall point of Protestancy which they tearme the foundation of foundations the pith marrow of the Gospell See the booke de Essentia Protestantism lib. 1. c. 6 This their doctrin coÌ„sists in foure points First that euery man is iustifyed by the iustice of Christ by being as it were vested therewith Secondly this Iustice of Christ is formally imputed vnto euery man not throgh repentance and mortification but through Fayth only Thirdly that this fayth is not the dogmaticall or historicall fayth whereby we belieue in generall the wordes of Christ and reuealed misteryes of the Scripture but a speciall fayth wherby a man doth firmely and infallibly perswade himselfe that to him in particular the Iustice of Christ is imputed for the full remission of his sinnes Fourthly that he that hath not firme fayth that his sinnes are remitted vnto him by the imputation of Christs merits hath not Iustifying fayth nor is iust in the sight of God but as good as an Infidell though he haue historicall fayth that all the doctrins of Christian Religion are true Hence you may perceyue that our Minister is a man of no fayth who not only denyes this article of Protestancy not only sayes that they neyther now hold or euer held it but also reuileth the Iesuite charging him with Lying with Calumniation with Deprauing and falsifying their Protestant doctrine and that he wanted matter to fraught his papers when he charged their Church with teaching Iustification by this speciall Fayth pag. 163. yea on the contrary side he sayth that Protestants hold these foure points First that a Christian of a contrite spirit belieuing that his sinnes are remissible receaueth forgiuenes though he want fayth and perswasion in himselfe that his sinnes are remitted to him in particular by the imputation of Christs merit pag. 166. lin 6. seq Secondly that Protestants hold no man is iustifyed by only fayth or by only belieuing himselfe to be iust and his sinnes forgiuen by the imputation of the Iustice of Christ but he must be iust before he can or ought to belieue himselfe to be so pag. 62. lin 8. Thirdly that the promise of remission of sinnes is conditionall requiring of sinners not fayth only but also the forsaking of sinne and doing good works Esa. 1.16.17.18 and that this promise becomes not absolute till the conditions be fulfilled pag. 166. lin 12. Fourthly that Iustifying fayth is the Christian Catholike Dogmaticall fayth wherby we belieue the hystories of Scripture and mysteries of our Religion ibid. pag. 161. lin 5. Wherfore he sayth that the difference betwixt Protestants and vs Catholikes is only in two points First that they require not only dogmaticall fayth but also that this be a Fiduciall assent that is ioyned with Hope pag. 163. lin 1. But we forsooth hold Iustification by dogmaticall fayth only and by such fayth as is in Diuells and do not require that the dogmatical or intellectual assent be also fiducial that is ioined with Hope pag. 168. lin 2. Secondly that we hold that a man cannot be certayne by fayth that he is iust but Protestants hold the contrary yet he sayth pag. 167. lin 20. that there is very small difference if any at all betwixt them vs herein because they do not hold this their assurance that they are iust to be equall in the firmity of assent to the assurance of Dogmaticall fayth which they haue about the common obiect of fayth Thus the Minister whome I leaue to the censure of Protestants with no little wonder they can indure him to write in this sort and thus openly to disclaime shew himselfe ashamed of the very Essence of their ReligioÌ„ What is certayne amongst Protestants if this may be denyed Howsoeuer I conclude this point with this syllogisme against them Protestants euen by the tacite concession of this their Aduocate hold fundamentall and damnable heresy as certainly as it is certaine that they hold Iustification not by common Dogmaticall fayth but by speciall fayth only whereby one apprehends the Iustice of Christ and vesteth himselfe therewith belieuing in particular his sinnes to be forgiuen and himselfe to be iust in Gods sight by the imputation thereof vnto him through this his fayth But that Protestants hold this as a most fundamentall article of their Religion is as certaine as it is certayne that there is or euer was Protestant in the world Wherin I appeale to the Iudgement of all learned Protestants and to these their bookes Luther Epist. ad Galat. Caluin lib. 3. Institut lib. 11. Melancthon in coll comm Kemnit Exam. Trid. 1. p. Iohn White our Ministers Brother Desence pa. 188.189 seq and to the conscience of euery Protestant yea this is the eleauenth article of the English Church That a man is accounted righteous before God only for the merit of Christ Iesus by faith And it is wholsome doctrine say they that we are iustifyed by this fayth Iustification which is the one Catholike Christian fayth about reuealed misteryes bringing in a phantastical fayth pretending that euery man is Iustifyed by belieuing himselfe in particular to be iust or one of Gods elect Fiftly their extenuating the value of the price of our Redemption not making it sufficient to giue (c) The Minister being ashamed of his Religion doth here also contest that ProtestaÌ„ts teach the merit of workes He sayth indeed in words they teach only the merit of Congruity but in sense he makes them to teach merit of condignity as much as any Catholike doth as is after proued in the 8. point inward sanctity purity to mens soules nor to rayse the workes of Gods children to a due perfection with their reward Sixtly their Errours agaynst Baptisme the gate and entrance into Christian life whereof they deny the vertue to sanctify men the (d) To discouer the vanity of the Minister who sayth that the Protestant doctrine about Baptisme is held by our Schoolemen Note that concerning the necessity of Baptisme there be three errours the one greater then the other The first that though Baptisme be the only ordinary meanes of saluation yet some children dying without Baptisme are saued by extraordinary fauour as S. Iohn was sanctifyed in the wombe Luc. 1.2.53 This is held by some Catholikes but no fundamentall errour because it affirmes not any extraordinary fauour but such
to imbrace the body without the spirit which is in that body insensible and as good as if it were not there So they that receaue vnworthily are sometymes sayd by the Fathers (m) August tract 26. in Ioan. 25. Caeteri Apostoli manducauerunt panem Dominū Iudas autē panem Domini to receyue the Sacrament without the body of Christ because though the body of Christ be really in the Sacrament they receaue yet he is there in a dead manner in regard of them as if he were not there at all because he stirres not vp heauenly affections in them nor makes them feele the workings of his grace loue Thirdly we cānot imagine the same body can be in many places togeather at the same tyme it is true but as hardly can we imagine the soule to be in the head and in the feet of a man one the same without diuision in it selfe or an Angell to be in two Townes of the Countrey wherof he is President as farre distant one from the other as Yorke from London Also who can conceaue God who is infinitely one indiuisible to be both in heauen and on earth at once Of which incomprehensible manner of presence Saint Augustine sayth (n) August ep 3. ad Volusian Miratur hoc meus humana quia non capit fortasse non credit What meruayle that imagination fayles vs to apprehend the multiplyed Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament which is spirituall Angelicall and supernaturall comparable with the diuine that S. Gregory Nissen (o) Greg. Nissen in orat de Pasch. stickes not to say Sicut Diuinitas replet mundum tamen vna est ita innumerabilibus locis offertur tamen vnum corpus est The body of Christ being glorious is for operation as swift and agill as any thought but a mans thought is so quicke that one may be by thought in two disioyned places at once for example in London at Rome Some Deuines (p) Caiet 1. p. q 52. art 2. Ferrar. 3. contra Gent. ca. 65. Marsil in 2. q. 2. ar 2. Dionys. Cister in 2. dist 6. q. 1. art 1. conclus 6. giue such agility to Angells that they can place themselues substātially where they please by a thought thinke that as their thoughts so likwise their substances are so independent of corporall state that they can be naturally in two distinct places without being in the spaces interiacent But the agility of Christs glorious body is more excellent and perfect as being supernaturall then the naturall agility of Angells yea then of thoughts why then should we make any doubt but he may be in disioyned different places at once Fourthly we find difficulty to conceaue that accidents existing separated from any substance can performe the office of substance euen to the nourishment of mans body but we should perchance find as much difficulty to belieue that of a little Kernell of an apple a great Tree may be made and nourished by the force and vigour proceeding from the same did we not see by dayly experience the same to be true That ashes may be made glasse that stones in the stomake of a Doue yron in the belly of an Ostridge be turned into flesh that of a rotten barke of a tree falling into the water should be bred produced a perfect bird to me seemes more incredible then that God should make the accidents of bread separated from their substāce to nourish mans body (*) The Minister heere laboureth to shew a difference betwixt the wonders of Nature the Miracles of the holy Eucharist which is impertinent For the Answerer doth not intend that there is the same kind of strāgenes in both but argueth That seing in Nature such incomprehensible thinges be found we ought not to deny the litterall sense of Gods Word for any difficultyes that may occurre For the dead barke of a tree may seeme to haue no more efficacy of it selfe to produce a liuing creature specially so perfect a bird as a Barnacle then haue the accidents of bread to feed breed the flesh of a liuing man yea many Philosophers teach in my iudgement conuince that in substantiall generations where no cause coequall in perfection to the effect produced is present God by the secret operation of his power supplyes the deficiency of naturall causes Why then should any man so much mislike our doctrine that in this mystery where the substance of bread is wanting God by the secret operation of his power supplyes the defect thereof seing by the opinion of many learned Philosophers his Prouidence by the like secret special working doth ordinarily dayly and hourely supply the manifold defects of substantiall secondary agents Neyther is the manner how God can doe this difficill to explicate For he may enable the quātity of bread to receaue and sustayne the working of mans nutritiue power when in that quantity there is the last accidentall disposition to the forme of flesh he can secretly produce againe materiā primā that was of the bread and combine the same with the prepared quantity the substantiall forme of flesh what reason is there why God may not do this yea do it sooner then we speake it Wherefore the seeming absurdityes of this mystery being as I haue shewed meerly imaginary and not like those agaynst the Trinity and the Incarnation wherein not so much imagination as reason findes difficulty it is the part not only of sincere Christian Fayth but also of a cleere excellent wit to contemne them not to permit wandering vnruly fancy destitute of reason to controule our beliefe about the (*) The Minister here pag. 454. rayles lustily saying That the Romists presūptuously forming Chimera's and Idols in the forge of their own deceaued brest deserue to be fed only with accidents as the birds that pecked at paynted grapes All which is both blasphemous simple for what more impious then to tearme the litterall sense of Gods word concerning the misteries of faith such as our doctrine about the same is cōfessed to be a Chimera and Idol framed in the forge of a deceaued brest What more seely then to thinke the Protestants Sacrament being a figure of Christs body in substance but bread a more substātiall food of the soule then the Catholickes which is in shape shew bread in essence substance the pretious flesh of the Sauiour Be not Protestants rather the birds that peck at the picture figure shape of their soules food Is not the soule better fed with the litterall playne substantiue sense of Gods word thē by the figuratiue comments of men literal sense of Christs words so many wayes by the grauest testimonyes of Antiquity recommended vnto vs. The third Consideration Thirdly to make Christians incline to belieue this mystery so difficill to carnall Imagination this Consideration may be very potent to wit that in belieuing the same on the one side
latin and through want of iudgement to make sensible construction of latin sentences The fourth Example §. 4. YOvv deuise many mysteries about the word species in answere of S. Cyprian his words cited by the Iesuit for Transubstantiation (y) Iste paniâ— non effigie se natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est 〈◊〉 Cyprian serm de Coena This bread changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotency of the Word is made flesh yow say the Authour by the words natura mutatus chaÌ„ged in nature vnderstood not a corporall or Physicall but only a mysticall change This yow proue because in the same booke this Father saith that (z) Cyprian ibid. Corpâ—â—ralis substantiae retinens speciem sed virtutis diuinae inuisibil essentia probans adesse praesentiam although the immortall food deliuered in the Eucharist differ from common meat yet â—â—retaineth in the kind of corporall substance He saith not species in the plurall number meaning according to the new Popish sense the externall shapes and accidents of bread for let the Aduersary proue out of antiquiâ—â— that S. Cyprian or the Primitiue Church maintained 〈◊〉 late Romane doctrine concerning shapes of bread and 〈◊〉 without the materiall substance and we will freely grant that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is ancient 〈◊〉 he saith specieÌ„ in the singular number that is the corporall forme and substance Thus yow shewing your selfe to haue no species of true learning whether species signify kind or shape For heere yow discouer foure simplicityes in matter of Grammer The first is the mystery you make about the plurall and singular number of species as though S Cyprian if he had sayd in the plurall Alimonia immortalitatis corporalis substantiae retinens species should haue fauoured Transubstantiation wheras now that he sayth in the singular corporalis substantiae retinens speciem he doth ouerthrow it He sayth not say you species in the plurall number meaning the shapes and accideÌ„ts of bread but speciem in the singular that is the kind or the corporall substance or forme Now I pray you what GraÌ„mer doth teach that species in the plurall number doth signify shapes and externall accidents and in the singular kind and substance had S. Cyprian said plurally that the Eucharist corporalis substantiae retineâ— species why might you not haue interpreted species kinds natures and formes aswell as now you interpret speciem the nature kind and forme And though S. Cyprian say speciem corporalis substantiae in the singular yet why may not we expound shape and semblant of corporall substance aswell as we might haue expounded shapes and semblantes had he sayd in the plurall corporalis substantiae species Verily you are by your aduersary by the force of truth driueÌ„ into such straites as you coyne new Grammaticall mysteries agaynst all Grammer Your second simplicity is the noting that species in the singular doth signify nature and kind as though we were ignorant thereof or that you could heereby elude the testimonyes of the Fathers we bring to 〈◊〉 they taught the Eucharist to be the shape of 〈◊〉 and wine contayning the body and bloud of 〈◊〉 Lord. This I say is a seely and miserable shift for though species signify nature kind and this signiâ—â—â—â—tion be much vsed specially in Logicke yet no 〈◊〉 can deny but species doth also properly signify 〈◊〉 outward semblant shew and shape and that this signification is very vulgar And to know when specieâ— doth signify shape and not kind this rule is infallible that still it is taken for shape when it is opposed vnto nature and inuisible Essence When S. Paul exhortes that not only men haue their inward conscience pure towards God but also that they abstain ab omni specie mali 1. Thess. 5.22 who endued with common sense will interprete this otherwise then from any shew or â—â—â—blant of euill By this rule we prooue that the Fathers wheÌ„ they say that the species of bread remains they meane the shapes because they oppose the species of bread vnto the inward substance true being of bread Thus S Cyrill Cyrillus Hierosol orat 4 mystagog Know and most certainly beleiue 〈◊〉 this bread which seemeth to vs is not bread though the tast esteeme it to be bread but the body of Christ and that the wine seene of vs though to the tast it seeme wine is not wine but the bloud of our Lord nam sub specie panis datur tibi corpus sub specie vini datur tibi sanguis vnder the species of bread is giuen thee the body vnder the species of wine is giuen thee the bloud of Christ. What 〈◊〉 be more cleere then that this Father doth distinguish the species and shape of bread and wine from 〈◊〉 nature kind and substance affirming the first 〈◊〉 â—emayne and not the second Your third simplicity is that to prooue that species in the singular doth signify kind not shape you bring this place of Saint Cyprian (*) Cyprian serm de coena imâ—mortalitatis alimonia datur à communibus cibis differens corporalis substantiae retinens speciem sed Diuiâ—â— Virtutis inuisibili essentia probans adesse praesentiam Foâ— euen in this testimony species doth not signify kind but shape and so by this very text Transsubstantiation is proued This is cleere because wheâ— the species of a thing is in speach opposed agaynsâ— the vertue of the same thinge then species muâ—â— needes signify shape and shew not truth anâ— substance As when S. Paul sayth (a) 1. Tim. 3 5· Habentes specieâ— pietatis virtutem autem eius abnegantes no man that sober will translate Hauing piety in the nature kinâ— yet denying the vertue thereof but Retayning the shew piety yet denying the vertue thereof Now S. Cyprianâ— this text by you cited doth oppose the Eucharist acâ—cording to the species vnto the Eucharist accordinâ— to the inuisible Essence therof affirming the same to 〈◊〉 a common thing specie but a diuine presentiall veâ—â—tue iuisibili essentia Wherefore his words can bear no other sense but this that the Eucharist is the subâ—stance of corporal Bread according to the outwaâ—â— shape shew of the accideÌ„ts but the diuine presentiall vertue of Christs body bloud according 〈◊〉 the inward nature inuisible Essence of the thing Your fourth simplicity is that this your Gramâ—maticall speculation about the singular plurall 〈◊〉 Species being of it selfe seely is likewise altogeatheâ— impertinent vnto your purpose For you by this acception of Species would cleere the text of S. Cyprian alleadged by the Answearer to prooue that breâ—â— in the Eucharist remayneth only in shape and noâ— in substance In which text the Father doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word species but effigies saying Panis non effigie sed 〈◊〉 mutatus c. Bread changed not in the effigies 〈◊〉 in the nature is by the omnipoteÌ„cy of his Word 〈◊〉 his flesh Now though we should graunt your 〈◊〉
sent vnto Protestants and by them printed Respons 2. De Inuocatione Sanctorum They defend Transubstantiation ibid. resp 1. c. 13. Communion in one kind for the sicke Gilbert Genebrard de ritibus Graecorum Secondly concerning primacy of Iurisdiction they hold that Christ did institute Monarchicall primacy in Peter Theophilact in cap. 21. Ioan. That the Romā Bistop for many ages lawfully succeeded Peter in this Primacy Ignatius Constantinopolitan Epist. ad Nicolaum primum That the Roman Bishop lost this primacy for holding the Procession of the Holy Ghost from God the Sonne that therefore this primacy is now in the Patriarke of Constantinople Michael Constant. apud Sigeb in Chron. an 1064. Is this Protestancy in substance Thirdly it is great indiscretion I speake with the least to affirme as our Minister doth that the Graeciās deny sacrifice for the dead with which doctrine no authour Catholike or Protestant euer charged them And they in their foresayd censure resp 1. c. 12. professe the contrary saying We hold that by the sacrifice of the Masse and Almesdeedes the dead are relieued yea Doctour Field Appendix part 1. pag. 30. accuseth some of them for holding Sacrifice not only for them that dyed in pennāce with sinnes of infirmity but also for them that dyed in damnable state Finally concerning marriages of Priests they hold that such as are marryed before Holy Orders may still keep cōpany with their wiues which the Church of Rome alloweth in them But the Protestant liberty of marrying after Holy Orders that not only once but if their wiues dye twise thrise yea as often as they please This the Graecians detest in the foresayd Censure Resp. 1. c. 21. So that the Minister was in great penury of Professours before Luther that is forced to name Graecians as Protestants according to kind For he might aswell haue named the Pope himselfe Waldenses not Protestants for Essence and Kind Concerning the Waldenses they were not Protestants according to kind but rather Anabaptists vnto whome Protestants are so vnkind as they burne them as Heretikes They were not Protestants For as all report as may be seene in Illyricus Catal. Test. pag. 1498. the most essentiall doctrine of the Waldenses was their extolling the merit of voluntary pouerty preaching the same so rigorously as they held all Ministers to be damned that haue rents and possessions and that the Church perished vnder Syluester and Constantine through the poyson of temporall goods which Cleargy-men then began to enioy as they sayd agaynst the Law of God I am sure none that know Protestants will thinke this doctrine of pouerty and giuing away all to the poore to be the Essence or so much as an Accidence of their Religion In respect of this their head-heresy about Pouerty the Waldenses are named the Poore-men of Lyons and were sayd by Reynerius cited by the Minister pag. 130. to haue beene euer since Siluester or the Apostles and that they were much applauded in the world to wit as I sayd only in regard of this Heresy about pouerty held anciently by the Heretikes tearmed Apostolici not in respect of other errours or doctrines wherein they agree with Protestants And so Protestants labour in vayne by Waldensians and the Apostolici to bring their pedegree from the Apostles Besides the Waldensians held these Anabaptisticall errours which are set downe by Illyricus in Catalogo Testium pag. 1502. seq out of Reynerius an authour of those tymes whome he tearmes candidum sincerum sincere and vnpartiall That children are not to be baptized baptisme being of no vse for them seing they do not belieue That there is no difference betwixt Bishopps and Priests nor betwixt Laymen and priests That the Apostles were meere Laymen That euery Layman that is vertuous is priest may consecrate preach administer Sacramēts That a woman pronouncing the words in the vulgar tongue doth consecrate yea transubstantiate bread into the body of Christ That it is mortall sinne to sweare in any case That the Magistrates secular and Ecclesiasticall being in mortall sinne loose their office and that no man is to obey them Indeed Illyricus pag. 1514. 1525. in fine sayth that this last errour is falsly layd to the charge of the Waldēsiās by Reynerius which he proues because AEneas Syluius in his Catalogue of their doctrine makes no mentiō of this But he is grossely deceaued two wayes First because Reynerius liuing in that tyme and being Inquisitour could know their errors better then Syluius Nor can we suspect his fidelity being as Illyricus doth acknowledge sincerus candidus sincere and vnpartiall towardes Waldensians Secondly AEneas Syluius in his Catalogue set downe by Illyricus euen in that very pag. 1525. a little before the middle chargeth the Waldēsiās expressely with this doctrine agaynst Magistracy Qui mortalis culpae reus sit eū neque Saeculari neque Ecclesiastica dignitate potiri nec parendū ei esse Finally the Waldensians held it not necessary to professe their fayth yea that they might deny it go to Masse celebrate and do outward acts of Idolatry This euen Illyricus pag. 1508. doth acknowledge to haue beene a fault in them but he sayth they may haue beene saued by repentance This is an idle shift for how could they repent themselues of that which they held not to be sinne How could they be the true Church wherein saluation is found who held such damnable doctrine as if they did not repent themselues thereof they are certainly damned so that it is extreme beggary in Protestants to begge of these Beggars of Lyons to be their Professours for the tyme before Luther who were euen by Protestant acknowledgement much more poore and voyd of true religion then of temporall wealth That Protestants not being able to cleere themselues to be the visible Church do vainely appeale vnto Scripture for their doctrine The Minister not trusting to the former answere and feeling in conscience that it is impossible that Protestants should shew their Church to haue beene visible before Luther sayth pag. 105. That this notwithstanding if Protestants be able to demonstrate by Scripture that they maintayne the same fayth and Religion which the Apostles taught this alone is sufficient to prooue them to be the true Church I answere they that cānot by marks of the Church set downe in Scripture cleere themselues to be the visible Church do idly appeale to Scripture in respect of doctrine their promises to shew the particular points of their Religion by Scripture are idle This I demōstrate by 3. Arguments First eyther Scriptures can cleere end all cōtrouersies of Religiō or they cannot If they cannot appealing vnto them hath no other end but that contention may be without end If they can cleere all controuersies then they can cleere the controuersy which is the true Church shewing markes and signes whereby the same may be cleerly knowne And if they can cleere this cōtrouersy thē it is reason this be cleared in
be proued that she departed from her selfe that is froÌ„ the mother originall doctrines deliuered by the Apostles But she cannot (l) Heere the Minister pag. 128. agayne repeateth his saying that negatiue arguments from humane history are vnconsequent which his saying as hath beene shewed is agaynst the consent of mankind His arguments against this ground of perpetuall Ecclesiasticall Tradition knowne by notorious fame of history are by him named foure but the fourth coÌ„taines foure branches and so they are eight which I will set downe answere First it is not absolutely necessary that the humane history of all matters should be composed Answere There being a cleere lineal succession of Princes and Prelates from the Apostles famously particulrely knowne it is impossible but that historicall TraditioÌ„ eyther written or vnwritten should deliuer most notoriously the substantiall matters of fact done since that time These matters are such as cause great changes in the world as in Ciuill affayres the setting vp the pulling down and changing of renowned Kingdomes States â—n the affayres of the Church the beginnings of ReligioÌ„ the most famous Pastors thereof the conuersions of great Nations the springing vp of heresies poteÌ„t sects their preuailing their being resisted their ouerthrow and commonly also the names of their principall renowned Patrons â—hese illustrious thinges when there is particular Tradition euen to the very names of persons can not be hidden Secondly when history is written it causeth only humane fayth Answer Humane history made by meere human writers and preachers concerning humane and naturall thinges breedes only humayne fayth but Ecclesiasticall Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles made by the Pastours of the Church consecrated to that end by the holy Ghost deliuering diuine reuealed thinges being infallible breedes not only human Fayth but is eleuated by the concurrence of diuine Authority towardes the production of Diuine Fayth as hath beene sayd Thirdly historyes may totally perish and be suppressed or corrupted by the enemies of truth Answere Concerning substantiall renowned matters which are knowne not only by report but also by their permanent effects it is impossible that fame and Tradition should be suppressed or corrupted so long as there is a visible Church in the world For example Arius his doctrine Luthers occasion of changing from the Roman Church King Henryes breach with the Pope and the cause thereof can neuer be suppressed by the ennemyes of truth so long as there shall be a famous Christian Church in the world though about this or that circumstance that are not so notorious questions are mooued and new may arise Fourthly history may be repugnnant to history Answere This cannot be about the substance of the narration when the matters thereof are in manner aforesayd illustrious to wit when they are not only declared by full report but also declare themselues by effects though in circumstaÌ„ce there may be variety of reports Fiftly euen the Papists teach that the principal monuments of antiquity to wit the â—ncient Councells haue not beene faythfully preserued Answere Auncient Geneâ—all Councells concerning the substance of their definitions which they â—id principally intend are and euer were famously knowne yea Tradiâ—â—on hath made the fame of them immortall and incorruptible so long as a visible professing Church shall be in the world Heretikes may endeaâ—our to misreport and corrupt Councells as also they do Scriptures but â—hey neuer could preuayle as concerning any substantiall matter Sixtly many things suppositious haue beene added to the workes of the ancient 〈◊〉 bastardly bookes passe vnder the tytles of Fathers Answere As though also there haue not beene many suppositious bookes vrged as Scripture by Heretikes to wit the Ghospells of Peter of Thomas of Bartholomew Doe not the most ancient Fathers namely the Councell of Carthage S. Augustine receyue some bookes of Scripture to the number of 12. which Protestants partly Caluinists partly LutheraÌ„s reiect Must we therfore refuse triall by Scripture No It is sufficieÌ„t that we haue by most certayne TraditioÌ„ innumerable works that are vndeniably ancient though question be mooued about some which therefore cannot be vrged till they be knowne to be ancient Seauenthly the Papists being a part purge alter such records Answere This is vntruth we purge not any of the bookes of the ancient as any may see with his eyes that will take the paynes to read our Index Expurgatorius set forth by the Protestant Iunius and compare the Expurgations with the bookes Eightly the Papists despise and contemne Historians as Eusebius Sozomen Socrates when they are agaynst their Tenet Answere When good Historians do not agree the matter caÌ„not be certayne but must be decided by coÌ„iÌ„ecture which doth neuer happeÌ„ about the substance of famous facts that by effects made themselues notorious to the world When historians are singular they may be reiected specially when the authours are otherwise heretikes and the narrations wherein they be singular fauour their heresyes Thus Eusebius being an Arrian is not trusted in some narrations agaynst others historians concerning Constantine that seeme to fauour Arrianisme Socrates and Sozomen being Nouatians are not easily credited in singular narrations in the behalfe of their Sect Though as I sayd concerning matters illustrious facts which make themselues euident to mankind by effects as are the changing of ChristiaÌ„ Religion ouer the world resistance made agaynst all open and notorious sects and who were the resisters who the resisted such difference is neuer found about substance but only in circumstance And only this Tradition of the Church concerning these kinds of notorious matter which is as cleerly Apostolicall as the sunne is bright at Noone day we make the ground of our beliefe that our Roman Religion hath not beene changed since the Apostles be proued to haue changed her doctrine since the Apostles by any monuments of History or Antiquity yea the contrary in my Iudgement may be most euidently proued in this sort The doctrines that were for diuers ages vniuersally receyued in the Christian Church and no time of their beginning is assignable must be doctrines vnchanged comming from the Apostles But it is most cleere (m) Because this matter is stifly not to say outfacingly denyed by the Minister pa. 129. 134. behold the very words of Protestants D. Hutterus Luthers successour in the chayre of Wittenberge de sacrificio Missatico pag. 377. I willingly acknowledge that the Roman Idolary whose pyth is the sacrifice of the Masse did occupy in manner the whole world specially for the last thousand yeares Hospinian the successour of Zwinglius in his chayre superintendency Hist. Sacram pa. 1. pag. 157. In the age of Gregory the Great that is more then a thousand yeares agoe all maÌ„ner of popish Idolatry superstition as a mayne sea ouerwhelmed and drowned in manner the whole world no man making resistance agaynst it Simon de Voyoâ— a Geneuian Minister and of Caluins schoole in his
prooue that of necessity they are seen and so the Minister might haue spared the paper in citing the opinions of SchoolemeÌ„ coÌ„cerning the doctrin of the VoluÌ„tary glasse glasse of diamant so cleere and excellent that whatsoeuer is done in London in secretest corners should therein particularly and distinctly appeare surely he that hath eyes to see that glasse may likewise discerne what is done ouer the Citty Now most certayne it is that in God all creatures all actions done in the world and all the most secret thoughts of harts so perspicuously and distinctly shine as they are in themselues So that the Saints hauing light to see the diuine Essence may in him cleerly discerne whatsoeuer is done in the world beloÌ„ging to their state though neuer so secret according to the saying of S. (t) Basil. lib. de Virgin Basil There is not any Saint which doth not see all thinges that are done any where in the world And of S. (u) Greg. hom 40. Qui creatoris sui claritatem vident nihil in creatura agitur quod videre non possint Gregory Nothing is done about any creature which they cannot see who see the clarity of their Creatour And agayne (x) Lib. 12. Moral c. 13. We must belieue that they who see the clarity of the omnipotent God within themselues are not ignorant of any thing that is done without Which doctrine of the Fathers that Protestants may the lesse dislike I proue to be grounded on the Scriptures First if Saints by reason of their blissefull state do so participate of the diuine nature and wisdome About the first Argument as they communicate with him in the power of gouerning the nations of the world This argument is strong and you by strugling make the strength thereof more appeare You haue deuised 3. solutions First you say pag. 311. lin 10. That the Iesuits exposition is nouell and neuer heard of in the ancient Church Answer It is ridiculous when you are pressed with the cleere text of Scripture to call vpon the ancieÌ„t Church you I say who still specially in this question appeale from the ancient Fathers vnto the Scripture as pag. 302. and 298. you say that it is not iust to make ancient custome a law rule of right doctrine And if you will stand to the rule of antiquity I can produce more then fifty ancient Fathers that in expresse tearmes teach the doctrine the Iesuit doth establish by the literall sense of Gods word to wit that saints deceased are rulers and gouernours of mens actions liues Secondly you say pag. 309. that the text of the Apocalyps To him that shall haue conquered I will giue him power c. is not vnderstood of Saints deceased but of liuing Saints Answere This to be false is apparent by the very words which are these Apoc. 226. He that shall haue conquered kept my words VNTIL THE END to him I will giue power ouer nations c. But it is cleer that liuing Saints caÌ„not be said to haue conquered much lesse to haue kept the word of God vntil â—he end Therfore these words are violently wrested vnto liuing Saints Thirdly you say pag. 320. lin 3. That the promise I will giue them power ouer â—ations is vnderstood only of iudiciary power in the day of iudgement Answer This â—o be false is proued by the rule of interpretation of Scriptures which â—rotestants commend and praise aboue all other to wit when a text is â—oubtfull the same must be expounded by another which speakes of the â—â—me matter specially when the darke text doth expressely allude vnto â—he cleerer This place of the Apocalips about Saints I will giue them power â—uer nations and they shall rule them in a rod of iron they shall be broken in peeces â—â—ke pots of clay seemeth darke vnto Protestants and the question is wheâ—her this be spoken of Saints power in the militant Church or onely of â—he day of Iudgment To cleer this doubt there is another text of Scripture vttered in the same words to wit the second Psalme which saith of Christ That his father shall giue him nations to be his inheritance and he shall 〈◊〉 them in a rod of iron and shall breake them as pots of clay To this text of the Psalme the place of the Apocalips doth allude For our Lord in the Apocalips promiseth that he will giue to Saints power to gouerne in a rod of iron nations countryes as his father promised gaue the same power vnto him to wit in the aforesaid Psalme But that place of the Psalme is without doubt to be vnderstood of Christs power of gouernement in this world and of his ruling in the militant Church as Protestants grant it appeareth by the wordes precedent I will giue thee nations to be thine inheritance and thou shalt rule them in a rod of yron Ergo the power of gouerning iâ— a rod of yron promised to Saints must be vnderstood of gouernement in this world and in the militant Church then Saints haue knowledge of things that are done in this world else how could they be able to gouerne and rule it But Scripture in playne and expresse tearmes make Saints participate with Christ in the rule and gouernement of the world according to his promise (y) Because the Minister doth so much insult that the Iesuit hath not proued any thinge by Scripture I will that his folly may appeare examine particularly his answere vnto these texts Apocalip 2.26 To him that conquereth I will giue power ouer nations and he shall rule them with a rod of iron that is with power of inflexible equity And Apocal. 3. v. 12. I will make him a pillar in the TeÌ„ple of my God And the blessed say of themselues Apoc. 5.10 that they were chosen out of countreys and nations to be Priests of God that they should rule with him vpon the earth Therfore they know what is done vpon earth so far forth at least as the affayres of earth doe specially appertaine vnto them and such without doubt are our deuotions towardes them Secondly S. Paul Cor. 14.26 sayth Now we know but in part we prophesy but in part but when that of perfection shall come that of part shall be euacuated I know now but in part theÌ„ I shall know as I am known By which words the Apostle signifyes that all knowledge both humane diuine particularly the gift of Prophesy is contayned eminently in the beatificall â—ight so that the blessed Saints haue the gift of Prophesy in a more excellent degree theÌ„ had the Prophets in this world But by the light of Prophesy holy men vnited with God could see the secrets of harts as S. Paul sayth 1. Cor. 14.15 By the gift of Prophesy the secrets of harts are manyfested and also see things absent being present by light of vnderstaÌ„ding froÌ„ whence they were absent according to their substance (z) The Minister seketh two wayes
can cleerly demonstrate the conâ—â—ary And if they desire to know then they know the particulars â—or what our Minister sayth pag. 319. lin 20. That a father in Lonâ—â—n may be solicitous about his sonnes safety that is at Constantinople and yet not â—â—ow the particulars is friuolous for this London Father is not blessed 〈◊〉 he may be desirous to know particulars and not know them and so be â—erplexed for want of his knowledge The Saints in heauen are blessed â—nd so desire not to know any thing but they know it Therfore seing â—ccording to the instinct and inclination of solicitous Charity they cannot â—ut desire the knowledge of their friends affaires they must if they are â—erfectly blessed be satisfied in this their charitable desire to know such things as may concerne their honour done vpon earth the state of their freinds â—ouers liuing in danger to succour them by their intercessions of whose saluation they be still sollicitous though secure of their own as S. Cyprian writes Wherefore our doctrine that Saints see our prayers being deliuered so constantly by the Ancient Fathers so conformable vnto the principles of Christian beliefe about the blessednes of Saints so consonaÌ„t vnto expresse passages of Scripture we may iustly expect that vnto Protestants it would not be displeasing did they looke on it with vnpartiall eyes Specially they hauing no Text of Scripture that may make so much as a shew of direct opposition agaynst it The place continually obiected out of the Prophet Esay 63.16 Abraham knew vs not (f) This place is impertinent also in regard that Abraham and Iacob were not theÌ„ Blessed nor saw God from which Blessed vision the knowlege of things done in this world floweth as a sequell in the triumphant Saints It is vnderstood by S. Hierome in c. 63. Isa. de scientia approbationis that Abraham Iacob did not know that is esteeme and approoue the proceeding of their children the Iewes Israel was ignorant of vs thou O Lord art our Father thou our Redeemer hath this sense Abraham and Iacob when they liued vpon earth and carnally begot children did not know particularly their posterities and so could not beare them such particular affection whereas God can doth distinctly see and know their necessityes aforehand yea before men are borne and prouides agaynst them deliuering his children out of theÌ„ And therfore he is the only Father the only Redeemer Abraham and Iacob not deseruing the name of Father in comparison with God Makes this against the Saints hearing our prayers (g) I desire the Reader to note on the one side how Protestants boast of Scriptures on the other how vnable they are to bring one probable text agaynst Inuocation of Saints Whereas contrarywise the places for the Catholicke doctrine that Saints 〈◊〉 our prayers are so cleere as ProtestaÌ„ts fly to their types and tropes leauing the literall sense without warrant from the sayd Scripture and so by casting a figure euade froÌ„ Gods cleere word Wherfore the cause they appeale vnto Scriptur is not because they thinke the Scripture is cleere for them not much cleerer for vs But because by Scripture they cannot be so cleerly confounded as by Tradition For about Scripture Heretiks euer wrangle pretending that by deductions and inferences they prooue their doctrine being destitute of formall Scripture wherof ignoraÌ„t people caÌ„not iudge For what know they when deductions are good But when they were vrged by Tradition to shew the Pedegree of their Professours they were as dumbe as ours now are that the Fathers said vnto them Confingant tale aliquod let theÌ„ if they can feigne and deuise a pedegree of professours agreeing in the same forme of Faith wherof the first was an Apostle and the last a Protestant The worship in Spirit and Truth with outward prostration of the body due vnto Saints §. 3. THE third cause of their dislike is that we giue the honour of the Creatour vnto the Creature honoring Saints with Religious worship in spirit truth euen to the prostrating of our bodyes before them whereby we giue them honour due to God only and bring in many Gods as the Heathens did To this Obiection made long agoe by Faustus the Manichee S. Augustine lib. 20. cont Faust. c. 22. answereth in these words The Christian people doth celebrate with Religious solemnity the memoryes of Martyrs to the end to stirre vp themselues to their imitatioÌ„ that they may be assisted with their prayers and associated vnto their merits c. But with the worship tearmed in Greeke Latria and which the Latine language cannot expresse in one word being a certayne subiection seruitude due properly to the Deity only we do not honour any but only God nor thinke that this honour ought to be giuen but only to him These words of S. Augustine shew that worship of Saints to be on the one side more then Ciuil and on the other side lesse then diuine more then ciuill as proceeding out of acknowledgement of the excellency Saints haue superiour vnto all naturall by which they be partakers of diuine perfection in that high degree as no substance can by nature participate thereof and therefore S. Augustine with good reason tearmes it religious (h) The Minister pag. 312. contrary to his custome proposeth this argument truly To euery kind of excelleÌ„cy there is a worship due proportionall to that excellency but the blessed Saints and Angells haue a speciall kind of excellency which is supernatural superhumane more then ciuill Therefore speciall honour proportionall to the excellency and superior vnto humane and ciuill is due vnto them To this argument he answereth That in Saints there is dignity of grace and glory and honour is due in respect of the same but not religious worship Thus he what is this but to trifle talke in the ayre who doubts M. White but there is the dignity of grace and glory in Saints and honour due vnto it Speake plainly and mutter not betwixt the teeth Is the honour due to Saints proportionall to their excellency that is more then ciuill Is it superhumane supernaturall as their excellency is Is it superiour vnto that kind of honour which is due vnto ciuill magistrates and other human honourable personages in regard of meere naturall perfectioÌ„ If you grant that worship superhumane and more then ciuill is due vnto Saints you grant as much as we desire to proue The tearme of Religious worship is ambiguous Sometimes religious worship is taken for that which is an elicitiue formall act of Religion of diuine worship due vnto the increated excellency of the Creatour In this sense the worship of Saints is not religious At other tymes it is taken for worship which is an imperatiue act of Religion that is worship done to Saints out of inward Religion and deuotion towards God whose seruants and friends they are In this sense the worship of Saints is Religious