1. Tim. 2 4. But without vnderstanding the qualitie of the Romane Church people may be baptised beleeue and repent and haue all the ordinarie meanes of saluation as appeareth by the Iewes Asts 2 41. and the Eunuch Acts 8 37. and Lydia Acts 16 14. and many Gentiles Acts 13 48. and the elect Ladie and her children 2. Iohn v. 1 2 4. and the Corinthians Galatians Ephesians and the seuen Churches of Asia Apoc. 2 3. c. Occham saieth that after Christs ascension many people were saued before the Roman Church had anie being and AEneas Siluius affirmeth That the first 300 yeares before the Nicene Counsell small regard was had of the Roman Church Iohannes Maior saieth It were ouer hard to affirme that the Indians and other Christans which liue in remote countries should be in the state of damnation because they were ignorant That the Bishop of Rome is head of the Church if they beleeue other necessarie Articles of Saluation And Alchasar saieth Before such time as the publique nuptials betweene the Roman and other Churches were celebrated by a common receiued custome a lesse frequent communion with that Church was sufficient Seconly It is no Article of the Apostles Creed or of any other ancient Creed neither is it delinered in any plaine text or sentence of holy Scripture That all Christian people must receiue their beleefe from the Roman Church or that the same intirely shall in all ages continue in the doctrine and faith receiued from the Apostles yea the contrarie is taught in holie Scripture Rom. 11 22. But if the doctrine aforesaid were fundamentall and of greatest importance the same must haue beene plainely deliuered either in holy Scripture or in all or some of the auncient Creedes IESVIT The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth 2. Tim. 3 15. The eminent Rocke and Mountaine filling the whole world on the top whereof standeth the Tradition of sauing Doctrine conspicuous and immooueable Ergo Jt is the most important Controuersie of all other to know whether the Roman Church be the true Church ANSVVER Foure texts of Scripture are produced to proue that it is the most important controuersie of all other to know whether the Roman Church be the true Church but neither are the places of Scripture expounded rightly neither is the Iesuits islation from them consequent or firme 1 Although it were granted that the totall certaintie of Christiantie dependeth vpon the Church yet because the Roman Church is not the whole Church but onely a part and member thereof Rom. 1 6. and such a member as may erre and proue vnsound Rom. 11 22. The knowledge of the state and qualitie of that Church cannot be simply necessarie and consequently not a matter of greatest importance to be vnderstood 2 The places of Scripture 1. Tim. 3 15. Math. 16 18. Esay 2 1. Dan. 2 35. proue not the question The first place to wit Math. 16 18. is expounded by manie interpreters of Christ himselfe and by the most of the faith which S. Peter confessed touching Christ. And our Sauiour affirmeth not in this Text that the Roman Church of euerie age is a Rocke but that the Church of right beleeuers is builded vpon a Rocke and so the Church is one thing and the Rocke another because nothing is builded vpon it selfe The second place 1. Tim. 3 15. 〈◊〉 that the Church which is the house of the liuing God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pillar and ground of Truth 1. If by the Church we vnderstand the Catholicke Church as it containeth the holie Apostles then this commendation agreeth fully and perfectly to it in respect of the Apostles who were led into all Truth Iohn 16 13. and which taught whilest they 〈◊〉 all Truth and they do at this present day in the Scripture teach the fulnesse of Truth 2. If by the Church we vnderstand the Church of Christ liuing after the Apostles the same is by office and calling the pillar and ground of Truth in all ages And some part or other thereof Truth of God 〈◊〉 to saluation But the present Church is not 〈◊〉 and simply in all things the pillar and ground of Truth but so farre onely as it teacheth the doctrine reuealed by the holie Ghost and groundeth her faith vpon the word of God and this is proued because the Church Apostolicall was free from all errour but succeeding Pastors and Doctors may erre in Ecclesiasticall censures in degrees legislatiue in sermons disputations and other tractats as our Aduersaries themselues confesse and they which propugne the infallible authoritie of the present Church restraine the same to the Pope and Councell of which S. Paul is silent 1. Tim. 3 15. And from hence I inferre That the Church wherein the Apostles taught and gouerned was the ground and pillar of Truth fully intirely and in all things But the present Church is so with limitation conditionally and so farre forth onely as it deliuereth the Apostles doctrine Lastly the Roman Church can challenge no greater priuiledge of Infallibilitie from this Scripture than the church of Ephesus of which the Apostle speaketh litterally in the said Text. But although the Church of Ephesus was by office the pillar and ground of Truth yet the same did afterwards degenerate and depart from the right Faith which argueth that particular Churches such as were the Roman Ephesine Corinthian c. are not in such sort the pillar and ground of Truth as that they are in no danger of errour The other two places Esay 2 1. Dan. 2 35. are principally vnderstood of Christ and his Apostles and they proue not the Iesuits position which is It is the most important controuersie of all other to know whether the Roman Church is the true Church for the present Church of Rome is a Molehill and not the Mountaine prophesied of Esay 2. the same filleth not the whole world but onely a small part of the world neither did the same antiently for 500 yeares at the least fill the whole world for many people both in the East and West were Christians without depending vpon it neither is the same alwaies illustrious for Vertue and Truth but sometimes notorious for Superstition and Vice If our Adnersaries will contend That there is in all ages avisible Church like vnto a great Mountaine filling the whole world vpon the top whereof standeth the Tradition of all true doctrine conspicuous and illustrious 1. The places of Esay and Daniell affirme not this concerning all times and ages of the Church 2. The Scriptures foretell a large reuolt and apostasie from heauenly trueth 3. Our Aduersaries themselues acknowledge that the outward face of the visible Church at some times hath beene and againe may be miserably polluted with foule and enormious scandals and abominations IESVIT If this Church bee ouerthrowne the totall
and be deceiued then the later Church may vpon their reports deliuer some errours together with truth and yet the Tradition thereof concerning matters which are grounded vpon diuine Testimonie is infallible The Church may speake of it selfe and vpon report of them whose Testimonie is humane and fallible And it speaketh also vpon the authoritie of Gods word In the first it may erre and bee deceiued and consequently the Testimonie thereof absolutely bindeth not people to beleeue But when it confirmeth her doctrine and Tradition by diuine Testimonie the Tradition thereof is the Tradition and voyce of God himselfe worthy of all acceptation Neither is her Testimonie fallible and doubtfull in this latter kinde because of errour in the first any more than the Prophesie of Nathan was fallible when he spake by inspiration to Dauid 2. Sam. 7.5 Although when he formerly answered by a humane spirit he was deceiued Balaam is a credible witnesse in all those verities which God put into his mouth Numb 23.5 18. 24. 1. And yet in other matters which proceeded from himselfe he was fallible And Iosephus a Iew is credited in the Testimonie which hee gaue of Christ Antiq. lib. 18. c. 4 although in many other reports he was deceiued The antient Fathers Iustin Martyr Ireneus Origen St. Cyprian erred in some things and yet their authoritie in other matters which they deliuered consonantly to holy Scripture is credible Our Aduersaries confesse that their Popes may erre personally and that their Popes and Councels may erre in the Premises and Arguments from which they deduce conclusions of Faith and yet they will haue their definitiue sentences to be of infallible authoritie Cardinall Iacobatius speaking in the Popes defence saith That it followeth not because one hath erred that therefore his testimonie is altogether inualid and to be refused And hee confirmeth this assertion by diuers Texts of the Canon Law IESVIT And whereas some Protestants affirme that the Church cannot erre in fundamentall points but onely in things of lesse moment The truth is that in her perpetuall Traditions she cannot erre at all If the Tradition of the Church deliuering a small thing as receiued from the Apostles may be false one may call into question her Traditions of moment especially if he please to thinke them not to be of moment for like as if we admit in the Scriptures errours in small matters wee cannot be sure of its infallibitie in substantiall matters So likewise if we grant Tradition perpetuall to be false in things of lesse importance we haue no solid ground to defend her Traditions as assured in other of moment wherefore as he that should say That Gods written word is false in some lesser matters as when it sayes That S. Paul left his cloake at Troas erreth fundamentally by reason of the consequence which giueth occasion to doubt of the truth of euery thing in Scripture Euen so hee that granteth that some part of Traditions or of the word of God vnwritten may bee false erreth substantially because he giueth cause to doubt of any Tradition which yet as I haue shewed is the prime originall ground of Faith more fundamentall than the verie Scripture which is not knowne to be Apostolicall but by Tradition whereas a perpetuall Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by its owne light For what more euident than that that is from the Apostles which is deliuered as Apostolicall by perpetuall succession of Bishops consenting therein ANSWER The true Church in her sounder members erreth not in points fundamentall nor yet in matters of lesse moment maliciously or with pertinacie But the same may be ignorant and also erre in secondarie Articles The reason of the first is because the same should then cease to bee the true Church by corrupting the substance of right faith expresly or vertually and consequently there should remaine no true Church vpon earth which is impossible The reason of the second is because the Church since the Apostles is not guided by immediate inspiration or by Propheticall reuelation but by an ordinarie assistance of grace accompanying the vse of right meanes which remooueth not possibilitie of errour but leaueth space for humane iudgement being regenerate onely in part Heb. 5.2 Gal. 5.17 Aug. Enchir. c. 63. to worke by his proper force and power Secondly the Church hath no perpetuall Traditions but such as are either contained in holy Scripture or which are subseruient to maintaine the faith veritie and authoritie of the holy Scriptures and the doctrine thereof Thirdly whereas the Iesuit saith That euen as no vntruth can be admitted in the holy Scripture in regard of such things as are of the least moment without ouerthrowing the totall authoritie thereof so likewise no errour great or small can bee admitted in the doctrine and Tradition of the present Church because vpon the same will follow the subuersion of all her Tradition euen in matters essentiall I answere That there is not the same reason of the Scripture and the Church for the Scripture is totally and perfectly diuine and must alwayes bee so esteemed and to admit any errour or possibilitie thereof in Scripture were to make God a lyar and consequently to ouerthrow all faith But the present Church is onely the seruant of God and of his word Iohn 10.27 and hath no credit or authoritie but from it and although the same may erre in some things yet there remaineth alwaies a higher and more soueraigne Iudge to wit the holy Ghost speaking in and by the Scriptures to whom Christians desirous of truth may appeale and by whose sentence the Doctrine and Traditions of the present Church are to bee iudged Whosoeuer admitteth any errour or vntruth in the holy Scripture taketh away all authoritie from that which is the prime foundation of supernaturall veritie But he that admitteth error or fallibilitie of iudgement in some Traditions and Doctrines of the Pastours of the present Church doth onely make the credit of a secondarie and inferior witnesse subiect to triall and examination of an higher Iudge And euen as in building the rule and measure of proportion must alwaies be euen and right in it selfe but the workemans hand may possibly leane or shake and applie his rule amisse so likewise the holy Scriptures which are the principles of Theologie and the most exact ballance and measure of diuine Veritie as S. Chrysostome speaketh must be free from all obliquitie of error and to admit the least error in the Scripture ouerthroweth the foundation of Faith But the Ministerie and Tradition of the Church is like an Artificers hand which may sometimes leane and goe awrie and yet the foundation of Veritie abideth firme in the prime authenticall rule and by the same the errour of mens Tradition and Doctrine may be corrected Fourthly the Iesuit affirmeth That Tradition to wit of the
Argument concluding That because no Historicall and expresse opposition was made against these Doctrines by the antient Fathers therefore the Tradition of the present Romane Church concerning these Doctrines is Apostolicall As if a man should conclude That because no expresse opposition was made against the Pharisees by the antient Iewish Church therefore their Traditions were diuine But if the sequele of this Argument be good then the Proposition following is necessarie to wit Euerie Doctrine against which the antient Fathers haue not made expresse and literall opposition is Apostolicall But this is false because some Heresies sprang vp in the Church after the decease of the antient Fathers and against those they could make no such opposition vnlesse they had beene endued with Propheticall inspiration But if as our Aduersarie obiecteth euerie Doctrine is Apostolicall against which the antient Fathers made no expresse and Historicall opposition then the Articles following which Protestants maintaine are Apostolicall to wit The Romane Bishop and Councell may erre The substance of Bread and Wine remaine in the holy Eucharist after consecration The common Prayer and Seruice of the Church which the vnlearned frequent ought to be vttered in a knowne Language These I say and the like Articles according to the Iesuits Argument must be Apostolicall because no expresse Historicall or literall opposition was made against them by the antient Fathers But the Iesuit will peraduenture except That euerie Doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of the Romane Church against which the Fathers haue made no expresse opposition is Apostolicall and not euerie other Doctrine This verily or any thing else as wilde and absurd may be pretended but it must be prooued before it can merit any credit And if the Romane Church may erre and change her Doctrine after the decease of the antient Fathers then the Doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of the Romane Church is of the same qualitie with the Doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of other Churches But the first is true Rom. 11. 22. and there is nothing promised in Diuine Writ to the Romane Church to free the same from Error more than to the Churches of 〈◊〉 Antioch Ephesus c. For Hierusalem was the prime Mother Church Esa. 2. 3. Luc. 24. 47. and the first Seat of all the Apostles Ephesus was the Episcopall Sea of S. Iohn and it was once a Ground and Pillar of Truth 1. Tim. 3. 15. and Antioch was the Episcopall Sea of S. Peter Baron Annal. to 1. anno 39. nu 20. And yet euerie one of these Apostolicall Churches are departed from their antient integritie Wherefore except Romists can demonstrate by diuine testimonie that their Prelates and Pontifes haue singular and ample promises beyond other Apostolicall Churches they begge the question when they arrogate sole perfection infallibilitie and immutabilitie to themselues THE SECOND PART of the Iesuits Disputation concerning the supposed Errors of the PROTESTANTS IESVIT THe Conclusion of this Point shewing that Protestants erre fundamentally ANSVVER THis Conclusion is inferred vpon false Premises and therefore it is a Lying Conclusion And if Protestants erre not in all or any of the Articles obiected eyther materially or pertinaciously then they erre not fundamentally IESVIT Out of all this appeares that the Romane is the true Church and consequently that Protestants haue fundamentall Errors about Faith ANSWER If the Antecedent were graunted yet the Consequence is not necessarie for the Church of Africa in the dayes of Saint Cyprian was a true Church and yet they which beleeued otherwise touching rebaptising than that Church erred not eyther materially or fundamentally IESVIT Errours are fundamentall that is damnable either in regard of the matter because against some substantiall Article of Faith the knowledge whereof is necessarie for the performance of a required Christian dutie or in regard of the manner they are held to wit so obstinately as in defence of them one denies the Catholicke Church ANSVVER The distinction of errours into fundamentall and preterfundamentall is collected out of the Scriptures 1. Cor. 3. 12. Phil. 3. 15 16. 2. Tim. 2. 18. Col. 2. 19. Heb. 6. 1. And the same is found in the Fathers and in the Schoolemen in tearmes aequiualent As all verities according to St. Augustine are fundamentall without the knowledge and faith whereof people cannot attaine saluation so likewise all errours directly opposing and destroying right Faith concerning those necessarie and essentiall verities are fundamentall 1. Tim. 6. 3. 1. Cor. 15. 4 c. Gal. 5. 2. All necessarie and essentiall veritie either concerning Faith or good manners according to St. Augustine is deliuered in plaine places of holy Scriptures and therefore they which accuse others of fundamentall errour must produce plaine and manifest Scripture against them And if after such ostension Errants continue obstinate they are guiltie both before God and men of damnable Heresie and deserue the title and punishment of Heretickes These things being premised concerning the Subiect of the Iesuits Proposition I denie that errours in secondarie points defended against the common tenet of the Catholike Church are alwayes fundamentall for 〈◊〉 Cyprian with 80. Bishops of Affrica did stifly defend Rebaptising against the common iudgement of the Catholicke Church and yet S. August freeth them from the guiltinesse of damnable errour Secondly if all such errour be damnable yet the Protestants are innocent because they defend no errour great or small wilfully or obstinately neither doe they oppose but humbly submit themselues to the iudgement of the true Catholicke Church The Pharisees of Rome enroabe themselues with glorious titles but where doth the word of Christ endow them with priuiledges beyond other Churches shew vs out of the holy Euangelists or the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles that you are the onely Catholicke Church All fundamentall veritie is deliuered in the plaine Texts of Scripture Aug. d. Doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 9. And all fundamentall errour is condemned by manifest Scripture Et Catholica fides in Scripturis manifesta est The true Catholike faith is manifest in the Scriptures Aug. d. Agon Christ. c. 28. Ecclesia nonin parietibus consistit sed in dogmatum veritate Ecclesia ibi est vbi vera fides est The Church of Christ consisteth not of outward Titles and walles but of the veritie of Doctrine Wheresoeuer true Faith is there is the Church saith S. Hierom sup Psal. 133. Where Faith is there is the Church saith Saint Chrysostome Where right Faith is not there is not the true Church Et Ecclesia est Hierusalem cuius fundamenta posita sunt super montes Scripturarum And the Church is Hierusalem whose foundations are placed vpon the mountaines of the Scriptures Eruite igitur aliquid manifestum quo demonstretis Ecclesiam If therefore Papals will force vs to beleeue that they are the only Catholicke Church and that we must follow their Pope
though he lead vs to hell bring something euident and manifest out of the holy Scripture Si diuinarum Scripturarum earum scilicet quae canonicae in Ecclesia nominantur perspicua firmatur Authoritate sine vlla dubitatione credendum est 〈◊〉 vero testibus vel testimonijs quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur tibi credere vel non credere liceat c. If saith S. Augustine it be confirmed by the perspicuous authoritie of those diuine Scriptures which are Canonicall it must without all question be beleeued but as for other witnesses and testimonies by which any thing is persuaded to be beleeued it is lawfull for thee to beleeue or not beleeue them as thou shalt perceiue them to deserue credit IESVIT Fundamentall errours of the first kinde Protestants haue 〈◊〉 particularly these Nine ANSWER Malice alwayes fighteth against Vertue and laboureth to impose and rub off her owne faults vpon it and all they whose brests and minds are inhabited by Satan testifie their venemous rage with furious words If this Traducer be able to conuince the Protestants of Nine or of any one fundamentall errour wee must acknowledge that we are in a perillous state but if hee onely depraue and falsifie our doctrine or affirme that to be fundamentall errour which is diuine veritie then he prooueth himselfe to be one of his Ministers of whom S. Gregory speaketh Perfidious dealing is in the Tabernacle of Antichrist whereby he gainesayeth the faith of the Redeemer IESVIT First their Doctrine against Traditions vnwritten whereby the foundation is ouerthrowne on which wee beleeue all other substantiall and fundamentall points as hath beene shewed ANSVVER Either you wilfully falsifie or ignorantly mistake the Protestants Doctrine concerning vnwrttten Tradition First we admit in generall all vnwritten Traditions agreeing with the holy Scripture which are deriued from the Apostles and deliuered vnto vs by the manifest and perpetuall testimonie of the Primitiue Church and by the vniforme consent of succeeding Churches in all ages Secondly we beleeue in particular the historicall Traditions of the Primatiue and succeeding Churches concerning the dignitie authoritie perfection authors number and integritie of the bookes of Canonicall Scripture and also the Historicall Tradition of the said Church concerning the perpetuall virginitie of the blessed Virgin Marie and concerning the baptisme of infants and all other genuine Traditions which maintaine the Faith and Doctrine contained expressely or by consequent in the Scripture Thirdly we embrace such exposition of holy Scripture as being consonant to the rule of Faith and to the text of Scripture is affirmed by antient Tradition to haue descended from the holy Apostles Fourthly we beleeue the rule of Faith contained in the Apostles Creed both vpon the authoritie of Christs written word and also vpon the voice and testimonie of vnwritten Tradition If it shall then be demanded Wherefore do the Romists and you so eagrely contend about the question of Traditions and wherein lies your difference we answer as followeth First we yeeld the highest and most soueraigne authoritie to the sacred Scripture and make the voice and sentence thereof a supreame rule and iudge of supernaturall Veritie and we make Tradition vnwritten subordinate and ministeriall to holy Scripture admitting the same so farre forth only as it is conformable to the Scripture and reiecting the contrarie Secondly we affirme that the Canonicall Scriprure containeth all supernaturall Veritie necessarie to saluation and being receiued and vnderstood is a sufficient and perfect rule of Faith and the sole doctrine thereof is sufficient to instruct the whole Church and euery member thereof to saluation And that Tradition vnwritten maketh no addition or increase of new Articles of Faith but is only an helpe and instrument to deliuer applie and interpret the doctrine expresly deliuered or intended by the holy Ghost in the Scripture Thirdly we receiue no Tradition as diuine or apostolicall but such as hath the plaine manifest and vniforme testimonie and approbation of the Primatiue Church But our Aduersaries either equall or preferre vnwritten Tradition before the Scripture and they make Tradition a diuers and larger part of the rule of Faith containing many Articles which are neither expressely nor inuoluedly reuealed in the Scripture and they make the present Roman Church an infallible witnesse of such Tradition affirming that we are bound to beleeue euerie Article which the said Church deliuereth as a Tradition with the same assurance of Faith wherewith we beleeue any written testimonie of S. Paul or the holy Euangelists And many of them teach That it is not necessarie to deriue Tradition by a perpetuall descent and current through all ages but the voice of the present Church is sufficient to make any Article ctedible and authenticall to vs Lastly many particularopinions of antient Fathers which they deliuered coniecturally or probably onely and concerning which they haue not affirmed that they were diuine or apostolicall Traditions are ranked by latter Pontificians in the number of diuine 〈◊〉 and made parts of the vndoubted word of God And thus the present Roman doctrine concerning Traditions vnwritten is a Seminarie of Errour and by pretext hereof Pontificians obtrude vpon the Church many prophane fabulous and superstitious 〈◊〉 fansies and nouelties repugnant to holy Scripture and the antient Catholicke Faith Let therefore impartiall Readers consider whether this Romish doctrine debasing the sacred Scripture and aduancing humane Traditions tendeth not to the corrupting of Christian Faith and consequently whether the same be not rather a fundamentall Errour than an Orthodoxall Veritie And on the contrarie whether the doctrine of the Protestants maintaining the supreame authoritie of the sacred Scripture which is Gods vndoubted word and withall yeelding to genuine Tradition the credit and honour which the antient Church gaue thereunto is not fundamentall Veritie and a soueraigne meanes to preserue right Faith IESVIT Secondly their questioning the infallibe authoritie of lawfull generall Councels thereby casting downe the foundation of Vnitie in Gods Church ANSWER They which will not permit generall Councels to assemble or to proceed lawfully and which oppose the decrees of antient Councels are the Romists and not the Protestants First The moderne Popes vsurpe the whole right and authoritieof calling and conuocating Councells contrarie to the antient custome and practise of the Church Secondly They receiue and admit no Assessors and Iudges in Councels but onely their fast friends to wit men aforehand oblieged by solemne oath to proceed according to the will and purpose of the Pope Thirdly The Pope alone is appointed the authenticall Iudge of all causes and matters which are concluded in Councels he approoueth or refuseth whatsoeuer himselfe pleaseth and all other Iudges and Assessors are onely his shadowes and creatures Fourthly Whereas in words and tearmes they seeme to aduance
rest of the Apostles with him Iohn 20. 23. Eph. 2.20 Apoc. 21.14 Matth. 28.19 Thirdly To be a Ministeriall Rocke and foundation of the Church is not to be the sole Monarch of the Church because St. Peter might bee such in regard of his Preaching and Doctrine as the other Apostles were and not in respect of Monarchicall dominion Heereupon Turrecremate in his Sum. d. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 11. saith Non argumentati sumus Petrum primatum habuisse quia dictus fuit fundamentum aut Petra Ecclesiae sed quia singulariter c. Wee argue not Saint Peter had the Primacie because he was called the Foundation or Rocke of the Church but because he was in a singular manner so called But if the name of Rocke argueth not St. Peters supremacie the singular applying thereof in one Text of Scripture will not doe it both because the speaking to him in particular is onely a circumstance and relation of a matter granted by the words of Rocke and Keyes but no addition of any other essentiall gift and also because the same Title in tearmes equiualent is elsewhere made common to other Apostles The Iesuit addeth That we denie the primacie of Peters Successour and that this Successour is the foundation of the Church laid by Christ and necessarie for the perpetuall gouernment of the same I answere First St. Peter in one respect to wit in regard of his Apostolicall function had no successour for the Office of Apostles was extraordinarie appointed by Christ for the first planting of Faith and consequently it ceased with the Apostles Immediate calling Propheticall inspiration the gifts of Miracles and Languages authoritie ouer the whole Church and all the ordinarie Pastours thereof were proper to the holy Apostles and if none succeed them in these gifts and prerogatiues then it is manifest that in respect of their Apostleship they haue no Successours Secondly In respect of ordinarie Ministerie and in regard of the power and order of iurisdiction St. Peter hath successours in the same manner as the rest of the Apostles to wit all Bishops and Pastours teaching either where hee planted Churches or in any other part of the world the same Faith and Religion which himselfe and his fellow Apostles did Thirdly That St. Peter hath a speciall Successour differing in kinde from the Successours of the rest of the Apostles and which is to bee for euer a visible Head and Monarch ouer the vniuersall Church from whom all Ecclesiasticall power is deriued and to whose sentence in things diuine euery Chrstian must submit himselfe and that the Romane Bishop is the man is deliuered as a prime Article of Christian Faith by Papals but it is neither confirmed by the holy Scripture nor by any diuine Reuelation neither is the same deliuered in the holy Apostles Creed or by any antient generall Councell or by the vnanimous consent of the Primatiue Fathers And sundry Romists themselues haue made question of it and later Pontificians doe with so many subtill sleights and inuentions propugne it that all intelligent and impartiall men may plainely discerne That this Doctrine of Papall Supremacie is builded vpon the sand For if the Romane Bishop had beene appointed and established the perpetuall Successour of Saint Peter in manner before mentioned either our Sauiour himselfe would immediately expreslly and manifestly haue reuealed the same to his Church or the holy Apostles would haue taken notice thereof and declared the same to others Also Saint Peter must haue carried himselfe as a Monarch among the other Apostles and exercised the actions of Soueraigntie in the visible Church But we find in the holy Scripture no supereminent iurisdiction or Monarchicall actions exercised by him no vassallage and subiection yeelded him by the rest of the Apostles And if hee must haue had a Successour in his Monarchie the Apostles suruiuing him should rather haue beene his Successours than the ordinarie Pastours of one Diocesse The Spirit of God also together with so eminent authoritie would haue conferred vpon 〈◊〉 Successours extraordinarie graces of Learning Wisedome Holinesse c. necessarie for so high a calling Also it is not probable that Eusebius and other antient Ecclesiasticall Historians would altogether haue been silent of this Monarchicall authoritie of the Romane Bishop neither would any Orthodoxe Father or generall Councell haue confined the Romane Pontife to equall bounds with other Patriarkes But the antientest Ecclesiasticall Stories are absolutely silent of such a swelling preheminence as moderne Papals claime and the Fathers and Councells contest the same Pope Stephan was slighted by St. Cyprian and the Bishops of Affrica when he enterposed in their affaires and Pope Victor by the Bishops of the East The Oecumenicall Councell of Chalcedon equalleth the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Bishop of Rome Gregory the Great himselfe giueth the Papacie a deadly blow And a great part of Christianitie hath euer to this day opposed the Papall Primacie Therefore it is most improbable that this doctrine should be fundamentall veritie which hauing no 〈◊〉 or infallible grounds in diuine Reuelation wanteth also the suffrages of all antient Ecclesiasticall Testimonie IESVIT FOurthly Their denying the foundation of true 〈◊〉 which is one true Catholicke Christian faith about reuealed Mysteries bringing in a fantasticall faith pretending That euery man is iustified by beleeuing himselfe to be iust or one of Gods Elect. ANSVVER YOu ought first to haue weighed our Doctrine concerning the definition of Faith and haue compared the same with the Tenet of sundrie of your owne Doctours before you had accused vs of fundamentall Errour about the same First We maintaine that true Christian Catholicke Faith is a 〈◊〉 and foundation to wit on mans part of Iustification Heb. 11.6 Rom. 1.17 Iud. v. 20. Secondly We denie that euery man is iustified by only beleeuing himselfe to be iust for he must be truely iust before he can or ought to beleeue himselfe to be so The promise of remission of sinnes is conditionall Esa. 1.16 17 18. Ezec. 18. 21. Pro. 28. 13. Math. 6.14 15. Iohn 15. 10. 16 27. Heb. 5.9 and the same becommeth not absolute vntill the condition be fulfilled either actually or in desire and preparation of mind and the full assurance of remission of sinnes succeedeth Repentance Faith Obedience and Mortification 1. Iohn 3.19 20 21 22. Thirdly We denie that it is an action of Christian Faith praeuious or fundamentall to Iustification for a man to beleeue himselfe to be one of Gods elect and admitting that one do not attaine the certainetie of Faith but of Hope onely that he is elected if there be no other impediment found in him besides this we make no question but such a person may be 〈◊〉 Wherein then lyeth the fundamentall errour concerning Faith and Iustification wherewith we are reproched If it be answered That
we erre fundamentally by making sauing Faith not only an intellectuall but also a fiduciall assent to the promise of the Gospell the 〈◊〉 must remember that many of his owne Doctours affirme the same Vega. d. Iustiff lib. 14. Fides in Scripturis 〈◊〉 idem est quod fidueia 〈◊〉 idem quod considere Faith in the Scriptures is many times the same that Trust and to beleeue the same that to trust Iansenius Concord Euang. cap. 32. The name of Faith in the Gospell when Saluation is ascribed vnto it containeth both firme assent c. and also considence and trust conceiued vpon the apprehension of his 〈◊〉 and goodnesse Adam Sasboth sup Rom. 1. v. 17. The word Faith in S. Pauls desputation containeth not only Assent but also Trust in Christ the Mediatour Ferus sup Math. Non semper Fides est quod nos Fidem dicimus c. That which we call Faith to wit to assent to such things as are reported in diuine Histories and which the Church propoundeth to beleeue is not alwaies Faith c. for the Scripture speaketh of Faith in another manner for according to it Faith is a trust in the diuine mercie promised by Christ with these also concurre Guilliaudus Fredericus Nausea and Suares saith Multi Catholici putant saepe accipi in Scriptura Fidem pro fiducia Many Catholicks think that Faith is oftentimes taken in holy Scripture for Trust. The Iesuit therefore wanted matter to fraught his papers when he obiected this Article against vs as a fundamentall errour For if his owne Doctours and the holy Scripture it selfe take the word Faith in this notion wherein haue we merited so grieuous a sentence But I haue produced many famous Doctours of his owne part which say expresly the same that we doe concerning the signification of the word Faith when it is said to iustifie and in steed of many other Texts I referre him to the places of Scripture following Iam. 1.6 Math. 9. v. 2. 22. cap. 14.31 Rom. 9.33 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Euery one that beleeueth vpon him 1. Pet. 2.6 Now in regard of the matter of our Doctrine the assurance of remission of sinnes which we teach is no other than S. Bernard Iohn Bacon the Carmelite Caietan Catherinus Ferus and many other Pontificians haue formerly taught Caietan sup Rom. 8. We haue from the holy Ghost and our owne a most sufficient testimonie to make vs beleeue that we are the sonnes of God for by this testimonie we cleerely discerne that we ought to beleeue that we are the sonnes of God And S. Bernard If thou beleeuest that he only can blot out thine offences whom thou hast offended it is well but ioine this also to the former that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is the testimonie which the holy Spirit yeeldeth in our hearts saying Thy sinnes are remitted vnto thee and in this sort doth the holy Apostle thinke that a man is freely iustified by Faith Now from the precedent positions I argue thus First That Doctrine concerning the nature and actions of Faith which is taught in holy Scripture and which hath the consent of many antient Fathers and which was deliuered by many learned Doctors of the Roman Church is not fundamentall Errour But such is the Doctrine of Protestants concerning iustifying Faith c. Secondly No Church erreth fundamentally which teacheth such a kind of iustifying Faith as Abraham Iob S. Paul and other iust persons commended in holy Scriptures had But Abraham Iob S. Paul and other iust persons commended in holy Scriptures had such a iustifying Faith as was both an intellectuall and fiduciall assent to diuine Veritie and Promises Ergo The Church of the Protestants erreth not fundamentally teaching such a iustifying Faith as is both an intellectuall and fiduciall assent to diuine Promises and Verities The assumption is prooued by Rom. 4.18 19 20 21. Iob 19. 25. Rom. 8.38 Gal. 2.20 2. Tim. 4.7 And whereas Pontificians bequarrel vs in this argument two waies First saying That these holy men had a particular promise made vnto them Secondly That they knew by extraordinarie Reuelation that they were indued with Faith Hope and Charitie which wee know only by coniecturall or morall persuasion I answer First we haue particular promises contained in the generall and the generall promises are particularly applied by the word of Absolution and the Sacraments and by the testimonie of the holy Ghost speaking in the conscience of true beleeuers by effects of Grace Secondly they which want miraculous Reuelation may vnderstand by ordinarie Grace that they haue Faith Hope and Charitie because the holy Scripture commandeth all Christian beleeuers to trie and examine themselues concerning these Graces 1. Cor. 11 28. 2. Cor. 13.5 And godly persons which liued in former daies knew they had these vertues Psal. 119. 97. Esa. 38.3 Iob 27.5 6. 29.14 Luc. 9.24 Ioh. 21.15 And the Apostle speaking of other people as well as of himselfe saith We know the things which are freely giuen vs of God 1. Cor. 2. 12. And S. Iohn saith That he which receiueth the hidden Manna knowes it Apoc. 2. 17. The Fathers also and many Doctors of the Roman Church affirme the same S. Augustine I see that I beleeue if I beleeue and in another place These two things are not vncertaine to me the goodnesse of God and mine owne Faith and in another place Let euerie man enter into his owne heart and if he find there brotherly Charitie let him be secure for he is passed from death vnto life and in a fourth place 〈◊〉 man knoweth the Charitie wherewith he loueth his brother better than his brother But to the end the difference betweene our Aduersaries and vs concerning this question may the better appeare I will deliuer our Doctrine in certaine propositions First We maintaine that such persons only can haue true assurance and certaintie of their Iustification which beleeue and repent and are resolued to obey Gods commandements Secondly A Christian of a contrite spirit beleeuing only that his sinnes are remissible and which earnestly desireth remission of sinnes by the merits of Christ and ioineth with this desire the exercise of vertue receiueth forgiuenesse although he be vexed with scruples and temptations and want assurance and persuasion in himselfe that his sinnes are remitted Thirdly The particular certaintie of remission of sinnes which iust persons attaine vnto vpon their Repentance Obedience and Faith is not equall in the firmitie of assent to that assurance which they haue about the common obiect of Faith to wit concerning the articles of Creation Trinitie Incarnation Resurrection or the like because these articles are immediately and totally reuealed in the holy Scripture but that his sinnes in particular are remitted vnto a penitent person dependeth vpon an Argument whereof one
no Lye nor his Power any Inconstancie Because therefore Christ hath a true and perfect Bodie both in regard of substance and matter and also in respect of quantitie stature measure posture proportion c. and because euerie true humane bodie by the Ordinance of the Creator who hath formed and constituted the seuerall kinds and natures of things after a speciall manner is determined to one indiuiduall place at one instant and must also haue distinction and diuision of parts with a length latitude and thicknesse proportionall to the quantitie thereof Therefore except God himselfe had expressely reuealed and testified by his Word that the contrarie should be found in the humane bodie of Christ and that the same should haue one manner of corporall being in Heauen and another in the holy Eucharist at one and the same time a Christian cannot be compelled to beleeue this Doctrine as an Article of his Creed vpon the sole Voyce and Authoritie of the Laterane or Trident Councell Some learned Papists confesse ingeniously That secluding the Authoritie of the Church there is no written Word of God sufficient to enforce a Christian to receiue this Doctrine And moderne Pontificians are not able to confirme their present Tenet to wit That Christs humane bodie may be in many vbities or places at one time and that the whole bodie of Christ is circumscriptiuely in Heauen and according to the manner of a Spirit and of the Diuine nature it selfe without extension of parts in euerie crumme of the Sacramentall formes This Doctrine I say Papals are not able to confirme by the vnanimous Testimonie and Tradition of the antient Church Therefore because the same is grounded neither vpon Scripture nor Tradition they begge the question when they alleadge Gods omnipotent power for it must first of all and that vpon infallible Principles appeare That God will haue it thus before his omnipotencie be pleaded that he is able to make it thus But the Iesuites Sophisme whereby hee would intangle vs within the snares of fundamentall Errour when wee denie Christs bodily presence in many places at once proceedeth in this manner No bodie can be truely receiued in many places at once vnlesse the same be corporally present in many places at once The Bodie of Christ is truely receiued in many places at once to wit in euery place where the holy Eucharist is administred Ergo The Bodie of Christ is present in many places at once I answere The Maior Proposition is denyed for there is a twofold manner of true Presence and consequently of Receiuing one Naturall by the hand and mouth of the bodie Another Mysticall and Spirituall by the deliuerie of the holy Ghost and by the apprehension and action of the soule First The holy Ghost truely and verily reacheth and presenteth the Obiect which is Christs Bodie and Blood crucified and offered in Sacrifice for mans Redemption Secondly The reasonable soule being eleuated by a liuely and operatiue Faith apprehendeth and receiueth the former obiect as really verily and truely after a spirituall and supernaturall manner as the bodie receiueth any corporeall or sensible obiect after a naturall manner Iohn 1. 12. Ephes. 3. 17. Fulgentius saith Filium Dei vnicum per fidem recipiunt They receiue the onely Sonne of God by Faith Our Sauiour saith That holy Beleeuers receiue the Flesh and drinke the Blood of Christ Iohn 6. 50 53 54. Credendo by 〈◊〉 v. 35.47 Paschasius hath these words The flesh and blood of Christ c. are truely 〈◊〉 by Faith and vnderstanding It is not lawfull to eate Christ with teeth This Sacrament is truely his flesh and his blood which man eateth and drinketh spiritually 〈◊〉 saith Hold readie the mouth of thy Faith open the iawes of Hope stretchout the bowels of Loue and take the Bread of life which is the nourishment of the inward man Eusebius Emisenus When thou goest vp to the reuerend Altar to bee filled with spirituall meates by Faith behold honour and wonder at the sacred Bodie and Blood of thy God touch it with thy minde take it with the hand of thy heart and chiefly prouide that the inward man swallow the whole Saint Ambrose Comedat te cor meum panis Sancte panis viue panis munde veni in cor meum intra in animam meam Let mine heart eate thee oh holy Bread oh liuing Bread oh pure Bread come into my heart enter into my soule Saint Augustine There is another Bread which confirmeth the heart because it is the Bread of the heart And in another place Then is the Body and Blood of the Lord life to each man when that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament is in very truth spiritually eaten spiritually drunken Now from the former Testimonies it is manifest that the Bodie and Blood of Christ may truely and really bee eaten and receiued by operatiue Faith in the Sacrament And if it bee further obiected That spirituall eating and drinking of the Bodie and Blood of Christ may bee without the Sacrament I answere That the same is more effectually and perfectly accomplished in the Sacrament than out of the Sacrament because the holy Ghost directly and in speciall when the Sacrament is deliuered exhibiteth the Body and Blood of Christ as a pledge and testimonie of his particular loue towards euery worthie Receiuer and the liuely representation and commemoration of Christs death and Sacrifice by the mysticall signes and actions is an instrument of the Diuine Spirit to apply and communicate Christ crucified and to increase and confirme the Faith Charitie and pietie of Receiuers Lastly It is remarkeable that vntill the thousand yeeres and more after Christs Ascension Orthodoxall Christians beleeued that the Bodie and Blood of Christ were truely and really present and deliuered to worthie Receiuers in and by the holy Eucharist according to St. Pauls Doctrine 1. Cor. 10.16 And that the same must be spiritually receiued by Faith or else they profited nothing But the manner of Presence which some Modernes now obtrude by Consubstantiation or by Transubstantiation was not determined as an Article of Faith And to say nothing of Consubstantiation the defence whereof inuolueth them in many absurdities which vndertake for it it is apparant that Transubstantiation is a bastard plant and vpstart weed neuer planted by the heauenly Father but the same sprang vp in the declining state of the Church and it is perplexed and inuolued with so many absurdities and contradictions to Veritie formerly receiued that our Aduersarie was transported with partiall folly when he presumed to ranke the refusall of this new and prodigious Article among fundamentall Errours IESVIT EIghtly Their denying the Sacrament of Penance and Priestly Absolution the necessarie meanes for remission of finnes committed after Baptisme ANSVVER THe Obiector by Penance vnderstandeth not Repentance as it is a vertue for Protestants beleeue true
enough not spared to say That what the B. would not acknowledge in this cause you would wring and extort from him then indeed you said as before that it had erred And this no man denyed But euerie Error denyes not Christ the Foundation or makes Christ denie it or thrust it from the Foundation F. The B. said That the Error was not in Point fundamentall B. The B. was not so peremptorie His speech was That diuers learned men and some of your owne were of opinion That as the Greekes expressed themselues it was a Question not simply Fundamentall The B. knowes and acknowledges that Error of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne to be a grieuous Error in Diuinitie And sure it would haue grated the Foundation if they had so denyed the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne as that they had made an inequalitie betweene the Persons But since their forme of speech is That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Sonne and is the Spirit of the Sonne without making any difference in the consubstantialitie of the Persons the B. dares not denie them to be a true Church for this though he confesses them an erroneous Church in this particular Now that diuers learned men were of opinion That à Filio per Filium in the sense of the Greeke Church was but a Question in modo loquendi in manner of speech and therefore not fundamentall is euident The Master and his Schollers agree vpon it The Greekes saith hee confesse the holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Sonne with the Apostle Galat. 4. and the Spirit of Truth S. Ioh. 16. And since Non est aliud It is not another thing to say The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and the Sonne then that he is or proceeds from the Father and the Sonne in this they seeme to agree with vs in eandem Fidei Sententiam vpon the same Sentence of Faith though they differ in words Now in this cause where the words differ but the sentence of Faith is the same 〈◊〉 eadem euen altogether the same Can the Point be fundamentall You may make them no Church as Bellarmine doth and so denie them saluation which cannot be had out of the true Church but the B. dares not It ought to be no easie thing to condemne a man of Heresie in foundation of Faith much lesse a Church least of all so ample and large a Church as the Greeke especially so as to make them no Church Heauen Gates were not so easily shut against multitudes when S. Peter wore the Keyes at his owne Girdle And it is good counsaile which Alphonsus à Castro one of your owne giues Let them consider that pronounce easily of Heresie how easie it is for themselues to erre Or if you will pronounce consider what it is that seperates from the Church simply and not in part onely I must needs professe that I wish heartily as well as others that those distressed men whose Crosse is heauie alreadie had beene more plainely and moderately dealt withall though they thinke a diuerse thing from vs than they haue beene by the Church of Rome But hereupon you say you were forced F. Whereupon I was forced to repeat what I had formerly brought against Dr. White concerning Points Fundamentall B. Hereupon it is true that you read a large discourse out of a Booke printed which you said was yours The particulars all of them at the least the B. tells me he doth not now remember and is sure he did not then approoue But if they be such as were formerly brought against 〈◊〉 White they are by him formerly answered The first thing you did was the righting of S. Augustine Which Sentence the B. doth not at all remember was so much as named in the third Conference much lesse was it stood vpon and then righted by you Another place of S. Augustine indeed was which you omit but the place of it comes after about Tradition to which I remit it But you tell vs of a great proofe made out of this place These words containe two Propositions One That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall The other That this is prooued out of this place of S. Augustine 1. For the first That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall It was not the least meanes by which Rome grew to her Greatnesse to blast euerie Opposer shee had with the name of Heretike or Schismatike for this serued to shriuell the credit of the persons and the persons once brought into contempt and ignominie all the good they desired in the Church fell to dust for want of creditable persons to backe and support it To make this proceeding good in these later yeeres this course it seemes was taken The Schoole that must maintaine and so they doe That all Points defined by the Church are thereby Fundamentall necessarie to be beleeued of the substance of the Faith and that though it be determined quite Extra Scripturam And then leaue the wise and actiue heads to take order that there be strength enough readie to determine what is fittest for them But since these men distinguish not nor you betweene the Church in generall and a Generall Councell which is but her Representation for determinations of the Faith the B. though he be very slow in sifting or opposing what is concluded by lawfull generall and consenting Authoritie though hee giue as much as can be giuen to the definitions of Councels truly generall nay suppose hee should graunt which hee doth not That Generall Councels cannot erre yet this cannot downe with him That all Points euen so defined are Fundamentall For Deductions are not prime and Natiue Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations That which is a Foundation for all cannot be one and another in different Christians for then it could be no constant Rule for any nor could the soules of men rest vpon a shaking Foundation No If it be a true Foundation it must be common to all and firme vnder all in which sense the Articles of Christian Faith are Fundamentall And Irenaeus layes this for a ground That the whole Church howsoeuer dispersed in place speakes this with one mouth Hee which among the Guides of the Church is best able to speake vtters no more than this and lesse than this the most simple doth not vtter Therefore the Creed of which hee speakes is a common is a constant Foundation and an Explicite Faith must be of this in them which haue the vse of Reason for both Guides and simple people all the Church vtter this Now many things are defined by the Church which are but Deductions out of this which suppose them deduced right mooue farre from the Foundation without which Deductions explicitely beleeued many millions of Christians goe to Heauen and cannot therefore be Fundamentall in the Faith True
Deductions from the Article may require necessarie beleefe in them which are able and doe goe along with them from the Principle to the Conclusion but I doe not see either that the Learned doe make them necessarie to all or any reason why they should Therefore they cannot be Fundamentall Besides that which is Fundamentall in the Faith of Christ is a Rocke immooueable and can neuer bee varied Neuer Therefore if it be Fundamentall after the Church hath defined it it was Fundamentall before the definition else it is mooueable and then no Christian hath where to rest And if it be immooueable as indeed it is no Decree of a Councell be it neuer so generall can alter immooueable Verities no more than it can change immooueable Natures Therefore if the Church in a Councell define any thing the thing defined is not Fundamentall because the Church hath defined it nor can be made so by the definition of the Church if it be not so in it selfe For if the Church had this power shee might make a new Article of the Faith which the Learned among your selues denie For the Articles of the Faith cannot encrease in substance but onely in explication Nor is this hard to be prooued out of your owne Schoole for Scotus professeth it in this verie particular of the Greeke Church If there be saith he a true reall difference betweene the Greekes and the Latines about the Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost then either they or we be vere Haeretici truly and indeed Heretikes And he speakes this of the old Greekes long before any decision of the Church in this Controuersie For his instance is in S. Basil and Greg. Nazianz. on the one side and S. Ierome Augustine and Ambrose on the other And who dares call any of these Heretikes is his challenge I denie not but that Scotus addes there That howsoeuer this was before yet ex quo from the time that the Catholike Church declared it it is to be held as of the substance of Faith But this cannot stand with his former Principle if hee intend by it That whatsoeuer the Church defines shall be ipso facto and for that determinations sake Fundamentall For if before the determination supposing the difference reall some of those Worthies were truly Heretikes as hee confesses then somewhat made them so and that could not be the Decree of the Church which then was not Therefore it must be somewhat really false that made them so and fundamentally false if it had made them Heretikes against the Foundation But Scotus was wiser than to intend this It may be hee saw the streame too strong for him to swim against therefore hee went on with the Doctrine of the time That the Churches Sentence is of the substance of Faith but meant not to betray the Truth for hee goes no further than Ecclesia declarauit since the Church hath declared it which is the word that is vsed by diuers Now the Master teaches and the Schollers too That euerie thing which belongs to the exposition or declaration of another intus est is not another contrarie thing but is contayned within the bowels and nature of that which is interpreted from which if the declaration depart it is faultie and erronious because in stead of declaring it giues another and a contrarie sense Therefore when the Church declares any thing in a Councell either that which she declares was Intus or Extra in the nature and veritie of the thing or out of it If it were Extra without the nature of the thing declared then the declaration of the thing is false and so farre from being fundamentall in the Faith If it were Intus within the compasse and nature of the thing though not expert and apparant to euerie Eye then the declaration is true but not otherwise fundamentall than the thing is which is declared For Intus cannot be larger or deeper than that in which it is if it were it could not be Intus Therefore nothing is simply fundamentall because the Church declares it but because it is so in the nature of the thing which the Church declares And it is a slight and poore euasion that is commonly vsed That the declaration of the Church makes it fundamentall quoad nos in respect of vs for it doth not that neither for no respect to vs can varie the Foundation The Churches declaration can bind vs to peace and externall obedience where there is not expresse letter of Scripture and sense agreed on but it cannot make any thing fundamentall to vs that is not so in the nature of it For if the Church can so adde that it can by a Declaration make a thing to be fundamentall in the Faith that was not then it can take a thing from the foundation and make it by declaring not to be fundamentall which all men graunt no power of the Church can doe For the power of adding any thing contrarie and of detracting any thing necessarie are alike forbidden Now nothing is more apparant than this to the eye of all men That the Church of Rome hath determined or declared or defined call it what you will very many things that are not in their owne nature fundamentall and therefore neither are not can be made so by her adiudging them 2. For the second That it is prooued by this place of S. Augustine That all Points defined by the Church are fundamentall You might haue giuen me that place cited in the Margin and eased my paines to seeke it but it may be there was somewhat in concealing it For you doe so extraordinarily right this place that you were loth I thinke any 〈◊〉 should see how you wrong it The place of S. Augustine is this against the Pelagians about Remission of Originall sinne in Infants This is a thing founded An erring Disputor is to be borne with in other Questions not diligently digested not yet made firme by 〈◊〉 Authoritie of the Church their Error is to be borne with but it ought not to goe so farre that it should labour to shake the Foundation it selfe of the Church This is the place but it can neuer follow out of this place I thinke That euerie thing defined by the Church is Fundamentall For first he speakes of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture not a Church definition This appeares for few Lines before he tells vs There was a Question mooued to S. Cyprian Whether Baptisme was concluded to the eight day as well as Circumcision And no doubt was made then of the beginning of Sinne and that out of this thing about which no Question was mooued that Question that was made was answered And againe That S. Cyprian tooke that which he gaue in answere from the Foundation of the Church to confirme a Stone that was shaking Now S. Cyprian in all the Answer that he giues hath not one
word of any definition of the Church therefore Ea Res That thing by which he answered was a Foundation of prime and settled Scripture Doctrine not any definition of the Church Therefore that which he tooke from the Foundation of the Church to fasten the Stone that shooke was not a definition of the Church but the Foundation of the Church it selfe the Scripture vpon which it builded as appeareth in the Mileuitan Councell where the Rule by which Pelagius was condemned is the Rule of Scripture Rom. 5.12 Therefore S. Augustine goes on in the same sense That the Disputor is not to be borne any longer that shall endeuour to shake the Foundation it selfe vpon which the whole Church is grounded Secondly If S. Augustine did meane by Founded and Foundation the definition of the Church because of these words This thing is founded This is made firme by full authoritie of the Church and the words following these To shake the foundation of the Church yet it can neuer follow out of any or all these Circumstances and these are all That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall in the Faith For first no man denyes but the Church is a Foundation That things defined by it are founded vpon it And yet hence it cannot follow That the thing that is so founded is Fundamentall in the Faith for things may be founded vpon humane Authoritie and be verie certaine yet not Fundamentall in the Faith Nor yet can it follow This thing is founded therefore euerie thing determined by the Church is founded Againe that which followes That those things are not to be opposed which are made firme by full Authoritie of the Church cannot conclude they are therefore fundamentall in the Faith For full Church Authoritie is but Church Authoritie and Church Authoritie when it is at full Sea the time that included the Apostles being past and not comprehended in it is not simply Diuine therefore the Sentence of it not fundamentall in the Faith And yet no erring Disputor may be endured to shake the Foundation which the Church in Councell layes But plaine Scripture with euident sense or a full demonstratiue argument must haue roome where a wrangling and erring Disputor may not be allowed it And there 's neither of these but may conuince the definition of the Councell if it be ill founded And the Articles of the Faith may easily prooue it is not fundamentall if in deed and veritie it be not so And the B. hath read some bodie that sayes Is it not you That things are fundamentall in the Faith two wayes One in their Matter such as are all things as be so in themselues the other in the Manner such as are all things that the Church hath defined and determined to be of Faith And that so some things that are de modo of the manner of being are of Faith But in plaine truth this is no more than if you should say Some things are fundamentall in the Faith and some are not For wrangle while you will you shall neuer be able to prooue That any thing which is but de modo a consideration of the manner of being onely can possibly be fundamentall in the Faith And since you make such a Foundation of this place I will a little view the Mortar with which it is laid by you it is a venture but I shall find it vntempered Your assertion is All Points defined by the Church are fundamentall your proofe this place Because that is not to be shaken which is setled by full authoritie of the Church Then it seemes your meaning is that this Point there spoken of The remission of 〈◊〉 sinne in Baptisme of Infants was defined when S. Augustine wrote this by a full Sentence of a Generall Councell First If you say it was Bellarmine will tell you it is false and that the Pelagian Heresie was neuer condemned in an Oecumenicall Councell but only in Nationalls But Bellarmine is deceiued for while they stood out impudently against Nationall Councels some of them defended Nestorius which gaue occasion to the first Ephesine Councell to excommunicate and depose them And yet this will not serue your turne for this place For S. Augustine was then dead and therefore could not meane the Sentence of that Councell in this place Secondly And if you say it was not then defined in an Oecumenicall Synod plena Authoritas Ecclesiae the full Authoritie of the Church there mentioned doth not stand properly for the Decree of an Oecumenicall Councell but for some Nationall as this was condemned in a Nationall Councell and then the full Authoritie of the Church here is no more than the full Authoritie of this Church of Africke And I hope that Authoritie doth not make all Points defined by it to be Fundamentall You will say Yes if that Councell be confirmed by the Pope And I must euer wonder why S. Augustine should say The full Authoritie of the Church and not bestow one word vpon the Pope by whose Authoritie onely that Councell as all other haue their fulnesse of Authoritie in your iudgement An inexpiable omission if this Doctrine concerning the Pope were true F. Secondly J required to know what Points the B. would account Fundamentall Hee said All the Points of the Creed were such B. Against this I hope you except not For since the Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the two Regular Precepts by which a Diuine is gouerned about the Faith since your owne Councell of Trent decrees That it is that Principle of Faith in which all that professe Christ doe necessarily agree Et Fundamentum firmum vnicum not the firme alone but the onely Foundation since it is Excommunication ipso iure for any man to contradict the Articles contained in that Creed since the whole body of the Faith is so contained in the Creed as that the substance of it was beleeued euen before the comming of Christ though not so expressely as since in the number of the Articles since Bellarmine confesses That all things simply necessarie for all mens saluation are in the Creed and the Decalogue What reason can you haue to except And yet for all this euerie thing Fundamentall is not of a like neerenesse to the Foundation nor of equall Primenesse in the Faith And the B. graunting the Creed to be Fundamentall doth not denie but that there are Quaedam prima Credibilia Certaine prime Principles of Faith in the bosome whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded vp One of which since Christ is that of S. Iohn Euery Spirit that confesseth Iesus Christ come in the flesh is of God And one both before the comming of Christ and since is that of S. Paul He that comes to God must beleeue that God is and that he is a
to be concluded out of it And since you are pleased before to passe from the Church of England to all Protestants you may know for your comfort that all Protestants agree most strongly in this That the Scripture is sufficient to saluation and containes in it all things necessarie to it The Fathers are plaine the Schoolemen not strangers in it And haue not wee reason then to account it as it is The Foundation of our Faith And Stapleton himselfe though an angrie Opposite confesses That the Scripture is in some sort the Foundation of Faith that is in the nature of Testimonie and in the matter or thing to be beleeued And if the Scripture be the Foundation to which wee are to goe for Witnesse if there be doubt about the Faith and in which we are to find the thing that is to be beleeued as necessarie in the Faith we neuer did nor neuer will refute any Tradition that is Vniuersall and Apostolike for the better exposition of the Scripture nor any definition of the Church in which she goes to the Scripture for what shee teaches and thrusts nothing as fundamentall in the Faith vpon the world but in what the Scripture is Materia Credendorum the substance of that which is to be beleeued whether immediately and expressely in words or more remotely till a cleare and full deduction draw it out F. I asked How he knew Scripture to be Scripture and in particular Genesis Exodus c. These are beleeued to be Scripture yet not prooued out of any place of Scripture The B. said That the Bookes of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and needed not to be prooued B. I did neuer loue too curious a search into that which might put a man into a Wheele and circle him so long betweene proouing Scripture by Tradition and Tradition by Scripture till the Deuill find a meanes to dispute him into Infidelitie and make him beleeue neither I hope this is no part of your meaning yet I doubt this Question How doe you know Scripture to be Scripture hath done more harme than you will be euer able to helpe by Tradition But I must follow that way which you draw me And because it is so much insisted vpon by you and is it selfe a matter of such consequence I will sift it a little further Many men labouring to settle this great Principle in Diuinitie haue vsed diuers meanes to prooue it All haue not gone the same way nor all the right way You cannot be right that resolue Faith of the Scriptures being the Word of God into onely Tradition for onely and no other proofe are equall To prooue the Scripture therefore so called by way of Excellence to be the Word of God first some flye to the Testimonie and Witnesse of the Church and her Tradition which constantly beleeues and vnanimously deliuers it secondly some to the Light and the Testimonie which the Scripture giues to it selfe with other internall proofes which are obserued in it and to be found in no other Writing whatsoeuer thirdly some to the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost which cleares vp the Light that is in Scripture and seales this Faith to the soules of men that it is Gods Word fourthly All that haue not imbrutished themselues and sunke below their Species and order of Nature giue euen Naturall Reason leaue to come in and make some proofe and giue some approbation vpon the weighing and the consideration of other Arguments 1. For the first The Tradition of the Church taken and considered alone it is so farre from being the onely that it cannot be a sufficient proofe to beleeue by Diuine Faith That Scripture is the Word of God for that which is a full and sufficient proofe is able of it selfe to settle the soule of man concerning it Now the Tradition of the Church is not able to doe this for it may be further asked Why he should beleeue the Churches Tradition And if it be answered Because the Church is infallibly gouerned by the Holy Ghost it may yet be demanded How that may appeare And if this be demanded either you must say you haue it by speciall Reuelation which is the priuate Spirit you obiect to other men or else you must attempt to prooue it by Scripture as all of you doe And that very offer is sufficient acknowledgement that the Scripture is a higher proofe than the Churches Tradition which in your owne grounds is or may be questionable till you come thither Againe if the Voice of the Church saying The Bookes of Scripture commonly receiued are the Word of God be the formall Obiect of Faith vpon which alone and absolutely and lastly I may resolue my selfe then euerie man not onely may but ought to resolue his Faith into the Voice or Tradition of the Church for euerie man is bound to rest vpon the proper and formall Obiect of the Faith But nothing can be more euident than this That a man ought not to resolue his Faith of this Principle into the Testimonie of the Church therefore neither is that Testimonie or Tradition the formall Obiect of Faith The Learned of your owne part grant this Although in the Article of the Creed I beleeue the Catholike Church peraduenture all this be contained I beleeue those things which the Church teacheth yet this is not necessarily vnderstood That I beleeue the Church teaching as an infallible Witnesse And if they did not confesse this it were no hard thing to prooue It seemes to me verie necessarie that we be able to prooue the Bookes of Scripture to be the Word of God by some Authoritie that is absolutely Diuine for if they be warranted vnto vs by any Authoritie lesse than Diuine then all things contayned in them which haue no greater assurance than the Scripture in which they are read are not Obiects of Diuine Beleefe And that once granted will enforce vs to yeeld That all the Articles of Christian Beleefe haue no greater assurance than Humane or Morall Faith or Credulitie can affoord An Authoritie then simply Diuine must make good Scripture's Infallibilitie This Authoritie cannot be any Testimonie orVoice of the present Church for our Worthies prooue That all the Churches Constitutions are of the nature of humane Law And some among you not vnworthie for their Learning prooue it at large That all the Churches Testimonie or Voice or Sentence call it what you will is but suo modo or aliquo modo not simply but in a manner Diuine Now that which is Diuine but in a manner be it the Churches manner is suo modo non Diuina in a sort not Diuine But this great Principle of Faith the ground and proofe of whatsoeuer else is of Faith cannot stand firme vpon a proofe that is and is not in a manner and not in a manner Diuine as it must if wee haue no other Anchor than the externall Tradition of the Church 2. For the second That Scripture
cannot vse it so the Scriptures are a meanes to conuict proteruious 〈◊〉 as they were vsed by Christ and his Apostles and by the 〈◊〉 Councels or Papall Councels and the Bishops and Doctors of the Roman Church c. Answ. First Our Sauiour and his Apostles did both vse the Scriptures themselues and commanded others euen simple men to vse them Iohn 5 39. Ephes. 6 17. and they are commended who examined Doctrine by them Acts 17 11. Secondly they which vnderstand and applie the Scriptures truely vse them as Christ and his Apostles did and so the Scripture in their vse is a word of power and not as a sword in a childs hand Thirdly Scriptures were meanes to conuict Hereticks as they were vsed by the Fathers of the Church and other holie Persons before any generall Councells were gathered to wit the first three hundred yeares and before the Papall Supremacie was aduanced in the Church Fourthly it is ridiculous to imagine that the present Roman Church and the sole Adheres thereof according to the Trident Creed are the only true expositors of holy Scriptures or that 〈◊〉 exposition of Scripture repugnant and diuers from the present Roman Creed is false or Haereticall for neither hath the holie Ghost by expresse testimonie or euident demonstration appropriated the key of knowledge to this Church and few Heretickes haue more fouly corrupted and abused the Scriptures And the pillars of this Church 〈◊〉 sundrie times been vnskilfull Ideots vnlettered Gulls Monsters of mankind with whom the holie Spirit vseth not to haue commerce Wisdom 1. 2. Cor. 6. 15. Fiftly the place of Tertul. d. Praescript c. 19. doth not 〈◊〉 the imperfection of holie Scripture to conuict proteruious error according to the latter part of my former distinction for then he could not haue said Scripturae plenitudinem adoramus We adore the plenitude of the 〈◊〉 and Let Hermogenes teach that it is written and if it be not written let him feare the Wo denounced against them which add or detract any thing from the word of God but be 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures according to the first part of my distinction to wit That Heretickes blinded with malice and either denying or corrupting the text of the Scriptures cannot be so conuicted by them but they will still vse cauils and by Sophisticall slights borrowed from Philosophers elude the euidence of the plaine Texts of Scriptures But if this argue the Scriptures of imperfection it will also prooue the Authoritie of the Church and of Tradition to be insufficient as appeares in the Arrians and Donatists And Heretickes may with no lesse pretext take exception against Tradition and Ecclesiasticall Authoritie than against the Scripture Ireneus li. 3. ca. 2. When they are confuted by Scriptures they accuse them as being not well written and destitute of Authoritie or else so ambiguous that one cannot find the Truth by them c. And in like manner when we prouoke them to stand to triall by Tradition which came from the Apostles c. they oppose the same c. And thus they will consent neither to Scripture nor Tradition And Gregorie Valence himselfe saith The infallible teaching and proposition of the Church is no lesse obscure vnto vs than any other Article which we are to beleeue Sixtly we acknowledge the lawfull Power and Authoritie of the Church about expounding holy Scriptures and for maintaining Vnitie in right Faith and appeasing contention repressing proteruious Errants Heb. 13.17 Math. 18.17.1 Timoth. 3.15 2. Thessal 5.12 And in particular first wee beleeue the authority of Councels General and Nationall lawfully assembled and accordingly proceeding to be sacred And all Councels of this nature we reuerence with the same honour the ancient Church did affirming that priuate Christians and particular Churches are to submit their iudgement to the authority of the same except it bee manifest that they depart from Truth Secondly wee highly and reuerently esteeme exposition of Scripture deliuered by the vnanimous consent of the Primatiue Fathers and although wee yeeld eminent and supreme Authoritie to the holy Scriptures because the same is absolutely diuine yet when any question ariseth concerning Expositions we allow not priuate persons vpon vncertaine or probable reasons to reiect the sence which hath bin antiently and commonly receiued and against which no strong or solid exception can be produced Now this being obserued and other helps of expounding Scripture vsed there followeth nothing from our Tenet whereby Christianitie should be made vncertaine and Disputation from sole Scripture prooue fruitles or which may hinder apparent Victorie by the same against proteruious Error IESVIT The Preface ended our Aduersarie descendeth to his disputation and herein first he setteth downe a maine proposition which hee intendeth to prooue to wit The Roman Church is the onely true Church Secondly He deliuereth fiue Principles manifest in themselues and presupposed and confessed by Papists and Protestants Principle 1. No man can be saued without firme and sure apprehension of supernaturall Truth concerning his last end and the meanes to attaine thereunto Secondly Assurance of this kind is not had by cleere sight Demonstration humane Discourse or humane Authoritie but by Faith grounded vpon Gods Word reuealing things vnknowne by other meanes Thirdly God reuealed all Supernaturall Truth to Christ and Christ reuealed the same to the holy Apostles partly by vocall Preaching but principally by the immediate teaching of his holy Spirit to this end that they should deliuer them to mankind to bee receiued and beleeued euerie where ouer the World euen to the consummation thereof Fourthly the Apostles fulfilled this preaching to all Nations and deliuering partly by writing and partly by word of mouth the whole entire Doctrine of Saluation planted an vniuersall Christian companie and to deliuer vnto 〈◊〉 all they had 〈◊〉 from them Fiftly though the Apostles and their Primatiue Hearers be deceased yet there still remaines in the World a meanes by which men may assuredly know what the Apostles preached andthe Primatiue Church receiued of them because the Church euen to the endof the World must be founded on the Apostles and beleeue nothing as matter of Faith but that which was deliuered by them The former grounds being confessed a question remaineth to be examined What is the principall infallible meanes whereby a Christian may know what was and is the Doctrine of Faith originally preached by the Apostles Whether holy Scripture of the Apostles and Euangelists bee that meanes or perpetuall Tradition vnwritten deriued by Succession from the Apostles ANSVVER The Iesuit affirmeth the latter and produceth foure Arguments to prooue his Tenet and then supposing that he hath prooued the Question inferreth that the Roman Church is the only true Church because it is the only faithfull keeper and teacher of this Tradition IESVITS 1. Argument If the maine and substantiall points of our Faith are
erred in exposition nor differed one for the other Thirdly the Fathers affirme that the Scripture expounds it selfe Aug. d. verb. 〈◊〉 Serm. 2. d. vnit Eccles. c. 5. p. 427. Chrys. sup Gen. Hom. 13. And they doe not alwayes referre men to Tradition concerning exposition of Scripture but prescribe other rules and meanes also Aug. d Doctr. Christ. l. 4. c. 30. c. Chrys. sup Gen. Hom. 21. sup Rom. Hom. 13. sup Iohn Hom. 39. Tertul. c. prax Hilar d. Trinit l. 5. Ambros. 〈◊〉 Psal. 118. Serm. 8. Origen Mat. Hom. 25. Fourthly that which the Aduersarie affirmeth touching the Fathers to wit that they held the Scriptures to be cleare in all substantiall points onely to men beforehand instructed by the light of Tradition is vntrue neither doe the Fathers speake of Tradition according to the Romish acceptation First sometimes the Fathers exhort heathen men which were not instructed by Tradition to reade the Scriptures Theophilus Antiochenus saith to Autolicus being as then a Pagan Verum tu ipse si placet consule liter as sacras But doe thou thy selfe if it seeme good vnto thee consult with the holy Scriptures Also they prouoke Heretikes which denied the Tradition of the Church to examine truth by Scriptures August d. vnit Eccles c. 2.3.16 contra Maxim Arrian l. 3. c. 14. Socrates Hist. lib. 1. cap. 6. Secondly by Tradition they vnderstand not the fabulous dreames and inuentions of Papals who like the Pharisees corrupt the right sence of Scripture by their vnwritten Traditions and affirme those things to bee Apostolicall which agree with the confessed Doctrine of the Apostles like darkenesse with light But the Fathers by Tradition vnderstand such exposition of Scripture as was vniformely receiued and commended for Apostolicall by the Primatiue Church and which besides antiquitie or the report of men appeared to bee Apostolicall by an exact harmonie and consent with the Text of the holy Scripture to which it was applied St. August d. Bapt. c. Donatist l. 5 c. 26 St. Cyprian Epist. 74. Tertul. d. praescript c. 21 Ruffin Hist. Ecclesiast l. 2 c. 9 IESVIT I hope I haue in the opinion of your most learned Maiestie sufficiently demonstrated the first ground of Catholicke faith to wit that a Christian is originally and fundamentally built vpon the word of God not as written 〈◊〉 Scriptures but as deliuered by the Tradition of the Church successiuely from the Primatiue vpon the authority whereof we beleeue that both Scriptures and all other substantiall Articles of Faith were deliuered by the Apostles thence further ascending and inferring they came from Christ and so from God the prime veritie and Authour of truth ANSVVER You haue played the Paralogist and weaued a spiders web which is fitter to catch flyes than to persuade so religious learned iudicious and resolute a king who is like an Angell of God knowing good and euill Your obiections being weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuarie are found light they are Funiculus vanitatis a coard and bundle of vanitie a potsheard couered ouer with the drosse of siluer His most learned Maiestie as you truly stile him honoureth genuine and Orthodox all Tradition as no religious king or good Christian can doe more and hereupon to wit vpon the testimony of Tradition besides other Arguments he beleeueth that you and your consorts are deceiued when you hold that a Christian is originally and fundamentally built vpon the word of God not as written in Scripture but as deliuered by Tradition c. For if the Scripture according to the doctrine and Tradition of the Primatiue Church is eminentissimae authoritatis of most eminent authoritie If it be the seed of which faith is first of all conceiued if it is the Rocke whereupon the Church is built if the authoritie of vnwritten Tradition dependeth vpon it and must bee examined by it If the Churches authoritie is 〈◊〉 from it then a Christian is originally and fundamentally built vpon it First That which is most excellent in euery kind is the modell and paterne of all the rest but I trow you will grant the Scripture to be the most excellent part of Gods word 2. Pet. 1. 〈◊〉 S. 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 Manich. li. 11 cap. 5. d. Ciuit. Dei lib. 11. cap. 3. Ibid. 〈◊〉 14. cap. 7. d. Vnit. Eccles. 16. Chris. d. 〈◊〉 Hom. 4. Oecumen sup 2. Tim. 3. Ansel. sup 2. Tim. 3. Secondly A Christian is fundamentally built vpon the rock but the Scripture is a rocke Cardinalis Camaracensis 〈◊〉 vespert 〈◊〉 sacrae Scripturae In euery building orderly framed the foundation hath precedence then followeth superedification and lastly consummation According to this order Christ the most exact Architect did build his Church vpon the rocke of holy Scripture Thirdly The seed of Faith is the root and foundation of 〈◊〉 Christian the Scripture is the seed of Faith Iohn 20. 41. for it is the word of God Luc. 8.11 Iam. 1.18 1. Cor. 4 15. And were the Popish Tenet true that the Scripture is not the whole word of God but only a part thereof yet a Christian must be originally and fundamentally built vpon it together with Tradition And Tradition according to the Tenet of our Aduersarie in this place cannot be the sole foundation of Christianitie but only a part of the foundation Fourthly All Scripture giuen by diuine Inspiration is simply and without exception to be receiued and all Tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be refused From hence it followeth that Scripture is a rule of Tradition and not Tradition of Scripture and Scripture is the highest rule as both the Fathers and many Papists themselues affirme and thus it is certaine that a Christian is orignally and fundamentally built vpon the holy Scripture IESVITS 2d Ground That there is a visible Church alwaies in the world to whose Traditions men are to cleaue and the Church is one Vniuersall Apostolicall Holy ANSWER The subiect of this Proposition to wit Ecclesia the Church is a word or terme of diuers significations and therefore the Iesuit should haue declared in what notion he taketh the same when he saieth There is a visible Church c. First Cardinall Bellarmine with other Pontificians saith that the Church whereof he disputes is a companie of people linked together by the same profession of Faith and Communion of Sacraments vnder lawfull pastros 〈◊〉 vnder the Roman Bishop who is Christs Vicar Secondly The terme Church is taken in the holy Scripture for the vniuersall number of holy beleeuers in all ages and more strictly for the whole number of holy beleeuers vnder the New Testament Heb. 12.23 Apoc. 5.9 Ephes. 5.25.27 and thus it comprehendeth both the Church Militant and Triumphant Thirdly the Church is taken for the common and vniuersall multitude of Christian people of any one or more ages which
S. August Enchirid. c. 5.6 c. Donatist Lib. 7. cap. 50. Wicked people may be called Gods House because of externall calling and visible profession 2. Tim. 2. 20. Sed non sunt de compage domus They are not of the frame of the House Heb. 3. 6. August d. Bapt. Lib. 7. cap. 50. All they which couet earthly things preferring worldly felicitie before God they which seeke their owne and not those things which are Iesus Christs ad vnam Ciuitatem illam pertinent quae dicitur Babylonia mystice habet Regem Diabolum belong onely to that Citie which in a mysterie is called Babylon and hath the Deuill the Head Aug. sup Psal. 61. Wicked persons saith S. Augustine Epist. 50. figuram membri tenent retaine the figure or outward shape of a member sed reuera corpus Domini non sunt but they are not in truth the bodie of Christ August d. Doct. Christ. Lib. 3. cap. 32. In corpore Christi non sunt quod est Ecclesia They are not in the bodie of Christ which is the Church August c. Crescon Lib. 2. cap. 21. But they which are not of the Body of Christ nor of the house of God really and in truth doe not constantly preserue or faithfully deliuer Apostolicall Traditions neither are they one or holy nor yet such as the Spirit of God infallibly and alwayes directeth in their publicke Doctrine OBSERVAT. V. The qualities of vnitie holinesse veritie Apostolicall succession and other the like are not alwayes found in the true Church equally or in the same degree and measure of perfection but according to a latitude and inequalitie of intension and remission and more or lesse so that although the sounder part of the Church hath alwayes the substance of truth sanctitie and vnitie yet this veritie of Doctrine vnitie of Charitie sanctitie of Manners is greater larger and more sincere and perfect in some persons and ages of the Church than in others These qualities were in their greatest perfection when the Apostles themselues liued they were in great measure in the ages immediately abutting vpon the Apostles But the holy Fathers complaine of the decrease and decay of them in after times And Papists deplore the extreme diminution of them in their dayes OBSERVAT. VI. It falleth out sometimes in the outward state of the visible Church that wicked persons which are not sound parts of Gods house nor liuing members of Christs mysticall bodie being more in number and greater in power doe possesse the chiefe places of publicke Iudicature and Ecclesiasticall gouernment and being thus exalted and withall abetted by worldly power and swarmes of time-feruers whom they aduance and honour to accomplish their owne ends it may heereby fall out that the outward state of the visible Church shall be ordered and swayed according to the lust and will of wicked rulers And then good men may be disgraced depressed and persecuted the simple and they which are negligent vnlearned and secure may be deluded and errour and superstition craftily and couertly be brought in and that is fulfilled which Gregory saith Dum mali praepositi suam contra veritatem honorem exigunt ab omni rectitudine corda sequentium abducunt When wicked rulers seeke their owne glory more than truth they misleade their followers from all course of righteousnesse This happened in the Iewish Church when the Scribes and Pharises and other hypocrites and errants were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 master-builders Math. 21.41 And the euill seruant beareth rule in the houshold and oppresseth his fellow-seruants Matth. 24. 49. Diotrophes excommunicates and vsurpes according to his owne will 3. Ep. Ioh. 9. 10. The Arrians in the dayes of Constantius and Valence did all the former in the greater part of the Christian world The same happened in the Church of Rome especially after the thousand yeere one man vsurped ouer the Christian world making himselfe on earth chiefe and sole commander ouer things diuine and humane his power was so exorbitant and boundlesse that he trode vpon the necke of kings throning and dethroning crowning and decrowning them as himselfe listed his dominion was so absolute and vast as that no man might reprooue or withstand him All men were reputed heretickes or schismatickes which would not say and sweare as he commanded in Synods and Councels causes were transacted according to his will and remission of sinnes and right to life eternall were intailed to his chaire IESVIT This principle is consequent vpon the former and out of it sixe things may be clearely prooued First that there is alwayes a true Church of Christ in the world for if there be no meanes for men to know that Scriptures and other substantiall Articles came from Christ and his Apostles and so consequently from God but the Tradition of the Church then there must needs be in all ages a Church receiuing and deliuering these Traditions else men in some ages since Christ should haue beene destitute of the ordinarie meanes of saluation because they had not meanes to know assuredly the substantiall Articles of Christianitie without assured faith whereof no man is saued ANSVVER By true Church we may vnderstand either an vniuersall maltitude of Beleeuers totally in respect of all persons or distributiuely in regard of them which principally rule and command free from errour in publicke doctrine Or else a choise and select number of Beleeuers liuing either in the common fellowship of the generall visible Church or vnited in particular Congregations by themselues teaching and professing right Faith in all capitall points and readie to imbrace all diuine Truth when the same is manifested vnto them If the name of true Church be taken in the first sense or for an Hierarchicall Church wherein the principall commanders teach and maintaine truth intirely and sincerely then the Proposition to wit There is alwayes a true Church of Christ in the world is denied for it is possible that the greater Prelates to wit Popes Cardinals mitred Bishops and Abbots of which the Hierarchicall Church principally consisteth shall bee reprobates blinde guides a generation of vipers wolues in sheepes cloathing and such as being armed with the title of the Church persecute the true Church And that this is possible it appeareth First by the example of the arch-rulers of the Iewish Church which in some ages corrupted true Religion and persecuted the seruants of God 2. Chron. 36. 14. Moreouer all the chiefe of the Priests and the people transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen and polluted the house of the Lord c. v. 16. They mocked the messengers of God and dospised his word and misused his Prophets c. Reade 2. Kings 16. 11 16. Ierem. 2.8 Esay 56.10 Malach. 2.8 Ierem. 20.1 23.1 2. Machab. 4.10 Ezek. 34.4 Mark 6.35 Math. 3.7 Matth. 23. 13. Luk. 12. 1. Matth.
compassed about with ignorance and infirmitie and at some times better or worse qualified than at other Also the true Church in firmissimis suis in her firmest members is 〈◊〉 holy for life because the Holy of Holiest sanctifieth and purgeth the same by his Word Sacraments and Grace Eph. 5.26 Tit. 3.5 6. But it is not absolute in holinesse Iam. 3.2 1. Ioh. 1.8 nor yet in euery age so remarkeably holy that it is thereby able to conuert Infidels And the true Church hath not in all ages the gift of Miracles and the pretext of Miracles is common to deceiuers Math. 24.24 25. 2. Thessal 2.9 Apoc. 13.13 And Suares the Iesuit saith Haec adulterari possunt ita exterius fingi vt non sint necessaria signa verae Fidei Miracles may so be adulterated and externally feigned that they may not be necessarie signes of Faith And Canus speaking of Popish miracles and legends saith Nostri pleriquè de industria ita multa 〈◊〉 vt eorum me pudeat taedeat sundrie of our men do so wilfully coine many things in their report of Miracles that I am ashamed and irked of them IESVIT That the Roman is the One Holy Catholicke Apostolicall Church from and by which we are to receiue the Tradition of Christian Doctrine These grounds being laid it is apparant that the Roman Church that is the multitude of Christians spread ouer the world cleauing to the Doctrine and Tradition of the Church of Rome is the One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicall Church ANSVVER The former grounds according to your deliuerie and exposition of them are partly false and partly ambiguous and captious and therefore it cannot be made apparant from them That the moderne Roman Church is the One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicall Church from which we are absolutely to receiue the whole Tradition of Christian Doctrine IESVITS 1. Argument There mnst be alwaies in the world One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicall Church that is a Church deliuering Doctrine vniformely therby making them credible Vniuersally thereby making them famously knowne to mankind Holily so making them certain and such as on them we may securely rely Apostolically so making them perpetually flow without change vnto the present Christianitie in the Channell of neuer interrupted succession of Bishops from the Apostles And this Church must either be the Roman or the Protestants or some other opposit to both Protestants cannot say a Church opposite to both for then they should be condemned in their owne judgement and bound to conforme themselues to that Church which can be no other but the Graecian a Church holding as many or more Doctrines which Protestants dislike than doth the Church of Rome as J can demonstrate if need be ANSVVER There must be alwaies in the world a Church One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicall that is A number of Christians beleeuing and 〈◊〉 professing Christianitie to the sounder part wherof the properties of One Holy Catholicke Apostolicall belong But there is not alwaies in the world an Hierarchiall visible Church consisting of Prelates and people vnited in one externall forme of Policie and profession of Religion vnder an vniuersall Pope to which alone these foure titles are proper or principally belonging And there may bee an Orthodoxall Apostolicall Church consisting of a small number of inferiour Pastors and right beleeuing Christians opposed and persecuted by the Hierarchiall part of the visible Church euen as in the raigne of king Manasses and other idolatrous kings of Iuda when Idolatrie preuailed among the Priests and generall multitude there was a remnant of holy people worshipping God according to his word and not defiled with the impietie of those times Now concerning the disiunctiue part of the Iesuits Argument which is This Church must either be the Roman or the Protestants or some other opposite to both It is answered The Protestant Church is that true and Orthodoxall Church which is One Holy Apostolicke and a sound part of the Catholicke For although the same may be supposed to haue had beginning in Luthers age yet this is vntrue concerning the essence and kind and is true onely touching the name and some things accidentall For in all ages and before Luther some persons held the substantiall articles of our Religion both in the Roman and Graecian Church And by name the Graecians maintained these articles in common with vs That the Roman Church hath not primacie of Iurisdiction Authoritie and Grace aboue or ouer all other Churches neither is the same infallible in her definitions of Faith They denie Purgatorie priuate Masses Sacrifice for the dead and they propugne the mariage of Priests In this Westerne part of the world the Waldenses Taborites of Bohemia the Scholers of Wiclife called in England Lollards maintained the same doctrine in substance with the moderne Protestants as appeareth by the confession of their Faith and by the testimonie of some learned Pontificians And concerning certaine differences obiected to haue beene betweene them and vs we shall afterward shew that the same are no greater than such as haue beene antiently among the Fathers and there are as great differences betweene the Elder and moderne Romists in many passages of their doctrine But now on the contrarie if it were so that we could not for certaine ages past nominate or assigne out of historie any other visible Church besides the Roman or Grecian yet because right Faith may be preserued in persons liuing in a corrupt visible Church as Wheat among Tares 1. King 19. 11. and because God hath promised there shall be alwaies in the world a true Church hauing either a larger or smaller number of professors if Protestants be able to demonstrate that they maintaine the same Faith and Religion which the holy Apostles taught this alone is sufficient to prooue they are the true Church IESVIT It is also most manifest and vndeniable that Protestants are not such a Church nor part of such a Church since their reuoult and separation from the Roman seeing confessedly they changed their Doctrines they once held forsooke the bodie whereof they were members broke off from the stocke of that tree whereof they were branches Neither did they departing from the Roman ioine themselues with any other Church professing their particular doctrines dissonant from it Ergo The Romane is the one holy Catholicke and Apostolicall Church c. ANSVVER Bold words It is most manifest and vndenyable miserable proofes they changed their Doctrine they once held c. If the Pharisees had argued in this manner against Saint Paul or the Manichees and Pelagians against Saint Augustine the one would haue told them That it was no fault to forsake the leauen of Traditions to imbrace the Doctrine of the Gospell confirmed by the Prophets and the other would haue pleaded most iustly That it is a vertue and honour to forsake errour and to imbrace veritie Gods people are commanded vpon a
must be Doctrines vnchanged comming from the Apostles ANSVVER This Proposition may hold in prime and essentiall Articles of Doctrine but not generally in all Doctrines and some learned Papists hold that it is possible for the visible Church of one age to erre or be deceiued by a blamelesse and inuincible ignorance in points of Doctrine the expresse knowledge whereof is not necessarie to Saluation IESVIT But it is most cleere and confessed by the Protestants whose testimonie plentifull in this behalfe if need require shall be brought First that the Doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestants refuse haue beene vniuersally receiued for many ages a thousand yeares agoe at least euer since Boniface the third ANSWER It is neither cleere in it selfe nor yet confessed by Protestants that the Doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestants refuse haue been vniuersally receiued for 1000 yeres at least c. The article of the Popes Supremacie and of Purgatorie Adoration of Images forbidding married Priests to liue with their wiues were euer opposed and reiected by the Greek Church The Doctrine of the Trident Councell concerning the Canon of the holy Scriptures and the preheminence of the vulgar Translation before the Hebrew and Greeke Text was not vniuersally 〈◊〉 for a thousand yeeres The temporal authoritie of the Pope the merit of Condignitie publicke seruice in an vnknowne language Iubilees and Popes pardons Communion in one kind Transubstantiation Blessing or baptising of Bells c. were not generally receiued in the Church vniuersall for a thousand yeeres at least And a great number of Beleeuers which in this West part of the world haue alwayes denied and resisted these Articles and among other opponents there were a people called Waldenses Leonistae pauperes de Lugduno c. many in number and largely diffused through diuers Countries who denied the foresaid Popish Articles and whose Doctrine in the most points was consonant to that which reformed Churches doe now professe Reinerius an Inquisitour of the Church of Rome liuing about the yeere one thousand two hundred fiftie foure in a Booke Printed at Ingolstade writeth in this manner of the Waldenses which hee calleth Leonists Among all Sects which are or haue formerly beene none is more pernicious to the Church than that of the Leonists First because it continued longer than any other for some say it hath lasted euer since Pope Siluester others say euer since the Apostles Secondly because no Sect is more generall than this for there is scarce any countrey in which it is not found Thirdly whereas other Sects deterre men with their horrible blasphemies this Sect of the Leonists maketh a great shew of godlinesse because they liue righteously before men and beleeue all things rightly touching God and concerning all other Articles of the Ceed onely they blaspheme the Romane Church and Clergie in which thing the Laitie is forward to giue credit vnto them IESVIT Secondly That Protestants cannot tell the time when the Church of Rome began to change and deuiate from the Apostolicall Doctrine deliuered by succession Ergo the Roman Church neuer changed her Faith ANSWER If the Antecedent were true yet it followeth not Ergo the same Roman Church neuer changed her Faith For although we cannot tell the time when the progenitors of Abraham first began to change and deuiate from the Doctrine of Noah and Sem yet it is certaine that they had changed their Religion Iosh. 24. 2. And were not the Sodomites transgressors of the Law of Nature because the first beginning of their transgression cannot be knowne How many wicked Customes haue beene common in the World whose authors and first beginners were vnknowne to Posteritie The time is not knowne when the late Iewish Church did first change and corrupt the sense of the Morall Law and brought in the Traditions condemned by our Sauiour and yet they had corrupted and changed the same Matth. 5. 6. 7. 15. 19. 23. If a Tenant haue by himselfe and his predecessors long held an House which is now in decay and readie to drop downe the Landlord by this Law of the Iesuits Ergo shall neuer compell the Tenant to make reparation vnlesse he be able to demonstrate to the Tenant in what yeere and moneth euerie Wall and Rafter began to decay A Physician shall not purge a malignant humor out of a diseased bodie vnlesse hee or his Patient be able to name the time and manner of that misdiet which bred the first seed of this distemper IESVIT So that her Doctrines are to be receiued as Apostolicall supposing the Maior of this Argument be true That Doctrines vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne are to be beleeued as Apostolicall which is a Principle set downe by Saint Augustine allowed by Doctor Whitgift late Archbishop of Canturburie who in his Bookes written by publike authoritie against Puritans citing diuerse Protestants as concurring in opinion with him saith Whatsoeuer Opinions are not knowne to haue begun since the Apostles times the same are not new or secundarie but receiued their originall from the Apostles But because this Principle of Christian Diuinitie brings in as M. Cartwright speaketh all Poperie in the iudgement of all men I will further demonstrate the same though of it selfe cleare enough ANSWER If the Maior of this Argument were graunted to wit Doctrines vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne are to be 〈◊〉 as Apostolicall yet the inference is false because the Romane Doctrines opposed by vs were neuer vniuersally receiued but by many eyther not heard of or reiected and contradicted Neyther is the former Principle sufficiently prooued out of S. Augustine First because hee speaketh in all the places obiected of Customes and matters of Fact and Practise the right and Doctrine whereof is found in holy Scripture Secondly the Iesuit conueyeth into his Proposition certaine words to wit Doctrines vniuersally receiued c. which are not found in S. Augustine And this Father did neuer allow that the vniuersall Church should beleeue any thing as Doctrine of Faith which was not contained expressely or deriuatiuely in holy Scripture And in the same bookes out of which these Obiections are collected he confuteth rebaptising by Scripture and confirmeth the lawfulnesse of Infants Baptisme by Scripture So that his meaning is when matters being in common vse and practise are questioned the right and lawfulnesse hath warrant from the Scripture although no especiall example be found in the written Bookes of the Apostles of such practise yet the generall custome and vse of the vniuersall Church in all Ages argueth that such practise receiued it beginning from the Apostles For example That the Apostles baptised Infants is not particularly reported in their Writings but sufficient grounds are found in them to prooue the necessitie and to warrant the practise thereof In this and in all other the like cases Quod vniuersa tenet Ecclesia nec
〈◊〉 institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi Authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur That which the vniuersall Church holdeth and which was not appointed by Councels but alwayes obserued is most rightly beleeued to be none other than a Tradition of the Apostles Lastly that which is produced out of BB. Whitgift and M. Cartwright belongeth to the Titles or Names of Ecclesiasticall Rulers and to the matter of Ceremonies Cartwright had a sowre opinion against these being neuer so antient and inculpable The most reuerend BB. his Aduersarie answereth out of S. Augustine Epist. 118. Those things that be not expressed in the Scriptures and yet by Tradition obserued of the whole Church come either from Apostles or from generall Councels as the obseruing of Easter the celebration of the day of Ascension c. The Bishop disputeth of adiaphorous Ceremonies and Titles of Ecclesiasticall persons no wayes blameable but because they are not expressely found in Scripture and concerning such things he saith That because their originall cannot be found out it is to be supposed it is probable they haue their beginning from the Apostles But hee speaketh not in this manner touching dogmaticall points and Articles of Faith Therefore our Aduersarie peruerteth his words and meaning IESVIT The Spirit of Christ or Christ by his Spirit being still with the Church cannot permit Errors in Faith so to creepe into the Church as they grow irreformable euen by the Principles of Christianitie But if Errors could so creepe into the Church as their beginning could not be knowne since the Apostles and neuer be espyed till they be vniuersally receiued Errors could so creepe into the Church and preuaile that by the Principles of Christianitie they are irreformable This I prooue because Errors are irreformable by the Principles of Christianitie when whosoeuer vndertakes to reforme them by the Principles of Christianitie is to be condemned as an Heretike But he that will vndertake to reforme Doctrines vniuersally receiued by the Church opposeth against the whole Church and therefore is by the most receiued Principle of Christianitie by Christs owne direct Precept to be accounted as an Heathen and Publican And as S. Augustine saith to dispute against the whole Church is most insolent madnesse specially when the Doctrine is antient without any knowne beginning as are the supposed erronious Customes and Doctrines of the Romane Church for then the vndertaking Reformer must striue against not onely the whole present Church but also the whole streame of the visible Church time out of mind since the Apostles Et quis ad haec Idoneus Who is able to begin a new course of Christianitie and to ouerthrow that Doctrine which is vniuersally receiued and cannot be prooued by any Tradition of Ancestors to be otherwise planted in the World but by the Apostles themselues through the efficacie of innumerable Miracles Wherefore these Doctrines if they be Errors which by the Principles of Christianitie no man ought to goe about to reforme and seeing it is impossible that there should be any such Errors we must acknowledge that Principle of S. Augustine as most certaine That Doctrines receiued vniuersally in the Church without any knowne beginning are truly and verily Apostolicall And of this kind are the Roman from which Protestants are gone ANSWER The Point which you labour to prooue is That Doctrines vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not reported by Monuments of Historie and Antiquitie are Apostolicall You haue taken that as granted and presupposed which we denie to wit That your Popish Doctrine was for a thousand yeeres at least vniuersally receiued But this is a begging of the Question and a false supposition Wherefore I might according to the rules of Disputation passe by the other part of your Argument But to cleare all things more exactly I will ex abundanti answer that which followeth Your disputation about this part of the question being resolued into the seuerall Arguments and parts may bee thus conceiued No errours irreformable can be in the Church All errours vniuersally receiued without a knowne beginning are irreformeable Ergo No errours vniuersally receiued without a knowne beginning can be in the Church The Maior is confirmed by an Argument taken from the continuall presence of Christ by his Spirit to the vniuersall Church for wheresoeuer Christ is perpetually present and assistant by his holy Spirit there it is impossible that irreformeable errours should preuaile I answere No errours great or lesse absolutely irreformeable can bee in the Church as it signifieth the sounder and better part thereof but errours irreformeable Ex Hypothesi that is presupposing the ignorance and malice of some ouerruling Prelates may preuaile in the Hierarchicall Church which is vulgarly reputed the vniuersall Church for such a Church may be the seate of Antichrist and whiles he reigneth errours may be incureable Ierem. 51. 9. Apoc. 17. 5. Neither doth the presence of Christ and of his Spirit deliuer the malignant part of the Church from irreformeable errours but onely the liuing members of his mysticall Bodie which are actuated and mooued by influence of sauing Grace Iohn 8. 31 32. Rom. 1. 28. 2. Thes. 2. 11. Iohn 12. 40. The Assumption to wit All errours vniuersally receiued without a knowne beginning are irreformeable is denied For although the errours of the Pharisees were vniuersally receiued according to the vniuersalitie of the state of the Church in those dayes without such a knowne beginning as Papists require vs to exhibite concerning their errours yet the same were reformeable by the word of Christ and by the doctrine of the Prophets in all such as receiued the loue of the Truth that they might be saued But the Iesuite prooueth his Assumption by this reason All errours are irreformeable when they which seeke to reforme them are Heretickes by the Principles of Christianitie But all that seeke to reforme errours vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne are heretickes by the principles of Christianitie Ergo All errours vniuersally receiued without a knowne beginning are irreformeable The Minor of this Paralogisme is denyed and it is false That all they which seeke to reforme errours vniuersally receiued are iustly condemned as heretickes by the principles of Christianitie And the Argument produced to prooue this Proposition is of no force Whosoeuer opposeth against the whole Church is by the most receiued Principle of Christianitie deliuered Matth. 18. 7. to be accounted as an Heathen or a Publicane and Saint Augustine saith That to dispute against the whole Church is insolent madnesse But whosoeuer seeketh to reforme errours vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne opposeth against the whole Church Ergo All they which seeke to reforme errours c. are Heretickes by the Principles of Christiantie ANSVVER Whosoeuer opposeth against the whole Church taken as before for the Church Hierarchicall or representatiue is not by the doctrine of our Sauiour and Saint Augustine to be accounted an
by the Fathers but diuers obscure and difficill places out of their workes may be brought against them with such a shew that common people shall not know what to say For what Tradition more constantly deliuered by the Christian Doctours than our Sauiours consubstantialitie with his Father according to his diuine nature And yet the new reformed Arrians bring very many testimonies of antient Fathers to prooue that in this point they did contradict themselues and were contrarie one to another which places whosoeuer shall read will cleerely see that to common people they are vnanswerable yea that common people are not capable of the answeres that learned men yeeld vnto such obscure passages What then shall they doe They must answere that Antiquitie did neuer acknowledge such dissention among the Fathers in the point of our Sauiours consubstantiality which they would not haue omitted to doe had there beene any such reall dissention seeing they noted the Fathers opposition in lesser matters ANSWER That which was brought in after the daies of the Fathers could not be confuted by them particularly and in expresse tearmes neither could Antiquitie or fame of Tradition make report to Posteritie of those things which happened afterwards But yet many things vttered vpon other occasion are found in the writings of the Fathers which prooue that our present Romists are degenerated and entertaine a beleefe repugnant to the Primitiue Church But it is obiected that common people cannot know certainely the perpetuall Tradition of Gods Church by such places of the Fathers partly because the exact examining of the workes and sayings of the Fathers requires great labour and skill and so it exceedeth the abilitie of these people partly because many obscure and difficile passages are found in the writings of the Fathers which will rather perplex common people than resolue them whereunto I answere That the rule whereby common people must examine Doctrine is the plaine sentence of holy Scripture and further triall and examination of Controuersies by the Fathers and Ecclesiasticall Writers belongeth to the learned and principally to the Pastors and Doctors of the Church who are to vse their gifts to the instructing of the common people If the Aduersarie shall obiect that Heretickes and deceiuers may impose a false sence vpon the Scripture I answere That notwithstanding this sufficient matter is found in the Scripture to confute hereticall exposition and God alwayes stirreth vp some Pastours or other learned persons to assist common people which haue receiued the loue of truth in true vnderstanding of diuine veritie necessarie to their saluation Secondly If the Scripture may bee abused and prophaned by heretickes Tradition may with greater colour be pretended or abused by them as appeareth by the Pharisees Thirdly Tradition is founded vpon the authoritie of a present Hierarchicall Church which may erre by the confession of many learned Papists But the Scripture is founded onely vpon the authoritie of Christ and his Apostles and is acknowledged to bee sacred and diuine by all Christian Churches IESVIT In the same manner Catholickes doe sufficiently answere Protestants that bring places of Fathers against the receiued Traditions of the Church as the reall Presence Inuocation of Saints and other the like to wit that Tradition deliuered these Doctrines as the vniforme consent of the Fathers and neuer noted such oppositions as Protestants frame out of their writings which is a cleare signe that Protestants either mis-alleadge their words or mistake their meaning For were that contradiction reall Why did not Antiquitie famously note it as it noted and conueyed by fame to posteritie their differences about disputable matters This Answere is full and a certaine ground of persuasion else as I said common people could neuer know the assured Tradition of their Ancestours vpon which they as I prooued build their Christian beleefe seeing as Doctour Field also noteth there bee few and verie few that haue leasure and strength of iudgement to examine particular controuersies by Scriptures or Fathers but needs must rest in that doctrine which the Church deliuers as a Tradition neuer contradicted To discredit therefore a constant receiued Tradition it is necessarie to bring an Orthodox contradiction thereof not newly found out by reading the Fathers but a contradiction by the fame of Antiquitie deliuered vnto Posteritie which kind of contradiction they cannot find against any point of Catholike Doctrine For let them name but one Father whom Antiquitie doth acknowledge as a contradictor of Inuocation of Saints Adoration of the Sacrament Reall presence Prayer for the Dead they cannot certainely though they bring diuerse places to prooue a thing which Antiquitie neuer noted or knew of before that the Fathers be various and wauering about these Points ANSWER The Doctrine of Reall Presence by way of Transubstantiation and the Doctrine of Inuocation of Saints imposed as an Article of the Creed c. were neuer deliuered by any vniforme consent of the antient Fathers neither hath antient Tradition affirmed That the Fathers vniformely taught and beleeued these points And as for later Tradition the authoritie thereof is doubtfull deseruing no credit further than it confirmeth that which it deliuereth by the testimonie of Witnesses more infallible than it selfe They which haue liued in succeeding Ages haue no certaine meanes to assure them what the antient Fathers taught but either their owne Bookes and Monuments or the testimonie of their Coaeualls And later Traditioners may both corrupt the Writings of the Fathers and also by report impose a false Tenet vpon them Our Aduersarie therefore beats the ayre when he laboureth to gayne the Fathers vnto his part vpon the sole Testimonie of latter Tradition and vpon a Negatiue Argument taken from the silence of the Romane Church omitting in partialitie towards it selfe the Narration of such Collections and Oppositions as were made against the Doctrine thereof out of the Fathers But when wee charge the Papalls with Noueltie wee proceed vpon more euident grounds First wee prooue that the Romish Faith opposed by vs hath no foundation or warrant in sacred Scripture Secondly the same is an addition to the antient Rule of Faith Thirdly the said Doctrine is not deriued by perpetuall and vniforme Tradition from the Apostles Fourthly the primitiue Fathers vertually opposed this Doctrine For although these Popish Articles as they are now explicitely maintained were not in perfect being in the dayes of the antient Fathers and therefore they could not so punctually or literally oppose them as wee doe yet in their Disputations Tractats and exposition of Scripture they vtter many things from which wee may collect that they beleeued not these Articles and that the same were no part of the Catholike Faith in their dayes and that if such Opinions had beene thrust vpon the Church for Articles of Faith in their dayes as now they are they would haue opposed them But our Aduersarie pleaseth himselfe immoderately with his Negatiue
Apostles Creed is that societie of Beleeuers against which Hell gates preuaile not finally either by Heresie or mortall sinne But Hell gates preuaile against Popes and Popish Prelats by mortall sinne so farre as that they descend into the infernall lake Therefore the Roman Hierarchicall Church consisting principally of Popes and Popish Prelats is not the holy Catholicke Church in the Creed for that Church hath remission of sinnes and life eternall and passeth not into Hell Ioh. 10.28 August d. Doctr. Christ. li. 3. ca. 32. IESVIT The Church whereof Christ said Math. 28.20 I am alwaies with you to the consummation of the world is the Church of the Creed or the Church which to forsake is damnable For the Church wherewith Christ still abideth not according to corporall and visible presence but by his Spirit is the body of Christ whereof he is head into which he infuseth the life of Grace and consequently he that forsaketh this Church forsakes the body of Christ the head thereof and cannot liue by his Spirit but is in a dead and damnable estate as a member cut off and seperated from a liuing bodie as S. Augustine long ago noted The Catholicke Church is the bodie of Christ whereof he is head out of this bodie the holy Ghost quickeneth no man Now the Church whereof Christ said I am alwaies with you to the consummation of the world is not the Church inuisible of onely the Elect but a visible Church deriued by succession from the Apostles therefore hee that forsakes this Church deriued by succession from the Apostles forsakes the Church of the Creed the Catholicke Church the bodie of Christ and puts himselfe into a dead and damnable state and may haue all things besides Saluation and eternall Life as Fathers affirme whose testimonies in this behalfe are notable and famously knowne whereunto D. Field yeeldeth acknowledging One Holy Catholicke Church in which only the light of heauenly Truth is to be sought where only Grace Mercie remission of Sinnes and hope of eternall Happinesse are found ANSWER The Church whereof Christ said Math. 28.20 I am alwaies with you to the consummation of the world is the Church of the holy Apostles of Pastors and Beleeuers succeeding them in the same Faith and Religion and this is a principall part for the Catholicke Church in generall containes all Faithfull and iust persons from Abel c. of the Church in the Creed Secondly some part of the Catholicke Church of the Creed is alwaies visible in the world sometimes in an ampler sometimes in a smaller number of Professours Also the visibilitie thereof is at sometimes illustrious and notorious and at other times it is obscure according to the state of Persecution Thirdly to forsake the true Church in the maine and primarie Articles of Faith or by any wilfull infidelitie is damnable and all people which desire Saluation must actually if it be possible or Voto in case of necessitie conioine themselues to some part of the Orthodoxall Catholicke Church But our Sauiour promised to no one visible Sea or Church continuing after the Apostles by succession of Bishops absolute immunitie from all Errour and infallibilitie of Veritie but only presentiall assistance and protection of Grace sufficicient for the saluation of his people vpon condition to wit when the said Pastours taught and obserued that which he commanded and continued in the right vse of those meanes which he had deposed among them Ioh. 8.31 32. Rom. 11. 22. Read before in this Treatise pag. 94.99 The Testimonies of S. Augustine obiected by the Aduersarie which are That the Catholick Church is the body of Christ whereof he is head and that out of this bodie the holy Ghost quickeneth no man make altogether against himselfe for none are vitall members of Christs mysticall body but iust and holy persons And it is the same Fathers doctrine Impij non sunt reuera Corpus Christi wicked persons are not in deed and veritie Christs bodie And in another place In corpore Christi non sunt quod est Ecclesia quoniam non potest Christus habere membra damnata They are not in Christs bodie which is the Church because Christ cannot haue damnable members And Bernard saith Manifestum est non esse Caput Hypochritae Christum It is euident that Christ is not the head of an Hypochrite But the visible Rulers of the Popish Church haue many times bin as our Aduersaries themselues report not only Hypochrites but apparantly monstrous and damnable sinners therefore they are not the Catholicke Church out of which no Saluation can be had neither is perpetuall influence and assistance of Grace absolutely intailed vpon them Out of the former premises I argue thus Wolues Hipochrites and impious persons are not the holy Catholicke Church of the Creed out of which there is no Saluation Romish Prelats haue beene Wolues Hypocrites and impious men for they haue maintained false and superstitious Doctrine repugnant to the holy Scripture and aduerse to the Faith of the Primitiue Church which Protestants haue and are againe readie to demonstrate and they haue beene most notorious for all kind of abhominable vices as Romists themselues haue published to the World and they haue also most iniustly and tyranically persecuted and oppressed true beleeuers Ergo Romish Prelats are not the holy Catholicke Church of the Creed out of which there is no Saluation Argument 2. Out of the holy Catholicke Church of the Creed there is no Saluation Out of the fellowship of the Roman Church there hath beene and is Saluation Ergo The present Roman Church is not the holy Catholicke Church of the Creed And thus the Obiector hath gained nothing by accusing our Church of fundamentall error and his nine Accusations are prooued to be so many calumniations and we neither erre fundamentally in any maine Article nor yet pertinaciously or maliciously against any other Christian veritie For although whiles we liue in the world tenebras huius mortalitatis circumferimus as S. Augustine speaketh we carrie about vs in regard of our selues the darkenes of mortalitie tamen ad Scripturae lucernam ambulamus yet we studie carefully to walke according to the true light of holy Scripture and God hath hitherto so assisted vs that the euill eye of our Aduersaries is not able to discouer in our Doctrine any capitall Error neuerthelesse if vpon further inquisition they shall make it appeare by diuine testimonie or other sufficient proofe that we are deceiued in any matter of Faith small or great we will be as 〈◊〉 to reforme our selues as they are readie to accuse vs. And in all differences betweene them and vs we submit our selues to a free lawfull generall Councell to be tried by the rule of Gods word concerning which S. Augustine saith Extat authoritas diuinarum Scripturarum vndè mens nostra deuiare non debet nec relicto solidamento diuini
of Saints and Angels IESVIT I Haue ioyned these two Controuersies together hoping I might doe it with your Maiesties good liking the maine difficultie of them both being the same to wit Worship and Inuocation of Angels and Saints For I am most fully persuaded that if your Maiestie did allow Inuocation of any Saint you would neuer denie that Deuotion vnto the Blessed Virgin Mother of God whom you honour and reuerence aboue the rest though perchance you may dislike some particular formes of our Prayers that seeme to giue her Titles aboue that which is due to a Creature about which I shall in the end of this Discourse endeuour to giue your Maiestie satisfaction ANSVVER ALthough it were granted that some kind or manner of Petition or Compellation made by the Church Militant to the blessed Saints and Angels were lawfull and that we might request them to be Comprecants and to make intercession to God in our behalfe yet the Inuocation of them according to the practise of the Romane Church wherein they pray first of all to Saints and in the last place to Christ and their excessiue worship by Vowes Oathes Offertures conioyning their satisfactions with Christs and confidence in their merits and adoring their Images cannot be iustified for this manner of Deuotion hath no foundation expresse or infolded in Diuine Reuelation and the Primitiue Church did not appoint or practise the same And it encroacheth so neerely vpon the Office of Christ our sole Redcemer Mediator and Aduocate that without expresse and manifest Precept or approbation of the Holy Ghost wee may not esteeme it lawfull The Doctrine of our Church concerning Inuocation and Adoration of the blessed Trinitie our accesse to God by Supplications and Prayers in the name of Iesus Christ our dependance vpon the sole Merits and Satisfactions of our all-sufficient Redeemer and Sauiour haue Precept Example Promise Reasons and Warrantie deliuered in the expresse manifest and indubitate Word of God Ioh. 14. 13 14. cap. 16.24 1. Ioh. 2.1 Heb. 4. 15 16. 1. Pet. 2.5 Heb. 13.15 Also wee haue certainetie of Faith That Christ Iesus our Intercessor and Aduocate hath distinct and perfect knowledge particular and generall of our qualitie state and actions Heb. 4.13 His office is to make intercession for vs Rom. 8.34 Heb. 7. 25. He inuiteth vs most louingly to come vnto him Math. 11.28 Our heauenly Father alwayes heareth him Iohn 11. 42. His compassion towards vs exceedeth the pietie of any creature Ioh. 10. 11. 15. 13. Heb. 4 15. Wee may more safely and with greater comfort speake to our Sauiour than to any Saint or Angell the holy Spirit helpeth our infirmities and teacheth vs to make intercession according to the will of God Rom. 8.26 27. Therefore our praying to God in the name of Christ onely our supplication to the Father to accept vs for the sole merits of our Sauiour is a most safe and faithfull deuotion and our assurance is grounded vpon the word of faith and hauing such promises we cannot be deceiued in our hope 2. Tim. 2.13 Tit. 1. 2. But on the contrarie Romish inuocation directed to Saints Angells and the blessed Virgin their oblation of the merits and satisfaction of creatures with many other branches of their holy seeming deuotion haue neither precept example or promise in the large booke of God notwithstanding the same booke is most abundant in teaching the dutie and forme of prayer And some of our best learned Aduersaries confesse that the doctrine of inuocation of Saints is neither expresly nor infoldedly taught in holy Scripture Therefore his most excellent Maiestie our Soueraigne Lord and King to whose sacred person the Iesuit directeth his former speech may with vnspeakeable ioy and comfort glorie that he is in this article a defender and propugner of that faith which is taught from heauen by the holy Ghost and Papisticall inuocation is no plant growing in the Paradise of holy Scripture by their owne confession neither haue they any meanes infallible to ascertaine themselues and others that the same is a plant which the heauenly Father hath planted or that their deuotion in this kind is necessarie profitable or acceptable to God IESVIT In which question I will suppose without large and particular proofe being able to prooue it by testimonies vndeniable if neede be That worship and inuocation of Saints hath beene generally receiued in the whole Christian Church at least euer since the dayes of Constantine A thing so cleere that Chemnitius doth write in this sort Most of the Fathers as Nazianzen Nissen Basill Theodoret Ambrose Hierome Austin c. did not dispute but auouch the soules of Martyrs and Saints to heare the petitions of those that prayed they went often to the monuments of Martyrs and inuocated Martyrs by name And seeing these Fathers praysed and practised this custome as receiued from Ancestours and as a matter of faith condemning the contradictors thereof as Nouelists and Heretikes to wit Aerius and Vigilantius as is confessed I may further conclude that that custome did not then begin but was come downe from the Apostles which is confirmed by testimonie of the Magdeburgians in acknowledging that in the Fathers next 〈◊〉 the Apostolicall times were found Non obscura vestigia Inuocationis Sanctorum as appeareth by the testimonie of Saint Ireneus tearming the 〈◊〉 Virgin the aduocate of Eue that is of her children ANSVVER You presuppose that which notwithstanding your facing you will neuer bee able to prooue to wit That innocation of Saints according to the doctrine and practise of the late Roman Church hath beene generally and vniuersally receiued as an article of faith or necessarie dutie euer since the dayes of Constantine neither hath Chemnitius whom you alleadge affirmed this but rather said the contrarie First he saith That in the Primitiue Church vntill two hundred years after Christ this doctrine and practise was vtterly vnknowne Secondly he affirmeth that about the yeare 240. some seedes of this doctrine began to be sowne in the Church by Origen Thirdly He saith expresly that for three hundred and fiftie yeeres and vpward the publike practise of Inuocation was vnknowne in the Church And then about the yeere 370 it began to be spoken of in publicke assemblies by Basil Nyssen and Nazianzen vpon occasion of their Panegyricall Orations Fourthly He addeth That notwithstanding these Orations it was not generally and vniuersally receiued in those times but both doubted of and also reprooued and condemned by some and about the 400. yeere Saint Chrysostome interposed and laboured to reduce people to the antient forme of Inuocation And proceeding in his Historicall Narration he sheweth out of Nicephorus lib. 15. cap. 28. that Petrus Gnapheus Anno 470 condemned by the first vniuersall Synode of Heresie was the first Author among the Grecians of mixing
of Bread which was once substantially Bread cannot become substantially the bodie of Christ except it bee substantially conuerted into his bodie or personally assumed by the same bodie And seeing this second manner of vnion betweene Bread and Christs Bodie is impossible and reiected by Protestants as well as by Catholickes Wee may conclude that the mysterie of Christs reall presence cannot be beleeued in truth by them that deny Transubstantiation specially seeing our Sauiour did not say here is my Bodie which speech may be verefyed by the presence of his Bodie locally within the Bread but This is my Bodie which imports that not onely his Bodie is truely and substantially present but also that it is the substance contained immediately vnder the accidents of Bread ANSWER First if a substance be either by nature humane Custome or diuine Ordination appointed to containe another substance then demonstrating the externall substance which containes we may signifie the hidden substance contained But according to that Tenet which maintaineth Consubstantiation the substance of bread is by diuine Ordination appointed to containe the substance of Christs bodie therefore demonstrating by words the substance of bread one may signifie the hidden substance which is Christs bodie Secondly Scotus Durand and Paludanus affirme that although the substance of Bread remaine yet because the substance of Christs bodie is also present it might truely and properly be said by our Sauiour This is my Bodie Now if such profound Scholemen haue weighed the Iesuits obiection do find the same light the propugnors of Consubstantiation haue smal reason to regard it Thirdly the former obiection is nothing to vs which maintaine a true mysticall presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist and refuse both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation for we beleeue and are able to demonstrate that our Sauiours words are figuratiue in part and yet the true Bodie and Bloud of Christ are really and verely communicated according to the manner formerly declared pag. 405. IESVIT Jf any man say that by this Argument it appeares that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture but from the words of the Jnstitution subtilly deduced and so may perchance bee numbred inter scita Scholae not inter dogmata Fidei I answer That the consequence of this Argument is not good as is euident in the example of the Incarnation The Doctrine that the vnion of natures in Christ is proper not Metaphoricall substantiall not accidentall personall not essentiall is no where expressely set downe by Scripture but by subtile deduction inferred from the mysterie which Scripture and Tradition deliuers Notwithstanding because these subtile deductions are proposed by the Church as pertinent vnto the substance of the foresaid mysterie they cannot be denied without preiudice of Faith In this sort the Doctrine of Transubstantiation though not in tearmes deliuered by the Scripture but deduced by subtile and speculatiue inference may not be denied by them that will be perfect beleeuers because the Church hath declared the same to pertaine to the proper sence of Christ his words and substance of the mysterie ANSVVER I know at whom you glance when you say inter scita Scholae but your solution from the Doctrine of Incarnation is not leuell to the scope for illations are of two sorts some are immediate formall necessarie euident and illustrious to wit Christ Iesus is a true and perfect man therefore he hath an humane will some are obscure contingent remote and sophisticall to wit Christ said This is my bodie Ergo the consecrate host is Christs substantiall bodie by Transubstantiation Christ said Do this in remembrance of me Ergo he made his Disciples sacrificing Priests That which is deriued from Scripture the first way is Doctrine of Faith that which is inferred the other way may be loose vncertaine infirme and many times ridiculous and apparantly false Now let me intreate you vntill you prooue your deduction necessarie to ranke your Popish Masse and Transubstantiation among this latter kind of deriuatiue Articles Neither can the swelling vsurpation of Romish Prelates which you stile the Church make euery subtile speculation of Schoolemen and nice figment of humane wisedome an Article of Christian Faith any more than a bragging 〈◊〉 can by outfacing conuert copper into gold for Articles of Faith come downe from heauen by the holy Ghost and are such onely from their forme and originall causes As for your Romane Synode of Pope Nicholas and your Laterane vnder Innocent the third These were your owne Idols the definitions that passed in them were the breath of the Popes nostrils and therefore why are you so fantasticall as to enammell them with the title and authoritie of the Catholicke Church And in one of these conuenticles your Pope hath so rudely and grossely determined the Question of Reall presence that Romists themselues are now ashamed and forced to Glosses and strained Expositions to metamorphise and new mould those vndigested crudities IESVIT §. 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers IT is certaine the Fathers acknowledge a Transmutation of bread into the Bodie of Christ and that they meant Transubstantiation that is not onely a mysticall and significatiue but also a reall and substantiall change appeares by these fiue Circumstances of their Doctrine in this point ANSWER THat we may rightly vnderstand the testimonies of Fathers alleadged in this question wee are in the first place to examine what transubstantiation is according to Papalls The Trident Councell saith It is a conuersion of the whole substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of Christs body and bloud wrought by the words of consecration First by the whole substance they vnderstand the whole substantiall matter and forme Secondly they affirme that the whole substance of Bread and Wine is destroyed or ceaseth to be Thirdly the substance of Christs body and bloud are placed vnder the accidentall shapes of Bread and Wine Fourthly by the force of the words of consecration the substance of Bread and Wine ceasing the body and blood of Christ acquire a new manner of being vnder the externall formes differing from his being in heauen Fiftly the shapes and accidents of Bread and Wine subsist without any materiall subiect of inherencie and affect the senses and nourish in like manner as formerly they did This doctrine of Popish Transubstantiation is new according to the iudgement of many learned Schoolemen and the Primitiue Fathers neuer taught the same for many of them maintaine expresly That the substance of Bread and Wine remaine and none of them affirme either that the substance of Christs body and bloud are placed vnder the naked formes and shapes of Bread and Wine or that the Accidents haue no materiall subiect of inherencie or that the body and bloud of Christ acquire a new being in the Sacrament differing from that which they had
Luc. 22.18.1 Cor. 10.16 11.26.27.28 Secondly the same affirmeth not that the substance of Bread and Wine is abolished Thirdly naturall reason sheweth that accidents must haue a subiect of inhaerencie and that bare formes and shadowes of things cannot nourish without corporall substance Fourthly the sences of Tast and Feeling discerne apparantly a corporietie in the elements receiued In this case there is no reason to imagine that our sences are deluded or that God almightie by miracle worketh in a contrarie manner to the course of nature and to that which he hath otherwise reuealed in his word It is not sufficient for Romists to affirme That God vseth a miraculous course in these things and to palliate absurdities repugnant to sence reason and scripture vnder pretext of Gods omnipotencie but they must prooue by diuine Reuelation that he will doe this for God effecteth not all things by his omnipotencie which men may imagine to be possible In the wordes of our Sauiour This is my Bodie This cuppe is the new Testament in my Bloud c. there is not a sillable concerning accidents without a subiect or concerning any miracle wrought in the Sacrament by omnipotencie neither is there any such doctrine elsewhere reuealed And if Christs words be expounded figuratiuely according to S. Augustine Tertullian Theoderit Origen Bertram c. they make nothing for corporall presence by indistance of place and if they be vnderstood literally they prooue not Transubstantiation for Bread may be called the bodie of Christ by an inusitate forme of speaking which according to the Tenet of some learned Diuines is no trope or figure And if neither of these expositions content our Aduersaries they might haue beleeued the words of the holy Text as they sound literally and a reall presence of Christs Bodie and Bloud wrought by the power of the holy Ghost without defining and determining the expresse manner how For if they beleeue that accidents subsist without a substance and nourish and are tasted and felt and passe into the stomach and yet are not able to expresse the distinct manner how and if they beleeue a substantiall presence of Christs indiuiduall humane bodie in many hosts and yet are vnable to declare the maner how Why might they not haue suspended other questions concerning the distinct manner of presence and maintained onely a true and mysticall presence the distinct manner whereof is incomprehensible in this life and not haue disturbed the peace of the Church by defining as an article of Faith such a doctrine as hath no foundation in diuine Reuelation to make it appeare certaine and infallible IESVITS 1. Consideration The first is grounded vpon the supposall of two things most certaine First that the Primitiue Church preaching vnto Pagans Iewes and other Infidels the rest of Christian mysteries as the Trinitie the Incarnation the Resurrection of the bodie did most carefully keepe as much as might be from their knowledge the mysteries of the Eucharist yea Catechumens and Nouices were not before Baptisme fully taught or instructed therein Secondly the reason moouing the Primitiue Church to be carefull in this point was least Catechumens and Infidels being fully acquainted with the whole mysterie the one should be scandalized and the other mocke thereat Hence it was accounted such a haynous offence that Christians should discouer this secret vnto Infidels or dispute about the difficulties thereof in their presence The Councell of Alexandria relating the crimes of Arians number this as one of the greatest They were not ashamed in publique and as it were vpon a scaffold to treat of the mysteries before Catechumens and which is worse before Pagans And a little after Jt is not lawfull to publish the Mysteries before them that are not initiated for feare least Pagans out of ignorance mocke and Catechumens entring into curiosities be scandalized And againe Before Catechumens and which is more before Iewes and Pagans blaspheming Christianitie they handled a question about the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour S. Ambrose saith To declare the mysteries vnto them that be Catechumens is not Tradition but Prodition seeing by such declarations danger is incurred least they be diuulged vnto Jnfidels that will scoffe at them This supposed I infer that the seeming absur dities of the Catholique reall presence should incourage a true Christian mind to beleeue it for a true Christian desires to beleeue and firmely cleaue vnto the reall presence that was beleeued by the Primitiue Church But this was a reall presence accompanied with many so seemingly grosse absurdities that the Church had no hope to satisfie Infidels therein or to keepe them from blaspheming but by concealing the mysterie from them and consequently they held the Catholique not the Protestant Doctrine in this point The Protestant Doctrine that makes Christs bodie present spiritually by Faith vnto the deuout Receiuer that communicating thinks sweetly of Christs passion and death containes no mysterie to be concealed in respect of the seeming absurdities ANSWER In the daies of the Fathers Heathens Iewes and Heretickes might enter into the Church and heare the publicke Sermons and preaching as appeareth by the fourth councell of Carthage and Infidels might read the bookes and tractates of the Fathers But the Fathers in their sermons to the people and also in their written bookes deliuered the Doctrine of the holy mysteries as appeareth by Ireneus Iustin Martyr S. Cyprian Gregorie Nissen Cyrill of Hierusalem S. Chrysostome S. Augustine S. Ambrose c. Neither is it apparant that the said Fathers taught any other secret Doctrine touching the holy mysteries than such as they preached in their Homilies and penned in their Bookes and therefore these Homilies and Bookes being publique it appeareth not that the Primitiue Church was more carefull to conceale the Doctrine of the Eucharist than of Baptisme or of the Trinitie The Obiections out of Athanasius and S. Ambrose shew that it was held vnlawfull in those ages to treat or dispute of the holy Eucharist intempestiuè that is before Heathens which were not at all instructed in the first Principles of Religion or to treat of this Doctrine in prophane places or auditories But what is this to Transubstantiation For it was held vnlawfull in the Primitiue Church in maner aforesaid that is in an vndue time order place to treat or dispute of the mysteries of Baptisme or of other profound mysteries belonging to Christian faith Also if it were granted that some antient Fathers beleeuing a reall Presence did therefore conceale the doctrine of the holy Eucharist Ratione scandali because of offence of Infidels arising vpon many difficulties and seeming contradictions to sence and common reason it followeth not from hence that those Fathers beleeued Popish Transubstantiation for many difficulties and repugnances to sence and common reason are found in Consubstantiation as well as in Transubstantiation and sundrie places of the Fathers may with more
in it selfe Js it iniury to his charitie to thinke that loue vnto men makes him vnite himselfe really and substantially with them and to be as it were incarnate anew in euery particular faithfull man entering really into their bodies to signifie efficatiously his inward coniunction by spirit vnto their soules Finally is it an iniury to his Wisedome to beleeue that to satisfie on the one side the will of his Father that would haue him euer in heauen sitting at his right hand on the other side the Ardencie of his owne affection vnto men desiring to be perpetually with them he inuented a manner how still remaining glorious in heauen he might also be continually on earth with his Church secretly not to take from them the merit of faith yet to afford full satisfaction to his owne loue really by continuing personall presence and most intime coniunction with them On the other side it imports them that thinke Transubstantiation impossible or that God cannot put the same body in different places at once to consider if they erre easie it is for men to erre that with the compasse of their vnderstandings measure the power of God how dangerous and vnexcusable their errour will prooue when they shall be called to giue vnto their omnipotent Maker a finall account particularly of this Doctrine so much derogating from him Let them thinke how they will answer if God lay to their charge the neglect of the most prudent and reasonable aduise which S. Chrys. giues Let vs beleeue God saith he let vs not reiect his Word though the same seeme secret and absurd vnto our cogitation and sense for his speech doth surpasse our reason and sense his words cannot deceiue vs but our senses be deceiued easily and often How will they reply if they be pressed with the Intergatory which S. Cyril makes vnto such misbeleeuers If thou couldst not comprehend the diuine operation of God Why didst thou not accuse the imbecility of mans wit rather than the omnipotencie of God Or how disputing or proposing so many arguments against Gods power reiecting or questioning the same because they could not vnderstand it they neuer called to mind the saying of S. Augustine Ecce quibus argumentis diuinae omnipotentiae humana contradicit infirmitas ANSWER This third and last consideration is a meere declamation grounded vpon a vaine supposition for it presumeth as granted the opinion of Transubstantiation to be most probable and reasonable as being declared by many antient Fathers defined by generall Councells c. But this supposition is a begging of the question for not so much as one antient Father or generall Councell did euer declare or define the same as it will plainely appeare to all iudicious Persons which shall compare and apply the sentences of Fathers and antient Councells to the Popish definition of Transubstantiation And the said Doctrine is not grounded vpon our Sauiours words and the miracles which Romists venditate to authorise the same are eyther Fryars fables or reports misapplyed and wrested to a contrary end And that there should be merit or at leastwise lesse perill in adhering to this doctrine rather than to any other may bee proclaimed ouer and ouer againe by Romists but it deserueth credit when they demonstrate That an opinion which is not grounded vpon diuine Reuelation and which containeth so many difficulties as cannot be solued and the beleefe whereof is vnnecessarie can be imbraced with safetie and expectation of reward To the words following in the Iesuit That he might also bee continually with his Church secretly it is answered That excluding Transubstantiation Christ Iesus is continually with his Church secretly by his grace spirit and mysticall vnion and he dwelleth in the hearts of iustified persons by faith Epkes 3. v. 17. S. Chrysostome S. Cyril and S. Augustine in the places obiected affirme that we are not to beleeue our dull and carnall sence when it suggesteth vnto vs that which is repugnant to faith and when it acknowledgeth no other force and operation in the holy Sacraments but that which is sensible and naturall But embracing this doctrine of the holy Fathers we cannot from thence extract the fancie of Transubstantiation Learned Papists themselues acknowledge the intricacies and difficulties of this Article many of them affirme that secluding the authoritie of the Romish Church there is nothing in diuine Reuelation compelling to beleeue it The doctrine is not Catholike or Antient The Propugners of it vntill the late Trident Councell disagree in that which is maine and substantiall in it and for auoiding one figure they make many Therefore it standeth not with Christian Wisedome to imbrace or maintaine this doctrine and Romists are more confident than prudent in imposing the same as an Article of the Creed censuring the Noncredents as hainous Heretikes My finall conclusion about this Article is That doctrine which is not expresly taught or formally deduced from holy Soripture which no antient Councell or Church for the first 600 yeares plainely taught and vnto which many aduerse passages are extant in the monuments of antiquitie also which is repugnant to sence and common reason and hath no apparent vtilitie ought not to be imposed as an article of diuine faith But such is the doctrine of Romish Transubstantiation Therefore it ought not to be imposed as an article of diuine faith and the Roman Church should either cancell this part of their new Creed or be lesse censorious in obtruding of it THE SEVENTH POINT COMMVNION VNDER ONE KIND AND THE ABBETTING OF IT BY CONCOMITANCIE IESVIT YOur most Excellent Maiestie in the Proposition of this Controuersie shewes your deepe insight into Theologicall difficulties perceiuing a maine ground whereon the Catholicke opinion of the lawfulnesse of Communion vnder one kinde standeth to wit Concomitancie which being granted Communion vnder one kind is iustified ANSVVER IF his Sacred MAIESTIE should yeeld you Concomitancie yet vpon that ground Communion in one kinde could not be iustified Neuerthelesse we denie both 〈◊〉 and Communion vnder one kinde IESVIT § 1. The Doctrine of Concomitancie prooued THe Doctrine of Concomitancie is that vnder the forme of bread not onely the bodie of Christ but also his precious blood and blessed soule are truely and really contained the bodie directly and by vertue of the words of Consecration the blood and the soule consequently for being contained within the bodie of Christ they must needs Concomitate that is follow the bodie in what place soeuer the same bee neither can any that acknowledges the reall Presence denie this Concomitancie without falling into many absurdities as I prooue by three Arguments ANSWER THe bodie of Christ is considered two wayes First According to the nature of a perfect liuing bodie secondly As it is represented and exhibited in the Sacrament If we consider it the first way the blood of Christ cannot properly be said to be
should be fully and sufficiently knowne as by Diuine and infallible Testimonie Lumine proprio by the resplendencie of that Light which it hath in it selfe onely and by the witnesse that it can so giue it selfe I could neuer yet see cause to allow For as there is no place in Scripture that tells vs such Bookes containing such and such particulars are the Canon and the infallible Will and Word of God so if there were any such place that were no sufficient proofe for a man might iustly aske another Booke to beare witnesse of that and againe of that another and where euer it were written in Scripture that must be a part of the whole And no created thing can alone giue witnesse to it selfe and make it euident nor one part testifie for another and satisfie where Reason will but offer to contest Besides if it were so cleare by 〈◊〉 and in giuen Light What should hinder but that all which heare it and doe but vnderstand the Tearmes should presently assent vnto it as men vse to doe to Principles euident in themselues which dayly experience teacheth vs they doe not And this though I cannot approoue yet me thinkes you may and vpon probable grounds at least For I hope no Romanist will denie but that there is as much Light in Scripture to manifest and make ostension of it selfe to be infallibly the written Word of God as there is in any Tradition of the Church that it is Diuine and infallibly the vnwritten Word of God And the Scriptures saying from the mouths of the Prophets Thus saith the Lord and from the mouths of the Apostles That the Holy Ghost spake by them are at least as able and as fit to beare witnesse to their owne Veritie as the Church is to beare witnesse to her owne Traditions by bare saying they come from the Apostles And your selues would neuer goe to the Scripture to prooue that there are Traditions as you doe if you did not thinke the Scripture as easie to be discouered by inbred Light in it selfe as Traditions by their Light And if this be so then it is as probable at the least which some of ours affirme That Scripture may be knowne to be the Word of God by the Light and Lustre which it hath in it selfe as it is which you affirme That a Tradition may be knowne to be such by the Light which it hath in it selfe If this Argument were in ieast this were an excellent Proposition to make sport withall 3. For the third Either some thinke that there is no sufficient warrant for this vnlesse they fetch it from the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost and so looke in vaine after speciall Reuelations and make themselues by thisvery conceit obnoxious and easie to be led by all the whisperings of a seducing priuate Spirit or else you would faine haue them thinke so For your side both vpon this and other occasions doe often challenge that wee resolue all our Faith into the Dictats of a priuate Spirit from which wee shall euer prooue our selues as free if not freer than you To the Question in hand then Suppose it agreed vpon that there must be a Diuine Faith Cui subesse non potest falsum vnder which can rest no possible error That the Bookes of Scripture are the written Word of God If they which goe to the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost for proofe of this doe meane by Faith Obiectum Fidei The Obiect of Faith that is to be beleeued then no question they are out of the ordinarie way for God neuer sent vs by any word or warrant of his to looke for any such speciall and priuate Testimonie to prooue which that Booke is that wee must beleeue But if by Faith they meane the Habite or Act of Diuine infused Faith by which vertue they doe beleeue the Credible Obiect and thing to be beleeued then their speech is true and confessed by all Diuines of all sorts For Faith is the gift of God of God alone and an infased Habite in respect whereof the Soule is meerely recipient And therefore the sole Infuser the Holy Ghost must not be excluded from that worke which none can doe but he For the Holy Ghost as hee first dictated the Scripture to the Apostles so did he not leaue the Church in generall nor the true members of it in particular without grace to beleeue what himselfe had reuealed and made credible So that Faith as it is taken for the vertue of Faith whether it be of this or any other Article though it receiue a kind of preparation or occasion of beginning from the Testimonie of the Church as it proposes and induceth to the Faith yet it ends in God reuealing within and teaching within that which the Church preached without For till the Spirit of God mooue the heart of man he cannot beleeue be the Obiect neuer so eredible The speech is true then but quite out of the state of this Question which enquires onely after a sufficient meanes to make this Obiect credible and fit to be beleeued against all impeachment of follic and temeritie in beleefe whether men doe actually beleeue it or not For which no man may expect inward priuate reuelation without the externall meanes of the Church vnlesse perhaps the case of necessitie be excepted when a man liues in such a Time and Place as excludes him from all ordinarie meanes in which I dare not offer to shut vp God from the soules of men nor to tye him to those ordinarie wayes and meanes to which yet in great wisedome and prouidence hee hath tyed and bound all mankind Priuate Reuelation then hath nothing ordinarily to doe to make the Obiect credible in this That Scripture is the Word of God or in any other Article For the Question is of such outward and euident meanes as other men may take notice of as well as our selues By which if there arise any doubting or infirmitie in the Faith others may strengthen vs or we affoord meanes to support them whereas the Testimonie of the Spirit and all priuate Reuelation is within nor felt nor seene of any but him that hath it so that hence can be drawne no proofe to others Miracles are not sufficient alone to prooue it 〈◊〉 both they and the Reuelation too agree with the Rule of Scripture which is now an vnalterable Rule by Man or Angell 4. The last which giues Reason leaue to come in and prooue what it can may not iustly be denyed by any reasonable man For though Reason without Grace cannot see the way to Heauen nor beleeue this Booke in which God hath written the way yet Grace is neuer placed but in a reasonable creature and prooues by the verie seat which it hath taken vp that the end it hath is to be spirituall eye-water to make Reason see what by Nature onely it cannot but neuer to blemish Reason in that
in respect of your exact Iudgement and excelse Dignitie yet in regard of the Author it is a free will Offering intended to the honour of God and of your sacred Maiestie and to confirme your Liege people in right Faith and true loue and obedience of your most iust and gracious Gouernment As an Angell of God so is my Lord the King to discerne good and bad therefore the Lord thy God will be with thee 2. Sam. 14. 17. Your Maiesties Chapleine and Seruant FRAN. WH TO THE READER IT is now two yeeres since I was first called by my Lord Duke of Buckingham to conferre with an Honourable Person who as then began to make Reuolt from the true Faith and Religion professed in our Church By this Occasion J entred into a Disputation with one Mr Iohn Fisher a Jesuit the same person which was the Author of the two Bookes against which my younger Brother Dr Iohn White wrote his Way to the true Church and the Defence of the same After my first Conference with the aforesaid Jesuit ensued not long after a Second at which his most excellent Maiestie himselfe was present The Cause as J afterwards perceiued of his Presence was a gracious desire to recouer the foresaid Honorable Person out of the Fishers Net Then there followed a Third Conference betweene a most Learned and Reuerend Bishop and the said Jesuit intended to the same purpose Lastly his Royall Maiestie in his deepe Judgement hauing obserued by the former Conferences and especially by the second that our Aduersaries are cunning and subtile in eluding our Arguments brought against them but of no strength especially in particular Questions when they come to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and confirmation of their owne Tenet He was pleased to haue Nine Questions of Controuersie propounded to the Jesuit that hee might in writing manifest the Grounds and Arguments whereupon the Popish Faith in those Points was builded For his Maiestie in his owne Judgement and Experience knew most certainely That Romists are not able to confirme 〈◊〉 Faith either by sacred Scripture or by antient Tradition And therefore their manner is when they dispute with Protestants viua voce to auoid other Controuersies and to set vp their rest vpon the Questions of the Visibilitie and Authoritie of the Church Therefore the better to discouer their weakenesse and to plucke them out of their Fox-hole of Personall Succession and Vistbilitie the King imposed this Taske of writing vpon the Nine Questions Besides his Maieftie had experience of the mfaithfull dealing of Pontificians when they make Relation of such things as passe by word of mouth onely in priuate Disputations and hee well vnderstood 〈◊〉 the Cretising Jesuit had dealt with a 〈◊〉 Bishop and with my selfe For had wee beene Schoole-Boyes of thirteene yeeres old he could not haue made vs seeme more childish and vnskilfull than hee did dispersing Hundreds of Papers to his owne prayse and our disgrace Wherefore it was necessarie that some publique Worke containing the Grounds and Arguments of his part and the Answere and Replie on ours might be extant wherein neither his nor our Yea and Nay should take place sed res cum re causa cum causa c. the weight of matter on each part might testifie for it selfe Now who could command this to be done but the King himselfe who therefore made the former proposition of Nine Questions to the Jesuit that the World might see the vttermost of his strength and againe they might haue meanes to iudge rightly of our Cause and of our proceedings in handling the same Mine owne purpose at the first was to haue published in Print a Narration of my two Disputations and as farre as my Memorie would serue me I had to that end collected in writing the summe of those Conferences But obseruing afterwards by another Disputation which was printed that our Aduersaries will perpetually tumultuate and accuse of falsitie all things which passe not vnder their owne hands knowing also that my selfe could not exactly remember all passages of the Jesuits Disputation and mine there being not a word written at the time when wee disputed J deferred the printing thereof vntill this greater Worke was finished The Aduersarie in this Answere which his Friend deliuered the King hath disputed Eight of the Questions propounded by his Maiestie and he declineth the Ninth for Reasons well knowne to the World and in stead of a Disputation he passeth ouer that Article of deposing Kings with a Rethoricall Declamation But before the Nine Questions hee placeth a large Disputation prouided no doubt aforehand and expecting onely a prosperous Wind of Occasion to send it abroad touching the Rule of Faith concerning Scripture and Tradition the Notes of the Church c. Then to counterpoise the Kings Nine Articles he chargeth our Church with Nine remarkable Errors as he accounteth them Jn the former part of his Tractate is contained the summe and substance of the first Conference betweene him and me before the Lord Keeper and the Lord Duke of Buckingham Jn the Questions of Jmages Transubstantiation Communion in both kinds is contained also the summe of the second Conference but there are many Additions in each Question and hee handleth matters more exactly in his written Worke than hee did in his priuate Disputations J haue examined his whole Treatise and answered euery passage thereof printing his Worke verbatim with mine owne The World must take notice that I am a constant Preacher in a Pastorall Charge and therefore J could not ose such expedition as other men may which imploy their whole time strength in writing Besides my Worke being finished before Michaelmas last bath bin long in Printing by reason of the number of Quotations in the Margen These Citations are for this cause word for word out of the Authors placed in my Booke that the Worke may be more vsefull especially to such persons as want the benefit of Libraries and much Reading themselues J haue with as much diligence as morally a Scholler can vse collected my Testimonies out of the very Authors themselues The Reader shall not need to feare or distrust vnlesse where the Printer hath made Escapes which cannot alwayes be auoided in a Worke of this nature And I must entreat the Reader where he obserueth any Error in the Print to correct the same with his Pen. Neither must the vnlearneder sort be offended if they light vpon some hard passages because the matter it selfe is many times very abstruse and disputing with Aduersaries which are Sophisters I am compelled to vse Schollasticke tearmes and to turne their owne Weapons vpon themselues But so farre as I am able I haue endeuored to be perspicuous Of my Aduersaries I request nothing at all for it is in vaine But if they reply it shall be for their greater honour to set downe my Text as I haue done theirs And they shall but beat the ayre vnlesse they confirme the maine Branches of their
Doctrine by Principles of Diuine Reuelation because Humane Testimonie is not sufficient to myse Articles of Faith And I rest assured that each intelligent person will obserue by reading this Worke that the Aduerfarie notwithstanding he is well verst in Controuersie and hath in substance said as much as his Cause will permit yet he is deficient of Diuine proofe in euery Article and farre more specious in eluding our Arguments than happie in confirming his owne But if it be certaine that Popish Faith wanteth the Suffrage of Diuine Testimonie then we haue sufficient cause to reiect their Doctrine And if wee could not demonstrate that the Articles which they maintaine against vs were contra verbum Dei contradictorie to the Word of God yet if by deficiencie of proofe on their side it appeare they be extra praeter without or besides the Word of God they cannot be the obiect of Diuine Faith Lastly I entreat all of our part to prayse God for the benefit of true Religion maintayned in our Church to auoid Contention among themselues for in all Ages the same hath proued pernicious and scandalous Also to be as deuout in the way of Pietie as Aduersaries seeme to be in the way of Superstition And because it hath euer beene an Honor to our Profession to be loyall and obedient to higher Powers let this be still an indelible Caracter of euery true Brittish Protestant to reioyce in the peaceable and happy Gouernment of his most sacred Maiestie let vs all so far as it is possible by our feruent votes and prayers striue to adde encrease to his dayes and happines Far be it from any of our part in their secret thoughts to misconster his actions or to entertaine the least iealousie of any abatement of his wonted loue to true Religion planted among vs for assuredly he vnderstands the Mysterie of Poperie too well to thinke any otherwise of it than formerly he hath done and no subiect can lay the Cause of Religion more neere their heart than his most Religious Maiestie doth And we haue all great cause to glorifie God who hath blessed our Church with such a wise and constant Defender of the Faith Now my Conscience vrgeth me to deliuer thus much concerning his Maiestie because the Aduersarie in some passages of his ensuing Treatise as by reading you shall obserue rhetoriseth suspitiously intending no doubt to raise some iealousie in credulous minds contrarie to this which I haue spoken My selfe therefore through the gracious Clemencie of his Maiestie being admitted to approach so neere as to be an eare-witnesse of his admirable Iudgement and constant Resolution in point of Religion and hereby certainely knowing that the Jesuit departing from the King added no improuement to his Popish Cause but vanished with foile and disgrace J trust J shall incurre no Censure from men iudicious and louers of Truth for certifying that which J obserued by mine owne experience And thus commending my Labors to the blessing of the Almightie to the examination of my Superiors in the Church and to the perusall of those which desire to read them I addresse my selfe to the ensuing Disputation April 10. 1624. THE CATALOGVE OF QVESTIONS DISPVTED in this Worke. 1. WHether of all other it be the most important Controuersie to vnderstand the Qualitie of the Romane Church Fol. 1. 2. Whether Diuine Faith be resolued finally into vnwritten Tradition or into Scripture 12 3. Touching the Visibilitie and Notes of the Church in generall 49 4. Whether the Romane Church is the Onely Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church 103 5. Whether Protestants erre fundamentally in the Faith 146 6. Whether Protestants erre fundamentally about Tradition 149 7. Whether they doe the like in their Doctrine about Generall Councels 152 8. Whether they erre by denying Papall Supremacie 157 9. Whether they erre in point of Iustification 161 10. Whether they erre in point of Merit of Good Works 169 11. Whether they doe the like concerning the Sacrament of Baptisme 175 12. Whether they erre in the Doctrine of Reall presence 178 13. Whether they doe the like about Penance and Absolution 185 14. Whether they erre about the Article of the Catholique Church 193 15. Touching Worship of Images 209 16. Concerning Inuocation of Saints departed 287 17. Touching prayer of the ignorant in an vnknowne Tongue 365 18. Concerning repetitions of Pater-Nosters Aues and Creeds with reference to Merit 384 19. Concerning Transubstantiation 390 20. Of Communion in one kind 459 21. Of workes of Supererogation and Popes Pardons 510 22. Of deposing Kings and giuing away of their Kingdomes by Papall power directly or indirectly 569 IESVIT TO THE KINGS MOST EXCELLENT MAIESTIE Most Gratious and dread Soueraigne A Conference about Religion betweene Doctour White and me was occasion that your Maiestie called mee to your Gratious presence not disdaining to dispute with one so meane and vnworthie as my selfe imitating his benignitie whose Vicegerent you are and according to the phrase of holy Scripture his Angell And as it is the propertie of the good Angell first to strike feare and terrour into them to whom hee appeares but in the end to leaue them full of comfort In like sort your Maiestie For though the first salutation carried a shew of seueritie yet your dismissing me was benigne and gratious not onely pardoning my earnestnesse in defending the part of the Catholike Church but also saying You liked me the better ANSVVER MIrum est si in facie hominis tantum interuallum inter frontem linguam vt frons non comprimat linguam It is strange saith St. Augustine that there should be such a great distance betweene the front of a man and his mouth that the shame of his forehead should not represse the impudencie of his tongue It is vntrue that his Royall Maiestie at the Cloase of the Conference whereof you speake gaue you any applause or the least occasion to coniecture That hee was taken with any passage of your Disputation For you propounded nothing to demonstrate your owne Tenet or to confute ours worthie of the great Presence to which you were admitted But you kept your selfe within your Trenches and sometimes you were driuen to dissemble your owne Tenet other-while according to the Romish manner by wyre-drawne distinctions and euasions to elude the waight of his Maiesties Arguments making good the saying of Maxentius Mens contentioni Indulgens non sanari sed vincere cupiens auersa ab eis quae rectè dicuntur tantum intenta est in hoc vt inueniat quod pro partibus suis loquatur A contentious mind desirous of victorie and not willing to be reformed but auerse from right sayings only deuiseth how to elude Truth and to speake for his owne part And as for those words of his royal Maiestie I like you the better they were vttered vpon this occasion When the Iesuit being pressed about the point of Temporall authoritie c. did at the first
Granting that some vulgar people and nouices in Faith may attaine beleefe concerning such verities of Christian Doctrine as are absolutely necessarie to Saluation by the Tradition of their Ancestors and Teachers without distinct and explicit resoluing their Faith into the Text of holy Scripture or the particular Bookes or Sections thereof But withall I deny that they can haue sauing Faith without resoluing the same into the doctrine of the Scriptures For example It is an Article of Faith necessarie to be beleeued by all Christians of riper yeres that Iesus Christ is the 〈◊〉 of the World and the same Article is reuealed and taught in many Texts of holy Scripture If a simple rurall person beleeue this Article taught him by his parents and other teachers he beleeueth the Doctrine of the Scripture and vertually grounds his Faith vpon the Scripture although hee know not the Bookes of the Scripture or the particular sentences contained in the same A man which drinketh water flowing from a fountaine or seeth day light although he haue no distinct knowledge of the fountaine or sight of the Sunne which is the cause of light yet hee receiueth water mediatly from the fountaine it selfe and his light principally from the Sunne so likewise rude and illiterate Christians reape the benefit and fruit of the Scriptures and vertually ground their Faith vpon them although they be not able distinctly to looke into them or to resolue their Faith into the seuerall parts and testimonies contained in them OBIECTION Vulgar andilliterate persons do not know or vnderstand the Scriptures neither can they be certaine by their owne knowledge that the same are truely translated in such points as the y are bound to beleeue therefore they cannot ground their Faith finally and lastly vpon the Scriptures ANSVVER 1. If this Obiection were good vulgar people could not ground their diuine Faith vpon Tradition because they haue not distinct knowledge of Tradition or of the qualitie or deriuation thereof Therefore I distinguish of Knowledge out of Bonauenture that the same is two fold to wit either confused and generall or distinct and speciall and a thing may be knowne two waies either in it selfe or in another If vulgar and illiterate people could know and vnderstand the Scriptures neither confusedly nor distinctly neither in themselues nor in any other thing then it were impossible that they should resolue their Faith into them but if they may know them by teaching of others and vnderstand the Doctrine of the Scriptures to be diuine by the light of heauenly veritie resplendent in the same and by the inward testimonie of the holy Spirit co-working with that Doctrine then it is possible for them to resolue their Faith into the Scripture because they which actually resolue their Faith into the Doctrine of the Scripture doe virtually and mediatly resolue the same into the verie Scripture euen as he that actually beleeueth the kings proclamation doth virtually beleeue the kings authoritie although he know the king or his authoritie confusedly and in generall only The Text of holy Scripture and the distinct sayings and sentences thereof are the principall and finall externall ground whereupon the whole bodie of the Church must ground their Faith But as there is a diuersitie of the members of the Church 1. Cor. 12.20 so likewise there is a difference betweene them in the manner of resoluing Faith for the stronger and firmer members are able to resolue their Faith distinctly into Scripture but the weaker members whose Faith as Bonauenture speaketh is diminuta seeble and imperfect in respect of the distinct apprehension of the obiect of Faith are guided by the stronger as children by a nurse And these little ones are taught the truth of heauenly Doctrine 1. By their parents or ecclesiasticall teachers and they know the Scriptures to be truely translated not by their owne skill but by crediting others which are able to iudge But being thus farre directed and persuaded by humane meanes then the light of Gods word it selfe by the power of Grace persuadeth them as a diuine cause to yeeld full assent to all such verities as are necessarie to be beleeued by them to saluation IESVIT And this is that which Protestants must meane if they haue any true meaning when they say that the common people knew Scriptures to be truely translated by the light of the Doctrine shining in true Translations to wit by the light of Doctrine receiued by Tradition of Ancestors and thereupon so firmely beleeue as they will acknowledge Scriptures to be truely translated so farre and no farther than they perceiue them consonant with the Faith deliuered vnto them so that their last and finall resolution for substantiall points is not into Scripture truly translated into their vulgar tongue but into Tradition by the light whereof they discerne that their Translations are true more or lesse according to the measure of knowledge they haue by Tradition ANSVVER The summe of the former obiection is Vnlearned people are not able without the helpe and instruction of others to resolue their Faith into the Scriptures Therefore the Scripture is not the finall and greatest stay and ground of Faith The Argument is denied for as in Arts and Sciences an vnskilfull person cannot resolue his knowledge into the first principles vntill he be taught the meaning of words and the sence of rules and precepts but when he is taught and vnderstandeth these then he maketh resolution into the very first principles themselues So likewise in beleeuing the Obiect of Faith must be taught the sence of the words and matter declared the grounds and reasons of credibilitie deliuered and then the beleeuer principally and immediately settles the resolution of his Faith not vpon these helps and instruments which are only dispofitiue and adiuuant causes but vpon the first principles themselues expressely or deriuatiuely contained in holy Scripture And whereas Dr. Ioh. Wh. is produced affirming in the behalfe of all Protestants that common people know Scriptures to be truely translated by the light of the Doctrine shining in true Translations First Dr. Wh. in the place assigned speaketh not in particular of common people but of the true Church in which are found many persons skilfull and learned Secondly he deliuereth other meanes besides the light of Doctrine whereby the Church may know that Translations are true to wit knowledge of Tongues rules of Art ministerie of the Word to which I adde analogie of Faith the testimonie of the 〈◊〉 Church and best learned in all ages All these are helpes and instruments of right Translations and when the Scriptures are translated they manifest their Author and sacred authoritie to such as in a right manner are conuersant in hearing or reading them And this is not only the Tenet of Protestants but besides the antient Fathers of moderate Papists themselues There is saieth one of them
such power in Scripture inspired of God that the maiestie of God shineth in it And this speech is the same in effect with that of Constantine the great reported by Theoderet Hist. li. 1. ca. 24. Obseruans fidem diuinam adipiscor lumen veritatis sequens lumen veritatis agnosco diuinam fidem Marking the diuine Faith I obtaine the light of Truth and following the light of Truth I acknowledge diuine Faith Quod est manifestatiuum alterius simul potest manifestare seipsum sicut lux quo actu prodit colores prodit seipsam cum ego quicquam loquor eadem locutione manifesto rem loguelam sayth Petrus de Lorca 22. q. 1. ar 1. disp 4. n. 8. That which is a manifestator of another thing may together manifest it selfe as appeareth inlight which doth manifest it selfe by the same act whereby it sheweth colours and by speech for when I speake by one and the same speech I manifest the thing spoken and mine owne speaking The same is affirmed by Peresius Canus Fra. Petigianus and it is so farre from being vnlikely that the holy Scripture when it is receiued doth manifest it selfe and his author that it is most absurd to imagine the contrarie for the Scripture is a diuine light Psal. 119.105.2 Pet. 1.19.2 Cor. 4. 6. And it is the voice and speech of God Luc. 1. 71. And the Iesuit cannot persuade any reasonable man to thinke that God almightie who bestowed tongues and voices vpon men with abilitie so to expresse themselues that others might vnderstand their voice and know them by it should speake himselfe in the Scripture so darkely and secretly that people when they are eleuated by grace cannot discerne the same to be his word or voice We know other creatures to be Gods worke by footsteps of his power wisdome and goodnesse appearing in them The holy Scripture excelleth all created things in wisdome and perfection it cannot therefore be destitute of signes and impressions to manifest vnto them which are inspired with grace vnto beleeuing that God himselfe is the author IESVITS 3. Argument If the mayne and substantiall points of Christian faith must be firmely knowne and beleeued before we can securely reade and truely vnderstand the holy Scriptures then the mayne and substantiall points of faith are beleeued not vpon Scripture but vpon Tradition precedently vnto Scripture This is cleare because true faith is not built but vpon Scripture truely vnderstood of man neither can Scripture vntill it be truely vnderstood of a man bee to him a ground of assured persuasion But we cannot vnderstand the Scripture securely and aright before wee know the substantiall Articles of faith which all are bound expresly to beleeue the summarie comprehension of which point is tearmed The rule of faith Tertul. de prescrip c. 13. ANSVVER The sequel of the Maior is denied It followeth not that although the mayne and substantiall points of faith must be firmely knowne and beleeued before we can securely reade and truely vnderstand the holy Scriptures in the particular texts and sections thereof therefore the said substantiall points are not beleeued vpon Scripture but vpon Tradition vnwritten The reason of the inconsequence is for that the mayne and substantiall points of faith may be knowne and beleeued by the doctrine of the Scripture touching the said points deliuered to people by those which haue faithfully collected the same into a Summarie out of the particular and distinct sentences of the holy Scriptures And they that beleeue this doctrine of the Scriptures may attaine the knowledge and faith of substantiall points of Christianity before themselues can reade and vnderstand the said Bookes yet they resolue not their faith into vnwritten Tradition according to the Popish meaning where by vnwritten Tradition is vnderstood doctrine of faith neither expresly nor inuoluedly contained in holy Scripture but into the doctrine of the Scripture collected and deliuered vnto them by others and vertually and immediately into the holy Scripture it selfe as I haue formerly shewed in answer to the second Argument That which followeth in the obiection touching the rule of faith prooueth not that Christian beliefe is resolued lastly and finally into vnwritten Tradition because the rule of faith is not such vnwritten Tradition as is neither exprefly nor by consequent contained in Scripture but a Summarie of the principall Articles of Christian 〈◊〉 contained in the Apostles Creed and which may be gathered out of the plaine texts and sentences of holy Scripture and therefore all they which resolue their faith into the said rule refolue the same also into the plaine doctrine of the Scripture And that the rule of faith is such it appeareth First by the branches and Articles of that rule which are I beleeue in God the Father Almighty c. And in Iesus Christ his onely Sonne our Lord c. With the rest of the Articles of the Apostles Creed reade 1. Cor. 15.1 2 3.1 Tim. 3.16 And Tertull. in the place alleaged by the Iesuite and in his Booke d. vel virg rehearsing the ancient rule of faith doth not mention any one Article which is not expresly or by deriuation contained in holy Scripture Secondly the rule of faith extendeth not it selfe beyond the bounds of the Gospel Gallath 1.8 Tertul. de prescript c. 6. but all the mayne and substantiall Articles of faith necessary to bee beleeued generally to saluation are contained in the plaine places of Euangelicall Scripture as both 〈◊〉 Augustine and learned Papists themselues affirme wherefore if the rule of faith be only a summarie comprehension of the mayne and substantiall Articles of Christianity and all these Articles are contained in holy Scripture then it followeth that the rule of faith is not vnwritten Tradition alone according to the Popish meaning but a Summarie of beleese contained in the plainer sentences of holy Scripture either expresly or by deduction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 li. 3. d. doct Christ. c. 2. saith Let a man seeke the rule of faith which he hath learned of 〈◊〉 places of Scripture and of the authoritie of the Church now the plainer places of Scripture are a part of Scripture and the authority of the Church exceedeth not the bounds of the Scripture according to St. Hierom. com Mich. c. 1. And Durand the famous Schooleman 2. dist 44. q. 3. n. 9. Out of the former definition of the rule of faith it followeth That because according to our Aduersaries doctrine the beleefe of Christians touching all maine and substantiall points of faith is resolued into the rule of faith and the said rule exceedeth not the limits of holy Scripture being onely a summarie comprehension of the principall heads of Christian doctrine collected from the plainer places of Scripture and propounded by the authority of the Church confined to Scripture that therefore the finall resolution of faith is not made into Tradition vnwritten
as the same signifies Doctrine neither expresly nor inuoluedly contained in holy Scripture but into the Scripture or doctrine of the Scripture it selfe IESVITS 4. Argument Those that vnderstand the Scriptures aright must be such as they were to whom the Apostles writ and deliuered the Scriptures and whose instruction they intended by their writing But the Apostles as Dr. Field acknowledgeth wrote to them they had formerly taught more at large that were instructed and grounded in all substantiall and necessarie points of faith that knew the common necessary obseruations of Christianitie Ergo they that reade and presume to iuterpret the Scriptures without first knowing and firmely beleeuing by Tradition at the least all necessary substantiall points of faith cannot with assurance vnderstand them but may euen in manifest points mightily mistake for the blessed Apostles writing to Christians that were before hand fully taught and setled in substantiall Christian doctrines and customes doe ordinarily in their writings suppose such things as aboundantly knowne without declaring them anew onely tuching them cursorily by the way and therefore 〈◊〉 so that the already taught might well vnderstand their sayings and no other ANSWER The question is Whether the last and finall resolution of Faith is made into vnwritten Tradition and not into Scripture The fourth Argument produced by the Aduersarie to prooue this is taken from the necessitie of vnwritten Traditian to expound the Scripture And the summe of the Argument is Without a precedent instruction or teaching by Tradition vnwritten the necessarie and substantiall points of Faith wee cannot be firmely assured that we haue the right sence of the Scripture as appeareth by the example of the Primitiue hearers of the Apostles who were formerly instructed by them and had the right Faith taught them more at large and then being thus informed and prepared they receiued the Scripture and we haue no reason to promise vnto our selues more vnderstanding than the Apostles immediat hearers And the Scriptures without Tradition are obscure and do onely cursorily touch matters formerly taught more at large Ergo The last and finall resolution of Faith is made into vnwritten Tradition and not into Scripture In the Antecedent or leading part of this Argument some things cannot be admitted without distinction and some parts hereof are false and the Argument it selfe is inconsequent First they which in our daies vnderstand the Scripture aright must be such as they were to whom the Apostles wrote and deliuered the Scriptures c. not simply and in all things for many things are requisit for the first plantation of Faith which are not necessarie for the future continuance and propagation thereof but in such things onely as are common and ordinarie for all ages Wherefore they which in our daies vnderstand the Scriptures aright must ordinarily haue a preuious introduction by the teaching of others and also there must be in them a mind desirous of Truth and a resolution and diligence to vse the meanes appointed by God to learne the same but that they must be instructed in the same manner as the Apostles hearers were or learne all the necessarie points of Faith before they begin to read the Scriptures without any certaine vnderstanding is affirmed by the Aduersarie but not prooued Also many of the Apostles hearers read part of the Scriptures to wit the Scriptures of the Old Testament with profit and some right vnderstanding before they were generally taught all the grounds of the Gospell for otherwise how could they haue examined the Doctrine of the Apostles by the Scriptures Acts 17.11 And to what purpose did our Sauiour command the Iewes to search the Scriptures Ioh. 5.39 And why did the Apostles preaching both to Iewes and Gentiles confirme their Doctrine by the testimonie of the Scriptures Ro. 9.9 25 29 33. ca. 10.11.13.16 19. ca. 11.2.8.9 cap. 4.3.6.17 Iam. 2.23 1. Pet. 2.6 if the people to whom they preached could at all haue no right vnderstanding of the Scriptures before they were fully and perfectly grounded in the knowledge of all necessarie and substantiall points of Christian Faith Secondly whereas the Iesuit addeth for confirmation of his Antecedent That the Scriptures without Tradition are obscure and that the Apostles did in them onely cursorily touch matters formerly taught both those assertions according to the Popish meaning are false We acknowledge that many particular Texts and passages of holy Scripture are obscure and hard to be vnderstood 2. Pet. 3. 16. But in such points as are necessarie for Christians to vnderstand because they are primarie or fundamentall and in such things as are necessary for the declaring and applying that which is fundamentall the same is not so obscure but it may by diligent reading and vsing ordinarie meanes and helpes of knowledge be rightly vnderstood by the learned and also in a competent measure by the vnlearned after the same is expounded and declared vnto them For if the Scripture were generally and absolutely obscure to the vnlearned then God would not haue commanded them to read the same nor required them to heare the reading thereof much lesse would he haue said That by hearing the same they and their children might learne to feare him and keepe his commandements Deut. 31.11 12 13. And that the holy Scripture is in this manner perspicuous the antient Fathers constantly affirme S. Gregorie and S. Bernard compare the holy Scriptures to a Riuer wherein the Elephant may swim and the Lambe may wade S. Ireneus saith that some things in Scripture are apertly and cleerely without ambiguitie manifested to the eyes of our vnderstanding Saint Augustine Some things are set downe so plainely in the Scriptures that they rather require a hearer than an expositar And in another place Although some things are vailed with mysteries yet againe some things are so manifest that by the helpe of them obscure things may bee opened And againe All matters which containe faith and good manners are found in those things which are manifestly placed in the Scriptures Saint Chrysostome In diuine Scriptures all necessary things are plaine To the like purpose speaketh St. Hierom Fulgentius Hugo Victor Theoderit Lactantius Theophilus Antiochenus Clem. Alexandrinus and the same is the common Tenet of the Primatiue Fathers And Gregory Valence confesseth that such places of Scriptures as containe Articles of faith absolutely necessary are almost all of them plaine The like is affirmed by Aquinas Vasques and Gonzales The other clause of the Iesuits speech to wit That the Apostles in their Scripture did onely touch matters cursorily formerly taught is false First this Assertion is repugnant to Saint Augustine who speaking of the doctrine and deeds of our Sauiour saith Quicquid ille de suis factis dictis nos legere voluit hoc scribendum illis tanquam manibus suis imperauit Whatsoeuer Christ would
are baptised and externally professe Christianitie And according to this notion it comprehendeth both the good and the bad the cleane and the vncleane of that profession 2. Tim. 2. 20. Math. 13.25.47 Math. 3.12 c. 22.10 〈◊〉 it is taken for Particular Societies and congregations of Christians Apoc. 1.4 2.1 and sometimes it is taken for the Pastors of particular Churches Math. 18.17 sometimes for the People Acts 20.28 sometimes for the whole Flocke consisting of Pastors and People Apoc. 3.6 But it is neuer taken in holy Scripture for the Pope and Councell If the Iesuit in his Proposition There is a visible Church alwaies in the world c. understand the 〈◊〉 Church in the first Notion then it is denied that we are absolutely to adhere to the Traditions of this Church or that the same is alwaies and intirely One Vniuersal Apostolicall Holy according to the meaning of the Apostles and Nicene Creed Secondly according to the second Notion the Church is not visible for a principall part thereof is in heauen and the other moetie militant vpon earth being considered as elect and holy is knowne intuitiuely to God only 2. Tim. 2.19 and morally coniecturally and according to the iudgement of Charitie to men in this world 2. Thess. 2.13 Thirdly according to the third Notion the Church is visible in all ages and some part thereof teacheth and professeth right Faith in all substantiall and fundamentall articles And we are to cleaue to the Traditions of the same so farre as in the deliuerie thereof it exceedeth and transgresseth not the bounds of lawfull authoritie and teacheth according to the rule of Gods word S. Chrysostome saith Because Seducers are often found even in true Churches we are not to beleeue vnlesse they speake and do that which is consonant to the Scriptures And in another place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Priest teach any peruerse Doctrine giue no credit yea though he were an Angell Nay I will presume to say more than this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one ought not beleeue Paul if he should preach any thing humane or of himselfe but as he is an Apostle and hath Christ speaking in him Lastly according to the fourth Acceptation there are euer in the world particular Churches and societies of Christians and euery one of these Churches professe some portion of diuine veritie But we must enquire by the rule of Gods word which of these are pure and orthodoxall and on the contrarie which of them are infected with errors and imbrace the Doctrine of the one and auoid the Corruptions of the other Remarkable Obseruations concerning the Church OBSERVATION I. THe externall visible Church is an intermixed or compounded societie bodie and state of Christian people professing the faith and worship of Christ in which are found sheepe and goats wheat and tares gold and drosse good fishes and bad and vessels of honour and dishonour This common and generall societie and bodie consisteth of diuers particular Churches consenting and agreeing in the professing of some part of diuine veritie and of these Churches some are orthodoxall some are impure in faith and religion and also these being compared are respectiuely purer or impurer And within the compasse of each particular Church the members are better or worse more or lesse holy or corrupt OBSERVAT. II. Whereas the Church hath many Titles and Properties belonging to it and Christ Iesus the Head thereof hath made sundrie Promises and conferred diuerse Graces vpon it wee must consider which part of the Church is the proper subiect of these Qualities Promises and Graces For it is apparant That as Sheepe and Goats Chaffe and Wheat Gold and Drosse are of a contrarie kind although they are intermixed so likewise the Affections and Attributes of the same although they are spoken in generall of the whole Subiect as an Heape which hath Wheat and Chaffe a Field which hath Wheat and Tares are called an Heape of Graine a Field of Wheat yet many of them appertaine formally and indeed onely to the better part of the common Subiect OBSERVAT. III. In the visible societie of Christian people there are found according to S. Augustine Citizens of the heauenly Hierusalem and also Inhabitants of Babylon And as the same Father teacheth Notum est ciues malae Ciuitatis administrare quosdam actus 〈◊〉 Ciuitatis It is manifest that in the visible Church Burgers of the wicked Citie Babylon doe administer some Functions of the holy Citie Hierusalem Ioh. 12.6 2. Timoth 4.10 Apoc. 3.14 15. Phil. 〈◊〉 Ioh. 3.9 The Promises of Christ made to the Church concerning his presence and assistance to his Word and Sacraments preached and administred according to his commandement are fulfilled when wicked persons execute the office and performe the worke of outward 〈◊〉 For although wicked persons like the Carpenters of Noahs Arke reape no benefit to themselues yet God Almightie concurreth with their Ministerie being his owne Ordinance for the saluation of all deuout and worthie Communicants OBSERVAT. IIII. Some things are spoken of the Church in common or generall tearmes to shew what the whole is in respect of Gods outward vocation or what the office and dutie of the whole Church is but the same promises properties and priuiledges are really fulfilled or found in the better and sounder part thereof onely When our Sauiour promiseth that the gates of Hell shall not preuaile against the Church Matth. 16.18 he vnderstandeth such a Church as heareth and obeyeth his word and not a visible companie or Hierarchie of Prelates which forsake his word and doe what they list August d. Vnit. Ecclesiae cap. 18. Ecclesia in his est qui adificant supra Petram id est qui credunt verbum Christi faciunt d. Baptismo Lib. 6. cap. 24. Nonne illi sunt in Ecclefia qui sunt in Petra Qui autem in Petra non sunt nec in Ecclesia sunt iam ergò videamus vtrum super Petram aedificium suum constituant qui audiunt Christi verba non faciant Saint Augustine in these words deliuereth three things first The Church is in them which build vpon the Rocke secondly They are not in the Church which are not in the Rocke thirdly They onely build vpon the Rocke and are in the Rocke which beleeue and obey the word of Christ And this Doctrine of S. Augustine is taken out of the holy Scripture Matth. 7.24 1. Cor. 3.11 10.4 Also when S. Paul saith The Church is the ground and pillar of Truth 1. Tim. 3. 15. by the Church hee vnderstandeth the House of the liuing God as the precedent part of his speech sheweth to wit If I tarrie long that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behaue thy selfe in the House of God c. But they alone are verily and indeed the House of God which beleeue and loue the Truth
Catalogue of descent is duely examined all the passages are not so currant in it as they pretend Fourthly the principle of Aristotle vpon which the last Argument is grounded admitteth many exceptions That because of which another thing is such is it selfe much more such when both things are of the same order and pertake the same affection as Christ which sanctifieth is more holy than they which are sanctified Fire is hotter than water and other things warmed by it c. But it holdeth not in causes equiuocall or partiall or in causes by accident or of diuers order The Sunne causeth life in plants and yet the Sunne is without life A whetstone sharpeneth tooles and yet is dull it selfe Euill manners cause good lawes and yet euill manners are not good Daniels wisdome is reuealed to Baltasar by the queene Dan. 5. 10 11. yet Daniell is not made a 〈◊〉 man nor onely knowne to be such by that report so likewise the name of Christ his glorie his vertue and miracles are famously knowne of belecuers from age to age by reason of the Church and her preaching c. But all this concerning Christ is neither principally nor only made knowne to the world by the present Church nor by the Roman Church more effectually than by other Churches and the Church is a caufe of one kind and order and the Scripture of another The Church is veluti Preco Nuntius like a Cryer and Messenger but the holy Scripture is the Word Handwriting and Epistle of Christ into whose voice and authoritie all the faithfull resolue their beleese concerning Christ and all his actions and according to S. Agustine In sanctis libris manifestatur Dominus ibi eius Ecclesia declaratur In the holy bookes of Scripture the Lord is made manifest and in the same also his Church is declared and in another place In Scripturis diuinis Christum in Scripturis didicimus Ecclesiam In the Scriptures we haue learned Christ and in the Scriptures we haue learned the Church Now if the Scriptures manifest Christ and demonstrate his Church they are of greater authoritie and consequently more credible famous and illustrious than the Church according to the Iesuits Theorem out of Aristotle Propter quod vnum quodquè tale est illud magis IESVIT Fourthly the Church is one that is all the Pastors and Preachers thereof deliuer and consequently all her professors and children beleeue one and the same Faith ANSWER The visible Church in regard of the sound and liuing part thereof is one both in Faith and Charitie Ephes. 4.3.4 c. But this vnitie is more or lesse perfect at some times and in some persons than in other Vnitie in all Veritie and in all sanctitie of Vertue and Charitie is necessarie to Saluation in praeparatione animi in the purpose and intention of heart Rom. 12. 18. and actuall Vnitie in fundamentall points of Faith and in the maine offices of Charitie is simply necessarie to Saluation Heb. 12.14 but perfect cōcord excluding all discord is not perpetually found amongst the best members of the visible Church There was contention among the Disciples Luc. 22.24 and the Affrican and European Churches were diuided concerning rebaptising and the Eastrne and Westerne Churches about the day of Easter S. Augustine saith That good men being but proficients may be at strife Aquinas affirmeth That discord is not a sinne vnlesse it ouerthrow Charity or be corrupted with error concerning matters of Faith which are necessarie to bee knowne to Saluation or in smaller points with 〈◊〉 Also discord may happen in the visible 〈◊〉 by the pride ambition and faction of the in which case 〈◊〉 persons although they 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 all lawfull peace and 〈◊〉 yet through the 〈◊〉 of those which are enemies to peace they cannot 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 120.5 6 7. IESVIT For if the Preachers and Pastors of the Church disagree about matters which they preach as necessarie points of Faith how can their Tradition and Testimonie be of Credit therein or haue any Authoritie to persuade who will or canfirmely 〈◊〉 disagreeing witnesses vpon their words ANSWER First They which disagree in part and accord in the maine may haue substantiall 〈◊〉 although they want the prefection of vnitie and these are of credit and may persuade in those things wherein they consent as appeareth by S. Cyprian and his Colleagues disagreeing with the Romans touching Appeales and 〈◊〉 and yet conuerting many people to godlinesse Secondly When there is discord betweene 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 matters the Orthodox partie 〈◊〉 many 〈◊〉 all those whose hearts the Lord 〈◊〉 and mooueth to discerne and obey the truth Otherwise in the great Dissentions of the antient Church reported by Eusebius Lib. 2. cap. 60. 61. d. vita Constantini no people should haue beene conuerted to God Thirdly If 〈◊〉 take away all possibilitie of persuading from the Pastors of the Church then the Romans which 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 Ancestors in many points of Doctrine and haue had so many Schismes whereof some haue beene most bloudie and pernicious to the Christian World must want power to persuade The efficacie of persuasion dependeth vpon absolute concord onely as vpon a greater motiue of credibilitie and not as vpon a proper efficient and although Preachers should be contentious and factious yet the Word of Christ truly deliuered by any of them is in it selfe mightie in operation and able to persuade and conuert soules and God Almightie many times shewes his power in the Ministerie of infirme and imperfect Instruments Phil. 1. 16 17. IESVIT And this consent must be conspicuous and euident For if in outward appearance and shew Preachers dissent one from another in maine and materiall Doctrines their Authoritie is crazed and their Testimonie of no esteeme Howsoeuer perchance their Dissentions may by some distinctions so be coloured that one cannot conuince him that would boldly vndertake to defend as D. Field vndertakes for Protestants that their Dissentions are but verball But what is this to the purpose Doe the accused Dissentioners allow this Doctors Reconciliation 〈◊〉 they giue ouer Contention hereupon No but confesse that such Reconcilers misse of their meaning and that they disagree substantially about the very prime Articles of Faith How can these men be witnesses of Credit for substantiall Articles concerning which there is open confessed and professed Dissention among them ANSVVER The consent of Pastors according to one sence to wit expounding Must for 〈◊〉 Ought as 1. Tim. 3.2 is to be conspicuous and euident both in Faith and in Charitie and when this is fulfilled the testimonie of Pastors is of greater weight and credit among men But this perfection of Visitie is 〈◊〉 and therefore although the same be 〈◊〉 in part the Pastors of the Church are not despoyled of all Authoritie and credit in deliuering Christs Word if the better
Church since the Apostles is the prime originall ground of Faith more fundamentall than the Scripture This assertion is Antichristian and impudent for can any thing be more fundamentall than the foundation or of greater authoritie than the word of God S. Peter speaking of the Propheticall Scriptures equalleth the same to the sensible voice of God which was vttered in the Apostles audience from heauen Math. 3.17 c. 17.5 saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We haue the most sure word of Prophesie c. vpon these words S. Augustine d. verb. Apostoli serm 29. commenteth as followeth Et cum dixisset hanc vocem audiuimus de Coelo delatam subiunxit atque ait habemus certiorem propheticum sermonem sonuit illa vox de Coelo certior est propheticus sermo when the Apostle had said We heard this voice from heauen he addeth further and saith We haue a more sure word of prophesie That voice sounded from heauen and yet the propheticall word is more sure he said more sure not better or truer because that word from heauen was as good and as profitable as the word of prophesie Why therefore more sure Because the hearer was more confirmed by it Our Sauiour himselfe in the Gospell examineth the Traditions of the Pharises and of the Iewish Church then being by the Scriptures Math. 5.6 and 7. Ch. 12.5 c. 15.4 19.4 And the holy Ghost in the new Testament both in the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles confirmeth the Truth which was taught by the authoritie of the Scriptures and Christ Iesus perpetually submitteth himselfe and his doctrine to the triall of the Scriptures and the Apostles after him did the like Acts 26.22 The antient Fathers affirme that the Scriptures are of most eminent authoritie and that wee are aboue all things to giue credit to them and that they are the mouth of God and the verie hand of God and Paul and Peter and Iohn and the whole companie of the Prophets do speake with vs by them and that Faith it selfe by which a iust man liueth is conceiued by them and the Church it selfe is demonstrated to wit tanquam à priori by them But on the contrarie Traditions receiue their authoritie from the Scriptures and may not be admitted vnlesse they agree with the Scriptures And in our Aduersaries Tenet men must first beleeue the authoritie of the Church before they can receiue or beleeue Tradition from all which it followeth that Tradition of the present Church is neither the prime originall ground of Faith nor yet more fundamentall concerning Faith than the Scripture The Trident Councell held it sufficient to equall Tradition with the Scriptures This new master with Baronius Pighius preferreth them before the Scriptures These men perceiue that the Roman Faith cannot subsist vnlesse they depresse the written word of God and exalt the prophane bastardly and Apocriphall Traditions of the Pope They say the Scripture is a breathlesse lumpe a nose of wax a leaden rule Andradius writeth That in the Books of the Scriptures themselues there is no diuinitie or any thing else binding vs to beleeue Stapleton saith That being considered as written it can no way be called the Temple or Tabernacle of the holy Ghost Bosius saith The holy Ghost resideth in the Church more effectually and nobly than in the Bookes of the Scripture And Majoranus hath these words The consent of the Church alone which neuer wanted the spirit of God ought to be of greater esteeme with vs than all mute and tonguelesse Bookes and than all the written volumes which are or euer were and which haue in all ages ministred fuell of contention to the wits of men And Gretsar the Iesuit There would haue beene fewer contentions in the world as I supose if there had beene no Scripture at all Iacob Brower a Reader of Doway saith I would not beleeue the Gospell did not the authoritie of Pope Paul the fift mooue me And lastly it is one of the dictates of Pope Hildebrand canonised by Baronius That no Chapter or Booke of Scripture must bee esteemed canonicall without his authoritie I doubt not but that Romists are able with faire glosses and distinctions to salue these blasphemies and to reconcile dark nesse with light but he that diggeth a pit for people to fall into althought he couer the same with some superficiall tecture is accused by the antient sentence of diuine Law Exod. 21.33 Towards the end of this Section the Iesuit addeth First That the Scripture is not knowne to bee Apostolicall but by Tradition This is false for the Scripture is knowne to come from the Apostles by inward grounds and testimonies contained in it selfe and by the vertue and effects of it as well as by the Tradition of the Church Secondly it is most vntrue that Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by it owne light but not Scripture for what internall light hath Tradition more than or aboue the Scripture If it haue then the articles of Popish Tradition Purgatorie adoration of Images c. are more manifest than the articles which Scripture teacheth concerning the incarnation and resurrection of Christ than Heauen and Hell c. Also sacred Scripture is receiued as diuine by all Christians Popish Tradition onely by some The Catalogue of Romish Tradition could neuer to this day be specified and distinctly assigned but the Canon of holy Scripture may Moreouer holie Scripture hath the perpetuall and vnanimous consent of the Primitiue Church Popish Tradition hath not Againe Bellarmine confesseth that nothing is better knowne and more certaine than holy Scripture but if nothing be better known then nothing hath clearer light Thirdly the confirmation of the former to wit What more euident c. is insufficient because that which is known to come from the Apostles by their owne immediat testimonie in writing is more euidently knowne to come from them than that which is affirmed to come from them onely by the report of men which are deceiueable Diuine testimonie maketh things more certaine and infallible than humane The testimonie of the Apostles extant in writing is totally diuine the report of Bishops is in part humane IESVIT And this may bee clearely prooued to omit other pregnant testimonies by the words of our Sauiour in the last of Matthew Going into the whole world teaching all nations baptizing them In the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost teaching them to keepe all that I haue commanded you all dayes euen to the consummation of the world A promise of wonderfull comfort vnto them that pawne their soules and saluation vpon Gods word deliuered by perpetuall Tradition For in this sentence appeare these fixe things First That there is still a Christian Church all dayes not wanting in the world so
comparatiuely onely but Regula virtutum according to the Rule of Vertue August c. 2. Ep. Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 10. The imperfection and sinne which is adiacent and concomitant to the vertuous actions of iustmen changeth not their kind because the same is freely remitted Et quicquid alias in 〈◊〉 vitij est Christi puritate sepultum non imputatur saith 〈◊〉 Whatsoeuer defect or fault is otherwise found in them being couered with Christs puritie is not imputed And this Doctrine concerning the imperfection of good Workes as they are considered in themselues in this life is deliuered both by the Fathers and by many learned Pontificians Andreas Vega d. Iustif lib. 11. c. 38 It is not onely true that the life of all iust men is daily spotted with many veniall sinnes but the very workes of perfect men are very deficient from that goodnesse whereby it beseemed vs to haue serued praised and honoured God for they are conioyned with many Imperfections whiles men liue heere neither are they so pure holy and feruent as the largenesse of 〈◊〉 goodnesse and bountie towards vs requires and many good workes are now performed by vs without any blot of sinne which notwithstanding if God should deale strictly with vs were vnrighteousnesse To the like purpose speaketh Cassalius d. quadripart Iust. lib. 3. cap. 23. The Councell of Colen d. Sacram. p. 132. Maubnrn Roset Exerc. Spirit tit 32. part 2. d. 4. c. 3. m. 2. Didacus Stella sup Luc. ca. 18. And many other which I haue cited in my Defence of Dr. Iohn White pa. 20. Concerning the second branch of the Iesuites accusation to wit That Protestants extenuate the price of Christs redemption not making it sufficient to raise the good Workes of Gods children to a due proportion with the reward I answere That if by due proportion c. he vnderstand a dignitie in Good workes 〈◊〉 to the reward then he must condemne Saint Paul himselfe for extenuating the price of Christs redemption who saith That the sufferings Martyrdomes of this present time are not worthie to bee compared with the glorie that shall bee reuealed in vs Rom. 8. 18. St. Hierom. sup Eph. 2. Nec affirmare licet merita nostra ex aequo Dei gratiae misericordiae respondere alioqui perperam dixisset Paulus Rom. 8. Non sunt condignae passiones c. It is vnlawfull to affirme that our merits are equall to the grace and mercie of God for then St. Paul had spoken amisse saying The sufferings of this life are not worthie c. Saint Chrysost. Imperf in Math. Hom. 53. What haue we wrought in this world to merit communion with God in his celestiall kingdome and therefore the Apostle speaketh iustly I doe not thinke the passions of this life condignely worthie of future glory c. sup Rom. Hom. 14. The Apostle in euery place laboureth to shew vs that all which God doth for vs is not of debt but of meere grace Leo d. Assumpt serm 1. Neque de qualitate operum pendet coelestium mensura donorum The measure of celestiall gifts depends not vpon the qualitie of workes Saint August sup Ioh. tr 3. Non pro merito accipias vitam aeternam sed tantum pro gratia Thou shalt not receiue eternall life for thy merit but onely for grace Origen sup Rom. 4. I cannot persuade my selfe that any worke of man can challenge reward vpon debt because wee receiue our power to thinke speake and doe good by the gift and larges of God Saint Basil. sup Psal. 114 Eternall rest abideth for them which haue lawfully striuen not as due debt to bee rendred to their workes but for the grace of the most bountifull God in whom they haue trusted Saint Bernard serm 1. Annunc Mariae Concerning life eternall we know that the passions of this life are not worthie of future glorie no not if one man should endure them all Neither are the merits of men such as that therefore eternall life is due to them in right or that God should wrong man if he should not bestow the same vpon him c. The arrogant and foolish opinion of moderne Papists concerning the merit of condignitie was alwayes opposed by Pontificians themselues Scotus Durand Marsilius ab Inguen Dionisius Cistertiensis Gregorie Arminine Thomas Walden Paulus Burgensis Ioh. Ferus Eckius Pighius c. And many who propugne the doctrine of merit of condignitie equiuocate and speake improperly Paulus Cararia Theolog. Mor. Canon Reg. 1. ar 3. p. 2. Stricte loquendo non 〈◊〉 meritum condigni inter nos Deum If a man will speake properly and strictly there is no merit of Condignitie betweene God and vs. Baltassar Nauaret sup 1. par Thom. q. 21. ar 1. ca. 28. pa. 603. God is said to bee a debtour to man by a certaine Hyperbole Genebrard sup Psal. 19. v. 13. Opera sunt longe infra retributiones Good workes are farre inferiour to the reward And whereas some Pontificians say that God were vniust if he did not condignely reward good Workes Durand affirmeth that this speech is blasphemous They are miserably diuided and distracted about their doctrine of merit of Condignitie like the builders of the Tower of Babell First Some of them simply and absolutely denie it Secondly Some say good Workes are meritorious only by reason of the promise and acceptation of God and these also vpon the matter denie it Thirdly Others affirme they merit condignely by the verie nature and dignitie of the work secluding the diuine Promise Fourthly Others affirme that merit of workes is founded partly vpon the dignitie of the worke and partly vpon the promise of God Fiftly Some of them hold that God rewardeth according to the rule of commutatiue Iustice others say according to distributiue and others according to both Now considering this vncertaintie of Popish Faith in the matter of merit and also the opposition thereof by so many of great note among themselues the Iesuit was ouer precipitate in condemning Protestants of fundamentall errour for not beleeuing that Doctrine the certainetie whereof himselfe and his Colleagues are not able to deliuer But the Protestant Doctrine concerning good Works is perspicuous orthodoxall consenting with the holy Scripture and the antient Church and tendeth both to the honour of God and the aduancing of the Grace of Christ and also to the promoting of the care and studie of good Works First we beleeue that good Works are necessarie to saluation and that all men which will be saued must carefully applie themselues to the practise and exercise thereof Tit. 3.8 Ioh. 15. 2.8 Heb. 12.14 Apoc. 22.14 Secondly God rewardeth good Works of his bountie and grace with benefits spirituall and temporall Gen. 22.16 〈◊〉 6.35.2 Iohn v. 8. Thirdly in giuing reward he considereth the mind and qualitie of the doer the integritie measure and
assigning the time when worship of images was first of all imposed as an article of faith for the second Nicene Synod celebrated after the yeare 790. did first decree this practise And yet if it be admitted that there were some difference of opinion betweene Protestants in matter of Chronologie and about point of time this is no argument of palpable vntruth as our aduersarie declames for we finde as great difference in the Fathers and among Papists themselues in sundry passages of this nature But now let vs further examine in what manner the obiectour prooueth that Protestants disagree about the time when worship of images began IESVIT But because it were long to set downeall their disagreeing assertions I will onely declare what Mr. Iohn White brother to my Aduersarie in his booke printed and reprinted many times saith thereabout that your Maiestie may by this example vnderstand with how little sinceritie the best esteemed Protestant Ministers handle controuersies to the deception of many Christian soules First there was no image either grauen or painted saith Erasmus no not the image of Christ himselfe to be set in Churches and this appeareth by the testimony of the ancients Secondly when they began to be vsed the Church of Rome forbad the worship of them as appeareth by the Epistles of Gregory to Serenus and Polydore a Papist confesseth all Fathers condemned the worship of Images for feare of Idolatrie Afterward the Councell of Nice brought in their worship decreeing neuerthelesse that no image should bee adored with Latria diuine honour At the last Thomas Aquinas and the Trent Councell expounded by the Iesuits taught that diuine honour should be giuen vnto them Thus he which in my iudgement is sufficient to make any iuditious man mislike Protestant Writers that defend their Religion by such palpable vntruths For to begin with his last saying and so vpward what can be more false than that the Councell of Trent taught that diuine worship is to be giuen vnto images there being no such words in the whole Councell As for the Iesuit Vasq. whom he citeth as so expounding the Councell no such doctrine is found in him either in the place quoted by the Minister or in any other part of his workes yea the contrary is found It is not quoth he to be said that diuine honour is giuen vnto images Neither doth Suarez the other Jesuit cyted expound the Councell to giue diuine worship vnto Christs image but onely saith that out of the Councell it may be gathered that the image of Christ and Christ are honoured by one and the same act of worship which as referred vnto Christ 〈◊〉 diuine worship as referred to the image not diuine worship but inferiour veneration For as he declareth the worship of Christ and his image though one and the same Phisicall act is twofold being diuine honour towards Christ not diuine but an inferiour kind of honour towards the image ANSWER This discourse reduced into forme of Argument is Mr. Iohn White had dealt vnfaithfully in his narration of the opinions of learned Papists touching the comming in and worship of Images Ergo Protestants disagree about the time when the worship of Images began A miserable and most inept consequence as all men learned and vnlearned may perceiue for if it were true that 〈◊〉 Iohn White or some other Protestant Minister had erred in reporting the doctrine of the Trident Synod and in relating the opinion of Suares and Vasques doth it follow from hence that Protestants disagree in assigning the time when Image-worship began to be enioyned as a necessary dutie and the doctrine thereof determined as an article of faith But omitting the sequele of the argument which is loose and disioynted let vs examine the antecedent Thomas Aquinas and the Trident Councell saith Mr. Iohn White as it was expounded by Iesuits meaning also other learned Pontificians taught that diuine worship or Latria should be giuen vnto them c. I answer Aquin. his words are so plaine that an intelligent man cannot conceiue his meaning to be other than as the letter of the wordssoundeth Cum Christus adoretur adoratione latriae consequens est quod eius imago sit adoratione latriae adoranda Because Christ himselfe is adored with diuine honour it is consequent that his image is to be adored with the worship of Latria 2. The determination of the Trident Councell in this and in many other articles is like Apollo his riddles and responsalls a nose of waxe and so ambiguous that not onely Mr. White but veterane Papists themselues are perplexed in resoluing the mysteries thereof Now thething which induced Mr. White to conceiue that the said Councell approoued the opinion of Thomas and other schoolemen touching adoration of Images with diuine worship was not onely the silence of these Trent masters in condemning that grosse errour but especially the practise of many late Pontificians which propugne Aquinas his Tenet affirming that the same is agreeable to the Councells definition Henriquez a Iesuit saith Some of our part doe euill in denying that it is not meet to preach to common people That the image of Christ is to be adored with diuine honour Suarez hath these words It may rightly be that the image and the Prototype may be adored with one act and in this manner the image of Christ may be adored with Latria Vasques saith if an image be taken formally as it exerciseth the act of an image that is for the very sampler in the image and for the image as it containeth the sampler and is as it were animated by it then without doubt we must say that true Latria in spirit is exhibited vnto it Iacobus de Graphijs hath these words We are to worship euery image with the same worship wherewith the Sampler is worshipped to wit the image of God or Christ or signe of the Crosse as it bringeth the Lords Passion into our mind with the worship of Latria The same is affirmed by Ludovicus Paramo Bernardus Puiol Franciscus Petigianis Petrus de Cabrera Azorius L. Lamas Thom. Elysius Arch. Rubeo Tho. Bustus c. And whereas the foresaid Authors in their larger disputations vse many distinctions wherein they may seeme to qualifie the hardnesse of former assertions yet if they intend not to giue such honour to images as their generall speeches import they are rather to be accused and taken at the worst which giue occasion than Protestants blamed as mistaking their meaning their distinctions being as Bellarmine speaketh so subtle and intricate that not onely vulgar persons but the Authors themselues scarce vnderstand them But the question whether images be to bee adored with diuine worship or not and all the rest of this section concerning Mr. Iohn White is heterrogeneous to this disputation as appeares by the former Analysis It is sufficient for vs to shew
that Papists adore and worship Images with some kind of reall worship to wit such as the Trident Councell expresly defineth for if such adoration of Images bee an Article of Faith and not onely a thing Adiaphorous but a necessarie dutie then the same must haue apparant ground in Diuine Reuelation but if it be neuer commanded or prescribed in the Old or New Testament nor was for sundrie ages affirmed by Orthodoxall Fathers to be an Apostolicall Tradition and yet the Trent Councell presumeth to make it diuine obliging all Christians vpon paine of damnation to the beliefe and practise thereof Protestants haue iust cause to condemne this doctrine and to refuse conformitie with Papists in the practise thereof Papists condemne those of heresie which refuse to worship Images where they haue power they burne them to Ashes They hold it lawfull to dethrone Kings and Princes from their royall dignitie for opposing this practise It must therefore be necessarie for them to demonstrate their Tenet by manifest Testimonies or Arguments taken from diuine Reuelation and not to triflle off the time in bequarrelling Iohn White concerning the meaning of the Trident Councell For it is apparant that the Councell intendeth to make that an Article of 〈◊〉 which hath no foundation in the rule of Faith and it yeeldeth libertie to the most grosse opinions which former Papists held concerning adoration of Images And it is sufficient for Protestants to manifest thus much IESVIT Nor is Maister Whites Argument good We worship Christ and his Image by the same Act but the worship of Christ is diuine honour Ergo The worship of the Image is diuine honour for this prooueth 〈◊〉 That the worship of the Image is diuine as referred to Christ not as referred vnto the Image Otherwise if Maister White should helpe to pull his fellow Ministers horse out of the mire 〈◊〉 thereunto out of Christian charitie and friendship one might by the like Argument prooue that he beareth Christian charitie towards horses for he relieueth the horse and pleasureth his friend by one and the same Act. The pleasuring of his friend is an Act of Christian charitie towards him Ergo The pulling the horse out of the mire is an Act of Christian charitie towards the horse A foolish Argument because that one Act is vertually twofold as referred to the man owner of the horse Christian charity as referred to the horse onely no charitie at all but a baser kind of loue and that for his friends sake The like is when wee kisse with our corporall lips the feet of the Image of Christ at the same time by deuout and reuerent imagination kissing his true feet represented by the Image we honour Christ and his Image by one and the same Physicall Act and that Act is diuine Worship though not diuine as referred to the Image but onely as referred vnto Christ. A thing so easily vnderstood by learned men as I meruaile Ministers vnderstand it not or will wrangle in a matter so cleare if they sincerely seeke truth ANSWER The Argument which you father vpon Maister Iohn White and whereunto you apply your flearing and myerie similitude is not extant in his Way to the Church pag. 400. So farre therefore as I can obserue you fight with your owne shaddow But if the Argument had beene propounded in this manner Many learned Papists to wit Aquinas and the Maior part of the Schoole adore the Artificiall Images of Christ as they are conioyned with the Samplar with the Act of Latria Therefore they adore some Images with Diuine worship I cannot perceiue that your nice distinctions of Physicall and vertuall acts diuine as referred to Christ not diuine as referred to the Image would haue beene sufficient to vindicate your Tenet from the mud of superstition for that which is worshipped with any act matorially or formally of Latria is worshipped with diuine honour at least in part or by accident But no degree of diuine honour can iustly be yeelded to any creature which is not substantially vnited to the Deitie or at least wise which is not by some diuine Ordinance accidentally vnited and made capable of such adoration But no artificiall Images are thus vnited and no diuine ordinance exalteth them to such a dignitie IESVIT And though the Ignorant vnderstand not the tearmes of Theologie by which Diuines declare the manner of honouring the Prototype and the Jmage both by one Act yet may they honour an Jmage as securely and with as little danger and erring as any that vnderstand them For as the Clowne who knowes no more of the nature of motion than that he is to set one foot before another doth mooue in the very same manner as Philosophers who 〈◊〉 that Action by tearmes most obscure of intrinsecall and extrinsecall beginning and ending and per vltimum non esse primum non 〈◊〉 So likewise a Catholicke that vnderstands no more of honouring Christ his Image than that he is by beholding the Jmage to remember Christ and with pious and affectuous imaginations to adore him doth honour our Sauiour and his Image by one and the same Act as truly verily and religiously as the greatest Diuine that can learnedly explicate the manner how that Adoration is performed as being done outwardly relatiuely and transitorily vnto the Image inwardly affectuously absolutely finally vnto Christ. ANSWER Although this Assertion is false and the Proofe thereof borrowed from a similie is impertinent for vulgar persons among you commit grosse Idolatrie in Image Worship as they which haue liued beyond Seas and some of your own part report neither is there the same reason of naturall motion and the exercise of religious actions yet because it serueth not to prooue the Assumption of your maine Sillogisme to wit Protestants cannot assigne any time when Image worship began c. I will not insist vpon the examination of it The latter branch of this Clause to wit Adoration is performed to Images as being done outwardly relatiuely and transitorily vnto the Image inwardly affectuously absolutely and finally vnto Christ is boldly affirmed but not confirmed by any Argument First how proue you by diuine reuelation and testimonie that adoration is to be performed according to your distinction of outwardly relatiuely and transitorily to Images And against such loose and voluntarie presumptions we say with S. Chrisostome Diuinae Scripturae testimonia sequamur neque feramus eos qui timerè quiduis blaterant we are to follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 testimonie of diuine Scripture and not to regard them which at rouers and without ground blatter out what they please Secondly if you adore Images outwardly relatiuely and transitorily then you make Images a partiall obiect of adoration but God himselfe who saith I will not giue my glorie to another to wit in whole or in part neither my praise to grauen Images Esa. 42.8 hath excluded Images from copartnership
intercessions to the Virgin Marie with diuine Prayers Hee affirmeth also that in Saint Augustines dayes Inuocation of Saints was not vsed in the common Seruice of the West Church And descending to the 600. yeeres he saith Inuocation of Saints among the Latines was not brought into the publicke Seruice and Letanies of the Church vntill the dayes of Pope Gregorie the first Lastly the forme and manner of Saintly Inuocation in the 600 yeere differed extreamely from that which was vsed by Papals in latter times and this is confirmed by Chemnitius setting downe verbatim many Collects and formes of deuotion vsed in latter dayes which were antiently vnheard of Secondly The Fathers which you cite in your Margine to prooue the Doctrine of Inuocation of Saints and Martyrs to haue beene a matter of faith from the dayes of Constantine are Gregorie Nyssen St. Basil Theodorit St. Ambrose St. Hierom and St. Augustine but hauing perused the places I finde not that these Fathers either deliuered this Doctrine as matter of Catholicke Faith or affirme the Practise thereof to haue beene necessarie and vniuersall or that they spake of such Worship and Inuocation of Saints as is practised in the seruice of your Church But as places may bee noted in some Fathers touching inuocation of Saints deceased or which argue that they requested Saints to assist them with their Prayers at least in generall and so farre foorth as they had knowledge of their necessities So likewise other Sentences are found in their writings maintaining the sole Inuocation of God by Christ and condemning Inuocation of Angels and Saints deceased according to the manner now vsed in the Romane Church Theoderit vpon the Colossians cap. 2. condemneth worshipping and Inuocation of Angels St. Ambrose saith Tu solus Dominus inuocandus es c. Thou Lord onely art to bee inuocated St. Hierom Nullum inuocare id est in nos orando vocare nisi Deum debemus We ought to inuocate that is by Prayer to call into vs none but God And in another place Whatsoeuer I shall vtter seemeth dumbe because hee Nepotian being defunct heareth me not St. Augustine Non sit nobis Religio cultus hominum mortuorum Let not the worship of persons defunct be our Religion Saint Athanasius Nunguam quispiam precaretur aliquid accipere a Patre Angelis vel ab vllis rebus creatis No man would euer pray to receiue any 〈◊〉 from the Father and from the Angels or from any other creature Thirdly That which the Iesuit affirmeth concerning Aerius and Vigilantius is false for neither of these is ranked among Heretickes by Philastrius Epiphanius St. Augustine or by any of the antient Fathers because they denied Inuocation of Saints departed and Popish Prateolus himselfe maketh not this doctrine any of Aerius his errours and treating of Vigilantius he produceth onely Lindanus and Hosius two most partiall Pontificians affirming him to haue beene condemned of heresie for this cause Wherefore our Aduersarie prooueth himselfe a weake Antiquarie when he affirmeth that Aerius and Vigilantius were condemned of heresie because they denyed Inuocation of Saints deceased Fourthly The Magdeburgians which in the third Centurie obserue Non obscura vestigia c some not very obscure traces or footsteps in the writings of the Doctors of this age concerning Inuocation of Saints speake of the least degree and kind of Inuocation to wit Compellation and besides they probably suspect that suppositious Sentences haue beene inserted into the Bookes of antient Fathers Lastly Ireneus stileth the Virgin Marie The Aduocate of Euah not in regard of her Intercession for Euah and her children after her decease and departure out of the world but because of that which she performed in beleeuing and obeying the heauenly message which the Angel Gabriel brought vnto her Luke 1.38 for hereby she became a blessed Instrument of conceiuing and bearing Christ Iesus and by this obedience the blessed seed was brought into the world by her whereby the fall of Euah and her children was repaired And thus shee was the Aduocate or Comforter of Euah and her children by bearing Christ and not because she was inuocated as a Mediator after her death by Euahs children IESVIT Neither can Protestants denie this to haue beene the Doctrine of the Fathers but seeke to discredit them as if they had been various vncertaine contradictorious in this point But seeing Antiquitie that hath perused their workes now more than 1300 yeeres neuer noted such contradictions in them Christian wisedome and charitie will neuer be so persuaded of the Fathers by Protestants specially their Allegations being such as may easily be explicated so as they make nothing at all against this Catholicke Custome ANSVVER Protestants maintaine that inuocation of Saints can be no Article of Faith although it were manifest that some Fathers liuing since or before the daies of Constantine had beleeued or practised the same for euery Article of Christian Faith must be grounded vpon diuine Reuelation But all opinions of the Fathers are not diuine Reuelation and the holy Fathers do not challenge to themselues infallibilitie of iudgement neither do our Aduersaries yeeld the same vnto them Therefore a surer foundation must be laid to proue Adoration and Inuocation of Saints to be a necessarie duetie than a few scattered opinatiue sentences of Ecclesiasticall writers Neuerthelesse Protestants are able to giue satisfaction concerning the iudgement of Antiquitie in this point And we haue prooued that the eldest Fathers for those ages in which Egesippus saith The Church continued a Virgin taught no such Doctrine Secondly no generall Councel nor yet any particular Councell confirmed by a generall did euer authorise or decree inuocation of Saints as it is now maintained by Papals to haue beene a necessarie duetie or practise Thirdly there be sundrie Principles and other passages in the Bookes of the Fathers by which this doctrine may be confuted IESVIT For all they say in this kind is reduced to these fiue heads First That Saints are not inuocated by Faith as authors of the benefits we craue ANSWER Our Aduersarie hath collected fiue Expositions to elude such testimonies as we produce out of antiquitie First whereas many Fathers treading in the steps of holy Scripture affirme that religious prayer is a proper worship belonging to the sacred Trinitie and by this argument they conclude against the Arians and Macedonians that Christ Iesus and the holy Ghost are verie God because Christians beleeue in them and pray vnto them The Iesuit telleth vs that the Fathers intend only that we may not inuocate creatures by faith as authors of the benefits we craue But if this glosse or solution be sufficient then the Argument of the Fathers concludeth not against the Arians that Christ is God because he is inuocated for the Arian vsing the Iesuits distinction may replie That Christ is inuocated as a Mediator and as
Sacrifices were offered to God onely Exod 22.20 Iud. 13.16.2 Chron. 34.25 so likewise oblations and vowes Deut. 23.21 Leuit. 24.5.6 and as the Lord condemned people of Idolatrie for sacrificing to creatures so the Israelites are reprooued for burning incense to the brasen Serpent 2. Kings 18.4 and to the queene of heauen Ierem. 44.25 This law in respect of the substance is morall and consequently obligeth Christian people as well in case of Oblations as of Sacrifices Now by what authoritie and right the Roman Church can abrogate this law in whole or in part and appropriating Sacrifices to God make prayer vowes Incense and oblations common to God and Saints our aduersaries haue not as yet made remonstrance and the Iesuit in this place alleadgeth no diuine authoritie to giue his Maiestie satisfaction but produceth onely an historicall narration out of S. Augustine and 〈◊〉 who report certaine miracles wrought by God Almightie at the Sepulchres of Martyrs IESVIT I answer if any Catholike should offer to the blessed mother of God by way of sacrifice any the least thing he were seuerely to be rebuked and better instructed for sacrifice is a religious homage due to God onely in which respect the sacrifice of the holy Eucharist is neuer offered vnto any but vnto God in memorie and honour of Saints herein the Collyridians women Priests did erre who did sacrifice a wafer cake vnto the blessed Virgin which kind of worship vnder the title of adoration S. Epiphanius reprooues allowing the Catholike worship as thereby tearming her honourable not for humane or ciuill but for diuine and supernaturall respects True it is that in Catholike countryes people offer vnto Saints lights flowers and cheynes not as sacrifices but as ornaments to set foorth their tombes and shrines wherein they doe not dissent from antiquitie nor from Gods holy will who hath confirmed such deuotions by miracle as diuers Authours worthy of all credit relate particularly S. Augustine by Protestants allowed as the most faithfull witnesse of antiquitie He tells that a woman starke blind recouered her sight by laying to her eyes flowers which had touched the shrine wherein were carried about the Relikes of the most glorious Martyr S. Stephan A more wonderfull example in the same kind he relateth done vpon an old man of good note who being sicke and readie to die did yet very obstinately refuse to beleeue in Christ and leaue his Idolatrie although he was very earnestly mooued thereunto by his children that were zealous Christians His son in law despairing to preuaile by persuasion resolued to goe and pray at the tombe of S. Stephan and hauing performed his deuotions with burning affection with many groanes and 〈◊〉 being to depart tooke with him some flowers that were on the shrine and laid them secretly vnder his father in law his head the night as he went to sleepe Behold the next morning the old man awaking outof his sleepe cryeth out desiring them to come to call the Bishop to baptise him He had his desire he was baptised afterwards as long as he liued he had this prayer in his mouth Lord Iesu receiue my spirit being altogether ignorant that that prayer was the last speech of S. Stephan when he was stoned to death by the Iewes which also were the last words of this happy old man for not long after pronouncing these words be gaue vp his soule Other oblations also Catholikes vse to offer vnto Saints not as sacrifices but as memories and monuments of benefits receiued as pictures of limmes by Saints prayers miraculously cured that therein they doe not deflect from antient Christian deuotion and that the Christian Church in her best times vsed vniuersally to make such oblations Theodoret is a sufficient witnesse who writing against the Gentiles alleadgeth as a manifest signe of Christs Godhead and omnipotencie that Idols being excluded he brought in Martyrs to be honoured in their roome not superstitiously as Gods but Religiously as diuine men inuocating and beseeching them to be Intercessours for them vnto God And those that piously and faithfully pray obtaine what they desire as testifie the oblations which they being therevnto bound by their vowes present in the Chappels of the Saints as tokens of health recouered for some hang vp images of eyes others of eares others of hands some made of gold some of siluer Thus he So generall and so notorious euen vnto Infidells was this Christian deuotion ANSWER Touching the Collyridians I answer that notwithstanding there is some difference in the materiall act betweene Romists and them yet because Epiphanius condemneth not onely externall sacrifice but all Oblation to the blessed virgin and alloweth onely that honour and not adoration shal be yeelded vnto her therefore Prayers incense-offerings and presents to Saints deceased were held vnlawfull in this Fathers dayes Secondly Saint Augustine de Ciuit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. doth not mention any Prayers Oblations Vowes or donatiues offered to Saints and Martyrs but he reporteth what miraculous cures were performed at the toombes of some Martyrs now because these things were extraordinarie and the credit of diuers of them dependeth vpon fame which is many times vncertaine and St. Augustine himselfe saith They are not commended vnto vs by such waightie authoritie as that without all doubt they must needs be credited they cannot be sufficient grounds or foundations of Catholicke Doctrine or Practise Thirdly Theoderit d. cur Graec. Affect lib. 8. saith Wee Oh Grecians neither offer sacrifice to Martirs nor drinke offerings but honour them as holy men and as the friends of God And whereas he further saith That some hang vp the shapes of eyes others of eares c. he meaneth that these were monuments of miraculous cures wrought in those dayes extraordinarily by God at the Sepulchres of Martyrs but he affirmeth not that they were oblations offered to Martyrs And yet the particular practise of some people in those dayes whatsoeuer it was if it haue not ground in Diuine Reuelation cannot raise an Article of Faith or necessarie dutie IESVIT § 8. The Romane Church set formes of Prayer without cause misliked FInally Protestants dislike the circumstance of praying in a set forme vnto Saints and that we appoint a particular office to the blessed Virgin Mary which cannot be proued to haue been vsed in the Primatiue Church ANSVVER THe Romish set formes of Prayers to the Virgin Marie and other Saints deceased are iustly condemned by vs not meerely because they are exercised in a set forme which is accidentall but in respect of the matter and substance of them neither can our Aduersaries demonstrate that such Prayers either in a set forme or by sudden inspiration were vsed in the Primatiue Church for the holy Apostles which are the prime Fathers and founders of that Church prescribed and practised no other forme of Prayer than such as was consonant to their Scriptures and the Churches which
to be that the change is spirituall and mysticall And speaking of the elements of Bread and Wine he affirmeth expresly that our Sauiour deliuered consecrated Bread and Wine to his Disciples If then according to Gaudentius the consecrated signes which Christ deliuered his Disciples were Bread and Wine they were not abstracted shapes and figures of Bread and Wine for where the matter and essence is abolished and the accidents onely remaine there is not the verie thing but a shadow and image thereof onely IESVIT Thirdly the Instrument by which God workes this Transubstantiation is by them acknowledged the most efficacious that may be to wit the word not of man but of God S. Ambrose Moses his word changed the water of Egypt into blood and againe turned them from bloud into water If so great was the benediction of man what may we thinke of diuine Consecration where the verie words of our Sauiour worke The words of Elias had power to bring downe fire from Heauen and shall not the words of Christ haue force to change the kinds of the Elements Againe thou seest how working and efficatious is the word of Christ. If therefore such vertue is in his Word that thereby things that are not receiue being how much more hath it power that the things that are still remaine in the geneall latitude of being and according to the sensible accidents and be conuerted into another substance ANSWER Among the six or seuen examples brought by S. Ambrose of changes only two are substantiall and the rest accidentall and the elements are changed when of common and naturall creatures they are made sacred and become chanels and instruments of sauing grace So the Fathers affirme That the word of Christ in Baptisme is most efficacious to alter the property of naturall water and to giue regeneratiue force and vertue to it Also the holie Scripture affirmeth concerning Euangelicall Doctrine That it is the immortall Seed of God the Word of eternall life the Power of God to saluation c. 1. Pet. 1.29 Act. 5.20 14.3 Rom. 1.16 the same conuerteth people to God Act 2.37 and maketh them new creatures 2. Cor. 5.17 1. Cor. 4.15 But yet from hence we cannot inferre that either the water of Baptisme or regenerate persons are changed by Transubstantiation IESVIT Fourthly The effect of this Transmutation taught by the Fathers is the presence of the substance of Christs bodie and the absence of the substance of Bread binding vs to abnegate our senses and not to beleeue what we seeme to see with our eyes Theophylact Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable creation although to vs it seeme Bread because we are weake and haue horror to eate raw flesh specially the flesh of man for this reason Bread appeareth but in essence and substance it is not Bread S. Cyril Come not therefore as vnto simple Bread and Wine for it is the Bodie and Bloud of Christ according to the affirmation of our Lord for although sense suggest the contrarie yet let Faith confirme thee iudging not of the thing by tast but indubitably and with full Faith beleeue that thou art made partaker of the Bodie and Bloud of Christ. And againe know this and with full certitude beleeue That the Bread seene is not Bread though it so seeme to the tast but the Bodie of Christ and that Wine seene is not Wine though tast iudge it to be so but the Bloud of Christ. ANSWER First the Fathers teach and we with them acknowledge that Christs bodie is mystically present to faithfull communicants 1. Cor. 10.16 But corporall presence by indistance of place and absence of the materiall substance of the elements was not taught by the antiēt Church for they teach That the creatures of Bread and Wine are present in the Eucharist and that after they be changed they nourish the bodie but the abstracted shapes of Bread and Wine are not Gods creatures but Popish fancies Againe they teach that such signes and elements are present as haue power to feed and nourish the bodie and to resemble the mysticall vnion betweene Christ and Christian people to wit Bread confected of many cornes of graine Wine of many grapes but mathematicall Bread and wine haue neither power to nourish neither doe they resemble the mysticall Vnion aforesaid for there is in them onely the shadow of graine and Grapes but no substance and Papists may as well say That painted bread and wine haue power of feeding and mysticall representation as these fictions and Mathematicall shadowes Secondly Cyrill sheweth in other passages of that worke what hee intendeth and meaneth namely That the consecrate bread is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common prophane and meere naturall bread which the sight and taste iudge so to be but sanctified eleuated and changed to supernaturall vse and operation Thirdly If Theophylact a late Writer and some one or two besides speake obscurely and improperly in this Argument what is this to the grounding and raysing of an Article of Faith or to the proouing a matter in question by a common and euident consent of Fathers Fourthly The Fathers exhort people to abnegate their sences in Baptisme wherein they maintaine no Transubstantiation and there is good reason why wee should doe this in the holy Eucharist because wee therein eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Sonne of man Credendo by beleeuing Iohn 6. 35. and not by sensible or corporall eating IESVIT Finally That the Fathers held Transubstantiation is prooued by the continuancie which they taught of Christs bodie in the Sacrament so long as the accidents of bread last as appeareth by their reseruing of the same For Reseruation to haue beene the custome of the Primatiue Church Protestants grant That the Sacrament was of some reserued in the elder dayes of the Church is not saith Master Fulke so great a question as whether it ought to be reserued And Chemnicius granteth that in this point on our side stands 〈◊〉 consuetudinis late patentis diu propagatae And whereas 〈◊〉 addeth Haec tamen veritati praescribere non debet hee accuseth the Primitiue Church and opposeth no lesse against them than vs and I am sure your Maiestie knowes that the Primitiue Fathers did vse to send the Sacrament vnto them that were lawfully absent from Church as doth witnes S. Iustin and vnto the sicke as Dyonisius Alex. writes of Serapion That Christians carryed the same to their priuate houses to take in the morning before other meate as testifieth Tertullian That many times they did weare the same about them for protection as Satyrus brother to S. Ambr. going to sea carryed it in a stole by vertue whereof he was saued in shipwracke That Martyrs had the same frequently with them to receiue it for their Viaticum as Tharsilius a most glorious Martyr who being taken with the
by a voluntatrie and prouisionall Mandate touching Recicide vnlesse you were otherwise proni ad rem bent to mischiefe Et luxato hoc freno and this Paper bridle being broken to broach and inculcate it If this your Masters hand shall cast Crosse in stead of Pile what shall we expect from such Gamesters Quibus ludus sunt capita diademata Regum IESVIT This onely I hope J may with your Maiesties good liking affirme That our Catholicke Doctrine in this Point is nothing so preiuditiall to Princes as are the Opinions of most Caluinists and Lutherans expressed in their Writings whereof we haue in this age but ouer-euident and lamentable examples to the world and your Maiestie not vnknowne And had the Authours of the Gunpowder Treason which from my soule I abhorre kept themselues within the bounds of Catholicke Doctrine they had neuer vndergone that most odious and abominable enterprise ANSWER By a draught of Sea water one may iudge of the brackishnesse of the whole His gratious Maiestie hath tasted alreadie of some fruits of Popish loyaltie and the Gunpowder Treason animalised by Iesuits but now disauowed for it succeeded not is a Watchword for prudent men not to confide in them whom the leuen of Superstition hath sowred But is the wit of a Iesuit growne so barren Haue you no other euasion but by recrimination and that impertinent For as concerning your Flim-flam of Caluinists and Lutherans I answere His Maiestie and the State of England hath felt no such disturbance but haue obserued by long experience that it cannot enter into any true Protestants heart vpon any occasion whatsoeuer to lift vp their heads against the Lords Annointed and if any vnsound or equiuocall member appeare among them diuerse from the true bodie let them receiue censure according to their demerits IESVIT As for the other Question which your Maiestie proposeth particularly to my selfe viz. What I thinke Subiects ought to doe in the case of Papall deposition of their Prince I can giue no better Councell vnto others than what J am resolued to take my selfe First to pray for peace and tranquilitie and true concord betweene both parties Secondly to exhort all to doe all other good offices tending thereunto and rather to suffer with patience than any way concurre to the preiudice of the Prince or disturbance of the Commonwealth Thirdly J doe protest before Almightie God that I would rather offer my selfe to die than any way to bee accessarie to your Maiesties death All which things most sincerely vttered by mee I humbly beg your Maiestie would vouchsafe to receiue as issuing from the conceits and hearts of all my Profession whose institutes particularly commandeth respect and obedience to all in authoritie as in the beginning of this Discourse I made plaine vnto your Maiestie vnto whom wee especially who are your borne subiects doe beare so vnfained affection that we should thinke our selues happie if your Maiestie would vouchsafe but to make tryall thereof not doubting but your Excellent Iudgement would soone discouer vs to be not onely as loyall as any other of your Subiects but more willing to imploy our wits pennes and labours euen with hazard of our liues in performing your Maiesties Commandements than many who inioying the fauour of the time make faire shewes of their owne affections and fidelitie and vncharitably traduce vs as capitall enemies to your Maiestes Person State and Dignitie ANSWER It is needlesse to make many words for if your heart and pen accord testifie the same by taking the Oath of Allegiance and by renouncing the pestilent opinion of Equiuocation therwise your Insinuations and Blandishments are but Maskes and Tectures of latent perfidiousnesse and they which are acquainted with Romish guile must still suspect that you play the Foxe Astutam vapido gestans sub pectore vulpem Ore aliud retinens aliud sub pectore Condens Now concerning this precedent passage let it bee obserued how the Iesuit hath not answered but declined his Maiesties Question And we must hold him to stand mute as one not daring to put himselfe to his Countrey lest he be found guiltie For the question is What ought the subiect to doe in case a Pope depose the King The Iesuits answere is I pray for peace I exhort others I would rather die c. Hansome complements but no securitie If his Holinesse send another wind you which haue vowed strict obedience to the Pope must turne your sailes your Votes and Prayers must bound another way you must exhort others to execute the Popes pleasure and if they and you perish in the Popes quarrell you die Martirs and goe to heauen in a string The IESVITS Conclusion HAuing performed your Maiesties will and pleasure in seeking to giue satisfaction about the Nine principall points that withhold your Royall assent from ioyning vnto the Roman Church my poore indeauours prostrate at your Maiesties feet to receiue their doome humbly beseech this fauor That your charitie and desire of the vnitie of the Church may ioyne together with your excellent Wisdome and Learning to pronounce the sentence Although I be confident that examining Religion by the meere rigour of only Scripture the Catholicke Doctrines would get the victorie more cleare and expresse Testimonies standing on our side than any that Protestants can bring for themselues as by the former Discourse may appeare although also I be much more confident in the Tradition perfect practise of the Church interpreting Scripture which by so full consent deliuers the Roman Doctrines that partialitie it selfe duely pondering can hardly in heart and in wardly iudge against them yet my chiefest hope is in those charitable thoughts and desires of Peace and Vnitie in the whole Christian world which the holy Ghost hath inspired into your Religious brest ANSVVER You deceiue your selfe touching his Maiestie for not onely these Nine points but many other detaine his royal assent from ioyning with the Romane Faith Secondly Your ostentation of proouing these Articles by the meere rigout of sole Scripture is Vanitas Vanitatum A vanitie beyond vanitie for the learned of your owne part acknowledge that many of your Romish Articles are neither expresly nor inuoluedly contained in holy Scripture Neither againe can your Faith subsist if it be tried by Genuine and Orthodoxall Tradition for your selfe in this Treatise wherein you performe as much in substance as your cause will beare haue made no demonstration of any one Article by the Testimonie of perpetuall Tradition and it seemeth to me that you are conscious hereof because in your Conclusion you fall vpon a new Disputation and seeke to inferre a necessitie of reducing all Controuersies to the meere and absolute determination of the Romane Church and Pope who will not faile to be fast friends to themselues IESVIT For suppose that praeconceit instilled into tender minds against them thinke comparing Catholickes with Protestants that Scriptures stand equally on both sides yea sifting
in the second The Conclusion and not the Meanes For the Conclusion must follow the nature of the premisses or Principles out of which it is deduced therefore if they be sometimes vncertaine as is prooued before the Conclusion cannot be infallible Not in the third The Meanes and not the Conclusion For that cannot but be true and necessarie if the Meanes be so And this I am sure you will neuer graunt because if you should you must denie the infallibilitie which you seeke to establish To this for I confesse the Argument is old but can neuer be worne out nor shifted off your great Maister Stapleton who is miserably hampered in it and indeed so are yee all answers That the infallibilitie of a Councell is in the second course that is It is infallible in the Conclusion though it be vncertaine and fallible in the Meanes and proofe of it How comes this to passe It is a thing altogether vnknowne in Nature and Art too That fallible Principles can either father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion Well that is graunted in Nature and in all Argumentation that causes knowledge But wee shall haue Reasons for it First because the Church is discursiue and vses the weights and moments of Reason in the Meanes but is Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Reuelation from the Spirit of God in deliuering the Conclusion It is but the making of this appeare and all Controuersie is at an end Well I will not discourse here to what end there is any vse of Meanes if the Conclusion be Propheticall which yet is iustly vrged for no good cause can be assigned of it If it be Propheticall in the Conclusion I speake still of the present Church for that which included the Apostles which had the Spirit of Prophesie and immediate Reuelation was euer propheticke in the Definition Then since it deliuers the Conclusion not according to Nature and Art that is out of Principles which can beare it there must be some supernaturall Authoritie which must deliuer this Truth That say I must be the Scripture For if you flye to immediate Reuelation now the Enthusiasme must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the verie Exposition of all the Primitiue Church neyther say it nor inforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your Prophesie in the Conclusion I know no other thing can warrant it If you thinke the Tradition of the Church can make the World beholding to you Produce any Father of the Church that sayes this is an vniuersall Tradition of the Church That her Definitions in a Generall Councell are Propheticall and by immediate Reuelation Produce any one Father that sayes it of his owne authoritie That he thinkes so Nay make it appeare that euer any Prophet in that which he deliuered from God as infallible Truth was euer discursiue at all in the Meanes Nay make it but probable in the ordinarie course of Prophesie and I hope you goe no higher nor will I offer at Gods absolute Power That that which is discursiue in the Meanes can be Propheticke in the Conclusion and you shall be my great Apollo for euer In the meane time I haue learned this from yours That all Prophesie is by Vision Inspiration c. and that no Vision admits discourse That all Prophesie is an Illumination not alwayes present but when the Word of the Lord came to them and that was not by discourse And yet you say againe That this Propheticke infallibilitie of the Church is not gotten without studie and Industrie You should doe well to tell vs too why God would put his Church to studie for the Spirit of Prophesie which neuer anie particular Prophet was put vnto And whosoeuer shall studie for it shall doe itin vaine since Prophesie is a Gift and can neuer be an acquired Habite And there is somewhat in it that Bellarmine in all his Dispute for the Authoritie of Generall Councels dares not come at this Rocke He preferres the Conclusion and the Canon before the Acts and the deliberations of Councels and so doe wee but I doe not remember that euer he speakes out That the Conclusion is deliuered by Prophesie or Reuelation Sure he sounded the Shore and found danger here He did sound it For a little before he speakes plainely Would his bad cause let him be constant Councels doe deduce their Conclusions What from Inspiration No But out of the Word of God and that per ratiocinationem by Argumentation Neyther haue they nor doe they write any immediate Reuelations The second Reason why hee will haue it propheticke in the Conclusion is Because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Faith not of Knowledge And that therefore the Church proposing it to be beleeued though it vse Meanes yet it stands not vpon Art or Meanes or Argument but the Reuelation of the Holy Ghost Else when we embrace the Conclusion proposed it should not be an Assent of Faith but a Habit of Knowledge This for the first part That the Church vses the Meanes but followes them not is all one in substance with the former Reason And for the latter part That then our admitting the Decree ofa Councell would be no Assent of Faith but a Habit of Knowledge What great inconuenience is there if it be graunted For I thinke it is vndoubted Truth That one and the same Conclusion may be Faith to the Beleeuer that cannot prooue and Knowledge to the Learned that can And S. Augustine I am sure in regard of one and the same thing euen this the verie Wisedome of the Church in her Doctrine ascribes Vnderstanding to one sort of men and Beleefe to another weaker sort And Thomas goes with him And for further satisfaction if not of you of others this may be considered too Man lost by sinne the Integritie of his Nature and cannot haue Light enough to see the way to Heauen but by Grace This Grace was first merited after giuen by Christ. This Grace is first kindled in Faith by which if wee agree not to some supernaturall Principles which no Reason can demonstrate simply wee can neuer see our way But this Light when it hath made Reason submit it selfe cleares the Eye of Reason it neuer puts it out In which sense it may be is that of Optatus That the verie Catholike Church it selfe is reasonable as well as diffused euerie where By which Reason enlightned which is stronger than Reason the Church in all Ages hath beene able either to conuert or conuince or stop the mouthes at least of Philosophers and the great men of Reason in the verie point of Faith where it is at highest To the present occasion then The first immediate Fundamentall Points of Faith without which there is no saluation they as they cannot be prooued by Reason so neither need they be determined by any Councell nor euer were they attempted they are
so plaine set downe in the Scripture If about the sense and true meaning of these or necessarie deduction out of these prime Articles of Faith Generall Councels determine any thing as they haue done in Nice and the rest there is no inconueuience that one and the same Canon of the Councell should be beleeued as it reflects vpon the Articles and Grounds indemonstrable and yet knowne to the Learned by the Meanes and Proofe by which that deduction is vouched and made good And againe the Conclusion of a Councell suppose that in Nice about the Consubstantialitie of Christ with the Father in it selfe considered is or may be indemonstrable by Reason There I beleeue and assent in Faith but the same Conclusion if you giue me the ground of Scripture and the Creed and somewhat must be supposed in all whether Faith or Knowledge is demonstrable by naturall Reason against any Arrian in the World And if it be demonstrable I may know it and haue a habit of it And what inconuenience in this For the weaker sort of Christians which cannot deduce when they haue the Principle graunted they are to rest vpon the Definition onely and their assent is meere Faith yea and the Learned too where there is not a Demonstration euident to them assent by Faith onely and not by Knowledge And what inconuenience in this Nay the necessitie of Nature is such that these Principles once giuen the vnderstanding of man cannot rest but it must be thus And the Apostle would neuer haue required a man to be able to giue a reason and an account of the Hope that is in him if he might not be able to know his account or haue lawfull interest to giue it when he knew it without preiudicing his Faith by his Knowledge And suppose exact Knowledge and meere Beleefe cannot stand together in the same person in regard of the same thing by the same meanes yet that doth not make void this Truth For where is that exact Knowledge or in whom that must not meerely in points of Faith beleeue the Article or Ground vpon which they rest But when that is once beleeued it can demonstrate many things from it And Definitions of Councels are not Principia Fidei Principles of Faith but Deductions from them 7. And now because you aske Wherein wee are neerer to Vnitie by a Councell if a Councell may erre Besides the Answer giuen I promised to consider which Opinion was most agreeable with the Church which most able to preserue or reduce Christian Peace the Romane That a Councell cannot erre orthe Protestants That it can And this I propose not as a Rule but leaue the Christian World to consider of it as I doe 1. First then I consider Whether in those places of Scripture before mentioned or other there be promised and performed to the present Church an absolute infallibilitie or whether such an infallibilitie will notserue the turne as Stapleton after much wriggling is forced to acknowledge One not euerieway exact because it is enough if the Church doe diligently insist vpon that which was once receiued and there is not need of so great certaintie to open and explicate that which lyes hid in the Seed of Faith sowne and deduce from it as to seeke out and teach that which was altogether vnknowne And if this be so then sure the Church of the Apostles required guidance by a greater degree of infallibilitie than the present Church which if it follow the Scripture is infallible enough though it hath not the same degree of certaintie which the Apostles had and the Scripture hath Nor can I tell what to make of Bellarmine that in a whole Chapter disputes 〈◊〉 Prerogatiues in certaintie of Truth that the Scripture hath aboue a Councell and at last concludes That they may be said to be equally certaine in infallible Truth 2. The next thing I consider is Suppose this not Exact but congruous infallibilitie in the Church Is it not residing according to power and right of Authoritie in the whole Church and in a Generall Councell onely by power deputed with Mandate to determine The places of Scripture with Expositions of the Fathers vpon them make me apt to beleeue this S. Peter saith S. Augustine did not receiue the Keyes of the Church but in the person of the Church Now suppose the Key of Doctrine be to let in Truth and shut out Error and suppose the Key rightly vsed infallible in this yet this infallibilitie is primely in the Church in whose person not strictly in his owne S. Peter receiued the Keyes Here Stapleton layes crosse my way againe He would thrust me out of this Consideration He graunts that S. Peter receiued these Keyes indeed and in the person of the Church but that was because he was Primate of the Church 〈◊〉 therefore the Church receiued the Keyes finally but S. Peter formally that is if I mistake him not S. Peter for himselfe and his Successors receiued the Keyes in his owne Right but to this end to benefit the Church of which he was made Pastor But I am in a Consideration and I would haue this considered where it is euer read That to receiue a thing in the person of another is onely meant finally to receiue it that is to his good and not in his right I should thinke he that receiues any thing in the person of another receiues it indeed to his good and to his vse but in his right too And that the primarie and formall right is not in the receiuer but in him whose person hee sustaines while he receiues it This stumbling-blocke then is nothing and in my Consideration it stands still That the Church in generall receiued the Keyes and all Power signified by them and by the assistance of Gods Spirit may be able to vse them and perhaps to open and shut in some things infallibly when the Pope and a Generall Councell too forgetting both her and her Rule the Scripture are to seeke how to turne these Keyes in their Wards 3. The third thing I consider is Suppose in the whole Catholike Church Militant an absolute infallibilitie in the prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessarie to saluation and that this power of not erring so is not communicable to a Generall Councell which represents it but that the Councell is subiect to error This supposition doth not onely preserue that which you desire in the Church an Infallibilitie but it meets with all inconueniences which vsually haue done and doe perplexe the Church And here is still a remedie for all things For if priuate respects if Bandies in a Faction if power and fauour of some parties if weakenesse of them which haue the managing if any mixture of State-Councels if any departure from the Rule of the Word of God if any thing else sway and wrinch the Councell the whole Church vpon euidence found in expresse Scripture or demonstration of this
Christ to his heauenly Father are thereby made most highly venerable But the Crosse Nailes and Lance were those things which at the instant time of Christs Passion had a residence in Christs bodie and were ioined thereunto as instruments of his Passion and were offered by Christ to his heauenly Father Ergo The Crosse Nailes and Lance are thereby made most highly venerable Both Propositions are false in whole or in part First those things which at the instant time of Christs Passion had a residence in his bodie and were ioined thereunto per contactum phisicum as instruments of his Passion were not thereby made most highly venerable because there is no diuine authoritie or any other snfficient reason to prooue this assertion Secondly these things were seperate instruments and not perpetually conioined to his person and if none did worship them when they were actually conioined there is no reason to thinke that they are to be worshipped being diuided If apparrell when it is ioined to an honourable person may be coworshipped with the person yet when it is diuided from the person and hangeth in a wardrobe or is worne by a Page it is otherwise Whiles God appeared to Moses in the bramble bush the ground whereon Moses stood is called holy Exod. 3.6 But this holinesse being only relatiue transitorie and denominatiue and not inherent or durable the former vision and apparition being finished the ground whereon Moses stood returned to his old condition The like may be said of the water of Iordan considered when Christ was baptised with it and againe considered when his baptisme was finished and out of the vse An Embassador during his embassage is a publicke and honourable person when his office ceaseth the honour consectarie and dependant vpon his office ceaseth also Secondly the latter branch of the assumption to wit the Crosse Nailes and Lance were offered by Christ to his heauenly Father at his Passion is impiously false for nothing was offered by Christ to his heauenly Father at his Passion but himselfe and part of himselfe Heb. 7.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he offered vp himselfe Heb. 9. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through the eternall Spirit he offered himselfe without spot to God c. Heb. 10. 10. Wee are sanctified through the offering of the body of lesus Christ once for all 1. Pet. 2.24 Col. 1.22 Heb. 9.12 By his owne bloud he entred once into the holy place c. 1. Pet. 1. 19. And if the Crosse Nailes and Lance were offered by Christ to his Father then we were redeemed with corruptible things contrarie to the Apostles doctrine 1. Pet. 1. 18 and Wood Nailes and Yron were a part of the propitiatorie Sacrifice for the sinnes of the whole world which is a Iesuiticall or rather an Antijesuine doctrine that is a doctrine ascribing to dead creatures Yron Wood Steele Nailes c. that which is most proper to the pretious blood of Iesus This doctrine maintained by Loiolists is most sacrilegious and more to be abhorred than Iudas his lips But it is fulfilled in these men which Clement Alexandrinus saith of heathen Idolaters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are they not prodigious monsters which adore stockes and stones IESVIT Out of which J may conclude that Christ Iesus being a true man his Image hath a most euident and vndeniable right to represent him and so to be honoured for his sake ANSVVER Conclusions borrow their strength from their premises but the former premises haue no power to inforce this conclusion For although Christ is a true man yet his painted Image wanteth euident and vndeniable right to represent him because such right presupposeth diuine institution The same represents him and stands for him only by humane imagination which is all the Aduersarie is able to prooue but religious worship must haue a more sound and certaine foundation otherwise we must say to Papals when they are thus prodigall in giuing Christs honour to Idols 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioh. 4. 22. ye worship ye know not what If in ciuile worship one should frame an Image or chaire of State in honour of a king and commaund people to kneele and bow to it none will be so foolish as to obey vnlesse such commandement be deriued from the kings authoritie or law But in things religious and heauenly men haue not the same libertie of deuising and commanding as appeareth by Gedeons Ephod Iudg. 8.27 Lastly if it should be granted that artificiall Images did represent figure or teach Christ Iesu by diuine institution as fully as the Bookes of holy Scripture or as the inward conceits and images of the mind yet it were inconsequent to inferre that the same were therefore to be worshipped in such manner as Papals require They were indeed to be vsed with reuerence but reuerent vsing and adoration are diuers actions IESVIT §. 2. THis Worship was euer since the Apostles in the Church without beginning ANSVVER IF it had no beginning how can this man prooue that the Apostles were the Authors IESVIT The disagreeing of Protestants about the time when Worship of Jmages began is a sufficient Argument That there is no beginning thereof assigneable ANSVVER The Iesuits Proposition is Worship of Images hath beene practised in the true Church euer since the Apostles c. His first Argument to confirme this is If Protestants disagree in assigning the time when the worship of Images first began in the Church Then the worship of Images was practised vniuersally and perpetually from the Apostles dayes But Protestants disagree in assigning the time when the Worship of Images first began in the Church Ergo The worship of Images was practised vniuersally and perpetually from the Apostles dayes and consequently the same worship is to be receiued and practised in these dayes First The consequence of the Maior Proposition is denied For is it not ridiculous to argue in this manner Learned Papists disagree in assigning the time when Heathenish Idolatrie first began Therefore Heathenish Idolatrie had his beginning in Paradise But learned Papists Bellarmine Pererius Barradias c. disagree in assigning and pointing foorth the moment of time when Heathenish Idolatrie fist began The time when people first began to offer their sonnes and daughters to diuells is not assigneable And who can certainely report when barbarous people first began to eate mans flesh or when the Assyrian matrons began first to prostitute themselues at the temple of Venus Is it therefore consequent that these customes had their beginning from Noahs dayes because their originall is not assigneable Our aduersaries Achilles therefore Protestants are not able out of approoued Historians to assigne the persons and time who and when began the worship of images in the Church Ergo the said custome is originally from the Apostles rather deserueth contempt and derision than an accurate solution 2. The assumption of the former argument is also denyed For Protestants disagree not in