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
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
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
expressed are sufficient to prooue that the holy Apostles were the Authors or Approuers of all the Scriptures of the New Testament and if these with other humane motiues of credibilitie be not the same doubt which is made concerning them may with greater probabilitie be made concerning vnwritten Traditions And secluding the authoritie of the Scripture it selfe no other diuine testimonie can be produced to satisfie them which are doubtfull touching the veritie of vnwritten Tradition and the authoritie of the present Church If one will not beleeue the Scriptures because of the authoritie of God speaking in them neither will he beleeue the present Church consisting of persons in whom is possibilitie of error IESVIT For we may distinguish three properties of the Doctrine of Faith to wit to be true to be reuealed of God to be preached and deliuered by the Apostles The highest ground by which I am persuaded and resolued that my Faith is true is the authoritie of God reuealing it the highest ground on which I am resolued that my Faith is reuealed is the credit and authoritie of Christ Iesus and his Apostles who deliuered the same as diuine and sacred but the highest ground that mooueth me to beleeue that my Faith was preached by the Apostles is the perpetuall Tradition of the Church succeeding the Apostles that so teacheth me ANSVVER The last part of the former distinction is denied The highest ground meaning diuine which mooueth vs to beleeue that the doctrine of Faith was preached by the Apostles is not the perpetuall Tradition of the Church succeeding the Apostles but the holy Scripture of the New Testament for the perpetuall Tradition of the Church succeeding the Apostles is beleeued because of the authoritie of the said Church and whosoeuer beleeueth that Tradition or Testimonie must first of all know the Church to be an infallible witnesse But the word of God only the greater and most worthie part whereof by our Aduersaries confession is contained in the Scriptures giueth authoritie to the Church for the Church is founded vpon the word of God Eph. 2.20 and the word of God is the immortall seed which produceth and giueth being to the Church Luc. 8.11 Ia. 1.18 it selfe vpon the Apostles 〈◊〉 word and Doctrine which is principally contained in the Scripture 〈◊〉 Into this principle St. Augustine resolued his faith against the 〈◊〉 who pretended the Scriptures were corrupted confuting them by Tradition of the Church affirming that he would not beleeue the Gospell did not the authority of the Catholike Church induce him assigning this as the last stay of his resolution in this point for though he beleeued the Gospel to 〈◊〉 souer aignely certaine and true vpon the authority of God 〈◊〉 it and that it was reuealed of God vpon the authority of the Apostles who as sacred preached it yet that this Gospel as we haue it came incorrupt from the Apostles he could haue no stronger or more excellent 〈◊〉 than the testimony of the present Church descended by continued succession of Bishops from the Apostles neither can we imagine any higher except we flye to particular and to priuate reuelation which is absurd ANSWER St. Augustines words C. Epist. Manichei c. 4. doe not proue that after he was fully conuerted he resolued his faith finally and principally into the authority of the Church succeeding the Apostles First St. Augustine resolued his faith finally and principally into that which he knew to be infallible and totally diuine But he was not so persuaded of the Church succeeding the Apostles because he thought it possible for the principall members of that Church to 〈◊〉 and be deceiued and he prefers the authority of the Scriptures before the iudgement of Councels and Fathers in which some of our aduersaries place the 〈◊〉 of Ecclesiasticall infallibility Moreouer it appeareth by Saint Augustine in the second chapter of this Booke that he did not make the authority of the Church the highest ground of resolution of his faith for he saith that manifest verity is to be preferred before all other tbings whereby he was held in the Catholike Church but that whose authority must be preferred before all other things is the highest ground of faiths resolution Secondly because St. Augustines meaning in this place is obscure and dubious our aduersaries cannot conclude certainely from hence 1. Some Schoolemen hold that he speaketh of acquisite or Historicall Faith which is an introductiō to infused faith and then it is inconsequent to argue that because Saint Augustine at his first conuersion and being a Nouice in Faith did ground his Historicall faith vpon the authority of the Church therefore the authority of the Church is vniuersally and after men are conuerted the highest ground of resolution Most men are at first induced by externall motiues to giue credit to the Scriptures as the people of Samaria were by the testimony of the woman to beleeue that Christ was a Prophet Ioh. 4.42 Altisiodor summa in prolog li. 3. tr 3.9.4 But as these people afterwards beleeued because of Christs owne words so they which by the Churches authority are first persuaded to heare and reade the doctrine of the Scriptures afterwards by the light of grace doe perceiue the diuine Maiestie wisedome efficacie and verity of the said doctrine and resolue their faith into the diuine authority of the holy Ghost manifesting himselfe in the Scripture or doctrine of the Scripture Secondly other learned Papists hold that St. Augustine in the place obiected by the authority of the Church vnderstood the Church wherein the Apostles themselues gouerned and of which they were parts and then no meruaile if he resolued his faith into the authority of the Church because in this notion the Church comprehends the Colledge of the Apostles whose testimony concerning the Scripture was altogether Diuine And although St. Augustine conioyneth the authority of the latter Church with the former wherein were the Apostles yet he did not equally and with the same manner of beleeuing ground his faith vpon both for when a Preacher deliuereth Apostolicall doctrine we beleeue both the Preacher and the Doctrine and we could not haue knowne the doctrine but by the Preacher yet we resolue not our faith finally and principally into the authority of the Preacher but into the diuine verity it selfe preached by him Euery thing by which we are mooued to beleeue and without whose authority we should not haue beleeued is not the principall obiect whereunto diuine faith is finally resolued as appeareth by miracles preaching instruction of Parents c. IESVIT Vpon the former place of Saint Augustine the Iesuit inferreth That because we haue no stronger or more excellent proofe than the testimonie of the present Churcb descended by continuall succession of Bishops from the Apostles to confirme that the Gospell as wee haue it came incorrupt from the Apostles therefore Saint Augustine resolued his faith that
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
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
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
much as one day till the consummation of the world ANSWER The place of Saint Matthew chapter 28. 19 20. prooueth First that the holy Apostles receiued a Commission and Mandate from Christ to preach the Gospell to all nations both Iewes and Gentiles and to baptise them In the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost Marke 16. 15 16. Luke 24.27 Acts 1.8 Rom. 1.14 Secondly that our Sauiour promised his Apostles a perpetuall presence and assistance of his diuine power and grace both in regard of the gifts of edification Acts 2. 4. And in respect of the grace of inward sanctification Iohn 17.17 Thirdly because the Apostles were mortall and not to remaine alwayes personally vpon earth and other Pastors must succeed in the office of Ministerie the promise of Christ touching his spirituall presence and assistance of grace is extended to these successours and when they teach and baptise in such manner as Christ commanded diuine grace is present to their Ministeriall actions and the holy Ghost co-worketh with them Fourthly But yet succeeding Pastors receiued not the same measure of diuine Grace with the Apostles neyther had they immediate and Propheticall reuelation but onely a measure of Grace ordinarie mediate and in some sort conditionall Also the said Promise Matth. 28. 20. was common and equall to all the Apostles and to the successors of one Apostle as well as of another to the successors of Saint Iames and Saint Iohn c. as well as to the successors of Saint Peter Fifthly Notwithstanding the said promise Bishops and Pastors succeeding the Apostles were in respect of themselues subiect to errors and their iudgement in matters of Faith was not absolutely infallible like the Apostles but so farre forth onely as they walked in the footsteps and followed the Doctrine deliuered by the Apostles Our Sauiour promised that he would be alwayes with the Apostles euen to the consummation of the World partly in their personall Teaching whiles they themselues liued in the World and partly in their permanent Doctrine contained in the Scriptures of the New Testament when the same was truly deliuered by their successors And he will be also with succeeding Pastors all Ages according to such a measure of Grace and assistance as is sufficient for the edifying of the Church if they for their owne part be studious to learne diuine Truth from the holy Apostles and carefull to preach the same to others But his promise concerning immunitie from error and mortall offences is not so absolute to successors as it was to the Apostles themselues Sixtly Many antient Expositors affirme That the Promise of Christ Matth. 28.20 is especially made to the iust and faithfull and some of them say to the Elect onely And Occham affirmeth That if there should be found in the whole World but one Orthodox Bishop or but one such Priest and a small number of Lay people professing right Faith in Articles essentiall and willing to embrace all other Diuine Vertie when the same should be manifested vnto them this were sufficient to make good Christ his Promise Matth. 28.20 In the next passage our Aduersarie inferreth and deriueth certaine Propositions from the former Text of Matth. 28. 20. First hee saith There is still a Christian Church all dayes not wanting so much as one day in the World till the consummation thereof I answer That there is still in the World a common Christian Church wherein some beleeuers hold the substance of right Faith But there is not perpetually in the World a Church the more potent and maior part whereof beleeueth and professeth right Faith without error in all points and so infallible in all her Doctrine as was the Primitiue Church which enioyed the immediate and actuall preaching of the Apostles IESVIT Secondly This Church is euer visible and conspicuous For the Church which alwayes teacheth and christeneth all Nations to which Christ saith I am alwayes with you not with you sitting in corners or hidden vnder ground but with you exercising the Office enioyned you in the words precedent Docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos c. ANSWER The Church is euer visible according to some degree of visibilitie but this Scripture teacheth not that the true Church is alwayes largely and gloriously visible The same doth not actually in euerie Age teach and christen all Nations and the Roman Church for sundrie Ages past teacheth and christeneth few or none within Natolia and other large Prouinces liuing in subiection to the Grand Seignior or Emperour of Constantinople And as Christ doth not say verbally in this Text I am alwayes with you sitting in corners so he doth not say I am alwayes with you when you are carryed vpon mens shoulders and tread vpon Emperours neckes and diuide and share the Kingdomes of the World and gather endlesse Riches by selling Pardons and preaching Purgatorie But yet of the two it is farre more agreeable to the Diuine Goodnesse who is a Father of the poore and oppressed to be present to his little flocke in persecution and when it flyeth as a Lambe from the Wolfe and hideth it selfe from the Oppressor Apoc. 12. 14 than that hee hath entayled his perpetuall presence vpon ambitious and oppressing Tyrants which stiled themselues Pastors and were rauening Wolues Scribes and Pharisees imposing insupportable burthens vpon others and not moouing them with one of their owne fingers And there is no cause why the good God which was present with Daniel in the Lyons Denne and with Ionas in the Whales Belly and with Ioseph in the Dungeon and with Iob vpon the Dunghill should in the dayes of the oppressing Antichrist withdraw his presence and assistance from his poore flocke yea although it were sitting in corners and hidden vnder ground IESVIT Thirdly This Church is euer Apostolicall for to his Apostles Christ said I am alwayes with you vntill the consummation of the World not with you in your owne persons but with you in your successors in whom you shall continue to the Worlds end Ergo a lawfull companie of Bishops Pastors and Doctors succeeding the Apostles must be perpetually in the World ANSVVER First The Church may be called Apostolicall because of Faith Plantation and Externall Ordination of Pastors According to Faith and Doctrine in all the maine and substantiall Articles the true Church is euer Apostolicall In regard of Plantation the Primitiue Church was Apostolicall because it was immediately planted and watered by the holy Apostles But Tertullian affirmeth That many particular Churches were not thus planted by Apostles or Apostolicall persons and yet they were truly Apostolicall by reason of consanguinitie of Doctrine with the holy Apostles According to the third manner to wit in respect of Externall Ordination and Imposition of Hands receiued from Bishops lineally succeeding the Apostles a false and corrupt Church may be Apostolicall as I haue formerly prooued And it is
not impossible for a true Church to succeed or come out of a false or for a corrupt Church to reforme it selfe And if this happen there is required no new Ordination of Pastors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any Miracles to confirme their Vocation but they which 〈◊〉 ordained in a corrupt Church returning to the right Faith and worship of God make their former Ordination more legitimate holy and effectuall The Iesuit in the words ensuing collecteth from our Sauiours promise I will be with you c. that there must euer bee a companie of Bishops and Pastours succeeding the Apostles because Christ said to them and their successours I will bee with you c. But if this collection be good then euerie one of the Apostles must haue Bishops Pastours and Doctours succeeding them in right faith to the end of the world for Christ spake to them all in generall and also distributiuely to euerie of them c. But the Papals themselues at this day exclude all the successours of other Apostles excepting Saint Peter Neither yet doth our Sauiour limit his presence and assistance to generall Councels or definitiue sentences of Popes but hee speaketh of Preaching and Baptising and therefore if his presence with Pastours and Bishops doe free them from all errour it must free them in Preaching and writing Bookes as well as sitting in Councell Also they to whom Christ is alwayes present are not of infallible iudgement or free from errour in all matters but onely from damnable and malicious errour as appeareth by Saint Cyprian Saint Augustine and all the elect of God Wherefore this promise in regard of the perfection thereof did appertaine to the Apostles themselues and in regard of the veritie of it and for such a measure of assistance as is necessarie to constitute a number of faithfull people more or lesse in euery age to serue Christ truely in the substance of faith and pietie it is fulfilled alwayes euen to the end of the world But because our Aduersaries insist so much vpon this Text to raise their visible and personall succession I will reduce the Argument which they draw out of it into forme and then accommodate mine Answere If Christ will be with his Apostles all dayes to the end of the world then the Apostles not continuing aliue themselues they must remaine in Bishops Pastours and Doctours locally and personally succeeding them to the end of the world But the first is true Ergo c. First if the consequence of this Argument were good then all and euerie one of the Apostles must continue allwayes to the consummation of the world in Bishops Pastours and Doctours lineally succeeding them which Papals themselues denie Secondly lineall and personall succession is not the sole meanes by which the Apostles after their decease remaine in the world but they remaine also in the world by their Scriptures and also by the faith of Beleeuers receiuing and obeying their doctrine Thirdly that which is promised vpon condition is not absolute vntill the condition be fulfilled The presence of Christ is promised to the Apostles successours conditionally and as they were one with the Apostles by imitation and subordination that is so farre as they walked in their steps and conformed their Doctrine and Ministerie to the patterne receiued from them But successours did not alwayes performe this condition neither did the promise inable them to doe it without their owne care and indeuour which was contingent and separable and therefore many times deficient Fourthly Christs presence alwayes to the consummation of the world with some Bishops Pastours and Doctours lineally succeeding the Apostles prooueth not that these Bishops and Pastours cannot erre in any part of their Doctrine for then no particular Bishops hauing Apostolicall ordination could fall into any errour but it sheweth onely that Christ co-operates with them in such Ministeriall duties and actions as they performe according to his Ordinance And when they preach his Doctrine and administer his Sacraments hee himselfe will adde vertue and grace to their actions being duly performed IESVIT Fourthly this Church is vniuersall 〈◊〉 in mundum vniuersum Marc. 16. 15. where I will be alwayes with you ANSWER The true Church is vniuersall according to the manner formerly declared But the Argument taken out of Saint Marke 16.15 prooueth not that it is euer actually vniuersall in respect of place and multitude of professours For as it followeth not that because Christ said he would be with Saint Paul when he preached at Corinth Act. 18.10 therefore he will be euer at Corinth So likewise it is inconsequent to inferre Christ said he would be present in all places of the world with the Apostles when they baptised and preached as he commanded them Ergo he will alwayes be present in those places although their successours neglect his commandement Is God euer in the dungeon in Egypt because he was euer there whilst Ioseph a iust person continued in prison The promise of spirituall presence is annexed to the worke of Preaching and Baptising wheresoeuer it is performed according to the Diuine Ordinance but that which in some ages hath beene done in many places may at other times be performed in few IESVIT Fiftly the Church is one not diuided into parts because it teacheth and beleeueth vniformely all that Christ deliuered and commanded without factions Sects or parts about matters of faith ANSWER It is not affirmed neither can it be concluded out of Mat. 28. that the visible Church in all ages of the world teacheth and beleeueth either vniformely or expresly and distinctly all that Christ deliuered or commanded and in the same Churches which were planted by the Apostles there was discord among infirme Christians 1. Cor. 1.11 IESVIT Sixtly this Church is alwayes holy for doctrine neuer deliuering or teaching any falshood I who am the truth am alwayes with you teaching all nations Holy also for life Christ the Holy of Holies assisting and making her able to conuert Infidels which it could not well doe without signes and tokens of wonderfull sanctitie at the least in her more eminent Preachers ANSVVER Although the true Church is alwaies holy for Doctrine yet it is not perfectly and in the highest degree euer so And it is most inconsequent to argue Christ which is the Truth is euer with the Church Ergo the Church cannot erre or teach any falshood for Christ is alwaies with the faithfull Ephes. 3. 17. yet iust and faithfull people may erre Because Christ was with the Apostles by miraculous inspiration therefore they could not erre or deliuer any falshood great or small but he is present with the sounder part of the Church militant since the Apostles by ordinarie grace and assistance which freeth the same from damnable and malicious errour but not from all errour And this assistance of Grace is greater or lesse according to the good pleasure of Christ and the disposition of his people which are
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
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
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
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
prime foundation of Christianitie is Christ himselfe 1. Cor. 3. 11. 1. Pet. 2.6 The Church is the seruant and Spouse of Christ the House of God whereof Christ himselfe is the grand Lord and Builder But wee haue learned in the Gospell That the seruant is not greater than his Lord Ioh. 13. 16. Hereupon S. Augustine Enchyrid cap. 56. Good order requireth that the Church be placed after the Trinitie as an House after the Inhabiter his Temple after God and the Citie after the Founder And if the Aduersarie replie That although it be a lesse Article in regard of the Obiect yet the denyall thereof is of greater consequence because it maketh men guiltie of Heresie c. I answere Granting that the denyall of the whole Article being rightly expounded maketh men Heretickes but I denie that a Christian which beleeueth this Article is no Hereticke if hee beleeue and maintaine any Errour against the plaine Doctrine of the holy Scripture which hee knoweth or which hee is bound Necessitate 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 to know beleeue and maintaine Saint Hierom vpon the Galathians saith Whosocuer to wit in waightie points vnderstandeth the Scriptures otherwise than the sence of the holy Ghost whereby they were written requireth may bee called an Hereticke although hee depart not out of the Church Tertullian saith Whatsoeuer in points Diuine and Sacred is repugnant to Veritie is Heresie Albertus saith Hee is an Hereticke which followeth his owne opinion and not the iudgement of the Scripture Occham Hee is an Hereticke which with a pertinacious minde imbraceth any Errour the contradictorie doctrine whereof is contained in holy Scripture Two things constitute an Hereticke First Errour and false Doctrine as the materiall Secondly Malicious and pertinacious adhearing to the same or defending the same as the formall A man may haue both these without any explicite denying the Article of the Catholicke Church For the Trueth which hee gainesayeth may be plainely deliuered in the holy Scripture and hee may reade the same and haue sufficient meanes to know it in the Scripture and maliciously or inordinately resist the holy Ghost speaking by the Scriptures Act. 7.51 Our Sauiour condemneth some for Heretickes calling them false Prophets Murtherers and Theeues Mat. 7.15 Ioh. 10.5 Not because they opposed the present Church for some of these were principall Rulers of the Iewish Church Mat. 23.1 but because they taught and beleeued contrarie to the Scriptures Mat. 22.29 Saint Augustine d. Bapt. c. Don. li. 4. c. 16. speaketh not altogether as the Iesuit 〈◊〉 him but saith onely That hee would not affirme of such a person who being baptised in the 〈◊〉 Church beleeued as Photinus the hereticke did supposing the same to be Catholicke Faith that he was an hereticke he absolutely affirmeth not that such a person was no Hereticke but that hee would not pronounce him an Hereticke before hee was conuicted And hee speaketh of Heretickes not as they were in foro coeli according to the iudgement of God but in foro Ecclesiae according to Ecclesiasticall Censure Neither doth hee speake of persons sufficiently conuicted by plaine euidence of holy Scripture and maliciously and inordinately resisting the Truth but of simple Errants misled and seduced through ignorance or infirmitie Doctor Field whose learned Treatise of the Church is nibbled at by Papists but yet remaines vnanswered by them is censured by this Obiectour for saying without any Proofe that an Errant against a fundamentall point is an Hereticke though he erre without pertinacie But the Iesuit reporteth amisse when hee saith Doctor Field deliuered this Assertion without Proofe for in the Margine of his Booke he confirmeth the same by the testimonies of Gerson and Occham two famous Doctors of the Roman Church And it is remarkeable that the Iesuit censuring the Doctour himselfe produceth no Argument out of diuine Authoritie to confirme his owne Position but resteth onely vpon the single testimonie of one Father which as I haue alreadie shewed speaketh not to his purpose IESVIT Hence Jinferre that Protestants erre fundamentally according to the second kind of erring to wit in the manner in all points they hold against the Romane Church which I haue prooued to be the true Catholicke Church For he that holds any priuate opinion so stiffely as rather than forsake them he denyes and abandons the Catholike Church a mayne Article of his Creed erreth fundamentally as is cleare But Protestants hold their priuate opinions so stifly as thereupon they haue denied and abandoned the Catholicke Church to wit the Romane ANSWER The mayne Proposition of this Section to wit Protestants 〈◊〉 fundamentally according to the second kinde of erring c. is denied and the Assumption of the Syllogisme whereby the Obiectour laboureth to prooue the same is palpably vntrue For Protestants maintaine no priuate opinion either stiffely or remissely whereby they haue denied and abandoned the true Catholicke Church First They maintaine no doctrine as matter of Faith but that which is deliuered in holy Scripture and which consenteth with the Primitiue Church either expresly or virtually But such doctrine is not priuate opinion because the holy Ghost which is the supreame gouernour and directour of the Church and the Prophets and Apostles which were inspired from heauen are the Authours thereof Secondly The Romane Church is not the Catholicke Church but an vnsound part of the generall visible Church as it is prooued by the Learned of our part whereunto the Aduersaries haue as yet made no replie IESVIT Neither doth it import that they retaine the word hauing reiected the sence seeing not the letter of the Creed pronounced but the matter beleeued makes men Christians Neither is it enough to say that they beleeue the Church of the Elect seeing the Church of the Creed is not the Church of the onely Elect a meere fancie but the visible and conspicuous Church continuing from the Apostles by sucsion of Bishops which thus I prooue ANSWER We retaine both the words and the sence of the Article and the Catholicke Church in the Apostles Creed in respect of the militant part thereof is a Church of right beleeuers and especially of iust and holie persons and principally and intentionally and as it comprehendeth both the militant and triumphant the congregation of all the elect for this Church is the mysticall and liuing bodie which Christ saueth Ephes. 5. 23. It is the Church of the first borne which are written in Heauen Heb. 12.23 It is the Church builded vpon the Rocke against which the gates of Hell shall not preuaile either by Haeresie Temptation or mortall Sinne Math. 16. 18. Math. 7.24 And if it be a meere fancie to hold this then Gregorie the Great with many other of the antiēt Fathers were fantasticks for teaching in this manner But the Church of the Creed is not alwaies the Church Hierarchicall for the Church in the
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
for imitation Romists also haue yet a farther slight in their Checkstone trickes of beades forsooth to blesse and sanctifie them by the touch of Relickes or by the Popes benediction that such trash may be sold the dearer by their pettie Chapmen THE SIXT POINT THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSVBSTANTIATION IESVIT YOur Excellent Maiestie submitting your Iudgement vnto Gods expresse word doth firmely beleeue the body of Christ to be truely present in the most venerable Sacrament of the Altar which Doctrine doth naturally and necessarily infer whatsoeuer the Church of Rome holds as matter of Faith concerning the manner of his presence ANSVVER HIs Sacred Maiestie a true defendour of the antient Catholicke and Apostolicke Faith to his immortall praise submitteth his iudgement in this and in all other articles to the expresse word of God reuealed from Heauen by the holy Ghost and externally preached and penned by the Prophets and Apostles And concerning the sacred Eucharist he firmely beleeueth that in the holy vse thereof the verie Bodie and Bloud of Christ are truely really and effectually presented and communicated to all faithfull and worthie Receiuers But that the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation to wit that after consecration the substance of bread and wine is abolished and the shapes accidents and quantitie thereof onely remaine or that the Bodie and Bloud of Christ are inclosed substantially and corporally vnder the accidentall formes before participation or that dogs and swine truely eat the flesh and drinke the bloud of the sonne of man he cannot beleeue vntill demonstration be made that this Faith is taught by Gods expresse word and was antiently beleeued by the true Catholique Church IESVIT To declare this and together answer an obiection much vrged by some Protestants That they beleeue the bodie of Christ to be in the Sacrament but say they are not bound to beleeue the manner that not being expressed in Scripture ANSWER When the substance of a point is reuealed and the distinct and particular manner concealed it is sufficient to beleeue the former without searching into the latter And not only some Protestants but the Fathers also and some learned Pontificians deliuer thus much concerning the sacred Eucharist Bandinus and the master of the Sentences say Touching the manner of conuersion in the Sacrament some affirme one way and some another c. We say with S. Augustine This mysterie is safely beleeued but not with safetie searched into Cyrill of Alexandria We ought firmely to beleeue the holy mysterie but let vs neuer in matters thus sublime so much as imagine to vtter the manner how And againe The manner how this is done can neither be conceiued by the mind nor expressed by the tongue Theophilact When we heare these words of Christ vnlesse yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man c. Wee ought firmely to beleeue the same and not enquire after what manner And with these agreeth Caluin sup Ephes. 5.32 IESVIT We must note that men are bound firmely to beleeue the manner of a mysterie reuealed when the same belongs to the substance thereof so that reiecting the manner we reiect the beleefe of the substance of the mysterie This is euident and may be declared by the example of the mysterie of the Incarnation the substance whereof is That in Christ Iesus the nature of God and the nature of man are so vnited that God is truely man and man is verily God The manner of this mysterie is ineffable and incomprehensible yet we are bound to beleeue three things concerning it which if we denie we deny the mysterie in substance howsoeuer we may retaine the same in words First that this vnion is not onely metaphoricall by affection as two persons that are great friends may truely be said to be all one but also true and reall Secondly this reall vnion of Natures is substantiall and not accidentall so that thereby the nature of man is not only accidentally perfected by receiuing excellent participations of the diuine nature power wisdome and maiestie but also substantially the verie fulnesse of the Godhead dwelling corporally and substantially in him Thirdly this substantiall vnion is not according to the Natures so that the nature of God and the nature of man become one and the same nature as Eutiches taught but hypostaticall whereby God and man became one and the same person These particulars about the manner of the Incarnation though high and subtile and imcomprehensible to reason Christians may and must beleeue because they belong to the substance of the mysterie and are declared by the Church in generall Councells though the vulgar be not bound explicitly to know them ANSWER When the distinct and speciall manner is reuealed and belongeth to the forme and being of an Article we are obliged to inquire and firmely to beleeue the same according to the instance giuen about the personall vnion But when the same is not distinctly and plainely reuealed nor of the substance of the mysterie it is more safe according to the holy Scripture and Fathers to be ignorant of that which is abstruse and hidden than to be curious beyond our modell Exod. 19. 17. Pro. 25.27 Act. 1.7 Rom. 12.3 1. Cor. 4.6 Col. 2.18 Touching things inscrutable S. Chrysostome saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is better to be soberly ignorant than naughtily intelligent S. Hierom Melius est aliquid nescire securè quam cum periculo discere it is better to be ignorant of some things with safetie 〈◊〉 to seeke to learne them with perill S. Augustine Melior est fidelis ignorantia quam temeraria scientia and Iustine Martyr It is the part of euerie prudent and pious man in matters diuine sometimes to giue the wall to that which exceedeth his modell S. Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The verie Cherubims vaile their faces when it is come thus farre Saluianus in like manner saith Sacriligae temeritatis quoddam genus est si plus scire cupias quam sinaris It is sacrilegious temeritie to couet to know that which thou art not permitted But the questions of Theologie which are de modo concerning the distinct manner in many cases want sufficient grounds in diuine Reuelation to vnfold them and therefore in things of this nature humble scilence is more safe than temerarious definition IESVIT Jn this sort we say That the manner how our Sauiours bodie is in the Sacrament of his last supper must be beleeued and may not be denied as farre as it concernes the verie life being and substance of the mysterie reuealed which mysterie in substance is That the Bodie of Christ is present in the Sacrament in such sort that the Priest Minister thereof demonstrating what seemeth bread may truely say thereof in the person of Christ This is my Bodie This supposed as the substance of the Mysterie I inferre that two Catholicke Doctrines concerning the manner of this Mysterie
probabilitie be alleadged in fauour of reall Presence by Consubstantiation than for Transubstantiation Lastly The mysticall vnion betweene Christ and his members is ineffable and the manner incomprehensible and the Protestant Doctrine teaching a reall donation of the bodie and blood of Christ and a mysticall coniunction by the operation of the holy Ghost with the soules of faithfull Receiuers and that dead and corruptible creatures can be a meanes and instrument heereof is a great mysterie of godlinesse incredible to prophane persons and therefore the Primitiue Church which beleeued this Doctrine might iustly require that this Mysterie should not be manifested before Infidels and other infirme Christians vntill they were first instructed in the rudiments of Christianitie IESVIT Yea the Fathers did not feare to declare vnto Catechumens this Sacrament so farre as it was commemoratiue of Christ and his Passion as appeareth by the Treatises of Saint Augustine vpon Saint Iohn made before Catechumens out of which Treatises Protestants for their meere commemoratiue presence alleadge many Sentences to little purpose For he there explicates spirituall manducation by Faith and he excludes the grosse imagination of eating Christs bodie in his proper shape tearing it in pieces with the tooth but denies not yea rather insinuates another kind of spirituall manducation not onely by Faith but by reall sumption though to conceale the Mysterie from Catechumens he speakes not so clearely thereof Wherefore as the Palme tree the heauier the waight is that is laid vpon it the more it riseth vpwards as it were ioying in difficulties so a true Catholicke Christian feeling in the doctrine of Transubstantiation many seeming absurdities that presse carnall imagination to the ground groweth thereby more strong to beleeue it imbracing these difficulties as manifest signes that this doctrine was beleeued by the Primitiue Apostolicall Church On the other side Protestants finding the Presence of Christs body by Faith to be deuoyd of such difficulties may by the very lightnesse thereof suspect it is not the doctrine which the Fathers concealed from Jnfidells as more absurd to humane Imagination than any other mystery of Christian Religion ANSWER You obiect that the Fathers declared to Catechumens that is to Nouices in Christianitie a commemoratiue presence in the holy Eucharist but not a corporall presence by Transubstantiation and from hence you would inferre that the Fathers held two kinds of Presences of Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist the one soly spirituall by intellectuall apprehension the other corporall by reall sumption of Christs body into the mouth and stomacke of the receiuer and you pretend that S. Augustine was of this iudgement But you must remember that you are not now to deale with Aduersaries which will credite your bare words and proofes you haue none Therefore I answer First that the Fathers taught no other kind of Presence to them which were baptised and receiued the holy Eucharist than to Catechumens or vnbaptised Christians although they instructed the one sort more fully than the other Secondly S. Augustine teacheth not that Christs body is receiued inuisibly insensibly and according to the nature of a spirit by the mouth and stomacke of each Communicant but he teacheth onely two kinds of manducation in the Sacrament one both corporall and spirituall wherein the body of man receiueth the externall elements of Bread and Wine and the soule receiueth the true body and bloud of Christ by faith the other corporeall onely wherein the receiuer partaketh the outward signe and not the thing signified Panem Domini non panem Dominum the visible Sacrament of Christs body but not his very body and he affirmeth not vpon the sixt chapter of S. Iohn That a malicious sinner continuing such receiueth the very body and blood of Christ. Thirdly Protestants beleeue not onely a commemoratiue but also an exhibitiue presence of the thing signified together with the outward signe according to the manner formerly declared pag. 405. and this Presence is mysticall and such as may seeme incredible to vnbelceuers because of sundry difficulties repugnant to common sence to wit That Christs flesh by the vnspeakeable power of the holy Ghost should be after a sort incorporated into the soule and that corruptible and dead creatures should be eleuated and made effectuall instruments to apply and communicate Iesus Christ and the vertue of his death to faithfull Communicants IESVITS 2. Consideration This consideration is drawne from the qualitie of the difficulties obiected against this Mysterie which be such as a Christian in honour should neglect them For if it be the part of a prudent and intelligent man not to permit Imagination to preuaile against his Reason What a disgrace is it for a Christian that his faith should be conquered by these kind of difficulties For that the seeming absurdities of this misterie be not in respect of naturall Reason but meerely of Jmagination may hence appeare that some naturall truths be in a manner as difficile and incredible which will be seene if we compare the foure aboue mentioned difficulties with the difficulties some truths euident in nature haue ANSWER When difficulties obiected arise from experience of sence and principles of nature and there is no expresse or manifest word of God sufficient to mooue vs to beleeue the contrarie it is the part of each intelligent and prudent man rather to credite that which is apparent to sence and common reason than to beleeue Paradoxes vpon no true ground and reason IESVIT First we cannot imagine that the whole body of Christ can be contained in the compasse of a small Hoast But it is not more incredible that in a thing of small quantititie for example the wing of a Flye there should be so many parts as vnfolded and laid together would couer the whole face of the world both of heauen and earth And yet it is demonstrable in Philosophy That euen in the wing of a Flye there are so many parts as broad and long as the wing though still thinner and thinner that Almightie God separating and vnfolding them may therewith couer the whole world For certaine it is that some finite number of such parts so separated each of them as long and as broad as a Flyes wing would couer the face of the whole world certaine also it is That the wing of the Flye is still diuisible into more and more such parts so that no finite number is assignable but God may still separate from that wing a greater number without any end therefore it is certaine that in the wing of a Flye there is so much quantity as is sufficient to couer the face of the whole world both of heauen and earth if God would but separate and vnfold the same Is not this Secret of Philosophy as incredible to carnall Imagination as the being of Christs body within a small Hoast Wee that cannot comprehend things we see with eyes and feele with hands certainely we shall haue much adoe
Church assembled in Gods feare and not factiously for their owne ends shall iudge aright than Popes which referre all things to their owne worldly ends Also it is one thing to contradict a Church defining and speaking of it selfe and another when it deliuereth the doctrine of Christ. Now whensoeuer the preaching of the Church is according to the rule of holy Scripture the voice thereof is the voice of Christ and all people learned and vnlearned are bound to heare and obey the same IESVIT If wetake out of the world a Church infallible whence shall ignorant men learne which is the Doctrine of saluation the Apostles deliuered It is as euident as the Sunne shining at noone day and the euidence of the thing hath forced some Protestants to acknowledge That the Controuersies of Religion in our time are growne in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue time and leasure fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them so that nothing remaines for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the societies of men in the world is the Church of the liuing God the Pillar and ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her Communion follow her Directions rest in her Iudgement ANSWER If the rule be infallible and the Preaching of Pastours according to that rule ignorant persons by the assistance of Grace may learne the doctrine of saluation from their teaching without the least thought or reference more to the Romane Church than to any other Church for although Saint Augustine and Saint Cyprian were subiect to errour yet the vnlearned people of Hippo and Carthage receiued right Faith by their Ministerie with assurance that the same descended from the Apostles And it is as euident as the Sunne shining that the Word of Christ is the sole authenticall ground of Faith and the onely infallible rule to decide Controuersies and the Pastours of other Churches if they vse the meanes and haue sufficient knowledge and the assistance of ordinarie Grace may bee as infallible in their Doctrine as Romane Prelates And although vnlearned people depend vpon their Pastours like sicke men vpon their Physitions yet where they inioy the free vse of the holy Scripture as in antient times all people did and if they be carefull of their owne saluation and desire to know the truth God blesseth his owne ordinance and ordinarily assisteth them by his grace in such sort as that they shall not be seduced to damnation Math. 24.24 And if they be distracted in smaller points by the dissentions of Teachers their Errour in this case is excuseable But howsoeuer the Roman Church can be no greater stay to them than other Churches but onely by leading them to a blind obedience like as Pagans are led in another kind Dr. Fields testimonie concerning the necessitie of learning which is the true Church the ground and Pillar of Truth c. serueth not to prooue That the definition of any moderne Church is absolutely and vniuersally the rule of Faith and supreame Iudge of all Controuersies or free from all Errour for this learned Diuine speaketh of the Catholike Church in generall as it containes the holy Apostles and those which succeeded them in all ages in the teaching of the doctrine which they deliuered to the world And concerning the present Church he ascribeth no more vnto it but to be a manuduction and guider to sauing veritie confirmed and grounded vpon the holy Scripture neither maketh he the authoritie and definition thereof absolute but dependant vpon the word of God IESVIT Jf there be no Church besides the Roman in the world that can with any colour pretend infallibilitie of Iudgement Jf the most part of men cannot by their examining of Controuersie be resolued in faith and therefore must perish eternally except they find a Church that is an infallible Mistresse of truth in whose iudgement they may securely rest certainely those that haue bowells of charitie will accept of any probable answer vnto Protestants Obiections and accusations rather than discredit the authoritie of so necessarie a Church which being discredited no Church remaines in the world of credit sufficient to sustaine the waight of Christian that is infallible beleefe ANSWER Vnlearned people must relye vpon the Ministerie of some moderne Church not as a ground and rule of their faith but as an helper of their faith and although the Ministerie of the Church whereupon they depend is not absolutely infallible or free from Errour yet their saluation is not by this meanes impeached neither doe they perish eternally For it is not necessarie That a Church subiect to errour as Hippo Carthage Lions c. in the dayes of S. Augustine S. Cyprian S. Ireneus shall at all times actually erre or grieuously erre at any time and when it deliuereth the doctrine of holy Scripture it is herein free from errour and Christian people by comparing the doctrine thereof with the Scripture may certainely know that it erreth not Act. 17. 11. And touching the Roman Church Vpon what grounds are Christian people able to know by assurance of faith That the doctrine thereof is more infallible than the doctrine of other Churches But if Rome is Babylon described Reuelat. ca. 14. 8. 17 5. 18. 2. as weightie motiues induce some men to thinke then it is most safe for people to renounce the Communion of this Church as it now beleeueth and to liue in the fellowship of that Church which groundeth her faith on holy Scripture and not vpon the traditions of men Apoc. 18.4 IESVIT What amiserie will it be if it fall out as it is most likely it will fall out That at the day of Iudgement the most part of English Protestants be found to haue beleeued points of Doctrine necessarie to saluation not out of their owne certaine skill in Scripture as they should by the principles of their Religion but vpon the credit of the Church that teachech them which doth acknowledge her selfe to be no sufficient stay of assured beleefe for without question men cannot be saued who although they beleeued the truth yet beleeued it vpon a deceiueable ground and consequently by humane and fallible persuasion and not as need is by a diuine most certaine beleefe grouuded vpon aninfallible foundation which cannot be had without an infallible Church ANSWER What a miserie will it be if it fall out as it is certaine it will That at the day of Iudgement the greatest part of English Romists be found to haue renounced the expresse and manifest word of Christ and the sincere faith of the Primitiue Church and in stead thereof to haue imbraced lying vanities and the deceiueable Traditions of the man of finne the sonne of perdition who exalteth himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped 2. Thes. 2 3 4. For out of all doubt men cannot be saued
which haue forsaken the fountaine of liuing Waters and hewed them out Cisternes euen broken Cisternes that can hold no Waters Ier. 2. 13. And if any man worship the beast and his Image and receiue his marke in his forehead or in his hand the same shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God c. and hee shall be tormented with fire and brimstone Apoc. 14. 9 10. And on the contrarie they which heare the voyce of Christ speaking by the holy Scriptures and build their faith vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Iesus Christ himselfe being the head corner stone Eph. 2. 20. Ioh. 10. 27 all they which keepe the commuandements of God and the faith of Iesus Apoc. 14. 12. refusing to worship Angells Col. 2. 18. or dead Images 1. Ioh. 5. 20 which call vpon God in the name of Iesus onely which receiue the holy Eucharist in both kinds according to our Sauiours Precept and the constant practise of the Primitiue Church which beleeue free remission of sinnes and iustification by a liuely faith for the sole merits of Christ which honour the King as Gods Supreame Vicegerent which praise God with vnderstanding and inuocate the blessed Trinitie in a knowne Language and maintaine obedience to all Morall and Euangelicall Commandements and submit their priuate iudgement to the authoritie of the Apostolicke and Catholicke Church All these I say build their soules vpon the Rocke and not vpon the sands the gates of hell cannot preuaile against them and maugre all the limmes of Antichrist they shall neuer perish neither shall any man plucke them out of their Sauiours hand IESVIT How dreadfull then must the danger bee of liuing out of the lap of the Roman Church that is of a Church of infallible authoritie This Church hauing a most glorious succession of Bishops from the Apostles deserues aboue all other the protection of your Maiestie that by a long line of religious Catholicke Ancestours succeeding in the right of two Illustrious Kingdomes and being so beneficiall vnto mankinde and so efficatious to maintaine vnitie cannot giue ouer hope of your fauour whom singular preseruation in the wombe of your glorious Mother against the barbarous attempts of Hereticall diuision that would haue brought you to an immature end shewes to bee by Gods infinite wisedome preordained for some singular good of mankinde specially by your meanes to quench warres and dissentions and to bestow the blessings of Peace and vnion on this Land Your title to the Crowne of England springs from the peacefull coniunction of the two renowned Roses which before were mortall enemies and fought so manie cruell fields that if wee consider the great effusion of blood wherein each of them were bathed wee shall hardly discerne the one from the other by the diuersitie of colour Your Maiesties person is the roote of a more happie Vnion of two most glorious Kingdomes by your Sacred Person combined in assured Peace which in the Histories of former times are by no other markes more famously knowne than by their mutuall warres Nothing remaines to bee added for the full consummation of this Ilands happinesse and your Maiesties immortall glorie but the quenching of discord about Religion by bringing them backe againe to the Roote and Matrice of the Catholicke Church to the principall See from which Sacerdocall and Sacred Vnitie springs whereby your Maiestie shall extend the blessings of Peace from this Iland to the rest of Europe from the bodie vnto the soule and Crowne your temporall Peace and felicitie with eternall For both which not onely I but all of my Profession yea all Catholickes will offer vnto Almightie God our daily Prayers ANSWER Sir Declamator you vsurpe Radamanthus his office ouer his head and being a delinquent make your selfe a Iudge Wee vnderstand your vttermost strength in propugning the absolute Soueraignitie of the Roman Church The essence of your Creede in this and other points consisteth in supposall and conceit For our selues wee are assured by that which cannot deceiue vs The vndoubted Word of the eternall God that our Faith and Religion is according to Veritie and wee shall bee iudged at the latter Day not by the conceit of our Enemies but by the Word and Gospell of Christ Rom. 2. 16. Now the lappe of your Romane Church since the dayes of Hildebrand and his faction is inlarged to a vast sise and wee are departed from the filthinesse which is the skirts of that lap but not from any branch of the Catholicke Faith Disprooue vs if you bee able by Diuine authoritie and then make ostentation at your pleasure But in the meane time iudge charitably of vs who are more readie to entertaine Truth than you to persuade vs. As for glorious fuccession about which your triumph if you want the life and soule thereof to wit Apostolicall Doctrine and if according to the relation of your bosome friends the same in the verie externall face thereof hath beene miserably blasted pardon vs if we make not our finall and absolute dependence vpon it And to proceede to the last part of your Declamation wherein you sollicite his Maiestie to aduance your Superstition putting him in remembrance of his preseruation in his Mothers wombe and of the vniting of the two renowned Roses You must vnderstand that his Maiesties royall Person was preserued in his Mothers wombe and at the Powder Treason by the God of Truth and hee flourisheth as a Cedar of Libanus with all honour happinesse and safetie and with enioying the vnfained loue of all his Loyall Subiects by the Faith Profession and Protection of that Veritie which is taught of God and which will make him blessed at his latter end But if hee should which is impossible bee persuaded to giue eare to such Betuefeus as many of your Crue are the White Rose you speake of by your malice might againe turne Red for wheresoeuer the soales of your feet take fast footing your manner is to die all things in blood either by Ciuill Warre or by Fire and Faggot But I wonder vpon what surmise Romists can build their vaine hope of surprising his Maiestie by plausible Blandishments and Insinuations These Inchantments are fit for lapsing Ladies and other mutable Camelions But our Lord the King is as an Angell of God discerning Good and Euill The Aduersarie himselfe hath felt the force of the Wisedome of this Solomon and one may sooner with a twined thread plucke vp a tall Cedar by the roote or with a Fishers line hale the greatest rocke from the bottome of the Sea than transplant this great and religious Constantine out of the Paradise of Sacred Scripture into the darke Thicket of humane Traditions and night-sprung weedes Nec dicere aliquid nec facere contra Christum potest cuius spes fides virtus gloria omnis in Christo est Cyprian lib. d. Lapsis It is impossible that
our most gracious King should speake or doe any thing for Antichrist against Christ whose Hope and Vertue and Honour is all in Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A TABLE OF THE PRINCIPALL MATTERS CONTAINED in this Booke A ACcidents of Bread and Wine without substance Fol. 430 439 Acts of the Apost chap. 2. v. 42. 507 Adoration and Veneration 208 S. Ambrose receiuing the Sacrament in one kind 503 Angells reioycing at a sinners repentance 515 Angells whether adored 327. 525 527 Antecedent will of God 78 Apostolicall Church 64 98 Assurance of faith 165 S. Augustine 21 68 122 132 200 219 273 296 323 443 Authoritie of the Church 10 133 300 B Baptisme 175 177 Beginning of errour not alwayes assigneable out of historie 131 A Body in many places 180 182 183 The Brasen Serpent 209 Bread called Christs body 397. a figure 401. This is my body 398 416. Christs body no fancie 410 448. not in many places at once 450. Truely receiued in the Sacrament by faith 184 C Caietan and others of Transubstantiation 414 182 A Cammell through the eye of a needle 411. Canonising of Saints 297 The Canopie in the Greeke Church 378 Chastitie of votaries 83 Certainetie of faith not from the Rom. Ch. onely or principally 5 Catholike Church 194 Church taken in diuers notions 49 It consisteth principally of iust persons 51. 53. Obseruations concerning the acceptation of the name Church 51. the authoritie thereof in things adiaphorous 133 300. How the ground and pillar of truth 3.53 The true Church perpetuall 58. It may erre in deliuerie of Tradition 88. it may be in few 59 67 76 104 A corrupt Church may teach some veritie and preserue the text of Scripture 59 117 The present Church not equall to the Apostolicall 118 Councells and Praecepts 527.531 Coloss. cha 1. v. 24. 559 Communion of Saints 557 Communion in one kind 459.470 Concomitance 460 The Councell of Constance 474.501 The Councell of Elliberis 251 No generall Councell for the first 300 yeares 119 Councells of the late Rom. Ch. neither generall nor lawfull 159. Papall Vsurpation and Tyrannie in them 153 A lawfull generall Councell desired by Protestants 157. Acts of Councels not preserued faithfully 128 Corruptions in the Hierarch Rom. Ch. 55.57.97 Conuersion of bread into Christ Bodie 399.400.421 The new Creed of Rome 125 Curiositie to be auoided 582 D Daniel chap. 2. vers 35. 4 Daniel chap. 4. vers 24. Redeeme thy sinnes 546 Discord among Teachers 71.73 Discord of Romists 108.583.585 E Epiphanius of Images 252 Errours in the Church 135. fundamentall and preterfundamentall 147.197 Esay chap. 2. vers 1. 4 Esay chap. 63. 16. 320 The Eucharist receiued by the hand 491. sent to priuate houses in both kinds 504. no reall Sacrifice 464 Exposition of Scripture by Fathers 45 F Faciall vision 35 Diuine Faith not grounded vpon Eccles Historie 128. Historie not alwayes assigneable for change of Faith 131 Fasting not satisfactorie to God for sinne 549 Fathers authoritie 68.87.129 their consent 121 Doctour Field 73.140.196.586 A Figure in the words This is my bodie 396.397 G Galath chap. 3. 〈◊〉 maketh not for Images 281 Gelasius against Transubst 436. and against Communion in one kinde 499 Glasse of the Trinitie 308 Generall Councels 152 156 Good Workes strengthen Faith 519 The Greeke Church 115 H Halfe Communion no Sacrament 484 An Hereticke defined 195 Hierarchiall Church 55.57 Honorius Angustudonensis of the iniquitie of Romists 112 Humane Historie no rule of Faith 128 131 I Idololatrie 269 Indulgences and Popes Pardons a late deuise 562. granted for many thousand yeeres 564 Images and their Worship 206.212 Images of the Trinitie 265 Images a snare to the simple 267 Influence of Christ into Workes maketh them not meritorious 515.516 Inuocation of Saints 288 S. Iohn chap. 20. vers 23. Whose sinnes you remit c. 191 Iustifying Faith 162 K The Kingdome of Christ deuided with the Virgin Marie 362 Kings may bee deposed by Popes and Bishops is the Doctrine of many Pontificians 575 L Latria or diuine Worship 241 Liturgie in a strange tongue 365 Liuing Saints Prayers to them 333 M Manner of Presence in the Eucharist 391.406 Math. 16.18 Vpon this Rocke c. 3 Math. 22.37 Loue the Lord with all thy heart 523 Math. 26. Drinke ye all of this 488.492 Math. 28.20 I will be with you alwayes c. 94.99 Merit of Workes 172.511 Merits of Saints deceased 240 Mediator supreame and subordinate 336 Miracles 85.102 Mother Church 126 Mother of mercie 361 N Nicene second Councell 247 O Omnipotencie 181.446 Oblations to Saints 348 Opposition to the Rom. Ch. 136 Ordination and Vocation of Pastors 98 P Penance no Sacrament stricter in the Primitiue Church 192. 539. 543 Penitentiarie taxe 113 Popes no Lords of Purgatorie 567 Popish Faith nouell 129 Polidor Virgil of Images 249 Prayer to Saints in set formes c. 352 Prayers in a knowne tongue 366.373 on beades 388. not meritorious 548 Priuate Prayer in a knowne tongue 383 Primacie of Peter 157.570 Promise maketh not Workes meritorious 518 Punishment of chastisement 540 Purging Authors 125 Q The Queene of Heauen 363 R Reading Scripture 35.271.272.277.279 Reall presence 178.395 Reason when to be beleeued 438 Receiuing Scripture from the Church 118 Religious honouring of Saints 322 Repetitions of Creeds and Auees 784 Reseruation of the Eucharist 432. in both kinds 505 Resolution of Faith 13 15 20 25 31 38 47 Romane Church 1 2 103 145. a particular Church 109. not vniuersall 111. not Catholicke 201. a stepmother 126. equall to other Churches 109.145 Romists want Apost Traditions 125 586 Romists causers of discord 109 Rule of Faith 〈◊〉 S Sacramentall vnion 405 Saints not omniscient 304. no Prophets 312. in what manner like Angels 317. no Patrons 344 Sanctitie of the Church 81 101 102. and want heereof in the Rom. Ch. 5 57 Satisfaction 534 541 544 555 575 Separation from the Rom. Ch. 106 Serapions Historie about one kind 503 Schisme 107 Silence of Historie no proofe of Faith vnchanged 116 131 143 144 255 Spirituall presence 396 Spirituall eating and drinking 184 Scripture how proued Diuine 24 30 the Mouth and Hand of God 91. Sufficiencie thereof 37 43 147. preserued incorrupt in all ages 23 117 124. wherein obscure 35 45. the translation thereof 29. the exposition and sense 45 121 123. more fundamentall than Tradition vnwritten 49 90. Papists depresse Scripture 92 Succession of Pastors 65. of Romists 115 Successor of Peter 160 Supererogation 522 528 Supremacie Papall hath no ground in Scripture 570 T Tertullian of the Scripture 9. of Indulgences 2. Timoth. 3. 15. c. 39 Theoderit of Transubstantiation 436 Titles of Canonicall Bookes 19 Tradition 45 91 93 150 151 580 Transubstantiation 390. not grounded on Scripture 182 447. the same defined 419. Caietan Scotus c. touching it 182 414 Transelementation 421 Transmutation 420 The Treasure of the Church 552 V Vasques about Adoration 232 Vertues of iust persons 170 The B. Virgin
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
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
Yet wee say after Tradition hath beene our Introduction the Soule that hath but ordinarie Grace added to Reason may discerne Light sufficient to resolue our Faith that the Sunne is there This Principle then being not absolutely and simply euident in it selfe is presumed to be taught vs otherwise and if otherwise then it must be taught in and by some superior Science to which Theologie is subordinate Now men may be apt to thinke out of reuerence That Diuinitie can haue no Science aboue it but your owne Schoole teacheth me that it hath The sacred Doctrine of Diuinitie in this sort is a Science because it proceeds out of Principles that are knowne by the Light of a superior Knowledge which is the Knowledge of God and the blessed in Heauen In this superior Science this Principle The Scriptures are the Oracles of God is more than euident in full Light This superior Science deliuers this Principle in full reuealed Light to the Prophets and Apostles The infallible Light of this Principle made their Authoritie Diuine by the same Diuine Authoritie they wrote and deliuered the Scripture to the Church Therefore from them immediately the Church receiued the Scripture and that vncorrupt And since no sufficient reason hath or can be giuen that in any substantiall thing it hath beene corrupted it remaines firme to vs at this day prooued in the most supreame Science and therefore now to be supposed at least by all Christians That the Scripture is the Word of God And therefore the B. his answere is good euen in strictnesse That this Principle is to be supposed Besides the Iewes neuer had nor can haue any other proofe that the Old Testament is the Word of God than wee haue of the New For theirs was deliuered by Moses and the Prophets and ours was deliuered by the Apostles which were Prophets too The Iewes did beleeue their Scripture by a Diuine Authoritie for so the Iewes argue themselues We know that God spaeke with Moses And that therefore they could no more erre in following Moses than they could in following God himselfe Now how did the Iewes know that God spake to Moses How Why apparently the same way that is before set downe first by Tradition So S. Chrysostome We know Why by whose witnesse doe you know By the Testimonie of oùr Ancestors But he speakes not of their immediate Ancestors but their Prime which were Prophets and whose Testimonie was Diuine into which namely their Writings the Iewes did resolue their Faith And euen that Scripture of the Old Testament was a Light and a shining Light too and therefore could not but be sufficient when Tradition had gone before And therefore though the Iewes entred this way to their beleefe of the Scripture yet they doe not say Audiuimus Wee haue heard that God spake to Moses but Wee know it So they resolued their Faith higher and into a more inward Principle than an Eare to their immediate Ancestors and their Tradition F. And that no other answere could be made but by admitting some Word of God vnwritten to assure vs of this Point B. I thinke I haue shewed that the B. his answere is good and that so no other answere need be made If there were need I make no question but another answere might be made to assure vs of this Point though wee did not admit of any Word of God vnwritten I say to assure vs and you expresse no more If you had said to assure vs by Diuine Faith your Argument had beene the stronger But if you speake of assurance onely in the generall I must then tell you and it is the great aduantage which the Church of Christ hath against Infidels a man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiasticall and humane proofe Men that neuer saw Rome may be sure and infallibly beleeue that such a Citie there is by Historicall and acquired Faith And if consent of humane storie can assure me this Why should not consent of Church-storie assure me the other That Christ and his Apostles deliuered this Bodie of Scripture as the Oracles of God For Iewes enemies to Christ they beare witnesse to the Old Testament and Christians through almost all Nations giue in euidence to both Old and New And no Pagan or other enemies of Christianitie can giue such a worthie and consenting Testimonie for any Authoritie vpon which they relye or almost for any Principle which they haue as the Scripture hath gayned to it selfe And as is the Testimonie which it receiues aboue all Writings of all Nations so here is assurance in a great measure without any Diuine Authoritie in a word written or vnwritten A great assurance and it is infallible too onely then we must distinguish infallibilitie For first a thing may be presented as an infallible Obiect of Beleefe when it is true and remaines so For Truth 〈◊〉 tale as it is Truth cannot deceiue Secondly a thing is said to be infallible when it is not onely true and remainesso actually but when it is of such invariable constancie and vpon such ground as that no degree of falsehood at any time in any respect can fall vpon it Certaine it is that by humane Authoritie Consent and Proofe a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is the Word of God by an acquired habite of Faith Cui non 〈◊〉 falsum vnder which nor error nor falsehood is But he cannot be assured infallibly by Diuine Faith Cui subesse non potest falsum into which no falsehood can come but by a Diuine Testimonie This Testimonie is absolute in the Scripture it selfe deliuered by the Apostles for the Word of God That which makes way for this as an Introduction and outward motiue is the Tradition of the present Church but that neither simply Diuine nor sufficient alone into which we may resolue our Faith And now to come close to the particular The time was before this miserable rent in the Church of Christ which I thinke no true Christian can looke vpon but with a bleeding heart that you and we were all of one beleefe That beleefe was tainted in tract and corruption of time very deepely A diuision was made yet so that both parts held the Creed and other common Principles of Beleefe of these this was one of the greatest That the Scripture is the Word of God for our beleefe of all things contained in it depends vpon it Since this diuision there hath beene nothing done by vs to discredit this Principle nay we haue giuen it all honor and ascribed vnto it more sufficiencie euen to the containing of all things necessarie to saluation with satis superque enough and more than enough which your selues haue not done doe not And for begetting and settling a beleefe of this Principle wee goe the same way with you and a better besides The same way with you because wee allow the Tradition of the
Church of which a Councell be it neuer so generall is a verie little part Yea and this verie Assistance is not so absolute nor in that manner to the whole Church as it was to the Apostles neyther doth Christ in that place speake directly of a Councell but of his Apostles Preaching and Doctrine 2. As for Christs being with them vnto the end of the World the Fathers are so various that in the sense of the antient Church wee may vnderstand him present in Maiestie in Power in Aid and Assistance against the difficulties they should find for preaching Christ which is the natiue sense as I take it And this promise was made to support their weakenesse As for his presence in teaching by the Holy Ghost few mention it and no one of them which doth speakes of any infallible Assistance further than the succeeding Church keepes to the Word of the Apostles as the Apostles kept to the guidance of the Spirit Besides the Fathers referre their speech to the Church vniuersall not to anie Councell or Representatiue Bodie And Maldonate addes That this his presence by teaching is or may be a Collection from the place but is not the intention of Christ. 3. For the Rocke vpon which the Church is founded which is the next place wee dare not lay any other Foundation than Christ Christ layd his Apostles no question but vpon himselfe With these S. Peter was layd no man questions And in prime place of Order would his clayming Successors be content with that as appeares and diuerse Fathers witnesse by his particular designement Tu es Petrus But yet the Rocke euen there spoken of is not S. Peters person eyther onely or properly but the Faith which hee professed And to this beside the Euidence which is in Text and Truth the Fathers come in with very full consent And this That the Gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it is not spoken of the not 〈◊〉 of the Church principally but of the not falling away of it from the Foundation Now a Church may erre and daungerously too and yet not fall from the Foundation especially if that of Bellarmine be true That there are many things euen de Fide of the Faith which yet are not necessarie to saluation Besides euen here againe the promise of this stable edification is to the whole Church not to a Councell at the least no further than a Councell builds as a Church is built that is vpon Christ. 4. The last place is Christs Prayer for S. Peters Faith The 〈◊〉 sense of which place is That Christ prayed and obtained for S. Peter perseuerance in the grace of God against the strong temptation which was to winnow him aboue the rest But to conclude an infallibilitie from hence in the Pope or in his Chaire or in the Romane See or in a Generall Councell though the Pope be President I find no antient Fathers that dare aduenture it And Bellarmine himselfe besides some Popes in their owne Cause and that in Epistles counterfeit or falsely alledged hath not a Father to name for this sense of the place till he come downeto Chrysologus Theophylact and S. Bernard of which Chrysologus his speech is but a flash of Rhetorike and the other two are men of Yesterday compared with Antiquitie and liued when it was Gods great grace and our wonder the corruption of the time had not made them corrupter than they are And Thomas is resolute that what is meant here beyond S. Peters person is referred to the whole Church And the Glasse vpon the Canon Law is more peremptorie than he euen to the denyall that it is meant of the Pope And if this place warrant not the Popes Faith Where is the infallibilitie of the Councell that depends vpon it And for all the places together weigh them with indifferencie and either they speake of the Church including the Apostles as all of them doe and then all graunt the voyce of the Church is Gods voyce Diuine and Infallible or else they are generall vnlimitted and applyable to priuate Assemblies as well as Generall Councels which none graunt to be infallible but some mad Enthusiasts or else they are limitted not simply into All Truth but All necessarie to Saluation in which I shall easily graunt a Generall Councell cannot erre if it suffer it selfe to be led by this 〈◊〉 of Truth in the Scripture and take not vpon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit For suppose these places or any other did promise Assistance euen to Infallibilitie yet they graunted it not to euerie Generall Councell but to the Catholike Bodie of the Church it selfe And if it be in the whole Church principally then is it in a Generall Councell but by Consequent as the Councell represents the whole And that which belongs to a thing by consequent doth not otherwise nor longer belong vnto it than it consents and cleaues to that vpon which it is a Consequent And therefore a Generall Councell hath not this Assistance but as it keepes to the whole Church and Spouse of Christ whose it is to heare his Word and determine by it And therefore if a Generall Councell will goe out of the Churches Way it may easily goe without the Churches Truth 4. Fourthly I consider That All agree That the Church in generall can neuer erre from the Faith necessarie to saluation No Persecution no Temptation and no Gates of Hell whatsoeuer is meant by them can euer so preuaile against it For all the members of the Militant Church cannot erre either in the whole Faith or in any Article of it it is impossible For if all might so erre there could be no vnion betweene them as members and Christ the Head And no vnion betweene Head and members no Bodie and so no Church which cannot be But there is not the like consent That Generall Councels cannot erre And it seemes strange to me that the Fathers hauing to doe with so many Heretikes and so many of them opposing Church Authoritie in their condemnation this Proposition euen in tearmes A Generall Councell cannot erre should be found in none of them that I can yet see Suppose it were true That no Generall Councell had erred in any matter of moment to this day which will not be found true yet this would not haue followed that it is therefore infallible and cannot erre I haue not time to descend into particulars therefore to the Generall still S. Augustine puts a difference betweene the Rules of Scripture and the definitions of men This difference is Praeponitur Scriptura That the Scripture hath the Prerogatiue That Prerogatiue is That whatsoeuer is found written in Scripture may neither be doubted nor disputed whether it be true or right But the Letters of Bishops may not onely be disputed but corrected by Bishops that are more learned and wise than they or by
whole Councell depended vpon him and his confirmation was then vnknowne and I verily thinke at this day not beleeued by your selues 5. Fiftly it must be considered If a Generall Councell may erre Who shall iudge it S. Augustine is at priora à posterioribus Nothing sure that is lesse than a Generall Councell Why but this yet layes all open to vncertainties and makes way for a Whirlewind of a priuate spirit to ruffle the Church No neither of these First all is not open to Vncertainties For Generall Councels lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a great and an awfull Representation and cannot erre in matters of Faith if they keepe themselues to Gods Rule and attempt not to make a new of their owne and are with all submission to be obserued by euerie Christian where Scripture or euident Demonstration come not against it Nor doth it make way for the Whirlewind of a priuate spirit For priuate spirits are too giddie to rest vpon Scripture and too headie and shallow to be acquainted with demonstratiue Arguments And it were happie for the Church if shee might neuer be troubled with priuate spirits till they brought such Arguments I know this is hotely obiected against Hooker The Author calls him a wise Protestant yet turnes thus vpon him If a Councell must yeeld to a demonstratiue proofe Who shall iudge whether the Argument that is brought be a Demonstration or not For euerie man that will kicke against the Church will say the Scripture he vrges is euident and his Reason a Demonstration And what is this but to leaue all to the wildnesse of a priuate spirit Can any ingenuous man reade this passage in Hooker and dreame of a priuate spirit For to the Question Who shall iudge Hooker answers as if it had beene then made An Argument necessarie and demonstratiue is such saith hee as being proposed to any man and vnderstood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent vnto it So it is not enough to thinke or say it is demonstratiue The light then of a Demonstratiue Argument is the euidence which it selfe hath in it selfe to all that vnderstand it Well but because all vnderstand it not If a Quarrell be made who shall decide it No question but a Generall Councell not a priuate spirit first in the intent of the Author for Hooker in all that discourse makes the Sentence of the Councell binding and therefore that is made Iudge not a priuat spirit And then for the Iudge of the Argument it is as plaine For if it be euident to any man then to so many learned men as are in a Councell doubtlesse And if they cannot but assent it is hard to thinke them so impious that they will define against it And if that which is euident to any man is not euident to such a graue Assembly it is no Demonstration and the producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church Nor is this Hookers alone nor is it newly thought on by vs It is a ground in Nature which Grace doth euer set right neuer vndermine And S. Augustine hath it twice in one Chapter That S. Cyprian and that Councell at Carthage would haue presently yeelded to any one that would demonstrate Truth Nay it is a Rule with him Consent of Nations Authoritie confirmed by Miracles and Antiquitie S. Peters Chaire and Succession from it Motiues to keepe him in the Catholike Church must not hold him against Demonstration of Truth which if it be so clearely monstrated that it cannot come into doubt it is to be preferred before all those things by which a man is held in the Catholike Church Therefore an euident Scripture or Demonstration of Truth must take place euerie where but where these cannot be had there must be submission to Authoritie And doth not Bellarmine himselfe graunt this For speaking of Councels he deliuers this Proposition That Inferiors may not iudge whether their Superiors and that in a Councell doe proceed lawfully or not But then hauing bethought himselfe that Inferiors at all times and in all causes are not so to be cast off hee addes this Exception Vnlesse it manifestly appeare that an intollerable Error be committed So then if such an Error be and be manifest Inferiors may doe their dutie and a Councell must yeeld vnlesse you will accuse Bellarmine too of leaning to a priuate spirit for neither doth hee expresse who shall iudge whether the Error be intollerable This will not downe with you but the Definition of a Generall Councell is and must be infallible Your fellowes tell vs and you can affirme no more That the voyce of the Church determining in Councell is not Humane but Diuine That is well Diuine then sure infallible Yea but the Proposition stickes in the throat of them that would vtter it It is not Diuine simply but in a manner Diuine Why but then sure not infallible because it may speake loudest in that manner in which it is not Diuine Nay more The Church forsooth is an infallible Foundation of Faith in a higher kind than the Scripture For the Scripture is but a Foundation in testimonie and matter to be beleeued but the Church as the efficient cause of Faith and in some sort the verie formall Is not this Blasphemie Doth not this knocke against all euidence of Truth and his owne grounds that sayes it Against all euidence of Truth For in all ages all men that once admitted the Scripture to be the Word of God as all Christians doe doe with the same breath graunt it most vndoubted and infallible But all men haue not so iudged of the Churches Definitions though they haue in greatest obedience submitted to them And against his owne grounds that sayes it For the Scripture is absolutely and euerie way Diuine the Churches Definition is but suo modo in a sort or manner Diuine But that which is but in a sort can neuer be a Foundation in a higher degree than that which is absolute and euerie way such Therefore neyther can the Definition of the Church be so infallible as the Scripture much lesse in altiori genere in a higher kind than the Scripture But because when all other things faile you flye to this That the Churches Definition in a Generall Councell is by Inspiration and so Diuine and infallible my hast shall not carrie me from a little Consideration of that too 6. Sixtly then If the Definition of a Generall Councell be infallible then the infallibilitie of it is either in the Conclusion and in the Meanes that prooue it or in the Conclusion not the Meanes or in the Meanes not the Conclusion But it is infallible in none of these Not in the first The Conclusion and the Meanes For there are diuers deliberations in Generall Councels where the Conclusion is Catholike but the Meanes by which they prooue it not firme therefore not infallible Not
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
miscarriage hath power to represent her selfe in another Bodie or Councell and to take order for what was amisse eyther practised or concluded So here is a meanes without infringing any lawfull Authoritie of the Church to preserue or reduce Vnitie and yet graunt as the B. did and as the Church of England doth That a Generall Councell may erre And this course the Church tooke did call and represent her selfe in a new Councell and define against the Hereticall Conclusions of the former as in the case at Ariminum and the second of Ephesus is euident 4. The next thing I consider is Suppose a Generall Councell infallible in all things which are of Faith If it prooue not so but that an Error in the Faith be concluded the same erring Opinion that makes it thinke it selfe infallible makes the Error of it seeme irreuocable And when Truth which lay hid shall be brought to light the Church who was lulled asleepe by the Opinion of Infallibilitie is left open to all manner of Distractions as it appeares at this day And that a Councell may erre besides all other instances which are not few appeares by that Error of the Councell of Constance And one instance is enough to ouerthrow a Generall be it a Councell Christ instituted the Sacrament of his Bodie and Bloud in both kinds To breake Christs Institution is a damnable Error and so confessed by Stapleton The Councell is bold and defines peremptorily That to communicate in both kinds is not necessarie with a Non obstante to the Institution of Christ. Consider with me Is this an Error or not Bellarmine and Stapleton and you too say it is not because to receiue vnder both kinds is not by Diuine Right No no sure For it was not Christs Precept but his Example Why but I had thought Christs Institution of a Sacrament had beene more than his Example onely and as binding for the Necessaries of a Sacrament the Matter and Forme as a Precept Therefore speake out and denie it to be Christs Institution or else graunt with Stapleton It is a damnable Error to goe against it If you can prooue that Christs Institution is not as binding to vs as a Precept which you shall neuer be able take the Precept with it Drinke yee All of this which though you shift as you can yet you can neuer make it other than it is A Binding Precept But Bellarmine hath yet one better Deuice than this to saue the Councell Hee saith it is a meere Calumnie and that the Councell hath no such thing That the Non obstante hath no reference to Receiuing vnder both kinds but to the time of Receiuing it after Supper in which the Councell saith the Custome of the Church is to be obserued Non obstante notwithstanding Christs Example How foule Bellarmine is in this must appeare by the words of the Councell which are these Though Christ instituted this venerable Sacrament and gaue it his Disciples after Supper vnder both kinds of Bread and Wine yet Non obstante notwithstanding this it ought not to be consecrated after Supper nor receiued but fasting And likewise that though in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued by the faithfull vnder both kinds yet this Custome that it should be receiued by Lay-men onely vnder the kind of Bread is to be held for a Law which may not be refused And to say this is an vnlawfull Custome of Receiuing vnder one kind is erroneous and they which persist in saying so are to be punished and driuen out as Heretikes Now where is here any slander of the Councell The words are plaine and the Non obstante must necessarily for ought I can yet see be referred to both Clauses in the words following because both Clauses went before it and hath as much force against Receiuing vnder both kinds as against Receiuing after Supper Yea and the after-words of the Councell couple both together in this reference for it followes Et similiter And so likewise that though in the Primitiue Church c. And a man by the Definition of this Councell may be an Heretike for standing to Christs Institution in the very matter of the Sacrament And the Churches Law for One kind may not be refused but Christs Institution vnder Both kinds may And yet this Councell did not erre No take heed of it But your Opinion is yet more vnreasonable than this For consider any Bodie Collectiue be it more or lesse vniuersall whensoeuer it assembles it selfe Did it euer giue more power to the Representing Bodie of it than binding power vpon all particulars and it selfe too And did it euer giue this power any otherwise than with this Reseruation in Nature That it would call againe and reforme yea and if need were abrogate any Law or Ordinance vpon iust cause made euident to it And this Power no Bodie Collectiue Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill can put out of it selfe or giue away to a Parliament or Councell or call it what you will that represents it And in my Consideration it holds strongest in the Church For a Councell hath power to order settle and define Differences arisen concerning the Faith This Power the Councell hath not by any immediate Institution from Christ but it was prudently taken vp in the Church from the Apostles Example So that to hold Councels to this end is apparant Apostolicall Tradition written but the Power which Councels so held haue is from the whole Catholike Church whose members they are and the Churches Power from God And this Power the Church cannot further giue away to a Generall Councell than that the Decrees of it shall bind all particulars and it selfe but not bind the Church from calling againe and in the after calls vpon iust cause to order yea and if need be to abrogate former Acts I say vpon iust cause For if the Councell be lawfully called and proceed orderly and conclude according to the Rule the Scripture the whole Church cannot but approoue the Councell and then the Definitions of it can neuer be questioned after And the Power of the Church hath no wrong in this so long as no Power but her owne may meddle or offer to infringe any Definition of hers made in her representatiue Bodie a lawfull Generall Councell And certaine it is no Power but her owne may doe this Nor doth this open any gappe to priuate spirits For all Decisions in such a Councell are binding And because the whole Church can meet no other way the Councell shall remaine the Supreame Externall Liuing Temporarie Ecclesiasticall Iudge of all Controuersies Onely the whole Church and shee alone hath power when Scripture or Demonstration is found and peaceably tendered to her to represent her selfe againe in a new Councell and in it to order what was amisse Nay your Opinion is yet more vnreasonable For you doe not onely make the Definition of a Generall Councell but the Sentence
Heauen especially to them that haue had the Truth manifested the heart of this Argument were broken Besides the force of this Argument lyes vpon two things one expressed the other vpon the By. First That which is expressed is Wee and our Aduersaries consent That there is saluation to some in the Romane Church What would you haue vs as malicious at least as rash as your selues are to vs and denie you so much as possibilitie of saluation If wee should wee might make you in some things straine for a Proofe But wee haue not so learned Christ as eyther to returne euill for euill in this headie course or to denie Saluation to some ignorant silly Soules whose humble peaceable obedience makes them safe among any part of men that professe the Foundation Christ. And therefore seeke not to helpe our cause by denying this comfort to silly Christians as you most fiercely doe where you can come to worke vpon them And this was an old Tricke of the Donatists For in the Point of Baptisme Whether that Church or in the part of Donatus they 〈◊〉 all to be baptised among them Why because both parts 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 was true 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 which that peeuish Sect most vniustly denyed the sound part as S. Augustine deliuers it I would aske now Had not they Orthodoxe Baptisme among them because the Donatists denyed it iniuriously Or should the Orthodoxe against Truth haue denyed Baptisme among the Donatists to crie 〈◊〉 with them Or that their Argument might not be the stronger because both parts graunted But marke this how farre you runne from all common Principles of Christian Peace as well as Christian Truth while you denie Saluation most vniustly to vs from which you are further off your selues Besides if this were or could be made a concluding Argument I pray why doe not you beleeue with vs in the Point of the Eucharist For all sides agree in the Faith of the Church of England That in the most blessed Sacrament the worthie Receiuer is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and Reall Bodie and Bloud of Christ truly and really and of all the benefits of his Passion Your 〈◊〉 adde a manner of this his presence Transubstantiation which manie denie and the Lutherans a manner of this presence Consubstantiation which more denie If this Argument be good then euen for this consent it is safer communicating with the Church of England than with the Romane or Lutheran because all agree in this Truth not in any other Opinion And therefore if you will force the Argument to make that the safest way of Saluation which differing parts agree on Why doe you not yeeld to the force of the same Argument in the 〈◊〉 of the Sacrament one of the most immediate meanes of Saluation where not onely the most but all agree Secondly The other vpon the By which helpesthis Argument is your continuall poore Out-crie against vs That wee cannot be saued because wee are 〈◊〉 of the Church Sure if I thoughtI were out I would get in as fast as I could But what doe you meane by Out of the Church Sure out of the Romane Church Why but the Romane Church and the Church of England are but two distinct members of that Catholike Church which is spread ouer the face of the Earth Therefore Rome is not the House where the Church dwells but Rome it selfe as well as other particular Churches dwells in this great Vniuersall House vnlesse you will shut vp the Church in Rome as the Donatists did in Africke I come a little lower Rome and other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are in this 〈◊〉 to whom 〈◊〉 Christ the care of the Household is committed by God the Father and the Catholike Church the Mother of 〈◊〉 Christians Rome as an elder Sister had a great 〈◊〉 committed vnto her in and from the prime times of the Church and to her Bishop in her but at this time to 〈◊〉 passe manie 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 formerly beene in the House England and some other Sisters of hers are fallen out in the House What then Will the Father and the Mother God and the Church 〈◊〉 one Child out because another is angrie with it Or when did Christ giue that Power to the Elder Sister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and her 〈◊〉 the Bishop there should thrust out what Child 〈◊〉 pleased Especially when shee her selfe is 〈◊〉 accused to haue giuen the offence that is taken in the House Or will not both Father and Mother be sharper to her for this vniust and vnnaturall vsage of her younger Sisters but their 〈◊〉 Children Nay is it not the next way to make them 〈◊〉 her out of doores that is so 〈◊〉 to the rest It is well for all Christian men and Churches that the Father and Mother of them are 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 as some would haue them And Saluation need not be feared of any 〈◊〉 Child 〈◊〉 outing from the Church because this Elder 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are discouered in the House and 〈◊〉 growne 〈◊〉 for it to them that complayned But as Children crie when they are awaked so doe you and 〈◊〉 with all that come 〈◊〉 you And 〈◊〉 confesses That yee were in 〈◊〉 dead sleepe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much 〈◊〉 when the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you Now if you can prooue that Rome is 〈◊〉 the Catholike Church it selfe as you commonly call it speake out and 〈◊〉 it In the meane time you may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too if you will and it seemes you doe for here you forget 〈◊〉 what the B. said to you 〈◊〉 The doubting Person said the B. to me may be better saued in it than you B. 〈◊〉 that is easier than you than 〈◊〉 man that knowes so much of Truth and opposes against it as you and your 〈◊〉 doe How farre you know Truth other men may iudge by your proofes and causes of Knowledge but how 〈◊〉 you oppose it when it is knowne that is within and no man can know but God and your selues Howsoeuer where the Foundation is but held there for ordinarie men it is not the 〈◊〉 of vnderstanding but the simplicitie of beleeuing that makes them safe For Saint Augustiue speakes there of men in the Church and no man can be simply said to be out of the visible Church that is baptized and holds the Foundation And as it is the simplicitie of beleeuing that makes them safe yea safest so is it sometimes a quicknesse of vnderstanding that louing it selfe and some by respects too well makes men take vp an vnsafe way about the Faith So that there is no question but manie were saued in corrupted times of the Church when their Leaders vnlesse they repented before death were lost And Saint Augustines Rule will be true That in all Corruptions of the Church there will euer be a difference betweene an Heretike and a plaine well-meaning man that is mis-led and beleeues an Heretike I pray you Marke this and so by Gods grace will I. For our Reckoning will bee
heauier if wee mis-lead on eytherside than theirs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vs. But I see I must looke to my selfe for you are secure For F. Dr White said I hath secured me that none of our Errors be damnable so long as wee hold them not against our Conscience And I hold none against my Conscience B. It seemes then you haue two Securities Dr Whites Assertion and your Conscience What Assurance Dr White 〈◊〉 you I cannot tell of my selfe nor as things stand may I rest vpon your Relation It may be you vse him no better than you doe the Bishop And sure it is so For I haue since spoken with Dr White and hee auowes this and no other Answere Hee was asked in the conferense betweene you Whether Popish Errors were Fundamentall To 〈◊〉 hee gaue 〈◊〉 by distinction of the persons which held and professed the Errors namely That the Errors were Fundamentall reductiue by a Reducement if they which embraced them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adhere to them hauing sufficient 〈◊〉 to be better enformed nay further that they were materially and in the verie kind and nature of them Leauen Drosse Hay and Stubble Yet hee thought withall that such as were mis-led by Education or long Custome or over-valuing the 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 Church and did in 〈◊〉 of heart embrace them might by their generall 〈◊〉 and Faith in the Merit of Christ attended with Charitie 〈◊〉 other Vertues find mercie at Gods hands But that hee should say Signanter and expressely That none eyther of yours or your fellowes 〈◊〉 were damnable so long as you hold them not against Conscience that hee vtterly disauowes You deliuered nothing to 〈◊〉 such a Confession from him And for your selfe hee could obserue but small loue of Truth few signes of Grace in you as hee tells mee Yet hee will not presume to iudge you or your Saluation it is the Word of Christ that must iudge you as the latter Day For your Conscience you are the happier in your Error that you hold nothing against it especially if you speake not against it while you say so But this no man can know but your Conscience For no man knowes the thoughts of a man but the spirit of a man that is within him to which I leaue you But yet you leaue not For you tell me F. The doubting partie asked Whether shee might be saued in the Protestants Faith Vpon 〈◊〉 Soule said the B. you may Vpon my Soule said I there is but one sauing Faith and that is the Romane B. So it seemes the B. was confident for the Faith professed in the Church of England else hee would not haue taken the Saluation of another vpon his Soule And sure hee had reason of his Confidence For to beleeue the Scripture and the Creeds to beleeue these in the sense of the antient Primitiue Church to receiue the foure great Generall Councels so much magnified by Antiquitie to beleeue all Points of Doctrine generally receiued as Fundamentall in the Church of Christ is a Faith in which to liue and die cannot but giue Saluation And therefore the B. went vpon a sure ground in the aduenture of his Soule vpon that Faith Besides in all the Points of Doctrine that are controuerted betweene vs. I would faine see anie one Point maintained by the Church of England that can bee prooued to depart from the Foundation You haue manie dangerous Errors about it in that which you call the Romane Faith But there I leaue you to looke to your owne Soule and theirs whom you seduce Yet this is true too That there is but one sauing Faith But then euerie thing which you call De Fide Of the Faith because some Councell or other hath defined it is not such a breach from that one sauing Faith as that hee which expressely beleeues it not nay as that hee which beleeues the contrarie is excluded from Saluation And Bellarmine is forced to graunt this There are manie things de Fide which are not absolutely necessarie to Saluation Therefore there is a Latitude in Faith especially in reference to Saluation To set a Bound to this and strictly to define it Iust thus farre you must beleeue in euerie particular or incurre Damnation is no worke for my Penne. These two things I am sure of One That your peremptorie establishing of so manie things that are remote Deductions from the Foundation hath with other Errors lost the Peace and Vnitie of the Church for which you will one day answere And the other That you are gone further from the Foundation of this one sauing Faith than can euer bee prooued wee haue done But to conclude you tell vs F. Vpon this and the precedent Conferences the Ladie rested in iudgement fully satisfied as shee told a confident friend of the Truth of the Romane Churches Faith Yet vpon frailetie and feare to offend the King shee yeelded to goe to Church For which shee was after verie sorrie as some of her friends can testifie B. This is all personall And how that Honourable Ladie is settled in Conscience how in Iudgement I know not This I thinke is made cleare enough That that which you said in this and the precedent Conferences could settle neyther vnlesse in some that were settled or setting before As little doe I know what shee told anie Friend of the Romane Cause No more whether it were frailetie or feare that made her yeeld to goe to Church nor how sorrie shee was for it nor who can testifie that sorrow This I am sure of If shee repent and God forgiue her other sinnes shee will farre more easily bee able to answere for her comming to Church than shee will for the leauing of the Church of England and following the Superstitions and Errors which the Romane Church hath added in point of Faith and worship of God I pray God giue her Mercie and all of you a Light of his Truth and a Loue to it first that you may no longer be made Instruments of the Popes boundlesse Ambition and this most vnchristian braine-sicke Deuice That in all Controuersies of the Faith hee is infallible and that by way of Inspiration and Prophesie in the Conclusion which hee giues To due consideration of this and Gods Mercie in Christ I leaue you FINIS Optat. lib. 3. c. Parmen Aug. c. Cresc lib. 3. ca. 51. Isid. d. sum bon lib. 3. ca. 53. Aug. Epist. 48. ad Vincent Idem Ep. 52. ad Macedon Idem Ep. 61. ad Dulcit Euseb. Hist. Eccles li. 10. ca. 9. Et d. vit Const. li. i. ca. 37. Ministrorum Dei coegit Concilium lib. 2. c. 43. lib. 3. ca. 6 10 12 16 17 18 23. Interdum 〈◊〉 quae ad Ecclesiarum Dei commodū spectabant prescribendo ib. ca. 63. lib. 4. c. 14. c. 18. Festos dies instituit ca. 22 23 27. Episcoporū Decreta cōfirmauit Theoderit Hist. Eccles li. 1. cap. 7. August d. Ciu. Dei li. 5. c. 25. Tertul. ad
beleeued to bee Apostolicall because written in the Scripture of the New Testament and the Scriptures of the New Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles vpon the voice of perpetuall Tradition vnwritten then our resolution That our Faith is Apostolicall stayeth finally vpon Tradition vnwritten But the maine and substantiall points of our Faith are beleeued to be Apostolicall because they are written in Scriptures and the Scriptures c. are beleeued to come from the Apostles by perpetuall Tradition vnwritten Ergo Our resolution that our Faith is Apostolicall resteth finally vpon Tradition vnwritten ANSVVER If the second part of the Antecedent to wit And the Scriptures of the new Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles vpon the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Tradition vnwritten bee vnderstood without any further explication or addition then the sequell of the Maior is denied and if onely or principally bee added to vnwritten Tradition then the Assumption is false First although the Scriptures of the new Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles vpon the voyce of perpetuall Tradition yet because they are not beleeued thus to descend by the said voyce as vpon the onely or principall ground therefore it is inconsequent to inferre our resolution that our faith is Apostolicall stayeth lastly and finally vpon Tradition If the Argument be reduced to a Categoricall forme the defect will easily appeare That vpon whose voyce the Scriptures of the new Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles is the grouud whereupon our faith lastly and finally stayeth Perpetuall Tradition is that vpon whose voyce the Scriptures of the new Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles Therefore perpetuall Tradition is the ground whereupon our faith lastly and finally stayeth In this Argument the Maior proposition is false for that is not alwayes the last ground of Resolution vpon whose voyce and testimony we doe first of all or prioritate or dinis vel temporis in priority of time or order beleeue things because there may be other grounds of beleefe equall or of greater authoritie than the first voyce and the first voyce vpon which we beleeue may be only an introduction or motiue of credibility For example One may beleeue that Moses or the Prophets were the Authors of the Scriptures of the old Testament vpon the voyce and testimony of the Iewes yet this testimony is not the last ground of resolution c. One may beleeue vpon the testimony of Iosephus That Iesus Christ was a wise man yea more than a man and that hee wrought many great miracles and was crucified and appeared againe the third day aliue and was honoured by Iewes and Gentiles yet this voyce and Testimony of Iosephus is not the finall ground of faiths resolution If 〈◊〉 bee taken to these 〈◊〉 that they proceed 〈◊〉 from humane 〈◊〉 whereas the voyce of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 I 〈◊〉 ere two things First that the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of faith is not alwayes made into that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vpon whose voyce and 〈◊〉 as appeareth by St. Iohn Baptist for vpon his voyce and 〈◊〉 which did not finally and principally 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but into the voyce of Christ himselfe Iohn 5. 33 36. Secondly although the vocall Tradition of the Apostles themselues concerning the Scriptures of the new Testament when they deliuered or commended the same to their immediate hearers was totally and perfectly diuine both in regard of the matter testified and in respect of their owne persons who were witnesses immediatly sent and inspired of God yet the subsequent History and report of this former made by those which were remote from the Apostles age is not simply and perfectly diuine but onely in part for when it faithfully reporteth that which the Apostles said and did it is diuine in regard of the matter and thing testified but is humane in regard of the quality of the witnesses and the manner of testification because these succeeding witnesses were not equall in verity to the holy Apostles 〈◊〉 free from possibility of errour nor such as immediatly heard the Apostles Hereupon Aquinas himselfe holdeth that our faith doth onely rest vpon those reuelations which the Authours of the holy Scriptures published and Durand with many other Schoolemen saith that the faith which is grounded vpon the approbation of the Church is onely acquisite And if this be true then because the credit of vnwritten Traditions dependeth in respect of vs vpon the authority of the Church since the Apostles which Churches voyce being not formally diuine can of it selfe onely produce acquisite faith the last and finall resolution of diuine faith cannot bee made into the voyce of Tradition vnwritten And thus much concerning the sequel of the Maior proposition But if the Iesuite when he saith the Scriptures of the new Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles vpon the voyce of perpetuall Tradition vnwritten doe means that the said Scriptures are beleeued to 〈◊〉 from the Apostles vpon the voyce of vnwritten Tradition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the assumption is false for they are 〈◊〉 to come from the Apostles by written Tradition as well as by vnwritten and more principally vpon the voyce of the Apostles speaking in and by their Scriptures than vpon the onely testimony of vnwritten Tradition It is vsuall and common for one man to certifie another of such matters as he desireth he should know by an Epistle or writing So likewise the holy Apostles desiring that all the world for whose instruction they wrote should know that these Scriptures are their worke haue declared the same by their owne testimonie recorded in those bookes St. Iohn affirmes that hee is the Author of his Gospell and of the Reuelation Iohn 21 24. Reuel 1 4. St. Paul and other Apostles doe the like concerning the Epistles Rom. 1 1. 2. Cor. 10 10. Collos. 4. 18. 1. Pet. 1 1. Iam. 1 1. Iude v. 1. And that the holy Apostles and Euangelists doe speake vnto people of all ages by their bookes and writings is affirmed by the Fathers St. August saith Ipsum Paulum audi c. Heare thou euen Paul himselfe St. Chrysost. If thou desirest thou mayest heare Paul Peter Iohn and the whole company of the Prophets speaking vnto thee take the bookes of these blessed ones into thine hands reade their Scriptures and thou mayest heare not Paul onely but euen Pauls Lord speaking vnto thee by Pauls mouth But it is obiected against this by Bellarmine and others that counterfeit Authours may speake in the name and person of the Apostles to wit a Bastard Hereticke in the name of St. Bartholomew or St. Peter c. I answere with St. Augustine the same may be done in all humane and ecclesiasticall writings and yet sufficient meanes are found partly in the History of times partly in the writings of euery Authour to confute Impostors And concerning the holy Scriptures wee haue two
meanes to know their Authours the one Ecclesiasticall to wit the perpetuall History of the Church since the Apostles departure whereby is produced a morall persuasion and credibilitie than which none can bee greater in that kinde by reason of the antiquity number consent and sanctitie of the witnesses which testifie this the other totally diuine to wit the matter and forme of Doctrine contained in the the said bookes to be 〈◊〉 and if they be can speake in them And that within those bookes is affirmed by the 〈◊〉 Among which 〈◊〉 are taken from the internall matter and maiesty of the bookes and Gregory Valence contained in the same Scripture c. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the 〈◊〉 of God is seene by faith in the holy faith The Scripture is a faire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You haue before 2. Pet. 1. 19. And 〈◊〉 August And therefore as a 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others by the same light or 〈◊〉 manifests it selfe so the holy Scripture inlightning the Church demonstrates his owne 〈◊〉 and vertue And thus 〈◊〉 we be first directed and holpen by vnwritten Tradition to know the Scriptures yet the Tradition of the present Church is 〈◊〉 the onely last and principall ground whereunto we resolue 〈◊〉 If the Iesuits Argument be retorted vpon himselfe it will demonstrate that our Faith is finally resolued into holy Scripture and not into vnwritten Tradition for inuerting 〈◊〉 order of the 〈◊〉 and retaining the matter I argue as followeth If the maine and 〈◊〉 points of Faith are 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 because of the 〈◊〉 of perpetuall Tradition vnwritten and 〈◊〉 Tradition vnwritten is beleeued to be Apostolicall because of the authoritie of the Scripture then our resolution that our Faith is Apostolicall resteth finally vpon the Scripture But the Antecedent is true Ergo c. The Assumption is confirmed two waies First by the practise of Papals which confirme their doctrine of Tradition by testimonies of Scripture alledging 2. Thess. 2. 15. 1. Tim. 6. 20. 2. Tim. 1. 16. Secondly because the credit of Tradition in respect of vs dependeth vpon the authoritie of the Church and the authoritie of the Church vpon the Scriptures Both these assertions are maintained by the Papals First They say that the authoritie of Tradition in respect of vs dependeth vpon the Church Gretsar def Bellarm. d. verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 9. Vitus miletus cont 〈◊〉 loc 27. Error 615. Secondly They confirme the Churches authoritie by the Scriptures 1. Tim. 3.15 Math. 18.17 Eph. 4. 11 12 13 14. Gregorie Valence tom 3. disput 1. punct 1. pa. 40. ibid. punct 7. pa. 327. Driedo d. Eccles. dogm li 2. c. 3. pa. 59. Stapleton triplic c. 15. pa. 179. And thus will they nill they they are compelled to make holie Scripture the last and finall resolution of Faith for if we beleeue Tradition vpon the authoritie of the Church and the Churches authoritie for the Scripture then we must of 〈◊〉 make the Scripture our last and finall resolution of 〈◊〉 which is the Tenet of the Fathers S. Chris. sup Psal. 95. When any thing is deliuered without the warrant of Scripture the hearers thought staggereth sometimes consenting and then againe 〈◊〉 and another while reiecting the same as 〈◊〉 c. but when the testimonie of Diuine Voice is deliuered out of the Scripture it both confirmeth the saying of the Speaker and mind of the Hearer IESVIT So it is that the Scripture of the New Testament 〈◊〉 not be prooued to haue beene deliuered vnto the Church by the Apostles but by perpetuall Tradition vnderwritten conserued in the Church succeeding the Apostles for what other proofe can be imagined except one would prooue it by the titles of the Bookes which were absurd seeing doubt may be made Whether those titles were set on the Bookes by the Apostles themselues of which doubt Tradition only can resolue vs. Besides the Gospell of S. Marke and S. Luke and also the Acts of the Apostles were not written by any Apostles but were by their liuely voice and suffrages recommended vnto Christians as sacred otherwise as also Mr. Bilson noteth they should neuer haue obtained such eminent authoritie in the Church neither should they be now so esteemed but vpon the supposall of Apostolicall approbation but how shall we know the Apostles saw these writings and recommended the same vnto Christian Chnrches but by Tradition ANSVVER The point which the Aduersarie endeauors to prooue is That the Scriptures of the New Testament are beleeued by diuine Faith to come from the Apostles only and principally by the testimonie of perpetuall Tradition vnwritten he endeauoreth to performe this by disproouing other meanes to wit the titles of the Bookes c. The summe of his argument is Either perpetuall Tradition vnwritten is the only ground of this beleefe or else the Titles of the Bookes But the Titles of the Bookes are not the only ground because doubt may be made of their credit c. And some of the Bookes of the New Testament were not penned by the Apostles but by their Suffrages recommended to Christians and so became Authenticall in the Church And this approbation is not expressed in the Titles of the Bookes but is only made knowne by Tradition I answere It followeth not that Tradition vnwritten is the only or principall ground whereupon we beleeue the Scriptures of the New Testament to be Apostolicall although the titles of the Bookes alone are not so for besides the externall Titles there be three other grounds arguing the said Books to be Apostolicall First the inward Subscription 1. Corinth 16.21 and Inscription 1. Rom. 1. 1. of many of these Bookes and namely of all Saint Pauls Epistles except to the Hebrews together with the Reuelations of Saint Iohn and the other Canonicall Epistles Secondly In diuers Bookes there is found apparant testimonie within the same that the Apostles were the Authors Iohn 21. 24. 1. Cor. 15. 10. 1. Tim. 1. 13. Renel 1. 4. Thirdly In those Bookes which want such inward inscription or testimonie the matter and forme of the Bookes their harmonie with the Scriptures of the Old Testament and with those other of the New Testament which haue inscription and the voice of the holy Ghost speaking in them will prooue them to be diuine and if they be diuine then it followeth that they are Apostolicall either by the Apostles owne writing or approbation because the Church of the New Testament is builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles Eph. 2. 20. and our Sauiour himselfe did appoint their Doctrine and Ministerie to be the prime rule of Faith Math. 28. 20. Luc. 10. 16. c. 24. 48 49. And whosoeuer in their daies by preaching or writing instructed the Church must receiue approbation from them Gallath 2. 2. 9. The titles prefixed before the Bookes of the New Testament being ioined with these three grounds formerly
it was Apostolicall finally and principally into the authority of the present Church ANSWER Saint Augustine deliuers not the former and therfore the Iesuit cannot inferre the latter we haue indeed no stronger or more excellent morall proofe than the perpetual testimony of the Church succeeding the Apostles but we haue a stronger and more excellent diuine proofe to wit the Prophesie of Christ and his Apostles concerning the perpetuall preseruation of the Gospell vnto the end of the world also that the Aposcolical Scriptures were once incorrupt is manifest because they were giuen by diuine inspiration And it is apparant that they were not afterwards corrupted because no authority or sufficient Argument can be produced to procue them in whole or in part to haue been corrupted Now that which being once knowne by diuine testimony to haue beene incorrupt cannot be prooued afterwards to haue been corrupted doth by diuine testimony appeare to be incorrupt because the first diuine testimony standeth still in force The Text of the Gospell was once knowne by diuine testimonie to haue beene incorrupt and it cannot be prooued to haue beene afterwards corrupted Ergo It doth still appeare by diuine testimonie that the Text of the Gospell is incorrupt and the resolution of Faith finally and principally resteth vpon that diuine testimonie and not vpon the 〈◊〉 of the present Church Lastly the harmony coherence of the Gospel both with the Scriptures of the old Testament Lu. 24.27 Act. 28.23 and of the seuerall parts of the Gospel among themselues do manifest that the text of the new Testament is incorrupt For if the same were corrupted in any part corruption of words would produce alteration and difference of matter but we find at this day a perfect harmonie of all the parts of the Gospell among themselues and a perfect agreement of the same with the Scriptures of the old Testament And from the same being an inward Argument we may collect that the text of the Gospell is at this day incorrupt Now hauing so many Arguments besides the authoritie of the present Church to prooue the integritie of the text of the Gospell we do not flie neither is it necessarie to flie to priuat Spirit or particular Reuelation for assurance and that which our Aduersaries obiect against vs saying that we resolue our Faith and Religion into the priuat Spirit is a foolish calumniation for we resolue our Faith into the authoritie of Gods outward word expounded vnto vs by such helpes and meanes as both the Scripture it selfe and the antient Church require as into the diuine motiue and obiect of beleefe and we affirme that his grace and holy Spirit working by the outward meanes inableth draweth and persuadeth the conscience to assent Iohn 6.45 12.37 38.1 Cor. 2.12 c. 12.3 2. Cor. 3.5 Act. 16.14 1. Iohn 2.20.27 Esay 50.5 And herein we flie to no priuat Spirit or Reuelation but maintaine the ordinarie assistance of diuine grace according to the doctrine of the holy Scripture and of S. Augustine and the common Tenet of the Scholemen themselues IESVITS 2. Argument Secondly J 〈◊〉 that common vnlearned people the greatest part of Christianitie are persuaded about all substantiall points of Faith by Tradition not by Scripture Common vnlearned people haue true Christian Faith in all points necessarie and snfficient vnto Saluation but they haue not Faith of all these maine and substantiall points grounded on Scripture for they can neither vnderstand nor read any Scripture but translated into vulgar languages and so if they beleeue vpon Scripture they beleeue vpon Scripture translated into their mother tongue but before that they can know that the Scriptures are truely translated euen in all substantiall points that so they may build of it they must first know what are the maine and substantiall points and firmely beleeue them so that they would not beleeue the Scripture translated against them for if they knew them not before how can they know that Scriptures in places that concerne them are truely translated if they do not before hand firmely beleeue them why should they bee readie to allow translations that agree with them and to reiect the translations which differ from them Ergo Originally and before they know any Scripture they haue Faith grounded on the Tradition of their ancestors by the light whereof they are able to judge of the truth of Translations about such substantiall points as they firmely beleeue by Tradition ANSVVER The question which the Iesuit vndertaketh to prooue in his foure Arguments is that our resolution of Faith stayeth finally vpon the perpetuall Tradition of the Church and not vpon the Scripture His second argument to prooue this is taken from the manner of vulgar and illiterate people in resoluing their Faith For if these being the greater part of Christianitie do ground their Creed touching all points of doctrine necessarie to Saluation vpon Tradition of their ancestors andif they haue true Faith before they know and vnderstand the Scripture then Christian Faith at least-wise among the greater part of Christians is resolued finally into the Tradition of ancestors and not of the Scriptures And he prooueth that these vulgar people haue Faith touching all points necessarie to Saluation before they know the Scriptures because it is impossible for them to read or vnderstand Scripture vntill it be translated into their mother tongue and they are not able to iudge of translations or know them to be true vnlesse they first beleeue the principall points of Christian Faith and by comparing translations of Scripture with the said doctrines of Faith formerly by them beleeued be inabled to iudge of the Truth of Translations This Paralogisme hath certaine ambiguous or equiuocall termes which must be distinguished and then I will applie my answer First the terme of Scripture may be taken for the letter and text of the Scripture together with the names of the seueral Bookes Authors and Sections and secondly it may signifie the doctrine of the Scripture without mention of the particular Bookes Iohn 7.38 Rom. 1 2 3 4. Secondly Resolution of Faith is either distinct and explicite wherein beleeuers are able to declare the seueral reasons of their Faith and to proceed from one reason of beleeuing to another vntill they ascend by degrees to the principall ground or else Implicit and Vertuall wherein beleeuers cannot proceed distinct ly and with explication of the seuerall reasons and grounds of Faith but resting themselues vpon one prime and radicall ground are readie for the authoritie of the same to beleeue all other particular reasons and verities of Faith when they are declared vnto them Thirdly Tradition may signifie either doctrine of Faith and good manners not contained or written in holy Scripture expressely or inuoluedly or else the same doctrine which is found in holy Scripture deliuered by Ancestors or Teachers by word of mouth These distinctions premised I answer the obiection 1.
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
onely Rule because it is not said to be sufficient for all men but for the man of God and it is not sufficient alone and by it selfe but being ioyned with Tradition I answere first That which is Sufficient in genere regulae as a Rule for the man of God either Minister 1. Tim. 6. 12. or other spirituall man 1. Cor. 2.15 is sufficient for all men because there is but one common Obiect and Rule of Faith for the whole Church and all the members thereof contayning strong Meat for the Learned and Milke or plaine Doctrine for Babes And therefore if the Scripture be a Rule and a sufficient Rule it is such in common and in respect of all people although the manner of applying and vsing the same may differ Secondly That which is Profitable to make the man of God perfect and throughly furnished to euerie good worke is both a sufficient Rule and an onely Rule First it is sufficient because it makes people which receiuc it by Faith and Obedience meet for the kingdome of God Secondly it is alone sufficient otherwise this effect of making the man of God perfect and throughly instructed could not be ascribed to it alone as it is manifestly done in the Apostles speech When two persons equally co-worke we cannot ascribe the whole worke to one of them alone but to both Bread alone being one part of Food is not sufficient to all kind of Nutriment The Apostle in the Text alledged affirming first That the Scripture is able to make wise vnto saluation secondly affirming That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Scripture as Dionysius Carthusian expoundeth it giuen by inspiration is profitable to teach confute instruct reproue and then declaring the greatnesse of the vtilitic which is to make the man of God perfect and throughly instructed to euerie good worke This effect cannot be ascribed to a partiall cause neither can the Apostle meane that the whole Scripture is profitable or sufficient onely as one part of Diuine Reuelation but because it containeth the whole Rule of Faith If any shall pretend That the Scripture is not sufficient of it selfe to these effects because Diuine Grace Ecclesiasticall Ministerie Docilitie in the Hearer or Reader are necessarie together with the Scripture to make the man of God perfect they must vnderstand that our question is Whether holy Scripture alone be a sufficient rule of Faith Not whether other adiuuant causes be necessarie for the receiuing and applying thereof that it may produce Faith The Earth is sufficient to bring forth food for man Gen. 1. 29. although Husbandmen and Grasiers be necessarie Manna Quailes and the water flowing from the Rocke were sufficient to feed the children of Israel in the Desart yet Bakers and Cookes were necessarie to prepare and dresse this food Exod. 16.6.24 Sap. 16.21 Euen so the holy Scripture is sufficient as a Rule to teach all Doctrine necessarie for our spirituall nourishment although the Ministerie of man and Diuine Grace be needfull also that wee rightly vse the same If the Obiection were good to wit Holy Scripture is not the onely Rule because by it alone without Diuine Grace and Ecclesiasticall Ministerie c. wee cannot beleeue then Tradition and holy Scripture being conioyned to make vp the Rule of Faith the same will yet be insufficient because without Diuine Grace Ecclesiasticall Ministerie and Docilitie in the people neither Scripture nor Tradition can produce Faith IESVIT Hence also we may conclude that the many allegations of Fathers which Protestants bring to prooue the Scripture to be cleere in all substantiall points are impertinent because the Fathers speake of men aforehand instructed in all substantiall points who may by the light of Tradition easily discouer in Scripture as they that heard Aristotle explicate himselfe by word of mouth may vnderstand his Booke of Nature most difficill to bee vnderstood of them that neuer heard his explication either out of his owne mouth or by Tradition of his schollers ANSWER Out of your owne fancies you may conclude what you please but from the Fathers nothing can be concluded repugnant to that which Protestants hold concerning the perspicuity of sacred Scripture euen in it selfe Ireneus saith All the Scriptures both Propheticall and Euangelicall are cleere without ambiguity and may indifferently bee heard of all men S. Hierom It is the manner of the Scripture to ioine that which is manifest to such things as are obscure S. Cyril That they may be knowne of all people both small and great they are profitably commended vnto vs in a familiar kind of speaking that they may exceed the capacitie of none S. Augustine Plaine places are found in them to expound and open the darke and hard S. Gregorie The Scripture hath so much in open 〈◊〉 as may feed little ones S. Chrysoft Scriptures are 〈◊〉 like mettals which haue need of workemen to digge them out but they deliuer a treasure readie at hand for them which seeke hidden riches in them It is sufficient to looke into them that you may depart replenished with all fruit it is sufficient onely to open them that you may presently behold the splendor of their pearles And although the antient Fathers do many times referre people to Tradition especially in three cases First For the testifying of the number and integritie of the Bookes of Canonical Scripture Secondly For the cleering of some hard or ambiguous Texts of Scripture from the new and forged expositions of Heretickes Thirdly For externall rites and ceremonies yet neither the Fathers nor the more learned Papists themselues do hold that there is a large and general Commentarie of all the Scriptures or of all the difficill places thereof receiued from the Apostles and preserued vntill our daies neither doe the Fathers hold that people cannot read the holy Scripture with profit or collect the true meaning of them in points substantiall and necessarie without such a Commentarie First If such a Commentarie were extant it must be found in the elder Fathers Tertullian Ireneus Origen c. But the Papists themselues will not alwaies be tied to their Expositions as appeareth by their forsaking of Tertullian in the Exposition of the wordes of the Gospell Hoc est corpus meum This is my bodie and by their forsaking of Origen in many of his Expositions and againe of Tertullian in his Exposition of Math. 16. 17. Secondly The Exposition of Scripture giuen by the Fathers is many times repugnant and different each of them from other as Sixtus Senensis in his Bibliotheca and Cardinall 〈◊〉 in his Commentaries and other Pontificians doe shew but if there had beene a large and generall Commentarie of Scripture or of all or most of the harder places of Scripture the antient Fathers 〈◊〉 nearest vpon the Apostles must haue knowne and followed that and so could neither haue
where they preached so 〈◊〉 was necessarie but that they made a large and entire Commentarie vpon all their Scriptures and deliuered the same to posteritie to continue perpetually is not prooued by the confession of Chemnitius and the discord which is in the Commentaries of the Fathers yea of Romists themselues vpon the Scriptures argueth the contrarie IESVIT Whereupon S. Augustine argueth That they that deliuer the Text of Christs Gospell must also deliuer the Exposition affirming That he would sooner refuse to beleeue Christ than admit any interpretation contrarie to them by whom he was brought to beleeue in Christ. For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense why may they not also deliuer a false Text as receiued from the Apostles An argument conuincing and vnanswerable ANSVVER Saint Augustine in the place obiected Lib. d. vtil Cred. cap. 14. confuteth the Manichees who condemned Faith and affirmed That people ought to credit nothing but that which is demonstrated by reason And hee argueth against these Heretikes first out of some of their owne grounds for they were compelled to beleeue something in their Religion vpon report of others and they required people to giue credit to certaine Narrations which could not be demonstrated by reason onely Secondly This Father prooueth the necessitie of Faith because without giuing credit to some report it was impossible to receiue the knowledge of Christ. Thirdly Whereas the Manichees required that men should learne to know Christs word from them Saint Augustine saith That if he had no better Guides to follow than such new and turbulent Companions as those Heretikes were he should sooner persuade himselfe not to beleeue in Christ than to beleeue vpon their bare report or to receiue this Faith from any other than from those by which he first beleeued But Saint Augustine in this place treateth not of the sense of the Scripture neither doth he say absolutely that he would sooner refuse to beleeue Christ than to admit any interpretation contrarie to them by whom he was brought to beleeue in Christ but he speaketh comparatiuely and according to humane reason hee should more easily be persuaded to beleeue nothing than forsaking the authoritie and testimonie of his first Teachers yeeld credit to these men vpon their Hereticall grounds It is cleare that Saint Augustine did not alwayes tye himselfe to the same exposition of Scripture which those that were before him had deliuered For in the questions of Grace and Free-will he found out many expositions by searching the Scriptures which both himselfe and other men before him were ignorant of vntill the heresie of Pelagius arose and in his worke De Doctrina Christiana he makes twofold charitie the modell of expounding Scripture and not the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall Teachers whom hee oftentimes expoundeth with mitigation or reiecteth with modestie and hee is most constant in aduancing the authoritie of Scripture before any Ecclesiasticall authoritie whatsoeuer IESVIT For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sence Why may they not also deliuer a false Text as receiued from the Apostles An argument conuincing and vnanswerable ANSWER The Iesuit imagineth that this Argument is inuincible But let not him that girdeth on his harnesse boast himselfe as hee that putteth it off 1. Kings 20. 11. And Sauls brags That God had deliuered Dauid into his hand prooued vaine 1. Sam. 23. 14. and 24. 5. The Argument reduced to forme will discouer its owne weakenesse If the Text of the Scripture may 〈◊〉 easily bee corrupted as the sence then all they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sence may also deliuer a false Text. But the Text of the Scripture may as easily bee corrupted as the sence Ergo All they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sence may also deliuer a false Text. The assumption of this Syllogisme which although it were concealed by the Paralogist yet it must bee added to make the Argument perfect is apparantly false and the contrary is true The Text of the Scripture cannot so easily bee corrupted as the sence and therefore it is not necessarie that they which following humane Tradition or their owne inuention may deliuer a false sence shall likewise deliuer a false Text. First the Text of the Scripture is contained in Records and Bookes which are dispersed throughout the whole Christian world and preserued in all Churches and the Coppies and Transcripts of them are innumerable Tradition is in the brest of a few and authentically as Papals affirme in the brest of the Pope and his Church onely Secondly when God Almightie would haue the knowledge and memorie of things to bee perpetuall he commanded that they should bee committed to writing Exod. 17. 14. and 34. 27. Deut. 31. 19. And although the law of nature was ingrauen in mans heart and might haue beene preserued for euer by vniforme succession yet God himselfe wrote the same in Tables Deut. 10.4 and inspired Moses to write it in Bookes Exod 20. Deut. 5. And although the Precepts of the Law of Nature were more firmely fixed in mans heart and the Tradition thereof was more generally diffused than any positiue Tradition can bee yet in processe of time many parts thereof were corrupted both in regard of knowledge and practise Thirdly experience of all ages testifieth that the Text of the Scripture hath beene preserued inuiolable euen among Iewes and Heretickes whereas the sence of the Scripture made knowne by Tradition onely is forgotten in part and they which disagree about the sence and some parcels of the Canon of the Scripture are at one concerning the verie letter of the Text. For although there were some which in antient time reiected the Epistle of St. Iames and the latter of St. Peters c. yet the literall Text of these Scriptures was faithfully preserued alwayes in the Church Fourthly whereas the Iesuite compareth vnanimous Tradition of the sence of Scripture with the written letter and Text of the Scripture vnlesse he equiuocate in the name terming that Tradition which is collected from the Scripture such vniforme Tradition as he boasteth of is verie rare for it must be such as in all ages and in all Orthodoxall Churches hath beene the same Now the most vndoubted and vniforme Tradition of all other is concerning the number and integritie of the Bookes of holy Scripture and yet in this difference hath beene betweene one Church and another and the later Romane Church disagreeth with the antient the one denying and the other affirming d the bookes of Macchabees to be Canonicall The Articles also of the late Popish Creed compiled by Pope Pius the fourth are not agreeable to the antient Tradition of the Catholike Church or to the Tradition of the elder Romane Church it selfe and among sundrie other matters in question betwixt vs this Iesuit is not able to shew by
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
part onely is immediately the Word of God and the other part is a collection arising vpon reflection and obseruation of a mans owne qualities and actions and the conclusion is more or lesse certaine according to the condition of the second Proposition Fourthly The certaintie and assurance of their owne particular Iustification which iust persons attaine vnto is reduced by vs to certaintie and assurance of Faith because one ground thereof is a Proposition or Sentence mediately Diuine the other is inferred and concluded from that which is Diuine for the Rule by which a man discerneth himselfe to beleeue and repent is the Doctrine of Gods Word declaring the qualitie of Faith and Repentance Many Pontificians maintaine That this Proposition to wit Pope Gregorie the fifteenth is S. Peters Successor is of Faith and yet the same is not an immediate Diuine Reuelation and the collection thereof from that which is reuealed is lesse euident and certaine than that which a iust person maketh concerning his owne particular Faith and Charitie Fiftly The difference betweene some learned Papists who liued since the Trident Councell and vs concerning this Question is very small if it be any at all for they maintaine That iust persons may haue a true and certaine assurance without distrustfull doubting of their Iustification and that infused Faith enclineth and leadeth immediately to this certaintie and assurance And it is worthie obseruation which Andreas Vega deliuereth concerning the Trident Councell saying Non negat sciri hoc posse per fidem sed tantum negat sciri hoc posse certitudine fidei The Councell denyeth not that one may be able to know by Faith that he is in the state of Grace but it denyeth onely that this can be knowne by certaintie of Faith It is also remarkable That whiles the Romists accuse vs about the definition of iustifying Faith they forget the Beame which is in their owne eye for they make such a Faith the foundation of true Iustification as is common with Deuils Iam. 2. 19. and which according to their owne Doctrine is no true Vertue It is saith Michael Palacius a great Question and as yet vndecided among vs Whether Faith be a true Vertue or not and Albertus thinketh it is not properly a Vertue but onely improperly Aquinas It hath not a perfect Act and therefore it cannot be a Vertue The like is affirmed by Bonauenture Durand Archangelus Rubeo c. And the same is manifest by reason For Vertue is a good qualitie making the person in whom it is seated and his actions good and the Faith which the holy Scripture and the antient Fathers require to Iustification purifieth the heart Acts 15.9 and impelleth vnto righteousnesse Heb. 11. 33. But informed Catholike Faith performeth none of these things Iam. 2. 17. And therefore the Romists depart from the Scripture and from Antiquitie when they appoint a dead and informed Faith which is no Vertue to be the foundation of true Iustification Lastly Our Doctrine concerning the forme and manner of Iustification is the same which Peter Lombard the Maister of the Schoole affirmed to be Orthodoxall in his dayes His words are these Wee are said also to be iustified by the death of Christ because by the Faith of his Death wee are cleansed from our sinnes Whereupon the Apostle saith The righteousnesse of God is by the Faith of Iesus Christ Rom. 3. 22. whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his bloud Verse 25. that is through Faith of his Passion euen as in times past they which were bitten of fierie Serpents were made whole by looking vpon the Brazen Serpent which was raysed vpon a peece of Wood. If therefore wee by the aspect of Faith rightly behold him who was hanged vpon a Tree for vs wee are loosed from the bonds of Sathan to wit from our sinnes 〈◊〉 Vega affirmeth That many Romane Doctors in former dayes denyed that men were formally iustified by any created qualitie inhaerent but onely by the free grace and fauour of God accepting man and imparting the righteousnesse of Christ vnto him And that vntill the Trident Councell the present Doctrine of Pontificians concerning the formall cause of Iustification was onely receiued as probable And before the said Councell many learned Papists to wit Albertus Pighius the Councell of Colen set forth by Gropper Antididagma Coloniense Conradus Clingius c. maintained our Doctrine concerning the formall cause of Iustification and were not condemned of Heresie by the Romane Church Wherefore the same cannot in these dayes be a fundamentall Error in vs. IESVIT FIftly Their extenuating the value of the price of our Redemption not making it sufficient to giue inward sanctitie and puritie to mens soules nor to rayse the good Workes of Gods children to a due proportion with their reward ANSWER NO Christian Church euer prised the oblation and merits of Christ more highly and religiously than wee Heb. 10. 14. Eph. 5.2 Acts 4. 12. Ioh. 1.29 and wee firmely beleeue the inestimable price and vertue thereof for mans Redemption Sanctification Iustification and Glorification 1. Cor. 1. 30. And in particular wee beleeue expressely and contrarie to our Aduersaries accusation That the same is all-sufficient to iustifie a sinner in the sight of God and to giue true and inhaerent sanctitie and puritie to mens soules and actions first in this life sanctitie and puritie secundum statum viae according to the condition of mans wayfaring state secondly in the life to come sanctitie and puritie of perfect righteousnesse without error or sinne And we beleeue that the Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse effecteth all this both by way of merit and influence Rom. 6. 3 4 5. Ioh. 15. 1. c. What then doth this Popish Momus accuse in our Doctrine I suppose his owne fancie for it is ordinarie with Papals to calumniate saying That wee hold Good workes to be mortall sinnes and that they are Vertues onely by extrinsecall denomination and hee is also offended that wee make not Good workes properly and condignely meritorious Concerning the first I referre my Reader to the words of Melancthon and Beza who treating of this Question speake as followeth Although the workes of regenerate persons are not so perfect and good as that they are able to merit eternall life yet they are truly good because they proceed from the Holy Ghost who purisieth the heart by Faith and because God is glorified by them and wee our selues receiue excellent fruit by them c. The same are good in regard of their obiect forme efficient and end Psal. 119. 167. Galath 5.22 Phil. 2.13 1. Cor. 10.31 They are good fruits opposed to euill fruits Matth. 7.17 workes of Light opposed to workes of Darknesse Eph. 5.9 a spirituall Sacrifice acceptable to God Phil. 4.18 And the same are truly good non comparatione scelerum not
repugnant to Catholike faith and most conformeable to pietie To Elysius I adde Cassander a moderate and peaceable Romane in his Booke d. Baptismo Infantum which with many authorities and weightie Arguments defendeth the same doctrine concerning Infants against the common straine of rigorous Pontificians And thus againe our braine-sicke Aduersarie fighteth against pietie and humanitie obiecting that against Protestants as a fundamentall errour which moderate Romists themselues propugne as the more safe and tollerable Doctrine IESVIT SEauenthly Their errour against Reall Presence which they denie or else the mayne Article of the Creed That Christ is still in heauen at the right hand of his Father for they will not allow a bodie in two places at once ANSWER THe more learned Iesuites themselues acknowledge That Protestants beleeue the reall Presence of Christs Bodie and Blood in the holy Eucharist and our Diuines deliuer their Faith concerning the Sacrament in this manner God forbid wee should denie that the flesh and bloud of Christ are truly present and truly receiued of the faithfull at the Lords Table it is the Doctrine wee teach others and comfort our selues with The difference then betweene Papals and vs is not concerning the obiect or matter receiued in and by the Sacrament but touching the manner of Presence and the manner of Receiuing Caluin saith thus concerning the difference That the bodie and bloud of Christ are communicated to vs in the holy Eucharist none of vs denie the question is concerning the manner of this communication The sacred Scripture neither expressely nor yet by any formall consequence teacheth the Doctrine of Transubstantiation as some learned Papists themselues confesse neither is this Doctrine any part of the antient Catholique Faith as some other among them say The Fathers are against Transubstantiation The mysticall signes saith Theodoret doe not after sanctification depart from their owne nature but remaine in their former substance figure and forme The Sacraments which wee receiue of the bodie and bloud of Christ saith Pope Gelasius are a diuine thing and by them wee are made partakers of the Diuine Nature and yet for all that the nature of Bread and Wine ceaseth not to be After consecration saith S. Chrysostome it is deliuered from the name of Bread and reputed worthie to be called the Lords Bodie notwithstanding the nature of Bread still remaineth The signes as touching the substance of the creatures are the same after consecration which they were before saith Bertram To the other part of the Iesuits speech Or else the maine Article c. I answer first we cannot graunt That one indiuiduall Bodie may be in many distant places at one and the same instant vntill the Papals demonstrate the possibilitie hereof by testimonie of sacred Scripture or by the antient Tradition of the Primitiue Church or by apparent reason And if they shall except saying That they make not Christs bodie locally present in many places at once but substantially onely wee say with Augustine Spacia locorum tolle corporibus nusquam erunt quia nusquam erunt nec erunt Take away their places from bodies and the bodies shall be no where and if they shall be no where they shall haue no being And in another place Corpora non possunt esse nisi in loco Bodies cannot be but in some place And againe Christus homo secundum corpus in loco est de loco migrat cum ad alium locum venerit in eo loco vnde venit non est The man Christ is in a place according to his Bodie and hee passeth from place to place and when hee commeth to another place hee is not in that place from whence hee came The Papals paralogize saying That because circumscription and localitie are not of the essence of the bodie therefore by the omnipotent power of God the bodie may be without them But if this illation be good then wee may likewise inferre That because to be created made or begotten is not of the definition of humane bodies therefore humane bodies by the omnipotencie of God may be increate and without beginning The learned Iulius Scaliger speaketh in this manner Tametsi quod non includitur in definitione abesse potest à definito in definitione non omne tamen abesse potest à re definita Propria enim quae vocantur in definitione non ponuntur à re tamen abesse nequeunt cuius propria sunt Etsi namque sunt natura suis subiectis posteriora non tamen re c. Qua necessitate coniunctum cum corpore locum arbitror Although that which is not included in the definition may be separated from the thing defined in the very definition yet it cannot be parted from the subiect or thing which is defined for the essentiall properties of things are not placed in the definition yet they cannot be diuided from the subiect whose properties they be And although by posterioritie of nature they follow the subiects yet indeed they are inseparable And thus place or circumscription is inseparably conioyned with a bodie Secondly The bodie of Christ in the Eucharist hath magnitude and quantitie as Aquinas and other Schoolemen commonly teach But things which haue magnitude and quantitie are diuisible and limitted and confined to a certaine space and measure equall to their bulke and materiall substance also they haue distance of parts and are extended at leastwise in order to themselues and bounded by their owne termination compasse or surface although nothing extrinsecall to them should containe them outwardly as is instanced in the highest Heauens When Sophisters say That Christs bodie hath quantitie and not the manner or nature of quantitie they deliuer plaine Chimaera's and Fictions For as a thing cannot be a substance and want the proper nature and manner of a substance so likewise a bodie cannot haue quantitie and want the proper manner and condition of quantitie And whereas to elude so manifest Veritie Papists flye to the Omnipotencie of God saying That although in nature it be impossible for one and the same bodie to be in many places at once yet because God is omnipotent hee is able to effect it Wee answer first it implyeth a contradiction That God should destroy the nature of a thing the nature of the same thing remaining safe Secondly wee say with Tertullian The power of God which we must stand of is his Will and that which he Will not he cannot And S. Augustine Christ is said to be omnipotent in doing what he Will. Nothing is impossible to God because it exceedeth his power saith S. Ambrose but some things are repugnant to his Will and some things to his veritie Tit. 1. 2. And the impossibilitie of these things proceedeth not of Infirmitie in God but of Might and Maiestie because his Truth admitteth
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
still sollicitous though secure of their owne as S. Cyprian writes ANSVVER The blessed Saints in Heauen can desire that only which is according to the will of God Math. 6. 10. But that it pleaseth God they shall desire to know and vnderstand all the particular actions and occurrents of people on earth or that they shall desire to know the honour which is done to them in the inferiour world must be beleeued as a matter of Faith when the Papals prooue it by diuine Reuelation And although according to S. Cyprian blessed Saints are sollicitous of the Saluation of the Chucrh militant yet it followeth not Ergo they heare the petitions of the liuing for a father dwelling in London which hath his sonne at Constantinople is sollicitous of his sonnes safetie and yet he vnderstandeth not all the particulars about him IESVIT Wherefore our Doctrine that Saints see our prayers being deliuered so constantly by the antient Fathers so conformable to the principles of Christian beleefe about the blessednesse of Saints so consonant vnto expresse passages of Scripture we may easily expect that vnto Protestants it would not be displeasing did they looke on it with vnpartiall eyes specially they hauing no Text of Scripture that may make so much shew of direct opposition against it ANSWER Your insinuations are coniecturall and at the best seemingly plausible but your disputation is weake wherefore we admire your confidence in a case so groundlesse and intreat you either to argue more soundly or else to be lesse vaineglorious in your conclusions IESVIT The place continually obiected out of the Prophet Esay Abraham knew vs not Israell was ignorant of vs thou O Lord art our Father thou our Redeemer hath this sence that Abraham and Iacob when they did liue vpon earth and carnally beget children did not know particularly their posterities and so could not beare them such particular affection whereas God can and doth distinctly see and know their necessities and prouides against them deliuering his children out of them And therefore he is the onely Father the onely Redeemer Abraham and Iacob not deseruing the name of Father in comparison with God What makes this against the Saints hearing our prayers ANSVVER We receiued our exposition of this place of Esay cap. 63.16 out of S. Augustine and I marueile why the Iesuit reiecteth the same and chuseth a worse because his owne party confesseth that Abraham and the Patriarkes liuing in the darke lake of Limbus did not heare the prayers of their posteritie nor behold and vnderstand the affaires of their children liuing vpon earth IESVIT §. 3. The worship of Spirit and Truth with outward prostration of the bodie due vnto Saints THe third cause of their dislike is That we giue the honor of the Creator vnto the creature honoring Saints with religious worship with worship of Spirit and Truth euen to the prostrating of our bodies before them whereby we giue them honor due to God only and bring in many Gods as the Heathens do To this Obiection made long ago by Faustus the Manichee S. Austine answereth in these words The Christian people doth celebrate with religious solemnitie the memories of Martyrs to the end to stirre vp themselues to their imitation and that they may be assisted with their prayers and associated vnto their merits c. but with the worship tearmed in Greeke Latria and which the Latine language cannot expresse in one word being a certaine subiection and seruitude due properly to the Deitie only wee do not honour any but onely God nor thinke that this honour ought to be giuen but only to him These words of S. Augustine shew the worship of Saints to be on the one side more than ciuile and on the other side lesse than diuine more than ciuile as proceeding out of acknowledgement of the excellencie Saints haue superior vnto all naturall by which they be partakers of diuine perfection in that high degree as no substance can by natureparticipate therof and therfore S. Austine with good reason tearmes it religious Lesse than diuine as proceeding from persuasion of excellency though superhumane yet infinitely inferiour vnto the increate and immence excellencie of God yea depending essentially thereof So that honor is giuen them dependently of God as being superexcellent participants of his perfection and his singular friends ANSVVER Our Argument is All religious worship is due to God onely Papists yeeld to Saints some religious worship Ergo Papists yeeld to Saints some worship due to God onely The Iesuit pretendeth to answere by distinction out of St. Augustine saying That religious worship is either simply Diuine and founded vpon infinite and increate excellencie called Latria or else superhumane founded vpon Grace and Glorie which is an excellencie finite and created Papists yeeld the latter kinde of religious worship to blessed Saints and Angels but not the former To this Answere Protestants replie saying That there are no other kindes of worship than there be Tables of the Morall Law But there are onely two Tables of the Morall Law the former whereof teacheth Diuine Worship and the second humane ciuile or of speciall obseruance And if there be a mixt worship partly Diuine and partly humane so much thereof as is Diuine is proper to God and may not be imparted to any Creature Esay 42.8 But against this they obiect That to euery kinde and degree of excellencie there is a worship due proportionall to that excellencie But blessed Saints and Angels haue a speciall kinde and degree of excellencie superiour to theirs which liue vpon earth Therefore a speciall honour proportioned to their excellencie and superiour to humane is due vnto them It is answered That granting in blessed Saints and Angels an excellencie of Grace and Glorie and Honour due in respect of the same this prooueth not that they are to bee adored with religious worship for then holy persons vpon earth may bee worshipped with religious worship But the vertue of Religion according to the Tenet of the Schoole respecteth immedately increated excellencie and Latria and Religion are all one and if Saints and Angels may be worshipped with religious worship they may bee serued with the worship of Latria And if they answer that worship of Saints is a materiall action of religion this answer is confuted by the schoolemen themselues who also affirme that the worship of Saints c. is an act of Dulia and not of Religion or Latria The place obiected out of S. Augustin c. Faust. Manich. li. 20. c. 2 1 is made to speake that by the Aduersarie which the holy father intendeth not for he tearmeth not the honour exhibited by the true Church to the persons of Martyrs religious but he saith onely Populus Christianus memorias martyrum religiosa solemnitate concelebrat Christian people celebrate the memorials of Martyrs with religious solemnitie And then expounding himselfe in the progresse of the chapter
belong to the substance of this Mysterie and cannot be called in question without danger of misbeleefe First the Reall presence of the whole Bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread Secondly that this is done by Transubstantiation ANSWER Whatsoeuer is certainely reuealed in holy Scripture concerning the manner of Christs Presence in the Sacrament must be beleeued and not denied and so much is reuealed as is sufficient to inable the Minister people to vnderstand by Faith that Christs word and promise saying This is my bodie are infalliblie true and alwayes fulfilled when his Ordinance is obserued But Christ affirmeth not that the shapes of bread and wine are his Bodie and Blood neither that he is present by carnall vnion of his naturall Bodie and Blood with the formes or accidents of the Elements or that his Bodie and Blood are present in the holy Eucharist by Transubstantiation IESVIT §. 1. That the Reall presence of the whole Bodie of Christ vnder the formes of Bread belongs to the substance of the Mysterie TO prooue this I suppose as certaine that the Bodie of Christ is truely and really in the Sacrament of his Supper This I may iustly suppose seeing your Maiestie doth professe to hold a presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament no lesse true than we hold and consequently you will not vnderstand the words of Christ figuratiuely as Sacramentaries doe for they make the Body of Christ present in the Eucharisticall Bread but as in a figure holding not a true nor a reall presence but onely a presence by imagination and conceit as is euident ANSVVER Reall presence is taken two wayes First for a true and effectuall presence of the body and blood of Christ so as man receiuing the externall signes by his naturall parts receiueth also the thing signified and presented by the action of his spirituall facultie to wit by an operatiue faith Ioh. 6.51.53 54 55 56 57. Secondly for a corporall presence when the thing signified and presented is according to the naturall substance thereof contayned vnder the shapes of the outward signes and together with them conueyed into the mouth stomacke and bodily parts His most excellent Maiestie and all his Orthodoxall people beleeue reall presence according to the first acceptation but the fame is denyed according to the latter acceptation The Iesuit being ignorant of this distinction or else dissembling the same disputeth as followeth They which hold a reall presence of Christs body no lesse true than Papists themselues hold cannot vnderstand the words of Christ This is my body c. figuratiuely But his Maiestie holdeth a reall presence of Christs body no lesse true than Papists themselues hold Ergo His Maiestie cannot vnderstand the words of Christ This is my body figuratiuely I answer The Maior of the former argument is denyed for a true reall and effectuall presence of Christs body and blood may bee taught and deliuered by a figuratiue speech for First the mysticall head is really truely and effectually present to the mysticall body and yet notwithstanding this presence is taught in holy Scripture by figuratiue words Read Psal. 45. Salomons song Eph. 5. Ioh. 15. Secondly one part of our Sauiours words about the Sacrament to wit This cup is the new Testament in my blood Luc. 22.20 is figuratiue by confession of Romists themselues and yet they hold the thing expressed and meant by those words to be really giuen It is false therefore which the Iesuit and his consorts affirme That Protestants expounding the words of Christ This is my body figuratiuely doe by this sence ouerthrow the true presence of Christs body and bloud in the holy Eucharist and bring in onely a fantasticall and imaginarie presence for a mysticall Presence wrought by the power of the holy Ghost is as reall and true a presence in one kind as a corporall and carnall presence is in another kind But the Romists themselues are the men which contending for their carnall Presence giue vs a fantasticall body of Christ in stead of a true and naturall body and Phantasticall Elements to wit Accidents and emptie shadowes of Elements in stead of the substantiall creatures of Bread and Wine by this absurd doctrine vtterly subuerting the holy Sacrament IESVIT Wherein as your Maiestie knowes they contradict the antient Church which teacheth expresly That Christ did not say this is a figure of my body but this is my body and exhorts vs to beleeue Christ on his word he said This is my body I pray you let vs beleeue him whom we haue beleeued veritie cannot vtter vntruth and herein acknowledge with your Maiestie a most high and incomprehensible Mysterie which were no Mysterie at all the words being vnderstood in a meere figuratiue sence ANSWER The question is not Whether Christ vttered these words or not This is my body This cup is the new Testament in my bloud Neither is there any doubt of the veritie of our Sauiours speech or whether we must beleeue his word or not to which purpose Gaudentius speaketh but the question is concerning the sence of the words to wit whether This is my body This cup is the new Testament in my blood are to be expounded literally Arguments for the negatiue part are these which follow First if the substance of Bread and Wine be deliuered in the Eucharist our Aduersarie will grant that the words are figuratiue because one indiuiduall substance cannot be predicated of another properly But it shall be prooued in the sections following both out of Scripture and Fathers that the substance of Bread and Wine are deliuered in the holy Eucharist Secondly the words whereby the wine is consecrated Luc. 22.20 are tropicall by the confession of our Aduersaries Thirdly if the words be taken properly then the body of Christ and the bloud of Christ are deliuered and receiued without the soule and deitie of Christ for in proprietie of speech the body is a distinct and diuers thing from the soule and likewise the blood Fourthly that which Christ deliuered to bee eaten and drunke by his Disciples he did sacramentally eate and drinke himselfe Luc. 22.15 as S. Hierome S. Chrysostome Euthymius with many Schoole-men affirme But if the words be litterally vnderstood then he did eat his owne body and drinke his owne blood Fiftly if the words be vnderstood literally then Christ gaue his passible and mortall body to the Disciples but I trow no Iesuit will maintaine that a body mortall and passible can be in many Hosts or mouths at once neither can the same be corporally eaten without sensible touching and feeling thereof or diuiding one part thereof from another Sixtly if our Sauiours words be literally expounded then Infidells dogges and swine may eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man but all that eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man haue
Augustine and Tertullian and concerning the first he saith that S. Augustine spake not of a bare and emptie figure but of the figure of a thing really present but this answere is deceitfull for the Sacramentall elements are a true and liuely figure and not a bare and emptie signe of the Bodie and Bloud of Christ. And although the Bodie and Bloud of Christ are not essentially contained and inclosed in the shapes or materiall substance of the elements yet they are really communicated by the holy Ghost at and by the faithfull and worthie receiuing of these diuine mysteries The second place of S. Augustine admitteth not the Iesuits solution for one difference betweene the Manichee and this Father was concerning Moses his words Deut. 12.23 Thou shalt not eat the Bloud for the Bloud is the Soule S. Augustine saith Possum interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum I may expound that commandement by saying it was set downe in a signe for Christ doubted not to affirme This is my bodie when he gaue a signe of his Bodie In these words S. Augustine teacheth that as the Bloud is called the Soule after the manner of a signe so likewise the Bread in the holy Eucharist is called the bodie of Christ because it is a signe of his bodie This similitude prooueth that S. Augustine held our Sauiours words This is my Bodie to be a siguratiue enunciation which is the thing affirmed by vs. Tertullian affirmeth expressely of Bread which he receiued into his hand and distributed to his disciples that it is a figure of Christs Bodie And the Aduersaries 〈◊〉 expounding his words in this manner The figure of my bodie is my bodie is voluntarie or rather sophisticall for the words immediately following are he called bread his Bodie and in other places he maketh bread the subiect of the proposition This is my Bodie But the accidents and shape of bread are not bread neither did our Sauiour when he said This is my Bodie demonstrate the forme only of Bread or command the formes only of Bread and Wine to be corporally receiued for he did demonstrate that which was sacramentally changed but the accidents of Bread and Wine are not changed into Christs Bodie and Bloud by the confession of Papists themselues IESVIT This supposed I inferre that the bodie of Christ is present in the mysticall Supper not onely to the faithfull that receiue the Sacrament nor onely to the place or Church where the holy Synaxis is celebrated but vnder the formes of Bread in the verie same place therewith This manner of presence is cleerely consequent vpon the precedent and that granted this cannot be denyed For the reason for which Christians hold the bodie of Christ to be really truly present in the Sacrament is because they cannot otherwise in proper and plaine sence verifie the word of Christ to say of Bread this is my bodie Wherefore we must either put no real presence at all or els put such a real presence as is able to verifie the foresaid speech in proper and rigorous sence But if the bodie of Christ be not in the same place with the consecrated Bread contained vnder the formes thereof it cannot be said to be verily and really the body of Christ. For though we should suppose the Body of Christ to leaue heauen and be substantially present in the Church where the Sacrament is giuen yet this supposed presence would no waies further the verifying of the words of Christ This is my Bodie except his bodie be vailed and couered with the sensible accidents of Bread so that it be demonstrated by them and pointing vnto them one may truely say This is the Body of Christ. For why should consecrated Bread be tearmed truely and substantially the Bodie of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with it Wherefore the Fathers affirme that Christ is so in this Sacrament as he is vailed with the semblances of Bread as S. Cyrill of Hierusalem in his Booke highly commended by Dr. Whitaker saith Let vs therefore with all certitude receiue the Bodie and Bloud of Christ For vnder the forme of Bread is giuen Thee his Bodie Yea Caluin saith In the supper Christ Jesus to wit his Bodie and Bloud is truely giuen vnder the signes of Bread and Wine ANSVVER Although the mysticall words be not vnderstood properly and rigorously yet we may truely and really though spiritually eat the Flesh and drinke the Bloud of the sonne of man by a liuing Faith Ioh. 6.54 1. Cor. 10.16 The food which entreth into the bodie must be locally present but this food entreth not into the bodie but it is the bread of life which nourisheth the substance of the soule saith S. Ambrose But the Obiector demandeth Why consecrated bread should be tearmed truely substantially the body of Christ if his bodie be not so much as in the same place with it Our answer is because of the Sacramentall vnion betweene the signes and the bodie of Christ represented and spiritually communicated to the worthie receiuor by that signe As a Kings crowne may be called a kingdome because it is a signe thereof and the placing thereof vpon the head may be a meanes of conferring a kingdome So likewise in Sacramentall speeches the outward signe is called by the name of the thing signified because it representeth it and is by diuine institution an effectual instrument to applie and communicate the same 1. Cor. 10.16 And by the same reason Christs Bodie may be said to be in the bread and his Bloud in the Cup not by locall presence or as wine is contained in a vessell which S. Cyrill affirmeth not but vertually and by relation and spirituall donation because when the Minister deliuereth the outward signe and the Communicant receiueth the same The holy Ghost deliuereth and communicates the thing signified to the beleeuing soule IESVIT Whence it is also consequent that the whole bodie of Christ is contained vnder a consecrated Host be the same neuer so little for by this mysterie the bodie of Christ is demonstrable by the sensible accidents so that consecrated bread may be termed truly really substantially the bodie of Christ not a parcell or part thereof only But were not the bodie of Christ wholly and entirely vnder the formes of bread consecrated bread could not truely and properly be tearmed the bodie of Christ but a sole part and 〈◊〉 thereof Againe we haue no reason to beleeue the bodie of Christ is truely and really present in the Sacrament but only to the end that it may in the Supper be truely and really eaten to nourish and feed mens soules And if he be eaten onely mentally by Faith we haue no ground to thinke that he is present more than mentally by Faith the presence of his bodie being ordained vnto the manducation thereof for else why did he institute this Sacrament
none of the antient Fathers maintained Romish Transubstantiation and I haue not obserued one expresse Testimonie produced by Romists wherein the Primatiue Fathers nay where Damascene or Theophilact affirme That the whole materiall substance and forme essentiall of bread and wine being destroyed the bare accidents and quantitie of bread and wine remaine or that the abstracted figures and qualities of those creatures are receiued into the mouth and stomacke and are tasted felt and conferre nourishment without any earthly matter conioyned to them But on the contrarie many Fathers affirme That after consecration bread and wine remaine Theoderet saith That they lose not their proper nature but remaine after they are sanctified in their former essence figure and kinde Gelasius saith Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to bee Bertram saith Secundam creaturarum substantiam quod fuerunt ante consecrationem hoc postea consistunt According to the substance of creatures they persist the same before and after consecration Ireneus teacheth That bread which is from the earth receiuing diuine calling or sanctification is not common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two seuerall things or matters one earthly and the other coelestiall Saint Chrysostome Before Sanctification wee call it bread onely but when diuine Grace hath sanctified it it is deliuered from the name of bread and is counted worthie of the Appellation of the Lords bodie although the nature of bread remaine in it still Damascene saith As a fierie coale is wood and fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not onely bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but bread vnited to the Diuinitie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is apparent that when fire is vnited to a coale that the materiall substance of wood remaineth at least in part The Aduersarie in answere to Theoderit and Gelasius pretendeth that these Fathers by the words Substance Nature and Kind vnderstand onely the naturall qualities and accidents which flow from the Nature and Essence of Bread and Wine and he yeeldeth a reason saying That in ordinarie speech the naturall properties and qualities of things are tearmed the nature of the thing c. But this Answere is insufficient because it might perhaps salue the Obiection grounded vpon the word Nature but the Fathers affirme also that the Sacramentall signes remaine in their essence substance and kinde and they adde farther that they may bee sensibly tasted and felt and haue force of nourishing the bodie and that they are compounded of many cornes and of many grapes which make one substantiall bodie of bread and wine Now these things cannot truely bee said of the naked shapes and accidents of bread and wine suspended and diuided from their materiall substance Besides the Fathers deliuer the foresaid Doctrine to prooue the veritie and distinction of the two substantiall natures in Christ by making a comparison betweene the holy Eucharist and the two natures in Christs Person but if the substance of bread and wine cease and are changed into the very bodie and blood of Christ then the former comparison would rather confirme the false beleefe of the Hereticke than maintaine the Orthodoxall Faith of Christs humanitie remaining euen after his Ascension for the Hereticke might inferre vpon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation two errours about the humane nature of Christ. First That as in the Eucharist there is onely the outward shape and forme of bread and not the reall substance euen so in Christ there was the shape and forme of flesh but not the verie nature Secondly Euen as in the Eucharist the essentiall forme and materiall substance of bread and wine are swallowed vp and conuerted into the bodie and blood of Christ so likewise after Christs Ascension the humane nature is absorpt and conuerted into the Deitie IESVIT § 4. The seeming repugnancies this Mysterie hath with sence should incline Christians the sooner to beleeue it THe former proofe of Transubstantiation might satisfie were this Mysterie easie and not accompanied with many seeming absurdities and repugnances against sense 〈◊〉 these foure First That a bodie as big as our Sauiours remayning still truely corpulent in it selfe should be contained within the compasse of a round Hoast scarce an inch long and broad Secondly That a bodie so glorious should be combined vnto corruptible elements and so made subiect vnto the indignities and obscenities that may befall vnto them Thirdly That the same bodie may be in heauen and on earth in innumerable places at once Fourthly That the substance of bread being conuerted into Christs bodie the sole accidents remaine by themselues performing the whole office of substance no lesse than if it were present euen to the nutrition of mans bodie These difficulties so scandalize Protestants that some condemne Transubstantiation as impossible yea as absurd ridiculous barbarous others professe they cannot subdue their vnderstandings to beleeue it as a 〈◊〉 of Faith To giue full satisfaction in this point I set downe this Proposition That these seeming absurdities should not auert but rather incline a true Christian minde to beleeue this Mysterie In proofe whereof I present vnto your Maiestie these three Considerations ANSVVER WEe measure not supernaturall Doctrine by humane sence or reason neither can any seeming repugnances of reputed Philosophie to Diuine Reuelation hinder our Faith where the holy Ghost commaunds vs to beleeue as appeareth in the articles of the sacred Trinitie Incarnation Resurrection c. Est quidem de communibus sensibus sapere in Dei rebus sed in testimonium veri non in adiutorium falsi quod sit secundum diuinam non contrà diuinam dispositionem saith Tertullian We must haue vnderstanding in the things of God out of common sence but this must serue to testifie truth and not to patronise errour according to diuine disposition Reuelation not against it So farre as sence and reason are not repugnant to diuine veritie but subseruient we may giue credit to them and euerie good Christian saith S. Augustine Vbicunque inuenerit veritatem Domini sui intelligat esse Wheresoeuer he findeth veritie taught either by nature or grace must vnderstand that it is his masters The question betweene the Romists and vs is not Whether if Transubstantiatiō be reuealed by God we may notwithstanding therefore refuse to beleeue it because the matter is difficill to be conceiued or because it hath manie seeming repugnances to sence for if they be able to demonstrate the first we must renounce the latter But the question is Whether Transubstantiation hauing no certaine and manifest ground in diuine Reuelation and many repugnances to common sence and reason and besides being expressely repugnant to the letter of the Scripture we are to beleeue the same First the holy Scripture calleth consecrated Wine the fruit of the Vine and consecrated Bread by the name of verie Bread
kernell of an Apple a great tree may bee made and nourished by the force and vigour proceeding from the same did not we see by daily experience the same to be true that ashes may be made of glasse that stones in the stomacke of a Doue yron in the belly of an Ostridge be turned into flesh that of a rotten barke of a tree falling into the water should be bred and produced a perfect bird to me seemes more incredible than that God should make the accidents of Bread separated from their substance to nourish mans body for the dead barke of a tree may seeme to haue no more efficacie of it selfe to produce a liuing creature specially so perfect a bird as Barnacles than haue the accidents of Bread to feede and breede the flesh of a liuing man Yea many Philosophers teach and in my iudgement conuince that in substantiall generations where no cause coequall in perfection to the effect produced is present God by his Omnipotencie doth supplie deficiencie of naturall causes Why then should any man so much mislike our Doctrine that in this Mysterie where the substance of Bread wants God by the secret operation of his power supplies the defect thereof seeing by the opinion of many learned Philosophers his prouidence by the like secret speciall working doth ordinarily daily and hourely supply the manifold defects of substantiall secondarie Agents Neither is the manner how God can doe this difsicile to explicate For he may inable the quantitie of Bread to receiue and sustaine the working of mans nutritiue power and when in that quantitie there is the last accidentall disposition to the forme of flesh he can secretly produce againe Materiam primam that was of the Bread and combine the same with the prepared quantitie and the substantiall forme of Flesh What reason is there why God may not doe this yea doe it sooner than we speake it Wherefore the seeming absurdities of this mysterie being as J haue shewed meerely imaginarie and not like those against the Trinitie and the Incarnation wherein not so much imagination as reason findes difficultie it is the part not onely of sincere Christian faith but also of a cleere excellent wit to conceiue them and not to permit wandring vnruly fancie destitute of reason to controll our beleefe about the literall sence of Christs words so many waies by the grauest testimonies of Antiquitie recommended vnto vs. ANSVVER That Accidents may subsist and haue their naturall force and operation without a subiect of support or inhaerencie implies a contradiction for it is of the being and definition of Accidents to be in another or to be in their subiect And none of the Examples taken from a Kernell Ashes Iron in the belly of an Ostridge the barke of a tree c. are ad idem for these are not Accidents without a substance but reall bodies hauing by nature a proportion and propension to produce their owne effects either as seminall causes or true materials conuerted by heate fire and art or things putrescent formed and animated by the heate of the Sunne and other secret and naturall causes That an Akorne should become an Oake is wonderfull as the workes of God are yet it is as naturall as that a Lyon begets a Lyon nay as that the Sunne or fire shineth That of ashes is made glasse what is it but that a transparent bodie is made of a bodie not transparent so Yee of Snow c. And concerning Stones Iron c. I doe not thinke that these feed or nourish Doues Hawkes Struthiocameles c. but onely coole or cleanse them and this I count not impossible in nature that vegetatiue heate should in short time dissolue stones The Barnacles are generatio ex putri as are Mice Frogs and Serpents but what is this to accidents nourishing without matter and substance Now for all the former wee know the truth and certaintie by naturall reason and by experience of our sences but there is no naturall or supernaturall rule or Law no manifest demonstration either to sence or reason no reuelation of Faith that the abstracted formes of bread and wine subsist without a subiect and haue power to nourish and may bee tasted and felt and also putrifie but Romists presumptuously forme these Chimera's and Idols in the forge of their owne deceiued brest and they deserue to bee fed onely with accidents like Birds that pecked at the painted grapes which thinke to feed any intelligent Reader with such improper and extrauagant accidents IESVITS 3. Consideration Thirdly to make Christians incline to 〈◊〉 this Mysterie so difficile to carnall imagination this Consideration may be very potent to wit that in beleeuing the same on the one side there may be great merit and excellent faith if it be a truth and on the other side though which is impossible it should be false yet in beleeuing it we shall not fall into any damnable errour For although we suppose this an vnpossible case yet what can be laid to our charge which wee may not defend and iustifie by all the rules of equitie and reason if we be accused that we tooke Bread to be the body of Christ adoring the same as God so committing Idolatry we may defend that both for soule and body we are innocent herein For seeing the body is not made guiltie but by a guiltie mind euen our body may pleade not guilty seeing our mind our thoughts or deuotion were fully and totally referred vnto Christ whom we truely apprehend by faith as vailed with the Accidents of Bread and so may repell the reproach of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bread Worshippers with saying Quae nouit mens est pani nil vouimus illa Neither did we beleeue that the Bread was changed into Christs body vpon sleight reasons or mooued by the fancies of our owne head but contrary to our fancies out of Reuerence to the expresse words of Christ This is my body A sense declared by most antient Fathers defined by many generall Councells deliuered by full consent of our Ancestors so practised in the Church for many ages without any knowne beginning finally confirmed with the most credible and constant report of innumerable most euident miracles Can a Christian beleeue any points of Religion vpon surer grounds And if God at the day of iudgement will condemne none but such as liuing in this world wronged him in his honour Why should Catholikes feare any hard sentence in respect of their prompt Credulitie of Transubstantiation that is of Gods Word taken in the plaine proper sense Js it an 〈◊〉 to his veritie that they denie their senses correct their imaginations reforme their discourses abnegate their iudgements rather than not to beleeue what to them seemeth his Word Js it an iniury to his power to be persuaded he can doe things incomprehensible without number put the same body in innumerable places at once Make a body occupy no place and yet remaine a quantitatiue substance
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
〈◊〉 sinne after Baptisme are renewed by the vertue of Repentance Luc. 22. 62. But it is erroneous that there are two distinct kinds of Repentance one before and the other after Baptisme the one a Vertue onely the other both a Sacrament and a Vertue For where there is the same definition there is also the same thing in kind But Repentance before and after Baptisme hath the same definition and integrall parts to wit Contrition for sinnes committed Confession to God and if need require Confession to men according to the qualitie of the fault Amendment of Life and humble Supplication by Prayer of Faith for reconciliation with God and for remission of sinnes Matth. 3.6 Luc. 3.10 Act. 3. 19. cap. 8.22 cap. 26.20 Also the Grace and promise of Remission is made to Repentance before and after Baptisme Act. 3. 19. 5.31 8.22 Apoc. 2. 5. 16. And if Repentance before Baptisme is no Sacrament What causeth it to be such after Baptisme For no visible Element or signe is added neyther is any promise of a different kind from the former annexed And although the Apostles 1. Cor. 5.3 2. Cor. 2 3. c. cap. 7.8 and also the Primitiue Church vrged a stricter manner and degree of Humiliation vpon notorious Delinquents after Baptisme than before yet this Discipline changed not the kind or substance of Repentance but encreased onely the quantitie and measure thereof IESVIT Fourthly the Romane Church holds That God by Penance forgiuing the eternall punishment doth in lieu thereof manie times appoint a Taske of temporall paine to be endured by the Penitent This reserued penaltie is greater or lesser according to the multitude and grieuousnesse of the sinnes committed and is that for which Penitents may and must satisfie And why may not the Penall Workes performed by the children of God beautified by so manyafore-named excellent Graces be sufficient to deserue of God the remission of this temporall Mulct and cancell the Debt of enduring transitorie paine I could bring Testimonies of the most antient Fathers in great number for the necessitie we haue of suffering these voluntarie afflictions for sinnes and of the efficacitie thereof to expiate sinne with the verie name of Satisfaction there being scarce anie antient Father that hath not taught both the thing and the word ANSWER When God pardons a sinner he doth it not by way of Exchange or Parcelling but remitteth all punishment of Malediction or pure Reuenge For that which is so forgiuen as that after pardon it is not mentioned or remembred and which is cast behind Gods backe and throwne into the bottome of the Sea and which can no where be found and is blotted out of the Debt-Booke of the Almightie is not taken away by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesse but by a free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment But the holy Scripture and the Primitiue Fathers teach such a remission of sinnes on Gods part to the Penitent Ezech. 18.22 Esa. 38. 17. ca. 43. 25. 44. 22. Mich. 7.19 Ier. 50.20 Heb. 8. 12. 10. 17. Col. 2. 14. Matth. 18.32 S. Augustine If God hath couered sinnes hee will not obserue hee will not thinke vpon them to punish them hee will not take knowledge but rather pardon Gregorie the Great Ignoscendo impunita relinquit By pardoning he leaueth them vnpunished Cassiodorus Remittere est debitum relaxare non causae alicuius interuentu sed pietatis intuitu To remit is to release the Debt not by entercourse of any cause on mans part but by aspect of Pietie Neuerthelesse after great and enormious offences committed by his people God doth chastise them with the Rod of Correction Psal. 89. 33. 1. Cor. 11. 31 32. And this Correction is a paine of Castigation Lament Ierem. 3.39 but not a punishment of Malediction Galath 3. 13. a worke of Gods Mercie rather than of his Iustice. The difference betweene Pontificians and vs in this Doctrine is That we beleeue a remainder of Temporall affliction after remission of the guilt of sinne in this life onely and that for chastisement erudition and probation They maintaine a remainder of temporall punishment after sinne remitted not onely in this present life but after the same in Purgatorie Further we beleeue That the affliction or paine of Chastisement inflicted vpon penitent sinners may by prayer of Faith exercise of Vertue Humiliation and Mortification be eyther remooued or else mitigated and conuerted to the encrease of grace and glorie in those which with patience and holinesse endure the same in this life But wee denie eyther that any paine followeth iust persons after their decease or that in this life they can by Prayer Mortification or any good workes merit release of any Temporall Mulct or satisfie the Diuine Iustice for the least fault or guilt of any sinne on their owne behalfe much lesse for others And whereas the Iesuit affirmeth That he can produce Testimonies of the antient Fathers in great number both for our necessitie of suffering voluntarie afflictions and also for the efficacitie thereof to expiate sinne and to satisfie I answer First That the Fathers and holy Scriptures require workes of Humiliation and Mortification not as meritorious but onely as meanes and causes impetrant or deprecant to appease Gods wrath for sinne Secondly The Fathers vnderstand not the word Satisfaction strictly and in rigor for satisfaction of condignitie as Romists doe but improperly and largely to wit for satisfaction of deprecation congruitie or impetration And according to their acceptation and vse the word Satisfaction comprehendeth Contrition and Confession and not Sacramentall Satisfaction onely Also they require Satisfaction as a remedie against the guilt of Mortall sinne and not onely as a Purgatiue of Veniall sinne or as a remedie against Temporall paine onely But to the end the Reader may euidently perceiue the Popish fraud in peruerting the Sentences of the Fathers concerning Satisfaction I will in this place distinctly compare their Doctrine with the present Romish Tenet First It is consessed That many Fathers vse the word Satisfaction and require penitent Persons to performe the same to God and men Secondly Within the name of Satisfaction they include and comprehend contrition to God confession and amendment of life Thirdly they require satisfaction for the fault and eternall guilt of sinne and not onely for remoouall of temporall punishment Fourthly the word Satisfaction is taken in two notions First strictly for a iust and equall compensation of the iniurie committed against God which Schoolemen tearme Satisfaction of condignitie Secondly for an interpretatiue compensation as Durand tearmeth it grounded vpon Diuine fauour and acceptation and not vpon the compleat dignity of the action The Schoolemen tearme this latter satisfaction of 〈◊〉 and Impetration because God in his fauourable indulgence 〈◊〉 more on mans part as necessarie to
which it can comprehend Now the vse of Reason is verie generall and man doe what he can is still apt to search and seeke for a Reason why he will beleeue though after he once beleeues his Faith growes stronger than either his Reason or his Knowledge and great reason for this because it goes higher than eyther of the other can in this life In this particular the Bookes called the Scripture are commonly and constantly reputed to be the Word of God and so infallible Veritie to the least Point of them Doth any man doubt this The World cannot keepe him from going to weigh it at the Ballance of Reason whether it be the Word of God or not To the same Weights he brings the Tradition of the Church the inward motiues in Scripture it selfe all Testimonies within which seeme to beare witnesse to it and in all this there 's no harme the danger is when a man will vse no other Scale but Reason for the Word of God and the Booke containing it refuse not to be weighed by Reason But the Scale is not large enough to containe nor the Weights to measure out the true vertue and 〈◊〉 force of either Reason then can giue no supernaturall ground into which a man may resolue his Faith That Scripture is the Word of God infallibly yet Reason can goe so high as it can prooue that Christian Religion which rests vpon the Authoritie of this Booke stands vpon surer grounds of Nature Reason common Equitie and Iustice than any thing in the World which any Infidell or meere Naturallist hath done doth or can adhere vnto against it in that which he makes accounts or assumes as Religion to himselfe The antient Fathers relyed vpon the Scriptures no Christians more and hauing to doe with Philosophers men verie well seene in all the subtleties which naturall Reason could teach or learne they were often put to it and did as often make it good That they had sufficient warrant to relye as much as they did vpon Scripture In all which Disputes because they were to deale with Infidels they did labour to make good the Authoritie of the Booke of God by such arguments as vnbeleeuers themselues could not but thinke reasonable if they 〈◊〉 them with indifferencie And it is not altogether impossible to prooue it euen by Reason a Truth infallible or else to make them denie some apparant Principle of their owne For example It is an apparant Principle and with them That God or the absolute prime Agent cannot be forced out of any possession for if hee could be forced by another greater he were neither Prince nor Absolute nor God in their owne Theologie Now they must graunt That that God and Christ which the Scripture teaches and wee beleeue is the onely true God and no other with him and so denie the Deitie which they worshipped or else denie their owne Principle about the Deitie That God cannot be commanded and forced out of possession For their Gods Saturne and Serapis and Iupiter himselfe haue beene adiured by the name of the true and onely God and haue beene forced out of the bodies they possessed and confessed themselues to be foule and seducing Deuils And their confession was to be supposed true in point of Reason for they that were adored as Gods would neuer belie themselues into Deuils to their owne reproach especially in the presence of them that worshipped them were they not forced This many of the vnbeleeuers saw therefore they could not in verie force of Reason but they must either denie their God or denie their Principle in Nature Their long Custome would not forsake their God and their Reason could not forget their Principle If Reason therefore might iudge among them they could not worship any thing that was vnder command And if it be reasonable to doe and beleeue this then why not reasonable also to beleeue that the Scripture is his Word giuen to teach himselfe and Christ since there they find Christ doing that and giuing power to doe it after which themselues saw executed vpon their Deuill_Gods Besides whereas all other written Lawes haue scarce had the honour to be duly obserued or constantly allowed worthie approbation in the particular places where they haue beene established for Lawes this Law of Christ and this Canon of Scripture the container of it is or hath beene receiued in almost all Nations vnder Heauen And wheresoeuer it hath beene receiued it hath beene both approoued for vnchangeable Good and beleeued for infallible Veritie This persuasion could not haue beene wrought in men of all sorts but by working vpon their Reason vnlesse wee shall thinke all the World vnreasonable that receiued it And certainely God did not giue this admirable facultie of Reasoning to the Soule of man for any cause more prime than this to discouer or at least to iudge and allow of the way to himselfe when and howsoeuer it should be discouered One great thing that troubled Rationall men was that which stumbled the Manichee an Heresie it was but more than halfe Pagan namely That somewhat must be beleeued before much could be knowne Wise men vse not to beleeue but what they know And the Manichee scorned the Orthodox Christian as light of beleefe promising to lead no Disciple after him but vpon euident knowledge This stumbles many but yet the Principle That somewhat must be beleeued before much can be knowne stands firme in Reason still For if in all Sciences there be some Principles which cannot be prooued if Reason be able to see this and confesse it if almost all Artists haue granted it Who can iustly denie that to Diuinitie A Science of the highest Obiect God himselfe which he easily and reasonably grants to inferior Sciences which are more within his 〈◊〉 And as all Sciences suppose some Principles without proouing so haue they almost all some Text some Authoritie vpon which they relye in some measure and it is Reason they should For though these make not their Texts infallible as Diuinitie doth yet full consent and prudent examination and long continuance haue woon reputation to them and settled reputation vpon them verie deseruedly For were these Texts more void of Truth than they are yet it were fit to vphold their credit that Nouices and young beginners in a Science which are not yet able to worke strongly vpon Reason nor Reason vpon them may haue Authoritie to beleeue till they can learne to conclude from Principles and so to know Is this also reasonable in other Sciences and shall it not be so in Theologie to haue a Text a Scripture a Rule which Nouices may be taught first to beleeue that so they may after come to the knowledge of those things which out of this rich Principle and Treasure are deduceable I yet see not how right Reason can denie these grounds and if it cannot then a meere naturall man may be thus farre conuinced That the
Text of God is a verie credible Text. Well these are the foure by most of which men offer to prooue the Scripture to be the Word of God as by a Diuine and infallible warrant and it seemes no one of these doth it The Tradition of the present Church is too weake because that is not absolutely Diuine The Light which is in Scripture it selfe is not bright enough it cannot beare sufficient witnesse to it selfe The Testimonie of the Holy Ghost that is most infallible but ordinarily it is not so much as considerable in this Question which is not how or by what meanes we beleeue but how the Scripture may be proposed as a credible Obiect 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 And for Reason no man expects that that should 〈◊〉 it it doth seruice enough if it enable vs to disprooue that which misguided men conceiue against it If none of these then be an absolute and sufficient meanes to prooue it eyther wee must find out another or see what can be more wrought out of these For the Tradition of the Church then certaine it is we must distinguish the Church before wee can iudge right of the validitie of the Tradition For if the speech be of the Prime Christian Church the Apostles Disciples and such as had immediate Reuelation from Heauen no question but the Voice and Tradition of this Church is Diuine not aliquo modo in a sort but simply and the Word of God from them is of like validitie written or deliuered And against this Tradition of which kind this That the Bookes of Scripture are the Word of God is the most generall and vniforme the Church of England neuer excepted And then here 's the Voyce of God of which no Christian may doubt to confirme his Word For the Apostles had their Authoritie from Christ and they prooued that they had it by apparant Miracles which were beyond exception And when S. Augustine said I would not beleeue the Gospell vnlesse the Authoritie of the Catholike Church mooued me whichplace you vrged at the Conference though you are now content to slide by it some of your ownewill not endure should be vnderstood saue of the Church in the time of the Apostles onely and some of the Church in generall not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but sure to include Christ and his Apostles the 〈◊〉 is there But this will not serue your turne The Tradition of the present Church must be as infallible as that of the Primitiue But the contrarie to this is prooued before because this Voyce of the present Church is not simply Diuine To what end then serues any Tradition of the present Church To what Why to a very good end For 〈◊〉 it serues by a full consent to worke vpon the minds of vnbeleeuers to mooue them to reade and to confider the Scripture which they heare by so many wise learned and 〈◊〉 men as of no meaner esteeme than the 〈◊〉 of God It 〈◊〉 among Nouices Weakelings and Doubters in the Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselues with and vnderstand the Scripture which the Church deliuers as the Word of God And thus againe some of your owne vnderstand the fore cited place of S. Augustine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gospell c. For he speakes it eyther of 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 in the Faith or else of such as were in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You as the B. tells me at the Conference though you 〈◊〉 it here would needs haue it that S. Augustine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Faithfull which I cannot yet thinke For hee speakes to the 〈◊〉 and they had a great part of the 〈◊〉 in them And the words immediately before those are If thou shouldst find one Qui Euangelio nondum credit which did not yet beleeue the Gospell what wouldst thou doe to make him beleeue Ego vero non Truly I would not c. So to these two ends it serues and there need be no question betweene vs. But then euerie thing that is the first Inducer to beleeue is not by and by either the principall Motiue or the chiefe and last Obiect of Beleefe vpon which a man may rest his Faith The first knowledge that helpes to open a mans vnderstanding and prepares him to be able to demonstrate a truth and make it euident is his Grammar but when he hath made a Demonstration he resolues the knowledge of his Conclusion not into his Grammar Rules but into the immediate Principles out of which it is deduced So in this particular a man is probably led by the Authoritie of the present Church as by the first informing inducing persuading meanes to beleeue the Scripture to be the Wordof God but when hee hath studied considered and compared this Word with it selfe and with other Writings with the helpe of ordinarie Grace and a mind morally induced and reasonably persuaded by the voyce of the Church the Scripture then giues greater and higher reasons of credibilitie to it selfe than Tradition alone could giue And then he that beleeues resolues his last and full assent That Scripture is Diuine Authoritie into internall Arguments found in the Letter of it selfe though found by the helpe and direction of Tradition without and Grace within And the Resolution that is rightly grounded may not endure to pitch and rest it selfe vpon the helpes but vpon that Diuine Light which the Scripture no question hath in it selfe but is not kindled till these helpes come Thy Word is a Light so Dauid A Light therefore it is as much manifestatiuum sui as alterius a manifestation to it selfe as to other things which it shewes but still not till the Candle be lighted not till there hath beene a preparing instruction what Light it is Children call the Sunne and Moone Candles Gods Candles They see the Light as well as men but cannot distinguish betweene them till some Tradition and Education hath informed their Reason And animalis homo the naturall man sees some Light of Morall counsaile and instruction in Scripture as well as Beleeuers but he takes all that glorious Lustre for Candle-Light and cannot distinguish betweene the Suune and twelue to the pound till Tradition of the Church and Gods Grace put to it haue cleared his vnderstanding So Tradition of the present Church is the first motiue to Beleefe but the Beleefe it selfe That the Scripture is the Word of God rests vpon the Scripture when a man finds it to answere and exceed all that which the Church gaue in Testimonie And as in the voyce of the Primitiue and Apostolicall Church there was simply Diuine Authoritie deliuering the Scripture as Gods Word so after Tradition of the present Church hath taught and informed the Soule the voice of God is plainely heard in Scripture it selfe And then here 's double Authoritie and both Diuine that confirmes Scripture to be the Word of God Tradition of the Apostles deliuering it and the internall worth and argument in the Scripture obuious
whatsoeuer it may now determine into which Error some opposers of the Church of Rome haue fallen And vpon this is grounded your Question Wherein are wee neerer to vnitie if a Councell may erre In relating the B. his Answer to this you are not so candide as you confesse him ingenuous before For his words did not sound as yours seeme to doe That wee should hold with the Councell erre or not erre till another came to reuerse it As if grounds of Faith might varie at the Racket and be cast of each side as a cunning hand might lay them You forget againe omit at least and with what mind you best know the B. his Caution For he said The determination of a Generall Councell erring was to stand in force and haue externall obedience at the least yeelded to it till euidence of Scripture or a demonstration to the contrary made the Error appeare and vntill thereupon another Councell of equall Authoritie did reuerse it Thus then the B. But indeed he might haue returned vpon you againe If a Generall Councell not confirmed by the Pope may erre which you affirme To what end then a Generall Councell And you may answere Yes for although a Generall Councell may erre yet the Pope as Head of the Church cannot An excellent meanes of vnitie to haue all in the Church as the Pope will haue it what euer Scripture say or the Church thinke And then I pray to what end a Generall Councell Will his Holinesse be so holy as to confirme a Generall Councell if it determine against him I for my part am willing a little to consider hereupon the point of Generall Councels How they may or may not erre and a little to looke into the Romane and Protestant opinion concerning them which is more agreeable to the Power and Rule which Christ hath left in his Church and which is most preseruatiue of Peace established or ablest to reduce vnitie into the Church of Christ when that poore Ship hath her Ribs dashed in 〈◊〉 by the Waues of Contention And this Consideration I will venture to the World but onely in the Nature of a 〈◊〉 and with submission to my Mother the Church of England and the Mother of vs all the Vniuersall Catholike Church of Christ. 1. First then I consider Whether all the Power that an Oecumenicall Councell hath to determine and all the Assistance it hath not to erre in that determination it hath it not all from the Catholike vniuersall Bodie of the Church or Clergie in the Church if you will whose Representatiue it is It seemes it hath For the gouernment of the Church being not Monarchicall but as Christ is Head this Principle is 〈◊〉 in nature Euerie Bodie collectiue that represents receiues Power and Priuiledges from that Bodie which is represented else a Representation might haue force without the thing it represents which cannot be So no Power in the Councell no Assistance but what is in and to the Church But yet then it may be questioned Whether the Representing Bodie hath all the power strength and priuiledge which the Represented hath And suppose it hath all the Legall power yet it hath not all the Naturall eyther of strength or wisedome that the whole hath Now because tho Representatiue hath power from the whole and the maine 〈◊〉 can meet no other way therefore the Acts 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 of the Representatiue be it Ecclesiasticall or Ciuile are binding in their strength But they are not so certaine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 as that Wisedome which resides in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Assemblies meerely Ciuile or Ecclesiasticall all 〈◊〉 men cannot be in the Bodie that represents And it is possible so many able and sufficient men for some particular businesse may be out as that they which are in may misse or mis-apply that Reason and Ground vpon which the determination is principally to rest Here for want of a cleare view of this Ground the Representatiue Bodie erres whereas the Represented by vertue of these Members may hold the Principle vnuiolated 2. Secondly I consider That since it is thus in Nature and in Ciuile Bodies if it be not so in Ecclesiasticall too some reason must be giuen why For that Bodie also consists of men Those men neyther all equall in their perfections of Knowledge and Iudgement whether acquired by Industrie or rooted in nature or infused by God Not all equall nor any one of them perfect and absolute or freed from passion and humane infirmities Nor doth their meeting together make them infallible in all things though the Act which is hammered out by many together must in reason be perfecter than that which is but the Child of one mans sufficiencie If then a Generall Councell haue no ground of not erring from the men or the meeting either it must not be at all or be by some assistance and power vpon them when they are so met together And this if it be lesse than the assistance of the Holy Ghost it cannot make them secure against Error 3. Thirdly I consider That the assistance of the Holy Ghost is without Error that 's no question and as little there is that a Councell hath it But the doubt that troubles is Whether all assistance of the Holy Ghost be affoorded in such a high manner as to cause all the Definitions of a Councell in matters fundamentall in the Faith and in remote Deductions from it to be alike infallible The Romanists to prooue there is infallible assistance produce some places of Scripture but no one of them inferres much lesse enforces an infallibilitie The places which Stapleton there rests vpon are these I will send you the Spirit of Truth which will lead you into all Truth And This Spirit shall abide with you for euer And Behold I am with you vnto the end of the World To these others adde The founding of the Church vpon the Rocke against which the Gates of Hell shall not preuaile And Christs prayer for S. Peter That his Faith faile not 1. For the first which is Leading into all Truth and that for euer All is not alwayes vniuersally taken in Scripture nor is it here simply for All Truth for then a Generall Councell could no more erre in matter of Fact than in matter of Faith in which yet your selues graunt it may erre But into All Truth is a limited All into All Truth absolutely necessarie to saluation And this when they suffer themselues to be led by the blessed Spirit by the Word of God And all Truth which Christ had before at least fundamentally deliuered vnto them Hee shall receiue of mine and shew it vnto you And againe Hee shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance which I haue told you And for this necessarie Truth too the Apostles receiued this promise not for themselues and a Councell but for themselues and the whole Catholike