â—f his spirit inwardly mouing the heart of man to â—dhere vnto an infallible externall ground of assurance proposed vnto him God by the helpe of his grace making him apprehend diuinely of the authority thereof This second manner of inward assurance is ordinarily giuen vnto euery ChristiaÌ„ without (r) Triden sess 6. Can. 3. Arausican 2. Can. 6. which no man is able to belieue supernaturally and as he ought vnto Saluation The first manner of assurance is extraordinary and immediate reuelation such as the Prophets had Wherfore Protestants if they callenge this first manner of inward teaching assurance they approue Enthusiasme immediat reuelatioÌ„ which in the Swenkfeldians they seeme to condemne If they challenge only the second manner of inward teaching and assurance then besides inward light they must assigne an externall sufficieÌ„t ground why they belieue these Scriptures to be the Apostles then I aske what ground this is besides Tradition Secondly they wil obiect that though they haue no infallible ground besides the teaching of the Spirit yet they are not taught immediatly in Propheticall maÌ„ner because they are also taught by an external probable motiue to wit the Churches tradition I Answere that except they assigne an externall infallible meanes besides Gods inward teaching they cannot auoyde but they challenge immediate reuelation For whosoeuer knoweth thinges assuredly by the inward teaching of the spirit without an external infallible motiue vnto which he doth adhere is assured prophetically though he haue some externall probable motiues so to thinke S. Peter had some coniecturall signes of Simon Magus his peruersity incorrigible malice yet seing (s) Act. 8.32 In felle amaritudinis obligatione peccati video te esse he knew it assuredly we belieue he knew it by the light of prophesy because besides inward assurance he had no externall infallible ground If one see a man giue publickly almes though he perceaue probable tokeÌ„s signes that he doth it out of a Vayne-glorious intention yet cannot he be sure therof but by the light of immediat reuelation because the other tokens are not grounds sufficient to make him sure For if a man be sure haue no ground of this assurance in any thinge out of his owne hart it is cleere that he is assured immediatly only by Gods inward speaking Wherfore ProtestaÌ„ts if they will disclayme in truth and not in wordes only from immediate reuelation and teaching they must eyther grant tradition to be infallible or else assigne some externall infallible ground besides Tradition whereby they are taught what Scriptures the Apostles deliuered Thirdly they will say they know the Scriptures to be from the Apostles by an externall infallible ground besides Tradition to wit by certayne lights lustres euidences of truth which they see to blaze emane from the thinges reuealed in Scripture by which they are sure that the doctrin thereof is heauenly I Answere If they did see such lustres and lights that cleerly not only probably conuince the doctrine of Scripture to be heauenly truth they be not indeed assured by immediate darke reuelation but by an higher degree of heauenly knowledge to wit by the supernaturall light and euidence of the thinge belieued which is a paradox and pretence farre more false and sensibly absurd then is the challenge of immediate reuelation or Enthusiasme as hath beene shewed Wherefore seing that God hath chosen no externall meanes besides Catholicke Tradition to make men know perpetually vntill the consummation of the world what doctrins Scriptures the Apostles published it is cleere vnto euery Christian that this is the meanes by him chosen which he doth assist that it cannot be obnoxious vnto errour so that precedently and independently of Scripture the Catholicke tradition of Christian pastors fathers is proued to be infallible through Diuine speciall assistance and therefore a sufficient ground for Fayths infallible assurance The Fourth Principle proued §. 6. IF we be resolued that sauing truth is that which God reuealed that he reuealed that which the Apostles published the doctrine published by then the Catholicke Christian Tradition our search is ended when we haue found the Christian Catholicke Church Heere the fourth Enemy of true Christian Religion offers himselfe to wit the Willfull Ignorant These kind of men not only hold agaynst Pagans the doctrine of saluation to be that only which was reuealed of God agaynst Iewes the reuealed of God to be only the Apostles but also in wordes they condemne the Heretikes professe that no doctrine is truly Apostolicall but the Catholick yet in resoluing what doctrin is the Catholicke they follow the partiality of their affections These are tearmed by (t) De vtil cred c. 1. S. Augustine Credentes haereticorum Belieuers of Heretikes building vpon the seeming learning and sanctity of some men being therein so willfull as to venture their soules that such doctrine is Catholike not caring nor knowing what they say nor what the word Catholicke put into the Creed by the Apostles doth import Some be so ignorant as to thinke that the word Catholicke doth signify the same as conforme vnto Scripture And so what doctrine is Catholicke they resolue by the light and lustre of the doctrine or by the in ward teaching of the spirit whereby they fall vpon the principle of Heresy and become not so much belieuers of Heretikes as Heretikes Some vnderstand by the word Catholicke Doctrine truly Catholicke that is deliuered froÌ„ the Apostles by Christian worlds of Fathers vnto Christian worlds of children yet are so blind as to giue this Title vnto Sects lately sprung vp which through pretended singular Illuminations gotten by perusing the Scripture haue chosen formes of fayth opposite one agaynst another reformed agaynst the forme to them deliuered by their Ancestors These Sects I say they tearme Catholicke which not to be Catholicke in this sense is as euident as that night is not day Some through willfull ignorance no lesse grossely deuide the name of Catholicke according to the diuision of Countryes naming the Catholicke doctrin of the Church of France of the Church of England c. Which speach hath no more sense then this A fashion euer since Christ vniuersally ouer the world newly begun and proper vnto England Agaynst this Enemy true Religion is resolued in this fourth principle The Catholicke Tradition of doctrine from the Apostles is the Roman By Roman we vnderstand not only the Religion professed within the Citty Diocesse of Rome but ouer the whole world by them that any where acknowledg the primacy of Peter and his successours which now is the Roman Bishop About this principle fayth is assured by a fourth perfection belonging vnto God as he is prime Verity reuealing truth which is that he cannot permit that the knowing of sauing doctrine be impossible Hence I argue God being Prime Verity reuealing cannot permit the meanes of knowing his sauing truth to be hidden nor a false meanes to
recom Sacrae scripturae Ergo A Christian is built fundamentally on Scripture I wish that this my Discouery may make you wise vnto your eternall Saluation as is doth lay open your shamefull Ignorance vnto your temporall disgrace for here you are so grossely and togeather vnluckily ignorant as you are fallen into the very same fault in Logicke wherof without cause you charged your Aduersary as peccant to wit of making Syllogismes whereof both propositions were affirmatiue in the second figure An argument is affirmatiue in the second figure when the Meanes of proofe is affirmed in both propositions Your Meanes to prooue that a Christian is fundamentally built on Scripture is this terme Built on the rocke and this is the very thing affirmed in both your propositions In your maior Built on the rocke is affirmed of the Christian The Christian or he that is fundamētally built is built on the rocke In the minor the same is affirmed of him that is built on Scripture The Scripture is the rocke that is he that is built on the Scripture is built on the rocke Hence your conclusion Ergo The Christian or he that is fundamentally built is built on the Scripture is affirmatiue in the second figure How fond inconsequent this forme of arguing is you may feele by this of the same tenour with change of matter He that is borne in Sicily is borne in an Iland He that is borne in England is borne in an Iland Ergo He that is borne in England is borne in Sicily This is a folish Sophisme because concluding affirmatiuely in the second figure so is yours For as it is not consequent if a man be borne in an Iland that he is borne in Sicily because there be other Ilands besides Sicily so this is no good consequence A Christian is built on the Rocke Ergo on the Scripture because Scripture is not the only Rocke the word of God as deliuered by Tradition being a rock and ground of Fayth no lesse sure infallible then Scripture or Gods Word as written Abraham Isaac Iacob Ioseph and innumerable other holy persons were fundamentally built in fayth yet not built on Scripture the word of God not being then extant in writing S. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. doth write that in his dayes many Nations were Christian and did diligently obserue the true Christian Religion printed in their harts and yet had not any Scripture nor the word of God as written False then is this negatiue which your argument put into true forme doth imply No man is built fundamentally on the Rocke that is not built on the word of God as written Your third argument (k) Reply pag. 48. The seed of fayth is the roote and foundation of euery Christian But the Scripture is the seed of fayth Ioan. 20.41 for it is the word of God Luc. 8.11 Ioan. 1.18 1. Cor. 4.15 This argument is also an idle fallacy and sophististicall sillogisme for both the propositions thereof are particuler which forme as hath been said is vicious and not lawfull in any figure This you may perceaue by this argument formed punctually according to the shape of yours with chāge of matter The seed of Fayth is the roote and foundation of euery Christian. But the bloud of Martyrs is the seed of Fayth for it is the seed of the Christian Church Ergo The bloud of Martyrs is the roote and foundation of euery Christian. This argument is like yours and both are vaine because the Argument being in the first figure the Maior proposition is particuler which ought to be vniuersall in this sort Euery seed of fayth is the roote of euery Christian The Scripture or word of God as written is the seed of Fayth Ergo. The Scripture or word of God as written is the roote of euery Christian. This argument is in lawfull forme but the maior therof is false for euery seed of Fayth is not the roote of a Christian but only that seed which first breedeth fayth in him and whereon all other seedes depend Now the seed which first breedeth Fayth in Christians is not the word of God as written but the word of God as deliuered by tradition For vpon the credit of Tradition we know the written word and without this ordinarily speaking and without new immediate Reuelation we cannot know the Scripture or written word to be from the Apostles and by them of God Ergo the word of God not as writtē but as deliuered by tradition is that seed of fayth which is the roote of euery Christian. The fourth Argument (l) Reply pag. 48. The Scripture giuen by diuine inspiration is simply and without exception to be receaued and all tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be refused Hence it followes that Scripture is a rule of Tradition and not Tradition of Scripture This argument proceedeth vpon the supposal of an impossibility so is idle sophisticall inept Logitians are taught by their Mayster Aristotle if one impossibility be admitted a thousand other impossibilityes and absurdityes will be thence concuded You suppose in this argument that the word of God as deliuered by full tradition may be repugnant vnto the word of God as written Hence you inferre that Tradition is not simply to be receaued but only so far forth as it agrees with the Scripture Your supposition is blasphemous for the word of God vnwritten cannot be repugnant vnto truth being the words of the Prime VERITY that cannot deceaue nor be deceaued This impossibility supposed your cōsequence is not good Ergo Tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be reiected and Scripture to be held only simply as the rule of Fayth For if Gods vnwritten word could be repugnant vnto the written it would not follow that the vnwritten word were to be reiected and the written simply to be receaued but that neyther the written nor vnwritten were to be credited This is cleere because if God may lye and deceyue vs by his word of liuely voyce deliuered by Tradition why not also in his writings deliuered by Tradition What authority doth writing adde to Gods word that God cannot lye in writing if he may lye in speaking I hope I haue shewed apparently these your Arguments wherein you so much glory to be not only false in respect of matter but also fallacious in respect of forme The same I could shew of allmost all the rest of your Arguments of this your Reply Is not then the case of your ignorant Proselites most deplorable and desperate whome you persuade to trust these your halting consequences rather then the perpetuall Traditions of the Church You will haue them to make themselues Iudges not only of what is contayned expressely in Scripture but also of what is thence deriued by Arguments according to the rules of Logicke wherein if they chance to mistake they erre and are damned The third Example §. 3. A Third Example of Logicall Ignorance is your heaping togeather of many fond
resplendant verity of the thing With these promises sayth S. Augustine (c) Quâ promissâ animâ— naturaliter gaudet humana sanorum escas appetendo irruit in vâ—nena fallentium Augustin Ibid. the soules of men are naturally ouerioyed whilest they gape after the promised sight of diuine truth whereof as yet they be not capable the cosening promisers cast into their mouth make them deuoure the poysoned morsells of their falshood Concerning the light of Scripture §. 3. CONCERNING the light of Scripture two thinges are euident First some arguments of probability may be drawne from the Scriptures to proue they are of God which serue for the comfort of Belieuers and may somewhat incline Infidels to belieue vpoÌ„ other greater motiues to wit the authority of God his Church This probable euidence euident probability is al which the testimonies of Scholemen brought by the Minister affirme Secondly the Scripture hath not light to shew it selfe with euident certainty to be the word of God but is belieued to be such without being seene as much as any other point and mystery of fayth to wit vpon the word of God so reuealing deliuered by tradition This is demonstrated because to be the word of God and the rule of fayth is to be true and certayne not only in some partâ— but also in al euery part particle therof so that as sayth our (e) Pag. 16. lin 2. Minister no lyer can speake therein and if (f) Augustin epist. 9. Si ad scripturas admittatur meÌ„dacium quid eis authoritatis remanebit one sentence of Scripture be prooued false the credit of the whole is lost But it is impossible that any man should know by the light euidence of the sense and doctrine of Scripture that the Scripture according to euery booke chapter leafe and line is certayne and assured truth and that no lye or falshood is contayned therein as these seauen Arguments euince The first Argument First because the (g) Hieron epist. ad Aug. 19. inter epist. Aug. Scripturae obscurissimae sunt Iren. l. 2. c. 47. Origen lib. 7. contra Celsum Reuerà multis locis obscurae Vide Bellarm. de Script l. 3. c. 1. Fathers teach and (h) Field Church l. 4. c. 15. No question but there be manifold obscurityes in Scripture Protestants euen our (i) Reply pag. 35. Minister acknowledge that there be many darke and obscure passages of Scripture that the Scripture is full of innumerable difficultyes that sometimes one (k) Quid vel falsò suspicentur non inueniunt Aug. l. 2. de doctr Christ. c. â— Whitaker de Eccles. pag. 220. Quaedam loca de quibus nihil certo statui potest can hardly so much as giue a probable guesse at their meaning but these texts and places cannot be knowne to containe diuine truth no falshood by the euideÌ„ce of the doctrine Therefore we cannot know the Scripture to be the word of God that is nothing but truth by the euidence of the doctrine HeÌ„ce appeareth that Protestants teaching that â—he Scripture is known to be the word of God and that no lye is contayned therein by the euidence and light of the doctrine coÌ„tradict themselues in saying that in many places it is difficill and darke as they cannot assuredly vnderstand it For how can they know by the light of the sense or doctrine that the texts not vnderstood containe nothing but truth The second Argument Secondly the Scriptures are pretended to be known by the maiesty (l) Reply pag. 16. Internall matter maiesty of the bookes Item pag. 30. 68. Field appendix 34. Caluin Instit. l. 1. c. 7. purity of the doctrine but though some mysteries of the Scriptures carry a maiesty in respect of naturall reason and a shew of sublimity aboue it as the Blessed Trinity yet (m) Sunt quaedaÌ„ in sacris litteris quae quia suboffendunt animos ignaros negligentes sui quae maxima turba populariter accusari defendi autem populariter propter mysteria quae in illis coÌ„tinentur non à multis admodum possunt Aug. de vtil cred c. 1. other points of Scripture seeme vnto reason ridiculous and childish As that the serpent did speake to the woman that Adam and Eue were naked without perceiuing themselues to be so that there was day and night before the sunne was created the like Therfore we must haue some other surer ground then this maiesty of the doctrine to be certayne that the Scripture is nothing but truth Gods infallible word The third Argument Thirdly wheras the (n) Reply pag. 19. Minister much vrgeth the harmony of Scripture to proue the same to be of God Though this harmony appeare in diuers thinges yet who doth not know that innumerable seeming contradictions are obiected against Scripture (o) This is euident vnto al that haue read the coÌ„meÌ„taryes of the Fathers many of which are only probably answered by the Fathers many answered by thinges assumed without proofe only because otherwise we must admit contradiction in Scripture (p) This appeareth particularly in the foure first chapters of Genesis and in the Genealogy of our Sauiour And in concording the Chronologyes of the Booke of Kings some places not fully answered but the Fathers were forced to fly from literall vnto allegoricall senses how then could the ancient Fathers know the harmony of Scripture by the euidence of the thing thereon ground their faith that the Scripture is of God Or if they could not how can we For what the Minister boastingly affirmeth (q) Reply pag. 24. lin 15. of himselfe and his fellowes we find at this day a perfect harmony of all the parts of the Gospell among themselues and a perfect agreement of the same with the Scriptures of the old Testament This Ministeriall bragge I say of their finding the harmony of all Scriptures at this day aboue all the Ancients by the euidence of the thing is incredible for men cannot be more sure of the perfect harmony of Scriptures then they are sure that all contradictions laid to the charge of Scripture haue true solutions But no man liuing euer was or is sure by euidence that all the solutions and answeres vsed to reconcile Scriptures be the truth no not Protestants For did they vnderstand assuredly euery text of Scripture and euery seeming contradiction is reconciled could there be amoÌ„gst theÌ„ such different and aduerse exposition of Scripture Therefore no man euer did or doth know the perfect harmony of all Scriptures by the euidence of the thing nor consequently the Scripture to be of God by the euidence of this harmony The fourth Argument Fourthly wheras the Minister pretends the Scripture to be known by the style affirming that seeing God hath bestowed tongues and voyces on men by which they may be known the Iesuite cannot persuade any reasonable man that God so speaketh in Scripture as men eleuated
because knowne by the Churches perpetuall Tradition to be from the Apostles by the Apostles miraculous authority to be of God by Gods supreme Verity who cannot deceaue nor be deceaued to be the truth THE SECOND PART About the Catholike Resolution of Fayth NO doubt but that to the end a man may belieue diuine inward illuminatiō annointing his hart is necessary The question is what is the externall infallible ground vnto which Diuine inspiration moueth men to adhere that they may be setled in the true sauing fayth The answere in few words is this The Resolution of true Religion is firmely assured about foure Principles agaynst foure Enemyes by foure Perfections belonging vnto God as he is Prima veritas Prime and Infinite Verity that cannot deceaue nor be deceaued This I declare and proue The first Principle prooued §. 1. THE first Enemy of true Christian Religion is the Pagan (a) Dicunt pagani Ben◠viuimus or Prophane (b) Fuerunt Philosophi de virtutibus vitijs sublimia multa tractantes Aug. Tract 45. in Ioan. Philosopher who is persuaded he may attayne vnto perfect felicity and Sanctity by the knowledge of sole naturall truth Against this enemy is the first principle of true Christian Religion The Doctrine of Saluation is that only which was reuealed of God vnto his Prophets About this Principle true belieuers are resolued by a perfection which in the first place belonges vnto God as he is Prime Infinite verity to wit that he cannot lye nor reueale any vntruth when he speaks immediatly himselfe by secret inspiration Hēce we thus resolue God the Prime verity cannot reueale vntruth specially about the State-matters of saluation when he speakes by secret inspiration immediatly himselfe But he reuealed in this manner by inspiration vnto his Prophets that men cannot serue him truly nor be saued without knowing supernatural truthes beyond the (c) As mans felicity the blissfull visiō of God is aboue the forces of Nature so it was conueniēt God shold bring him vnto it by belieuing truth aboue the reach of his reason reach of Reason which truthes in particular he reuealed vnto them Therfore the doctrine of saluation is supernaturall truth such as was reuealed of God vnto his Prophets and others whome he did vouchsafe to teach immediatly by himselfe and send them to be the teachers of the world This the prime and highest principle of Christian resolution Protestants not in expresse words but in deeds and by consequence reiect from being the stay of their fayth For as they that belieue the doctrine of Aristotle lastly and finally by the light and euidence therof because it sheweth it selfe to be conformable to reason do not build vpon the authority of Aristotle nor vpon his bare world euen so they that belieue the doctrine of Scripture by the light resplendent verity thereof because it shewes it selfe to be diuine and heauenly truth as Protestants pretend to doe do not build vpon the authority of God the authour and doctour of Scripture nor his bare meere pure word This is most euident for who doth not see that it is one thing to belieue the word of some Doctour by the light of the doctrine and another to belieue his word through reuerence vnto his authority as knowing him to be infallible in his word Hence the Protestant fayth is so independent of the authority of God as though God were not prime verity but fallible in his words yet their fayth might subsist as now it doth This is cleere because let one be neuer so fallible and false yet when his sayings shew themselues to be true we may yea we cannot but belieue his word in respect of the resplendent verity therof But Protestants pretend that the sayings of Scripture shew themselues to be true by the light lustre of the Doctrine belieued therin vpon this resplendēt verity they build lastly their fayth Therfore though God were fallible might be false yet their fayth that his Scripture is truth which sheweth it selfe to be truth by the resplendent verity of the doctrine might subsist Is this the true Christian fayth which depends not vpon Gods being the Prime and Infallible Verity which giues no more credit vnto God then men wil giue vnto a lyar to wit to belieue him so farre as they see him To credit the word of his teaching so farre as it sheweth it selfe to be truth by the light of the doctrine Verily this forme of Fayths resolution is grosse and vnchristian which I am persuaded Protestants would not mantayne did they well vnderstand what they say or could they find some other way of Resolution wherby they might know what doctrine is the Apostles and therfore Gods without being bound to relye vpon the Tradition of the Church The second Principle demonstrated §. 2. SOME will say God is prime Verity by whose word we cannot be deceaued But how prou◠you these pretended diuine reuelations to be truly such Here cōmeth in the second enemy of true Religion who following his blind passion labours to depriue the world of the proofes of diuine reuelations that are more euident then the Sunne This Enemy is the Iew who graūting the doctrine of saluation to be supernaturall truth reuealed of God denies the reuealed doctrine of God to be Apostolicall that is the doctrine which the Apostles preached to the whole world as the doctrine of saluation Agaynst this Enemy is the second Principle of true Religion The Doctrine of saluation reuealed of God is no other but Apostolicall that is which the Apostles published to the world About this principle true belieuers are resolued by a second perfection of the prime Verity which is That he cannot with his seale that is with miracles and workes proper to himselfe warrant or subsigne falshood deuised or vēted by any man Hence we make this resolution God being Infinite verity cannot by signe and miracle testify falshood deuised and vented by men God hath by manifest miracles testifyed the doctrine of the Apostles to be his word and message Ergo the same is not a false religion inuented of men but the doctrin of Saluation reuealed of God The miracles by which the Prime verity hath giuen testimony vnto the Apostles doctrine may be reduced vnto foure heades First the miraculous predictions of the Prophets most cleerly punctually fullfilled in Christ Iesus his B. Mother his Apostles his Church Secondly the miraculous workes in all kindes which Christ Iesus and his disciples haue wrought which are so many so manifest so wonderfull aboue nature as we cannot desire greater euidences Thirdly the miraculous conuersion of the world by twelue poore vnlearned Fisher-men the world I say which thē was in the flowre of human pride glory in the height of human erudition and learning bringing them to belieue a doctrine seemingly absurd in reason to follow a course of discipline truly repugnant vnto sensuality to imbrace a way of saluation
be so adorned with the markes of the true as the true become indiscernable from it But if the Roman be not the true Catholicke Tradition the true Catholicke Church and Tradition is hidden yea a false Church hath so cleerly the markes of Catholicke that no other can with any colour pretend to be rather Catholicke then it that is to haue doctrin deliuered from the Apostles by whole worlds of Christian Fathers vnto whole worlds of Christian Children Hence eyther there is no meanes left to know assuredly the sauing truth or else the meanes is immediat reuelatiō that is inward teaching of the spirit without any externall infallible meanes or else Scripture knowne to be the word of God and truly sensed by the light lustre and euidēce of the things which wayes of teaching it is certayne God doth not vse towards his militant Church succeeding the Apostles For teaching of diuine and supernaturall truth by the light lustre and shining of the thing or doctrin is proper vnto the Church triumphant Inward assurance without any externall infallible ground to assure men of truth is proper vnto the Prophets and the first publishers of Christian Religion Hence I conclude that if God be the Prime Verity teaching Christian Religion darkely without making men see the light and lustre of thinges belieued and mediatly by some externall infallible meanes vpon which inward assurance must rely then he must euer conserue the Catholicke tradition and Church visible and conspicuous that the same may without immediat reuelation and otherwise thē by the lustre of doctrin be discerned to wit by sensible markes If any obiect that the senses of mē in this search may be deceaued through naturall inuincible fallibility of their organs and so no ground of fayth that is altogether infallible I Answere that euidence had by sense being but the priuate of one man is naturally and physically infallible but when the same is also publicke and Catholicke that is when a whole world of men concurre with him then his euidence is altogether infallible Besides seing God hath resolued not to teach men immediatly but will haue them to cleaue vnto an externall infallible meanes to find out this meanes by the sensible euidence of the thinge he is bound by the perfection of his Veracity to assist mens senses with his prouidence that therein they be not deceaued when they vse such diligence as men ordinarily vse that they be not deceaued by their senses Now what greater euidence cā one haue that he is not deceaued in this matter of sense that the Romā Doctrine is the Catholicke that is Doctrine deliuered from the Apostles by worlds of Christian Ancestors spread ouer the world vnanimous amongst themselues in all matters they belieue as Fayth what greater assurance I say can one haue that herein he seeth aright then a whole world of men professing to see the same that he doth Some may agayne obiect I belieue the Catholicke Church is an Article of Fayth set downe in the Creed but Fayth is resolution about thinges that are not seene I Answere An article of Fayth may be visible according to the substāce of the thing yet inuisible according to the manner it is belieued in the Creed The third article He suffered vnder Pontius Pilate was crucifyed dead and buried according to the substance of the thinge was euident vnto sense and seen euen of the Iewes and is now belieued of their posterity But according to the manner as it is belieued in the Creed to wit that herein the Word of God by his auncient Prophets was fulfilled that this was done in charity for the saluation of Man in this manner I say that visible Article is inuisible and belieued in the Creed In like māner that there is in the world a Catholicke Church and that the Roman is the Catholicke Church Pagans Iewes Heretikes if they shut not their eyes agaynst the light do cleerly behold But that herein the word of God about the perpetuall amplitude of his Church is accomplished that this is an effect of Gods Veracity to the end that the meanes to learne sauing truth may not be hidden this is a thing inuisible according to this notiō the Catholicke Church is proposed in the Creed Secondly propositiōs of fayth must be inuisible according to the Predicate or thinge belieued but not euer according to the subiect or thing wherof we belieue The thinges the Apostles belieued of Christ to wit that he was the Sauiour of the world the Son of God were thinges inuisible but the subiect and person of whome they did belieue was to them visible seen yea God did of purpose by his Prophets fortell certayne tokens whereby that subiect might by sense be seen and discerned from all other that might pretend the name of Christ or els his coming into the world to teach the truth had been to no purpose In this sort the Predicate or thing belieued in this article the holy Catholicke Church to wit Holy is inuisible but the Subiect to wit the Catholicke Church which we affirme and belieue to be holy in her doctrine is visible and conspicuous vnto all Yea God hath of purpose foretold signes and tokens whereby the same by sense may be cleerly discernable from all other that may pretend the title of Catholicke For were not this subiect the Catholicke Church we belieue to be holy and infallible in her teaching visible and discernable from all other that pretend the name of what vse were it to belieue that there is such an infallible teaching Church in the world hidden we know not where as a needle in a bottle of hay The End of the Resolution of Fayth THESE thinges supposed the Reader will haue no difficulty to discerne how friuolous the Ministers exceptions are agaynst the resolutiō of fayth in respect of belieuing doctrines to be the Apostles into Perpetuall Tradition and how solide the Iesuits discourse was which here ensueth THE FIRST GROVND That a Christian resolution of Fayth is builded vpon perpetuall Tradition deriued by succession from the Apostles §. 1. BEFORE I come to the proofe of this principle some things are to be presupposed which I thinke Protestants will not deny First that no man can be saued or attayne to the blissefull vision of God without firme and assured apprehension of diuine supernaturall truth concerning his last end and the meanes to arriue thereunto Secondly that this assured apprehension is not had by a (e) The Minister heere graunteth that Fayth is not had by cleere euident sight but afterward he sayth the same is resolued by the resplendent verity of the doctrine cleare and euident sight nor gotten by demonstration or humane discourse by the principles of reason nor can be sufficiently had by credit giuen to meerly humane authority but only by Fayth grounded on the word of God reuealing vnto men things that otherwise are knowne only to his Infinite wisdome Thirdly that God
reuealed all these verityes to Christs Iesus and he (f) Omnia quae audiui à Patre nota feci vobis Ioan. 15. v. 15. agayne to his Apostles partly by word of mouth but principally by the immediate teaching of his holy spirit to the end that they should deliuer (g) Docete omnes gentes Math. 28.20 them vnto mankind to be receiued and belieued euery where ouer the world euen to the consummation thereof Fourthly that the (h) Illi profecti praedicauerunt vbique Marc. vlt. 20. Apostles did accordingly preach to all nations deliuer vnto them partly by wryting partly by word of mouth the (i) O Timothee depositum custodi 1. Tim. 6.20 whole entyre doctrine of saluation planting an vniuersall Christian company charging them to keep inuiolably and to deliuer (k) Haec commenda fidelibus hominibus qui possunt alios instruere 2. Tim. 1.2 vnto their posterityes what they had of them the first messengers of the Ghospell Fiftly though the Apostles be departed their primitiue Hearers deceased yet there still remaynes a meanes in the world by which all men may assuredly know what the Apostles preached and the primitiue Church receyued of them seing the Church euen to the worlds end must be (l) Ephes. 2.20 c. 4.5.11 founded on the Apostles and belieue nothing as matter of Fayth besides that which was deliuered of them These things being supposed the question is What this meanes is and how men may now adayes so many ages after their death know certainly what the Apostles taught originally preached To which question I answere that the last and finall resolution (m) Note that the Minister many tymes doth falsify the Iesuits Tenet specially pag. 34. saying That the last and finall resolution is into vnwritten Tradition not into Scripture This he doth not say but that the persuasion that our Fayth is true is finally resolued into the authority of God reuealing and that it is Diuine into the Apostles miraculous preaching But what doctrine was taught by the Apostles we know only by Tradition therof is not into Scripture but into the perpetuall tradition of the Church succeeding (n) All from this place vnto the first argument the Minister leaueth out being the substance of the whole discourse yet he sayth he hath set down the booke verbatim See his Preface the Apostles according to the principle set downe by Tertullian in the beginning of his golden by Protestants commended Booke (o) Tertull. de praescript 1.61.21 Quid Apostoli pâ—â—dicauerint praescribam non aliter probari debere quà m per easdem Ecclesias quas ipsi condiderunt that is I set down this principle what the Apostles taught is to be proued NO OTHERVVISE then by the TRADITION of the Churches which they planted By which Prescription ioyned with the other fiue suppositions is raysed the Ladder for true Catholike resolution about Faith set down by the sayd Tertullian on which a Christian by degrees mounts vnto God or as S. Augustine (p) August de vtilitate credendi cap. 10. sayth ducitur pedetentim quibusdam gradibus ad summâ penetralia veritatis the Ladder is this the ascending by it in this sort What (q) Tertull. de praescrip c. 21. 37. Nos ab Ecclesijs Ecclesiae ab Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus à Deo I belieue I receaued from the present Church the present from the primitiue Church the primitiue Church from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God God the prime verity from no other fountayne different from his owne infallible knowledge So that who so cleaueth not to the present Church firmely belieuing the tradition thereof as being come downe by succession is not so much as on the lowest step of the Ladder that leads vnto God the reuealer of sauing truth successiue tradition vnwritten being the last and finall ground whereon we belieue that the substantiall points of our beliefe (r) Note the Iesuit doth not say Tradition is the last ground on which we belieue our Fayth to be sauing truth or the word of God but only that it came froÌ„ the Apostles so mounting vp by the Church vnto the Apostles by the Apostles vnto God and by him vnto all necessary truth came from the Apostles This I proue by these foure (*) These arguments as they coÌ„uince there is no meanes to know what the Apostles taught but Christian Tradition so they consequently conuince that if the Christian Religion be sauing truth God must assist this perpetual Catholike Tradition therof that no Errors creep into it arguments The first Argument IF the mayne and substantiall points of our fayth be belieued to be Apostolicall because writteÌ„ in the Scripture of the new Testament and the Scriptures of the new Testament are belieued to come from the Apostles vpon the voyce of perpetuall tradition vnwritten then our ResolutioÌ„ that our fayth is Apostolicall stayeth lastly and finally vpon Tradition vnwritten But so it is that the Scriptures of the new TestameÌ„t cannot be prooued to haue been deliuered vnto the Church by the Apostles but by the perpetual Tradition vnwritten conserued in the Church succeeding the Apostles For what other proofe can be imagined except one would prooue it by the (a) The Minister pag. 19. to Titles addeth inscription of some Epistles subscription insertion of names in the body of the bookes but neither is this true of all books nor of all Epistles nor it is inough to satisfy a man For may not a counterfayte write a Gospell for example in the name of Peter repeating the name of Peter the Apostle in the booke twenty tymes So it is childish to meÌ„tion this as the last stay of persuasion For what more childish then to prooue a thinge vnknowne by another as much vnknowne Titles of the bookes which were absurd seing doubt may be made whether those Titles were set on the Books by the Apostles themselues of which doubt only Tradition can resolue vs. Besides the Ghospell of S. Marke S. Luke as also the Acts of the Apostles were not written by any Apostles but were by their liuely voyce and suffrages recommended vnto Christians as Sacred Diuine otherwise as also (b) Bilson de perpetua gubernatione Ecclesiae pag. 85. Historiae illae à Marco Luca exaratae Canonicam authoritatem ex Apostolorum suffragiâ—s nactae sunt qui eas lectas approbârunt M. Bilson noteth they should neuer haue obtayned such eminent authority in the Church neyther should they be now so esteemed but vpon the supposall of Apostolicall approbation But how shall we know that the Apostles saw these writings and recommended the same vnto Christian Churches but by Tradition Ergo the last and highest ground on which we belieue what doctrine was deliuered by the Apostles is the tradition of the Church suceceding them For we may distinguish three properties of doctrine of faith
to wit to be True to be Reuealed of God to be Preached and deliuered of the Apostles The highest ground by which I am perswaded that my fayth is true is the authority of God reuealing it The highest ground on which I am resolued that my Fayth is reuealed is the credit and authority of Christ Iesus his Apostles who deliuered the same as Diuine and Sacred But the highest ground that moueth me to belieue that my fayth was (c) The Mynister and especially the Bishops Chaplin pag. 16. 17. charge the Answerer to resolue fayth of the Scriptures being the word of God into only Tradition This is a slaūder for he doth distinguish expresly in scripture the being preached by the Apostles from the being reuealed of God or his word This second property is spirituall and hidden and belieued not vpon Tradition from the Apostles directly but vpon the word of the Apostles so affirming confirmed with the testimony of miracles wrought by the Holy GHOST but to be preached and planted in the world was a publike sensible thing so is knowne by Tradition hand to hād from the Apostles Thus the Church as belieuing her doctrine to be true is built vpon God as belieuing her doctrine to be of God is built on the Apostles as belieuing her doctrine to be the Apostles is built on the Tradition of Pastours succeeding them The ground and pillar of Truth by office as our Minister graunts pag. 9. lin 5. preached by the Apostles is the perpetual tradition of the Church succeding the Apostles that so teacheth me Into this principle (d) Aug. cont epist. Fund cap. 5. Saint Augustine resolued his fayth agaynst the Manichees who pretended that the Scriptures of the new Testament had been corrupted confuting them by the Tradition of the Church affirming That he would not belieue the Ghospell 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 belieued the Gospell to be soueraignely certaine and true vpon the authority of God reuealing it and that it was reuealed of God vpon the authority of the Apostles who as Sacred preached it yet that this Ghospell as we haue it came incorrupt from the Apostles he could haue no stronger or more (e) The Minister forced by this testimony graūteth two things which ouerthrow his cause first pa. 22. l. 13.14 that Nouices and simple persons ground their fayth on the authority of the Church as also Field graunteth appendix part 1. pag. 11. now I assume But the fayth of Nouices is sauing fayth as S. Aug. there sayth contra Epist. Fundamenti c. 2. and cōsequently their fayth is diuine Ergo sauing supernaturall fayth is grounded on the authority of the Church Secondly he graunts pag. 23. lin 2. 3. that The Church as including the Apostles can proue the Scripture whence it is cōsequent that the Scriptures are not principles knowne by themselues but haue another higher diuine principle by which they are proued The Church comprehending the Apostles being as Protestāts grāt Field l. 4. of Church c. 21. of greater authority then Scripture excellent proofe then the testimony of the present Church descending by the cōtinuall succession of Bishops from the Apostles Neyther can we imagine an higher except we fly to particular priuate reuelation which is absurd The second Argument SECONDLY I proue that common vnlearned people the greatest part of Christianity are persuaded about all substantiall points of fayth by Tradition not by Scripture Common vnlearned people haue true Christian fayth in all points necessary and sufficient vnto saluation but they haue not fayth of all these mayne and substantiall points grounded on Scripture for they can neyther vnderstand nor read any Scripture but translated into vulgar languages so if they belieue vpon Scrpture they belieue vpon Scripture translated into their Mother tongue but before that they can know that the Scriptures are truly translated euen in all substantiall points that so they may build on it they must first know what are the mayne and substantiall points (f) To this proofe that Christians belieue their Creed more firmely then any translation the Minister hath not answered one word nor can answere for it is conuincing as appeares by this syllogisme Perswasion more certayne and firme cannot be grounded on perswasion lesse firme and certayne Such as are true Christians belieue the articles of their Creed more firmely then they do that Scriptures are truly translated into their vulgar tongue Ergo True Christians do not build their Fayth of the Creed on Scripture translated but on doctrine knowne to be the Apostles formerly and more firmely then that Scripture is truly translated firmely belieue them so that they would not belieue the Scriptures translated agaynst them For if they know them not before how can they know that Scriptures in places that concerne them are truly translated If they doe not before hand firmely belieue them why should they be ready to allow translations that agree with them and to reiect the translations that differ from thē Ergo (g) The Minister pag. 26. sayth That Ignorant men resolue their faith into Scripture yet not into Scripture so distinctly knowne as they can tel the names of the seuerall Bookes Authours and Sections and so they resolue implicitly not explicitly This is idle For if they know the doctrine of the Scripture because it is written though they know not the name of the booke nor number of the Chapter Verse nor the formall text what groūd firmer thē their Creed haue they this to belieue originally before they know any Scripture they haue fayth grounded on the Traditiōs of Ancestors by the light wherof they are able to iudge of the truth of Translations about such substantiall points as they firmely belieue by Traditiō And this is that which Protestants must meane if they haue any true meaning when they say that the common People know Scriptures to be truly translated by the (h) The Minister is forced to fly to a found paradoxe confuted already That vnlearned Rusticks know the Scripture to be Gods word by the matter and forme of the bookes and by seing the resplendent verity of the doctrine pag. 28. lin 3. He addeth lin 7. That they which actually resolue their fayth into the doctrine of Scriptur do virtually mediatly resolue the same into the very Scripture though they know not that it is written in Scripture This is friuolous and false For the Pagan and Infidells that know hony to be sweet and taken in abundance to be hurtfull should virtually resolue their persuasion into the very Scripture because they actually belieue a thing affirmed in Scripture Prou. 25. 27. Yea the Iew belieuing that Christ was crucified belieues a doctrine of Scripture doth he therefore resolue and build virtually vpon Scripture No. That one build on Scripture it is not
inough to know actually some doctrine which is in Scripture but he must know that it is in Scripture and belieue the Scripture â—o be the word of God but ignorant persons cannot know infallibly Scriptures to be the word of God truly translated further then they find them conforme to the doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of the Church Therfore they build their Fayth finally vpon Tradition not vpon Scripture truly translated light of the doctrine shining in true Translations to wit by the light of the doctrine receiued by Tradition of Ancestors and thereupon so firmely belieued as they will acknowledge Scriptures to be truly translated so far and no further then they perceyue them consonant with the fayth deliuered vnto them so that their last and finall resolution for substantiall points is not into Scriptures truly translated into their vulgar tongue but into Tradition by the light whereof they discerne that the Translations are true more or lesse according to the measure of knowledge they haue by Tradition The third Argument IF all the mayne and substantiall poynts of Christian Fayth must be knowne and firmely belieued before we can securely read and truly vnderstand the Holy Scripture then the mayne and substaÌ„tiall points of fayth are belieued not vpon Scripture but vpon TraditioÌ„ precedently vnto Scripture This is cleare because true fayth is not built but vpon Scripture truely vnderstood neyther can Scripture before it be truly vnderstood of a man be to him a ground of assured persuasion But we cannot vnderstand the Scripture securely and aright before we know the substantiall articles of fayth which all are bound expressely to belieue the (i) The Minister here laboureth to proue that the rule of fayth is contained in Scripture and therfore cannot be Tradition vnwritteÌ„ Which discourse is impertinent and the inference false For himselfe grants pag. 150. lin 16. that the rule of fayth is both written Tradition and vnwritten The Doctrine then of TraditioÌ„ is tearmed vnwritten not because it is no waies written but because as the Answerer sayth it is knowne by preaching precedently and independently of Scripture summary comprehensioÌ„ of which poynts is tearmed the Rule (*) Tertul. de Praescr c. 13. of fayth This is (k) The Answerer here brings three ArgumeÌ„ts that coÌ„uince that none can vnderstand Scripture securely and without danger of damnable errour that are not aforehand grounded in the substantiall articles of fayth The Minister though he professe to haue set downe the Answere Verbatim leaueth all this out and then cryeth thus agaynst the Iesuite pag. 34. circa finem That men must be first instructed in the necessary poynts of fayth before they can securedly read and interprete Scriptures is affirmed by the Iesuite but not proued Thus he What not proued The Iesuit bringes three large coÌ„uictiue proofes thereof which you because you cannot answere omit and then cry the Iesuit doth say and not proue This dealing is grosse proued by the acknowledgement of Protestans in whose name (l) D. Feild l. 3. of the Church cap. 4. D. Feild writeth in this sort We hold with the Papists that neither conference of places nor consideration of antecedentia and consequentia nor the knowledge of tongues and lookinge into the originalls â—s of any force vnlesse we find the things which we conceiue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant vnto the rule of fayth (m) D. Feild l. 4. of the Church cap. 14. 19. For who can be able to vnderstand the Scriptures but he that is setled in those things which the Apostles presupposed in their deliuery of Scripture Secondly by the experience both of all former ages and this present prouing by too many examples that such as come to reade expound Scripture without being aforehand setled by Tradition in the rule of fayth do fall into errours most damnable against the maynest articles of the Creed as the Creation of the world the blessed Trinity and the Incarnation Baptisme and other So that reading interpretation of Scripture makes not men Christians but supposeth them to be made by Tradition at the least for substantiall poynts such as euery one is bound expressely to know Thirdly we are not more able to vnderstand Scripture then were our Forefathers the auncient Doctors of the Church neither is there reason that we should so thinke of our selues but they thought themselues vnable to interprete Scripture precisely of it selfe by conference of places without the light of ChristiaÌ„ Doctrine aforehand knowne and firmely belieued vpon the Churches perpetuall Tradition from the Apostles witnes (n) Ruffinus Eccles. hist. l. 2. c. 9. S. Basill and S. Gregory Nazianzen the two grande Doctors of the Grecian Church and Origen who thus writes (o) Orig. tract in Matth. cap. 29. In our vnderstandinge of Scriptures we must not depart from the first Ecclesiasticall Tradition nor belieue otherwise but as the Church of God hath by succession deliuered to vs. Ergo no man is able to read interprete Scripture without (p) Protestants affirme as Whitaker contr 1. q. 4. c. 2. and others that no man can vnderstand Scripture that bringes not with him the light of fayth and Christian piety puras sanctas mentes which doth most euidently demonstrate that fayth about substaÌ„tial poynts is grounded on Gods word precedently vnto Scripture That persuasion which is precedent vnto the knowledg of Scripture and is the rule guiding vs in our knowledge of Scripture cannot be grounded vpon knowledge of Scripture But Christian fayth piety as they grant is precedent vnto knowledge of Scripture yea must be brought vnto the reading thereof and direct vs in it Ergo fayth is not originally grounded on Scripture the light assistance of firme Christian fayth aforehand conceiued by the voyce of the Church deliuering what by Tradition from Auncestors she receiued Whence I also conclude that it is exceeding dangerous boldnes in men of this age so to presume on their interpretations of Scriptures gotten by diligent reading and conferring of places as they care not though a (q) Luther de captiu Babyl Tom. 2. Wittenberg pag. 344. thousand of Cyprians Augustins Churches Traditions should stand against them The fourth 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 D. (r) Lib. 4. of the Church c. 4. in the margent Feild acknowledgeth wrote to them they had formerly taught more at large that were instructed and grounded in all substantiall and necessary poynts of fayth that knew the coÌ„mon necessary obseruations of Christianity Ergo they that reade and presume to interprete the Scriptures without first knowing and firmely belieuing by tradition at the least all necessary and substantiall poynts of fayth (s) The Minister pag. 34. lin 34. chargeth the
is sufficient for euery man seing the Apostle speakes not of euery man but expressely of him who is Homo Dei the man of God that is one already fully instructed and firmely setled by Tradition in all the mayne poynts of Christian fayth and godly life such an one as Timothy was The Scriptures for men in this manner aforetaught and grounded in fayth are abundantly sufficient who will deny it But this proueth at the most the sufficiency of the Scripture ioyned with Tradition not of Scripture alone or of onely-onely-onely Scripture as Protestants bookes in great Letters very earnestly affirme Hence also we may conclude that the (z) The Minister to proue Scriptures are cleere vnto Infidels that haue not the Spirit of fayth heapes many testimonies of Fathers that teach Scriptures in some matters to be cleere Who denyes this they are so to the faythful not vnto Infidels not vnto them that are vnsetled in the Catholike fayth yea many places he brings speake expressely only of the faythfull pious Sicut vera Religio docet accedunt as S. Augustine others by him alleadged affirme and therefore are brought impertinently to proue the sufficiency clarity of Scriptures in respect of Infidels pag. 34.35.36 many allegatiōs of Fathers which Protestants bring to proue the Scripture to be cleere in all substātiall points are impertinent because the fathers speake of mē aforehand instructed in all substantiall poynts who may by the light of Tradition easily discouer them in Scripture as they that heare Aristotle explicate himselfe by word of mouth may vnderstand his booke of nature most difficill to be vnderstood of thē that neuer heard his explicatiō either out of his owne mouth or by Tradition of his Schollers I hope I haue in the opinion of your most learned Maiesty sufficiently demonstrated this first GROVND of Catholicke fayth to wit That a Christian is originally and fundamentally builte vpon the word of God not as written in Scriptures but as deliuered by Tradition of the Church successiuely from the Primitiue vpō the authority wherof we belieue that both Scriptures and all other substantiall articles of fayth were deliuered by the Apostles thence further ascending inferring they came from Christ and so from God the prime veracity author of truth THE SECOND GROVND That there is a visible Church alwaies in the world to whose Traditions men are to cleaue That this Church is One Vniuersall Apostolicall Holy §. 3. THIS principle is consequent vpon the former out of which six things may be clerly proued First that there is alwaies a true (a) The Minister still cōeth forth with his distinctiō that by Church we may vnderstand a Hierarchy of mitred prelates thē he denyes that there is still a church teaching the truth in the world Secondly for a number of belieuers smaller or greater teaching and professing the right sayth in all substantial points then he grants there is still a true Church of Christ in the world This distinction so much repeated specially pag. 57. and 58. is impertinēt for by Church we vnderstād not euery small number of right belieuers but a Christian multitude of such credit and authority as vpon her tradition we may be sure what Scriptures doctrines were the Apostles For this is a fundamentall pointe necessary to be knowne that so we may know what Doctrine is of God and it cannot be knowne but by Tradition of the Church as hath bene proued Now whether this Church be Mitred or not Mitred goe in Blacke or in White or in Scarlet doth little import Let the Minister but shew vs a Church that hath euident Tradition of Doctrine hand to hand frō the Apostles we will say she is the true Church though she haue no Surplisse or Miter but be as precise as Geneua it selfe but if there be no Church in the world but this Hierarchy of Mitred Prelates whose Tradition hand to hand can assure men which be the Scriptures and doctrines of Religiō deliuered by the Apostles men ought not to beare such spleen against a Miter or Corner-Cap or Surplisse as in respect of them to fly from the Church that onely hath Catholicke Tradition from the Apostles Church of Christ in the world for if there be no meanes for men to know that Scriptures and all other substantiall Articles came from Christ and his Apostles and so consequently from God but the Tradition of the Church then there must needes be in all ages a Church receiuing and deliuering these Traditions els men in some age since Christ should haue bene destitute of the (b) The Minister pa. 59. lin 15. sayth A corrupt Church may deliuer vncorruptly some part of sacred truth as the Scripture and Creed by which men may be saued Answer We may conceaue two wayes of deliuering an incorrupt text The one Casuall by chance and so a corrupt Church yea a Iew an Infidell a child may deliuer an vncorrupt Copy of the Bible The other Authentike assuring the receauer this to be the incorrupt text of the Apostles Scripture and binding him so to belieue This Authentik and irrefragable Tradition cannot be made by a false Church erring in her Traditiōs as is cleer Now it is necessary to saluation that men not only Casually haue the true Scripture but must be sure that the text therof be incorrupt Therfore ther must be stil a Church in the world whose Tradition is Authentike that is a sufficient warrant vpon which men must belieue Doctrines to come from the Apostles ordinary meanes of saluation because they had not meanes to know assuredly the substantiall Articles of Christianity without assured Fayth wherof no man is saued Secondly this Church must be alwaies (c) The Minister pag. 61. lin 15 lin 26. obiects that in time of persecution the true Church may be reputed an impious sect by the multitude and so not be knowne by the notion of True and Holy nor can her truth be discerned by sense and common reason I answere As there are foure properties of Church-doctrin so likewise there are foure notions of the Church The first is to be Mistresse of the sauing truth According to this notion the Church is inuisible to the naturall vnderstanding both of men and Angels For God only his Blessed see our Religion to be the truth The second is to be Mistresse of Doctrine truly reuealed by secret inspiration According to this notion ordinarily speaking the Church is inuisible to almost all men that are or euer were the Apostles onely and the Prophets excepted The third to be Mistresse of Doctrine which Christ and his Apostles by their Miraculous preaching planted in the world According to this notion the Church was visible to the first and Primitiue world but now is not The fourth to be Mistresse of Catholike doctrine that is of doctrine deliuered and receaued by full Tradition and profession all the aduersaryes therof being vnder the name of
firmely any Minister of the Catholicke CHVRCH affirming a booke to be Scripture vntill we see cleerly that he deliuers therein the consent of the Catholike Church which then is euident vnto vs when we see him preach it freely and openly and no Pastour to contradict him therein may deceyue And if it may deceiue how can they be certaine that they are not deceiued seeing they thēselues liued not in the Apostles dayes nor saw with their owne eyes what coppyes the Apostles deliuered But Protestants as they pretend be certaine that they haue the true incorrupt Apostolicall text of Scripture Ergo they haue it vpon the authority of the holy Catholike Apostolicall Church Now the Minor that they haue the Scripture from the Romane is apparant for what other Church did deliuer vnto Luther the text of the Bible assuring him that they had it by Tradition from Auncestors tyme out of mind as giuen originally by the Apostles Which is accordingly acknowledged by (*) Whitaker l. 3. de Ecclesia p. 369. M. Whitaker (d) M. Doue in his persuasion others but particularly by (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word Luther himselfe Ergo the Roman Church is the one holy Catholik Apostolical Church whose Tradition doth deliuer infallibly vnto vs the text of Scripture And if the true Apostolicall Text then also (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word the true Apostolicell sense This I prooue if the Apostles did not deliuer the bare Text but togeather with the Text the true (f) We doe not say that the Apostles did deliuer the true sense of all their Scriptures making a large and entire commentary of all difficil texts as the Minister cauilleth pa. 121. but only that togeather with the text they deliuered the sense about the mayne and most principall points this sense thus deliuered by Traditiō with the text is to be admitted as religiously and reuerently as the text sense of Scripture to be deliuered perpetually vnto posterity then they who by Tradition rereiue from the Apostles the true Text must togeather receiue the true sense But as (g) Chemnit in exam Cōcil Trid. part 1. fol. 74. D. Bancroft in the Suruay pag. 379. principall Protestants affirme No mā doubteth but the Primitiue Church receyued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not only the text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sēse Which is agreable to the doctrin of (h) Vincentius Lyrinen cap 2. the Fathers that from the Apostles togeather with the text descends the line of Apostolicall interpretation squared according to the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense Whereupō S (i) Aug. de vtilit Creden c. 14. Augustine argueth that they that deliuer the text of Christs Ghospell must also deliuer the exposition affirming that he would sooner refuse to belieue Christ then admit any interpretation contrary to them by whome he was brought to belieue in Christ. For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense why may they not also deliuer a false text as receyued frō the Apostles An argument conuincing and (k) Though the Minister pag. 123. storme at this confidence of his Aduersary in tearming it vnanswerable yet by deeds he confirmes the saying to be true in not answering but chāging the force thereof quite another way saying It is this The text of the Scripture may be as easily corrupted as the sense Ergo All they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense may also deliuer a false text In this argument he denyeth the antecedent or assumption I answere First as I sayd the argument is peruerted and the medium or meanes of proofe changed for there is great difference betwixt Being as easy Being as possible seing a thing may be as possible as another and yet not so easy That ten men should conspire to deceaue me is not so easy as that three should so conspire as is euident Yet it is as possible as the other because no reason can be brought to proue that three may so conspire that proues not that also ten may do the like In the same manner though we should grant the sense may be more easily mistaken by the Church then the text yet it is as possible that the Church be mistaken in the sense Because no reason proues that vniforme Tradition can be mistaken in the sense that proues not that it is possible that the Church may be mistaken in the text though perchance not so easily Now if the Church in her vniforme Tradition may be mistaken about the text then is not Traditiō a sufficient ground of infallible perswasion that the text is the Apostles and so fayth is ouerthrowne which hath no other ground to know assuredly the incorrupt Scriptures deliuered by the Apostles but Traditiō as hath been prooued Secondly it is false that the sense and doctrine of Scripture concerning mayne and substantiall articles of fayth may be sooner corrupted and a false sense persuaded to the Church then a false text The reason is manifest because millions of Christians know by Tradition the doctrine of Scripture about mayne points that know not all the texts by which the same is proued yea perchance truly certainly not so much as one For example the doctrine that there are Three Diuine Persons and One God is so ingrauen in the harts of all euen simple Christians as you may sooner pull out their harts then make them belieue that this is not the Christian fayth whence no man can deny the Trinity but he is presently noted by al. On the other side this text 1. Ioan. 5.7 wherby the Trinity is proued There be three that giue testimony in heauen the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one millions do not know and so it is more easy to take from Christians this text then the doctrine therof And the same reason is of any other text the texts being stil commonly farre more vnknowne then the doctrine of the Creed such substantiall points vnanswerable The fourth Argument MY fourth proofe I grōnd vpō a Principle most certayne and set downe by (*) In the summe of the Conference before his Maiesty p. 75. your Gracious Maiesty That the Romane Church was once the mother Church and consequently the one holy Catholike Apostolicall Church all other Churches being her daughters and that she is not to be forsaken further then it can
the vnitie of the Church may ioyne togeather with your Excellent Wisdome and Learninge to pronounce the sentence Although I be confident that examining Religion by the meere rigour of onely Scripture the Catholicke Doctrines would get the victorie more cleere and expresse testimonies standing on our side then any that ProtestaÌ„ts can bring for theÌ„selues (*) This is further made cleere by the Reioynder so that it is but the face of a Minister to say in this place That our relying on Scripture is Vanitas vanitatuÌ„ as by the former discourse may appeare Although also I be much more confident in the tradition and perpetual practise of the Church interpreting Scripture which by so full coÌ„sent deliuers the Roman Doctrine that partialitie it selfe duely pondering the weight of thinges can hardly in hart and inwardly iudge against them yet my chiefest hope is in these Charitable thoughtes and desires of peace and vnitie in the whole Christian world which the holy Ghost hath inspired into your Brest For suppose that Preconceipts instilled into tender myndes agaynst the faith of Auncestours might so farre preuaile as to make them thinke comparing Catholikes with ProtestaÌ„ts that Scriptures stand equally on both sides yea sifting the matter by Scripture only that Protestants may seeme to haue the vpper hand yet Charitie will moue this question Whether the testimonies and arguments they bring from Scripture are so vndeniably cleere and so vnauoydably strong that no answere or euasion may be found but the Roman (*) The Minister sayth we giue seeming and appering solutioÌ„s but this is done by Sophistry I aske who shall be Iudge Or how can this by tryed by Scripture Church must be refused notwithstandinge so much discord and dissention so much inconstancy incertainty about religion which as reason proueth must and as experience sheweth doth thereupon ensue For if you cast away the Roman Church and her authority noe Church is left in the world that can with reason or dares for shame challenge to be infallible in her definitions if such a Church be wanting what meanes is left either to keepe the learned certainly in peace or to giue vnto the ignorant assurance what is the Doctrine of Saluation the Apostles first preached A Church fallible in her teaching is by the learned to be trusted noe further then they do see her Doctrines consonant vnto Scripture and so they may neglect her Iudgment when they seeme to haue euidences of Scripture against her And if this libertie of contradiction be granted what hope of Vnity remaines when a priuate man may wrangle eternally with the whole Church neuer be conuinced apparantly of teaching against the Scriptures Whereof we haue to many dayly examples If we take out of the world a Church infallible whence shall ignorant men learne which is the Doctrine of saluation that the Apostles deliuered It is as euident as the Sunne shyning at noone Day and the euidence of the thing hath forced some Protestants to acknowledge That the Controuersies of Religion in our time are grown in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue time and leasure Field of the Church Prefat in l. 1. fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them so that nothing remaines for men desiâ—ous of satisfaction in things of such consequeÌ„ce but diligently to search out which amongest all the Societyes of men in the world is the Church of the liuing God the pillar ground of truth that so they may imbrace her communion follow her directions rest in her Iudgement If there be no Church in the world besides the the Roman that can with any colour pretend Infallibity of Iudgement If the most part of men cannot by their examining of Controuersies be resolued in faith and therfore must perish eternally except they finde a Church that is an infallible mistresse of truth in whose Iudgment they may securely rest Certainly those that haue bowells of Charity will accept of any probable answere vnto Protestants obiections and accusations rather then discredit the authority of so necessary a Church which being discredited no Church remaines in the world of credit sufficient to sustaine the waight of Christian that is infallible Beliefe What a misery 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 belieued points of Doctrine necessary to saluation not out of their owne certaine skill in Scripture as they should by the principles of their religioÌ„ but (*) The Minister here rayleth but dares not directly answere the Question What shall become of ignorant meÌ„ who belieued the truth vpoÌ„ the credit of their Church not vpoÌ„ their owne infallible knowledge vpoÌ„ the credit of the Church that teacheth them which doth acknowledge her selfe no sufficient stay of assured beliefe For without question men cannot be saued who although they belieued the truth yet belieued it vpon a deceauable ground and consequently by humaine and fallable perswasion and not as need is by a diuine most certaine beliefe grounded vppon an infallible foundation which cannot be had without an infallible Church How dreadfull then must the danger be of liuing out of the lappe of the Roman Church that is of a Church of infallible Authority This Church hauing a most glorious succession of Bishops from the Apostles deserues aboue all other the protection of your Maiesty who by a long line of religious Catholike Ancestors succeed in the right of two Illustrious Kingdomes and being so beneficiall vnto mankind so efficacious to mayntayne Vnity (*) Our Hopes did not dye with our late Soueraigne but still liue in his Royall Issue and of the most Sacred Queene Martyr his Mother we cannot giue ouer hope of your Fauour whom singular preseruation in the wombe of your glorious mother agaynst the barbarous attempts of Hereticall diuision that would haue brought you to an immature end shewes to be by Gods infinite wisdome perordained for some singular good of mankind specially by your meanes to quench wars and dissentions and to bestow the blessings of peace vnion on this land Your Title to the Crowne of England springes from the peacefull coniunction of the two renowned Roses which before were mortall enemies and fought so many cruell feilds that if we consider the great effusion of bloud wherein ech of them were bathed we shall hardly discerne the one from the other by the diuersity of colour Your Maiesties Person is the roote of a more happy vnion of two most glorious Kingdomes by your Sacred Person combined in assured peace which in the hystoryes of former times are by no other markes more famously knowne then by their mutuall warres Nothing remaines to be added for the full consummation of this Ilands happines and your Maiesties immortal Glory but the quenching of discord about religion by bringing them back againe to the roote matrice of the Catholique Church Cyp. lib. 1. epist. 3. ad Cornel. to the Chayre of Peter the principall Sea from which Sacerdotall and Sacred Vnity springs and to which perfidious Errour hath no accesse Wherby your Maiesty shall extend the blessings of peace from this Iland to the rest of Europe from the the body vnto the soule and crowne your temporall peace and felicity with eternall For both which not only I but all of my profession yea all Catholikes wil offer vnto Almighty God our daily praiers FINIS
the choyce of Printers that Protestants inioy Of thee Gentle Reader in requitall of my Labours I require no more then that to the perusing of them thou wilt bring an vnpartiall minde free from preiudicate opinion raysed by Pulpit-inuectiues and Popular Reports free I say from human regards affected vnto the Truth of Saluation resolued when the same appeares not to be kept from the imbracing therof through the feare of teÌ„porall dangers If thy mind be thus indiffereÌ„tly piously disposed I do not doubt but after atteÌ„tiue reading thou wilt giue the same Censure of the Conferences and Disputations bâ—twixt vs and our Aduersary which Marcellinus pronounced of the CoÌ„ferences betwixt the Catholicks and Donatists Augustin in Breuiculo Collat. Omnium ArgumentoruÌ„ manifestatione à Catholicis Aduersarios confutatos esse That the Catholickes are proued superiour vnto their Aduersaryes by the manifest truth of all kind of Arguments A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS AND PRINCIPALL Matters handled aswell in the Answere as in the Reioynder THE Preface to the Reader An Introduction to the Censure shewing the vanity of the Pictures and Pageants displayed in the first two pages of the Ministers Booke CONTENTS OF THE CENSVRE Sect. I. Doctour White his Ignorance of Latin and Grammer or els wilfull going agaynst the knowne Truth pag. 9. § 1. S. Epiphanius words about Images interpreted agaynst Grammer pag. 10.11 c. § 2. His Grammaticall Ignorance about the wordes Accipite Manducate Bibite pag. 12.13 c. § 3. His grosse misprision in translating of Latin pag. 15.16 c. § 4. About S. Cyprians teaching Transubstantiation and the word Species pag. 19.20 c. § 5. His abusing the Iesuits words agaynst English Construction to an impious sense pag. 23.24 c. Sect. II. D. White his grosse and incredible Ignorance in Logicke pag. 30. § 1. His fond accusation of the Iesuit as peccant agaynst the forme of syllogisme pag. 31. § 2. Foure Arguments by him brought all foolish peccant in forme pag 37.38 c. § 3. His ridiculous Arguments to proue a diuine Ordinance for Lay-men to read the Scripture pag. 43.44 c. Sect. III. D. White his grosse Ignorance of Theology pag. 51. §· 1. His teaching that vnto Ministers Religious Adoration is duâ— pag. 52.53 c. § 2. That that cannot be the true Church which hath wicked Pastours pag. â—6 57 c. § 3. He professeth Infidelity about the Blessed Sacracrament pag. 64.65 c. § 4. His grosse Ignorance further discouered about the same pag. 68 69· c. § 5. His extreme Ignorance about Satisfaction pag. 72.73 c. § 6. His Ignorance about the Holy Crosse Water of Iordan pag. 77.78 c. § 7. His Ignorance About Traditions pag 83.84 c. Sect. IIII. D. White his Ignorance in holy Scripture pag. 86. § 1. He denyeth the Text context of Scripture pag. 87.88 c. § 2. He is forced to go agaynst Christs expresse words pag. 89.90 c. § 3. He is forced to deny the Creed pag. 92.93 c. § 4. In answering Scriptures he contradicteth himselfe grants the Iesuit the Question pag. 95.96 c. § 5. In lieu of answering he confirmes the Iesuits Arguments pag. 98.99 c. § 6. He sends the Iesuite to God for an Answere pag. 101.102 c. § 7. His innumerable grosse Impertinencies in cyphering scoring of Scriptures pag. 104.105 c. § 8. He citeth Scriptures that make agaynst him pag. 108.109 c. § 9. Scriptures abused falsifyed pag. 112.113 c. The Text of Matth. 24.24 That euen the Elect shall be deceaued were it possible by him most grossely applyed pag. 116. c. The Text Act. 17.11 About the Beroeans abused pag. 118.119 c. The Text 1. Ioan. 18. If we say we haue no sinne c. falsifyed pag. 120.121 c. Sect. V. His Ignorance Fraude Falshood in alleaging Fathers and all manner of Authours pag. 125. § 1. Seauen Testimonyes of S. Augustine about Scripture Tradition falsifyed 127.128 c. § 2. Seauen Testimonyes of other Fathers falsifyed pag. 134.135 c. § 3. Foule Calumniation Falsification of Hosius Bellarmine Petrus à Soto Bosius p. 143.144 c. § 4. Other Fathers impudently falsifyed as if they did auerre what they do most constantly maintayne proue pag. 150.151 c. § 5. Grosse Imputations with manifest falshood imputed vnto Cardinall Baronius pag. 153.154 c. CONTENTS OF THE ANSVVERE AND REIOYNDER THE Preface to King Iames. pag. 3. That the Roman Church is the only true Church p. 3. A short Treatise concerning the Resolution of Fayth for the more full cleering of the ensuing Controuersies about Tradition Scripture the Church pag. 15. § 1. The Protestant Resolution of Fayth declared pag. 15.16 c. § 2. The former Resolution confuted by six Arguments pag. 16.17.18 c. § 3. Concerning the light of Scripture pag. 21.22 c. ¶ The second Part of this Treatise About the Catholicke Resolution of Fayth pag. 30. § 1. The first Principle proued pag. 30.31 c. § 2. The seeond Principle demonstrated pag. 32.33 c. § 3. The third Principle proued pag. 36.37 c. § 4. How the Churches Tradition is proued infallible independently of Scripture pag. 38.39 c. § 5. The difference betweene Propheticall and ordinary diuine Illumination by which Protestants Cauills are answered pag. 41.42 c. § 6. The fourth Principle proued pag. 44.45 c. THE FIRST GROVND § 1. That a Christian Resolution of Fayth is built vpon perpetuall Tradition deriued by succession from the Apostles pag. 50.51 c. § 2. Concerning the Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture pag. 61.62 c. ¶ How Catholikes grant the same sufficiency to be in Scripture as Protestants do and the true state of the Question about the sufficiency of Scripture and of Tradition pag. 63.64 c. THE SECOND GROVND § 3. That there is a Visible Church always in the world to whose Traditions men are to cleaue That this Church is One Vniuersall Apostolicall Holy pag. 70.71 c. § 4. The Properties of the Church proued by Matth. 28.20 pag. 82.83 c. § 5. That the Roman is the One Holy Catholike Apostolicall Church from by which we are to receaue the Tradition of Christian Doctrine pag. 85.86 c. ¶ That the Protestant Church was not before Luther pag. 85.86 c. ¶ That the Grecians were not Protestants in Essence pag. 87. ¶ That the Waldenses were not Protestants for Essence and kind pag. 88. ¶ That Protestants not being able to cleere themselues to be the Visible Church by Tradition do vaynely appeale vnto Scripture for their Doctrine pag. 89.90 c. § 6. The Conclusion of this Matter shewing that Protestants erre fundamentally pag. 108.109 c. THE NINE POINTS I. Point About vvorship of Images pag. 123. § 1. Worship of Images consequent out of the Principles of Nature and Christianity pag. 125.126 c. §
c. mother who falling into the hands of your Religion you held her so fast you griped her so hard as you droue the breath out of her body made her Sacred bloud run about her Annoynted Shoulders The Roman Religion in opposite hath giuen her by your paynting a Vizard and is made to stand treading vpon Crownes and Scepters to signify that she is by doctrine and practise a Deposer Contemner of Kings This Fancy would indeed be a Truth could you proue that Wickliffe Luther Caluin Beza Knox Buchanam Wittingham Goodman the like (b) See Bancroft Danger Posit VVhit l. 1. c. 4. l. 2. c 1. ProtestaÌ„ts Apolog. â—reface were Roman Catholikes Or could you shew that they were Papists of whom (c) Beza Ep. Theolog. 68. Beza sayth putting himselfe in the number What Churches should we now haue in the world had not this course been held to wit of erecting Churches by force of Armes in despite (*) ProtestaÌ„ts haue murdered fiue Catholik Kings or Princes They haue deposed Nine from their Kingdomes wholly or in part They haue set vp their ReligioÌ„ at the least in fourty towns by force of Armes expelling the Magistrates murthering Priests Religious Persons breaking downe Images and burning Churches They haue byn at the least twenty seueral times in the field against their Catholik Soueraygnes six or seauen times against their soueraygnes that were preseÌ„t in persoÌ„ All which may be proued by the testimony of Protestants if the margeÌ„t did permit Read Bancrofts Dangerous positioÌ„s Osianders Epitom Histor. Centur. 16. the â—rotestaÌ„ts Apolog. Preface of Princes and Magistrats So plainly doth he acknowledge your Churches to haue been euery where planted by treading vnder foote the CoÌ„mands Edicts the Swords Gouernments the Crownes and Scepters of Kings The fourth opposition The Protestant Gentlewoman holdeth a pillar vnder her left Arme with a bough of palme in the same hand whereas the Roman hath on her left hand a Camelion sitting Your meaning is that you forsooth are stronge Constant in your Religion but we weake wauering ready to change for feare of persecution Your Constancy indeed is knowne that you are in your doctrines as immutable as the Moone In what point of Religion saith (d) Andraeas Duditius See Epist. Theol. Bezae epist. 1. 3. an emineÌ„t Protestant be they that impugne the Roman Bishop firme and constant They COYNE MONETHLY FAITHS they are carryed away with the wind of euery doctrine What their ReligioÌ„ is to day one may know but what it will be to morrow neyther themselues nor any mortall man can tell And whereas you make this your Gossippe to haue on her left side the pillar of Religion on her right the Crowne could any thing be more fit to expresse your Church of England For in her Religion Kings haue the better vpper hand of God the Apostolicall sentence We must rather obey God theÌ„ men is turned backward her Doctrine is mutable with the Princes pleasure that she may be better resembled by a Weather-cocke theÌ„ by a Pillar For what constaÌ„cy can she haue that preferrs a Temporall Crowne before Christian Truthâ— The fifth Opposition betweene these two Women is in respect of the Tytles that are set ouer their heades yours being tearmed Veritas Vniuoca and ours Mendacium Aequiuocum Veritas vniuoca being in English Verity taught by the professours thereof with one voyce with vniforme consent I thinke the Reader will smile at your good Inuention that you could find no truer Tytle for your Gospell For what more notorious to the world then that your reformed Professours are Vniuocall in the doctrine they preach as diuine truth euen as the builders of Babel were Vniuocall in language after the diuision of their toÌ„gues Vnto the Roman ReligioÌ„ which doth detest lying about any the least thing which coÌ„demnes Equiuocall Ambiguous speach in the affayre of Religion in matters of Bargayne in familiarity of (e) See the Treatise tending to Mitigation Speach why doe you tearme her Mendacium Aequiuocum Vpon no other ground but in regard she teacheth that a Christian to defend his life and goods from the Tyranny of Oppressours may sometymes vse ambiguous and reserued speach A practise expressely allowed in Scripture as (f) Gregor in exposit l. 1. Reg. c. 16. His verbis ostenditur quòd Tyrannorum saeuitia atque versutia quandoque est PIA FRAVDE deludenda sic tamen Tyranni deludendi sunt vt caueatur culpa mendacii Quod tuÌ„c bene perficitur cùm illud quod fit asseritur sed quod fit sic dicitur vt celetur quia ex parte dicitur ex parte reticetur sayth S. Gregory The Scripture sheweth that the crafty cruelty of Tyrants is sometymes to be deluded by PIOVS FRAVD so sauing our selues from their malice that we tell not a Lye which then is well performed wheÌ„ what is done is affirmed yet so affirmed as what is done is also coÌ„cealed the thing being vttered in part and in part not vttered but retayned in mind I hope I haue cleerly discouered the falshood inanity of your Frontispiciall Emblemes and Pageants which occasioned my setting this Picture before the Reioynder the rather also to make your Image perfect and complete in the Entrance of both our â—ookes put togeather that the Reader may behold in the one the Out-side in the other the In-side of your Venerable Selfe If Caluin (g) Caluin lib. de scandalis sayd true of Ministers Praeclarum quidem zelum simulant they can make an excellent fayre shew of Zeale I will not deny but your Paynters curious hand hath elegantly set forth your Out-side For he hath paynted in your Face a fayre shew of Zeale of Modesty of Wisdome of Grauity specially in your demure looke Veluet cap and gray Beard so combed and handsomely composed as your Wife may seeme to haue had her fingar in the trimming thereof aswell as in the setting of your Ruffe But quid si intus excutias What if we looke into the In-side Heere your Paynters Pensill fayled him which defect some body perchance your selfe vndertooke to supply with his Poeticall Quil setting these verses vnder your Picture and the Picture of your Booke wearing a Crowne Wisdome Grace see in that modest looke Truth 's Triumph Errours downfall in this Booke But this is not liuely paynting of your In-side to the eye but only Verball Assertion of your hidden Worth to the eare which if one will reiect as the fabulous coÌ„ceyt of a Poet what can be replyed Or if you be Author of the Verses your selfe some perhaps will attribute these prayses not vnto Truth but vnto your Fawning with ouer-fauourable Fancyes vpon your owne Learning Triumphing before the Victory and vsurping a Crowne without right What then shall I doe how may I set forth the true vndeniable figure of your In-side Your (h) Reply pag. â—74 selfe say
from no other Church but the Roman is equiualent or equipollent vnto this Euery Church deliuering scriptures vnto Protestants is Roman Wherefore to reduce the Iesuits argument in true forme vnto the first Figure you should haue made the maior (d) For as Logicke teaches In prima Figura maior semper est vniuersalis Vniuersall in this sort Euery Chuch that deliuered vnto Protestants the scriptures is the Catholike The Roman deliuered the Scriptures vnto Protestants Ergo the Roman Church is the Catholike Church If you say the Meanes of proofe in the Iesuits argumeÌ„t is Indiuiduall and so the Syllogisme Expository not according to the ordinary forme why then do you reprehend his argument as being affirmatiue in the second figure seing Expository Syllogismes may be affirmatiue in any figure Are yow a Doctour a Deane a Maister in Israell and know not these things Being so ignorant of Logicke were yow so destitute likewise of discretioÌ„ as yow could not keepe your selfe from carping at the Iesuit as peccant in Logicke Could you not at least haue been silent about figures and formes of arguing concerning which yow speake no more assuredly then a blind man of colours Some may say that though yow be ignorant of Logicke yow do not greatly care because this your Ignorance howsoeuer euident vnto the learned cannot be made palpable vnto the Ladyes who esteeme yow and are lead away by yow I answere Although your Ignorance in Logicke cannot by this discourse be made palpable vnto Ladyes yet the falshood of your Religion euen about your ground and rule of fayth may be made palpable vnto them Yow make the rule of Fayth to be not expresse scripture affirming a thing in so many words for then the Ladyes that can read might straight discouer the falshood of your Religion wherof not one article against vs is expressely deliuered in scripture You therefore I say make the rule of Fayth to be not only Scripture but also (e) The doctrine of fayth is eyther expressely or deriuatiuely coÌ„tayned in Scripture Fran. white pag. 300. What is deduced by necessary consequence according to the rules of Logicke VVottâ—n Triaâ—l pag. 88. what doctrine soeuer is by Principles of reason and Rules of Logicke deduced from the Scripture Now wheÌ„ a thing is deduced from scripture by good consequence by true art and not by Sophistry Ladyes except they haue diligently studyed Logicke cannot possibly know This is euident For nothing is deduced by good consequence from scripture which is not deduced by discourse in lawfull figure forme not by Sophistry or a fallacious shew But the Ladyes cannot possibly know when an argument is in true moode and figure nor consequently discerne Syllogismes from Sophismes which their insufficiency they must needes feele in themselues if they be in their senses Therfore they cannot possibly be assured by the ground and rule of Fayth you prescribe them nor consequeÌ„tly can they groundedly belieue Christian Religion nor be saued They must trust ignorant Ministers who crye Sophistry Sophistry agaynst argumeÌ„ts in lawfull forme as now you haue done not so much out of malice but as I am persuaded out of meere Ignorance of such Rudiments of discourse as men are taught in their childhood The second Example §. 2. YOv not only accuse the Iesuits Arguments of Sophistry when they are lawfull but also pretende to bring inuincible Demonstrations when your Arguments be childish knowne Sophismes Behold hereof notorious Examples Your aduersary to proue the traditioÌ„ of the Church to be more Prime and Originall then the scripture bringes 4. Arguments Yow on the contrary side to requite him in the same number haue set downe other 4. to proue that a Christian is built originally and fundamentally on the word of God not as deliuered by tradition but as written In these Arguments yow glory (f) Reply pag. 47. and 48. saying That the Iesuits are but funiculus vanitatis a bundle of vanity and a potsheard couered ouer with the drosse of siluer Now these your arguments in comparison of which you so debase the Iesuits are all and euery one of them idle triuiall fallacyes as I will particulerly and cleerely demonstrate The first (g) Reply pag. 48 is That which is most excellent in euery kind is the modell of the rest but I trow yow will grant the Scripture to be the most excellent part of Gods word 2. Pet. 19. August l. 17. cont Faust. c. 5. Ergo the scripture is the modell and patterne of the rest This Argument is constans ex quatuor terminis that is hath foure different termes whereas all true forme of arguing ought to haue only three Scripture is one terme Modell and patterne of the rest a second Most excellent in euery kind a third the most excellent part a fourth for it is not all one to say the excellent thing in euery kind the most excellent part of many partes Amongst whole and totall things the most excelleÌ„t in euery kind may in some sort be said to be the patterne of the rest but amoÌ„gst parts the most excellent is not the ground of the rest In substantuall Compounds the substantiall forme is more excellent then the substantiall matter yet the substantiall forme is not the ground of the matter yea rather the matter is the ground of the forme being the fundamentall radicall cause out of which materiall formes are produced Who sees not that Walles Chambers and Galleryes are more excellents parts of the house and more beautifull then the fundations Yet the fundations are more prime originall and wheron the Walls and Chambers depend and are kept in being In this manner the word of God as written is more excellent in respect of deep and profound learning then Tradition yet the word as deliuered by Tradition is more prime originall fundamentall because it is the sole ground and foundation by which wee know which is the word of God the Apostles deliuered in writing Hence yow are such a Bungler in Logicke as yow vndertake to proue one thing and conclude another Yow vndertake (h) Reply 47. lin 28. to proue that the foundation of Christian Religion is the word of God not as deliuered by tradition but as written yow conclude that the written word is the patterne and modell of all other kinds of Diuine Reuelations Now to be the ground of the rest is different from to be the patterne of the rest yea the ground of thinges is seldome or neuer the patterne of them The grape by common consent is held the most excellent of all kind of fruite and so by your rule the modell and patterne of the rest yet the grape is not the ground the roote and seed of all other fruite nor do all other fruite spring and proceed from it Your second Argument (i) Ibid. pag. 48. A Christian is built fundamentally on the Rocke but the scripture is the rocke Cardinalis Cameracensis quaest vespert
bloud in offering the sacrifice for our Reâ—emption But what will you say of the Water of Iordan What Diuine manifest Ordinance can you bring to say â—he same was Relatiuely Holy and Venerable during our Sauiours Baptisme more then to ascribe the like Sanctity and Venerability vnto the Crosse for the â—nstant tyme of our Sauiours suffering thereon And whereas you say the Crosse was liuelesse and insenâ—ible seeming to assigne this as a reason why the same â—ould not be made Holy and Venerable what more â—ayne Was not the ground wheron Moyses stood â—as not the water of Iordan as liuelesse insensible â—s the wood of the Crosse Verily I cannot imagine what heere you may reply am persuaded that God â—n his prouideÌ„ce would haue you vtter in print this â—ruth about the water of Iordan that thereby you â—ight be conuinced that no reason but only passion â—eades you to deny the Holynes and Venerabiâ—â—ty of our Sauiours Crosse. And seeing when the blind lead the blind both fall into the pit what wonder that you following the blindnes of passion agaynst the Churches Tradition be fallen into so open a pit of folly as to make the Land wheroÌ„ Moyses stood and the water of Iordan more holy and venerable then the wood of the Altar of our Redemption If any demand why the Crosse is stil worshipped after it ceased to touch our Sauiours body and noâ— the water of Iordan the reason of disparity is euideÌ„t For things sanctifyed by the presence touch of some sacred person still remaine holy and venerable vntill the same be lawfully applyed vnto prophane vulgar vse Thus the Chayre of State being ciuilly sanctifyed that is aparted from coÌ„mon ordinary seruice remaynes so perpetually vntill the same be lawfully applied vnto vulgar imployment I say lawfully for if the same be vulgarly vsed vnlawfully and in contempt it looseth not sanctity but is still holy de iure and hath a right to be venerably vsed Now the ground whereon Moyses stood the apparition being finished the water of Iordan our Sauiourâ— baptisme being ended were presently and lawfully applyed to prophane vse no custome or law forbidding the same and so they presently ceased to be holy But the Crosse whereon our Sauiour suffered which he imbrueed with his blood in the sacrifice 〈◊〉 the worlds redemption was hereby made so holy venerable to Christian imagination as by Christiaâ— custome the same is vnappliable to vulgar and proâ—phane vse which reuerence to the Crosse is so inâ—graffed in Christian harts as I am persuaded that 〈◊〉 the ProtestaÌ„t would abhorre the Puritan as proâ—hane that should vse the wood of the Crosse in vulgar manner as for example to make a pegge therof Wherfore the Crosse being by Christian custome â—euotion for euer vnappliable to prophane vse the â—ame is durably holy and venerable shall be worâ—hipped so long as Christianity shall last in the world And seing in this place you vse the tearmes of Relatiue Transitory Denominatiue holynes let me request of you what reason you haue to rayle as you doe at the Iesuit for vsing the tearmes of outward relatiue and transitory worship The Iesuit hauing proued by Scripture and the Principles of fayth that Christ his Image is to be honoured sayth pag. â—43 that this honour is giuen outwardly relatiuely and â—ransitorily to the image inwardly affectuously absolutely finally vnto Christ for this you come vpon him in this sort pag. 244. How proue you by diuine reuelation testimony that adoration is to be performed according to â—our distinction of outwardly relatiuely transitorily vnto Images Agaynst such loose and voluntary presumption wee say with S. Chrysostome Diuinae scripturae testimonia sequamur neque feramus eos qui temerè quiduis blaterant We are to follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 testimony of Diuine Scripture and not to regard them which as Rouers without ground blatter out what they please Behold how bitter you are agaynst the Iesuit And why Is it for his vsing distinctions that are not verbally and expressely found in Scripture Then you are blind not to see your selfe to be guilty of the same fault for where do you find in Scripture the tearmes of relatiue transitory denominatiue holines Is it because his distinction of Absolute and Relatiue worshipp is not to be proued by Scripture as yours may TheÌ„ you are so shallow in your thoughts as not to perceaue a thing not only cleere in Scripture but also neere to your selfe When the Scripture sayth Matth. 4.10 Adore thy Lord God what is this but absolute and inward affectuous worshippe When the same Scripture sayth Bow thy selfe to the footestole of his feete for he is holy what is this but relatiue worshipp Psal. 98.5 that is outward bowing before Gods footestole inwardly referred vnto his person Yea the Iesuits Relatiue worshipp of inanimate thinges that haue outward reference to God is proued by the very text by which you proue the relatiue holines of the same Exod. 3.6 Put off the shooes of thy feete because the ground whereon thou standest is holy The land whereon thou standest is holy Behold relatiue holines Put off thy shooes presume not to touch the same but barefote Behold relatiue worshipp that is outward respect to the land inwardly referred to worshipp God there appearing What shall I say more the Iesuits distinction is so cleere and neere vnto you as it is not only thus to be proued by your very text of Scripture but also intrinsecally inuolued in your distinction as by this argument I demonstrate Vnto thinges that be holy Honour and Veneration is due and this of higher or lower kind according to the state and degree of their holynes This proposition no man that knoweth what he sayth will deny But as you distinguish there be two kinds or states of holy thinges some being absolutely inherently holy other only relatiuely and outwardly Ergo There are two kinds of worships due vnto holy thinges the one inward and absolute the other only relatiue and outward And that the image of Christ is Relatiuely holy as hauing an outward visible reference vnto a person inwardly and infinitly holy you can not deny except you want eyther notice of the Gospell or eyes in your head You may then see how wrongefully you vp brayd the Iesuit with loose and voluntary presumption with blattering out at Rouers what he pleaseth and how iustly he might turne the 〈◊〉 of this sharpe Reproach vpon your selfe for your denying that sanctification vnto the wood of â—he Crosse at Christs passion which you grant to the â—ater of Iordan in his Baptisme A seauenth Example about Traditions §. 7. â— will conclude this section with an example or two 〈◊〉 of your simplicity in vsing of distinctioÌ„s For your â—istinctions are eyther senselesse or else you establish â—hat doctrine which most of all you impugne Take his example hereof The Iesuits principle that there
〈◊〉 Tradition vnwritten that this is the prime ground of â—ayth more fundamentall then Scripture you most larâ—ely labour to refell and tearme it pag. 91. an Anti-â—hristian and impudent assertion to depresse the written â—ord of God exalt the prophane bastardly Apocriphal â—â—aditions of the Pope This is bitter inough yet cerâ—â—ynly you teach that there be traditions maintayâ—ing and vpholding the Scripture in authority or 〈◊〉 you speake ineptly not knowing what you affirâ—e For some two pages before this your reprochfull words to wit pag. 89. you thus distinguish about Traditions The Church hath no perpetuall Traditions but such as are EYTHER contayned in Scripture OR which are subseruient to MAINTAINE the Fayth Verity and AVTHORITY of the Scripture the doctrine thereof Thus you I demand of you These subseruient Traditious about fayth and doctrine be they contayned in Scripture or not If they be your distinction is senselesse one member thereof not being condistinct agaynst the other for if subseruient traditions be traditions coÌ„tayned in Scripture what more inept then to say traditions eyther contayned in Scripture or subseruient If they be not contayned in Scripture but condistinct from them then according to your distinction there be some traditions not contayned in Scripture which maintayne and vphold the authority of Scripture and the verity and doctrine thereof If you grant this as you must vnlesse you will grant your distinction be voyd of iudgment then must you also grant tradition to be more fundamentall then Scripture For thus I argue That which is the ground of the authority of Scripture is more fundameÌ„tall then Scripture That which doth mantayne and vphold the authority of Scripture is the ground and foundation of the authority of Scripture Ergo That which doth vphold and mantayne the authority of Scripture is more fundamentall then Scripture Now your selfe ascribe vnto Tradition subseruient condistinct agaynst written Tradition the office of mantayning the authority of Scripture So that eyther you know not what you doe write or else by your owne distinctions you are conuinced to establish that very doctrine which elsewhere you so sharpely censure as Antichristian impudeÌ„t prophane bastardly Certainly you are a seely Disputant about matters of Theodogy No more sense or iudgement is there in the distinctioÌ„ you make of holy Belieuers into triumphant militant pag. 49. The tearme Church say you is taken in the holy Scripture for the vniuersall number of holy belieuers in all ages and more strictly for the whole number of holy belieuers vnder the new Testament Hebr. 12.23 Apoc. 5.9 Ephes. 5.25.27 And thus it comprehendeth both the Church militant triumphant Thus you distinguishing the Church of belieuers into militant and Triumphant whence it is consequent that the Triumphant Saynts in heauen are belieuers What more ridiculous and agaynst the prime and knowne Notion of Triumphant Saynts It may be God permitted you to stumble vpon this grosse simplicity through want of reflexion that you might thereby be warned to reflect vpon the foulenes of another doctrine which wittingly willfully you mantayne though being no lesse exorbitant then this The doctrine is that your Protestant Militant Church is a multitude who (a) Iohn White in his Defence pag. 309. by diuine illumination see manifestly the truth of thinges belieued of the Blessed Trinity and other mysteryes that you are like not vnto men (b) Francis White Orthodoxe pag. 108. which see a farre off a certayne obscure glimmering of the light but vnto men that coming to the place where the light is behold the sayd light in it selfe Verily to tearme the Church militant a multitude of BEHOLDERS resolued of truth by manifest light euidence is as Exoticall and as idle Gibberish in Christian Theology as to call the Church triuÌ„phant a multitude of BELEEVERS that warre and walke by Fayth As for your Protestant triuÌ„phant Church if they did not formerly belieue in this life the word of God without seing the light lustre and resplendant verity of the doctrine thereof as you pretend they did not I do not doubt but they are belieuers in the next world to wit in the number of them of whom the Apostle writeth Ioan. 2.9 credunt contremiscunt Ignorance in Scripture SECT IV. CONCERNING Holy Scripture you brag intollerably in euery page of your Reply how the same standeth cleerly on your side and that the Iesuit hath not been able to proue any of the Nine Poynts by Scripture How vaine this your vant is doth appear by the Reioynder wherin you are proued almost in euery controuersy to forsake the litterall and plaine sense of Scripture and to deuise now figuratiue typicall and mysticall interpretations How idlely also you dispute out of Scriptures for matters of greatest moment which you most confidently maintayne in your Religion is made euident by what hath been shewed concerning your arguing for the preteÌ„ded Diuine Ordinance binding ignorant Laymen to read the Scripture Notwithstanding that your ignorance herin may more indeniably appeare I will add here some other arguments and tokens of the same to wit vnto what shamefull shifts you are forced to answere Scriptuâ—es brought by your Aduersary in the behalfe of Caâ—holicke doctrine You deny the Text and Context of Scripture §. 1. FIRST many times you are enforced by your aduersary when you cannot answere to deny the â—ext context of Scripture wherof I alleadge two â—xamples The Iesuit pag. 480. to proue that Christ â—romised eternall life vnto the worthy participant â—f the sacrament vnder the forme of bread bringeth â—he words of our Sauiour Iohn 6. Qui manducat hunc â—anem viuet in aeternum he that eateth this bread shall â—ue for euer You in the place quoted answere The â—cripture Iohn 6.51 saith not whosoeuer eateth sacraâ—entall bread without wine shall liue for euer but if any â—â—te this bread which came downe from heaueÌ„ to wit Christ â—â—sus incarnate shall liue for euer And then it followeth â—nlesse you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke 〈◊〉 blood you shall not haue life in you Iohn 5.53 Thus 〈◊〉 Now marke vnto what straytes maugre your â—â—agging you are brought by the Iesuite First you are not acknowledge these words cited by the Ieâ—â—ite he that eateth this bread liueth for euer to be our â—â—uiours but onely those If any shall eate c. Wherâ—â— they be our Sauiours the expresse text of Scripâ—â—re in so many words syllables Iohn 6.59 which â—â—yth He that eateth this bread liueth for euer Seâ—â—ndly you are compelled to answere that Christ â—â—ter he had said he that eateth this bread liueth for â—â—er said Vnlesse you eate the flesh and drinke the â—â—oud of the sonne of man you shall not haue life in â—ou By which ensuing senteÌ„ce he did as you thinke â—eclare the former If any eate this bread c. that it must not be vnderstood of Sacramentall bread without wine This is
the Kingdome of heauen supposing in their thought as most certayne that a Camells passing through a needles eye was altogeather impossible concluding What rich-man then can be saued Our Sauiour answering vnto the argument that so perplexed them sayth though these things be impossible with men yet all is possible vnto God As if he had sayd What you suppose in your thoughts as certayne that a Camell cannot passe through a needles eye is false because God is omnipotent and so though such things be impossible with men yet all is possible vnto him Now your supposition being false your argument that richmen cannot be saued is not solid For from my words it is more easy for a Camell c. you can only inforce that as the Camell cannot passe through a needles eye but by the ompoteÌ„cy of the diuine hand so the rich-man cannot be saued but by the omnipotency of diuine grace Hence it is euideÌ„t that our Sauiour did directly inteÌ„d to teach the possibility of a Camells passing through a needles eye so destroying the ground on which the Apostles did build their false persuasion that rich men could not be saued But this you auouch not to be possible vnto God Therefore you are forced by the Iesuit to deny Gods expresse word howsoeuer you bragge that the Iesuits arguing from Scripture is wonderous weake You are forced to deny the Creed §. 3. THE Iesuite pag. 409. thus argueth If the body of Christ being mortall and passible could penetrate with the body of his blessed Mother and come out of her wombe the same still remaining entyre as we confesse in the Creed Natum de MARIA Virgine why then may not the same body being now glorious immortall and as the Apostle speakes spirituall penetrate the quantity of 〈◊〉 bread and inclose it selfe wholy and entierly within the 〈◊〉 compasse thereof You answere pag. 411. The blessed Virgin in her â—RAVELL in puerperio bore not Christ in a different â—anner from other women Luc. 2.23 And what a Sophiâ—â—icall inference is this the Creed hath Borne of the Virgin MARY meaning according to conception and generaâ—â—ons and cleernesse from the company of man Ergo the â—ody of the blessed Virgin was not opened at the tyme of his â—yrth Thus you whose assertion that the Creed onâ—y saith that according to coÌ„ception the blessed Virâ—in was cleere from the company of man is open deâ—yall of a principall part therof For the Creed doth â—ot only say our Lord was conceaued by the Holy Ghost which doth import his Mothers purity cleernes â—rom the company of man in his generation but the â—urity of his conception being declared the Creed â—ddeth as a new point of fayth borne of the Virgin Mary requiring that we belieue she was a Virgin that â—s incorrupt and entyre in her child-birth So that â—our interpretation whereby you confound her virginity in generation with her virginity in child-birth which the Creed doth so exactly distinguish is â—laine denial of the text of the creed And your tearâ—ing this our simple sincere beliefe of the words of â—he creed a sophistical inferrence is first ridiculous â—or the belieuing of the text of Gods word as it â—â—ands cannot be tearmed an inference much lesse a â—ophisticall inference SecoÌ„dly it is not only foolish but also impious beâ—ng a reproach to the perpetuall Fayth of the whole Christian Church as (d) Augustin Enchyrid cap. 34. De Virginenasci oportebat quem Matris fides non libido conceperat Quòd si vel per nascenteÌ„ corrumperetur eius integritas non iam ille de virgine nasceretur eumue falsò quod absit de Virgine Maria natâ—Ì„ tota confitaretur Ecclesia S. Aug. doth testify It was sayth he necessary that he whome the fayth not the lust of his mother had coÌ„ceiued should also be borne of a Virgin For if the integrity of his mother had been brokeÌ„ in this being borne of her then had he not been borne of a Virgin and then which God forbid false were the beliefe of the whole Church professing in the Creed Natum de Maria Virgine borne of the Virgin Mary The same is taught by the rest of the Fathers namely by S. (e) Ambros. Epist. 81. De via iniquitatis poduntur dicere Virgo coÌ„cepit sed non Virgo generauit Ambrose who tearmes it wicked peruerse to say as you do that in her generation the blessed Mother was incorrupt and entyre not in her childbirth She sayth S. Ambrose that could conceaue him being a Virgin incorrupt could she not bring him forth remayning a Virgin incorrupt If they will not belieue the tradition of Priests let them belieue the oracles of the Prophets (f) Non concepturam tantummodo Virginem sed parituram Virginem Propheta dixit A Virgin shall bring forth a Son Let theÌ„ belieue the creed of the Apostles which the RomaÌ„ Church doth purely inuiolatly keep to wit which sayth not only conceaued by the holy Ghost but also borne of the virgin Mary What you obiect out of S. Luke vers 23. Euery Male-child that openeth the wombe shall be holy vnto our Lord hath been answered longe agoe and declared by the ancieÌ„t Fathers For the Scripture by the child opening the wombe vnderstands the Child that comes first out of the wombe because that Child commonly doth by course of nature must needes open the wombe Hence he is tearmed the Child opening the wombe though it happen that he do not opeÌ„ the woÌ„be As the fire of the Babilonian fornace may be tearmed a thing which coÌ„sumeth what is cast into it because commonly it doth so and by course of nature it must needes do so though there by diuine Miracle the contrary did happen which manner of speach is so vulgar as it is by you vsed euen in this place perchaÌ„ce without reflexion For you tearming â—he Blessed Virgins bringing forth of our Lord TRAVELL I thinke you are not impiously persuaâ—ed with the Iew that she brought him forth with â—abour and payne as other woemen doe but you â—all her Childbyrth TRAVELL because commonâ—y and naturally the same is still ioyned with labour â—nd trauell In this sort say the (g) Quod ait ad aperiens vuluam coÌ„sueto natiuitatis more loquitur non quod Dominus noster sacri ventris hospitium quòd ingressus sanctificarat egressus deuirginasse credendus sit iuxta HAERETICOS qui dicunt Beatam Mariam Virginem fuisse vsque ad paritum sed iuxta FIDEM Catholicam clauso Virginis vtero quasi sponsus suo pocessit ex Thalamo Ven. Beda in cap. 2. Luc. Fathers the Scripâ—ure saying of our Sauiour the male-child opening the wombe consueto natiuitatis more loquitur speaketh â—ccording to that which commonly doth happen in the birth â—f such children not that we should thinke that our Lord in â—is going forth did breake the integrity of the Virgins Cloâ—et which by his entraÌ„ce he had sanctifyed as HERETIKS
errour and so fallible that euery particuler man of the people for feare of being deceaued (o) Iohn white way pag. 116. must examine her teaching yea your selfe affirme (p) Reply pag. 136. lin 20. c. that not whosoeuer contradicteth the whole Church is to be held as an Heathen and Publican but only such as oppose the whole Church rashly without cause or inordinatly Ergo Protestants acknowledge the authority giuen to the Church by the word of God and consequently her lawfull authority Pag. 169. The Iesuit doth charge you to extenuate the value of our Lords passion in saying that the same doth not purchase and merit true inward purity and sanctity to mens soules and actions Against this you say (q) Reply pag. 169. lin 20. No Christian Church euer prized the oblation and merits more highly and religiously then we Great prayse or rather pride euen the Church of the Apostles were not more religiously deuout vnto nor more highly conceyted of Christ Iesus his passion then you are Well how proue you it Heb. 10.14 it is written with one oblation he did consummate his sanctifyed for euer Iohn 1.29 Behold the Lambe that taketh away the sinns of the world This is euen iust as if an Arian should argue in this sort It is written Iohn 10.30 I and and my Father are one Ergo Neuer Christian Church prized the diuinity of Christ nor thought more highly or religiously of his Equality with his Father then we Would not this argument should an Arian vse it proue him to be more ridiculous then religious And the same force hath this your argument as will appeare if we put togeather into forme the propositions thereof the one Scriptures the other your Assertion It is written that Christ is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world who by his one oblation on the Crosse did consummate the sanctifyed for euer Protestants (r) Caluin Antidot Trident in sess 5 Permaneâ— verè peccatuÌ„ in nobis neque per BaptismuÌ„ vno die extinguitur lib. 3. Institut c. 14. §. 9. NulluÌ„ à sanctis exire potest opus quod non mereatur iustaÌ„ opprobrij mercedem say that Christ taketh not away the sinnes of the world but that the same doth truly and properly remayne in iustifyed persons and is only hidden and not imputed yea your selfe affirme pag. 170. and 171. That sinne is still adiacent vnto all the vertuous actions of iust men and that this imperfection sinfulnes is only couered by Christ his merits and purity that it be not imputed Ergo Protestants prize the value of Christs passion for the effectuall and perfect sanctification cleansing and consummation of saints and their actions as highly and religiously as euer did any Christian Church Scriptures abused and falsifyed §. 9. I Will conclude this section with some few Examples of fraud and falshood in your citing of Scriptures where you help the dice by addition or subtraction of some particle or word to make the Scripture found on your side Although I do not doubt but your scoring vp in cyphers of so many impertinent Texts though being discouered it be ridiculous was also not without fraud by you vsed that you might make shew of Scriptures for such articles of your doctrine for which you know in coÌ„science that no true proofe from Scripture can be produced The text Iohn 5.39 abused Search the Scriptures To begin with the Scriptures themselues with a falshood more then once repeated in your Booke you would shew that the sacred Scripture is so easy as Vnlearned people may vnderstand the sense thereof without relying on the Churches Tradition Exposition To this purpose you say Pag. 9. lin 9. Our Sauiour commanded euen simple people to vse the Scripture Ioan. 5.39 One would according to this your citation thinke that the sacred Text did expresly say that Search the Scriptures was spoken vnto simple people And yet this is a fancy by you cunningly foysted into the text against the playne euidence therof which sheweth that Search the Scriptures was sayd not to the simple people but to the Church-magistracy of the Iewes as these three arguments euince First the word Iewes in the Ghospel of S. Iohn doth signify the Magistracy of the Iewes excluding the simple people This might be proued by forty exaÌ„ples but this may suffice Iohn 7.13 Ioan. 1.9 2.18.20 5.15.16.18 7.1.11.35 8.22.48 9.18.22 There was much muttering about him our Sauiour amongst the coÌ„mon people yet none durst speake openly of him for feare of the Iewes Behold the Iewes opposed coÌ„distinguished against coÌ„mon people feared of them wherby it is manifest that by the Iewes the Gospel of S. Iohn doth vnderstand the Magistracy of the Iewes But certayne it is that our Sauiour sayd search the Scriptures to the Iewes according to the signification of that word in the Gospell of S. Iohn Dixit Iesus Iudaeis Scrutamini Scripturas c. Iohn 5.32 Therefore the wordes were sayd to the Magistracy of the Iewes the common people being excluded Secondly our Sauiour doth testify that he sayd search the Scriptures vnto them that sent the Embassage vnto Iohn to know what he was Iohn 5.34 vos misistis ad Ioannem But cleere it is that the authours of this Embassage were not the simple people but the Church-magistracy of the Iewes Ergo Not vnto simple people but vnto Church-men and Church-magistrates did our Sauiour say search the Scriptures Thirdly our Sauiour sayd search the Scriptures vnto men highly persuaded of the sole-sufficieÌ„cy of the Scripture thinking in them to haue eternall life This appeareth by the text Ibid. vers 33. TestimoniuÌ„ perâ—ibuit veritati Ibid. vers 36. opera quae facio testimonium perhibent Ibid vers 37. Pater qui misit me testimonium perhibuit mihi search the Scriptures because in them you thinke to haue eternall life Hence they would not belieue in our Sauiour neyther vpon the testimony of Iohn nor vpon the testimony of his workes and miracles nor vpon the testimony of his Fathers voyce from heauen Now that the simple people were thus conceyted of Scriptures agaynst the miracles of our Sauiour we haue no grouÌ„d to think whereas that the Church-magistracy of the Iewes was thus conceyted the Gospell doth expressely declare There we reade how they appealed from his miracles to Moyses his bookes bidding such as were lead away by his workes Ioan. 7 52.5â— Scrutare Scripturas vide quia à Galilaea Propheta non surgit to search the Scriptures see that our Sauiour could not be the Prophet Therfore to these men standing vpon the testimony of Scripture sole-sufficiency therof vnto eternal life not to simple People did our Sauiour say Search the Scriptures because in them you thinke that you haue eternall life without me wheras euen these giue testimony of me Hence appeareth another falsificatioÌ„ of
this place by cogging in your own conceyt as it were the very Text to wit that our Sauiour by these words gaue a command to vse scriptures For it is cleere he did not by way of command say to the Iewes search the Scripturs but by way of permission in respect of their obstinacy whereby they would not without Scripture belieue in him vpon other most sufficient diuine testimonies So that search the Scriptures because in them you thinke to haue eternall life hath this sense Seing you will not be wonne to belieue vpon the testimony of Iohn nor of my miracles nor of my Fathers voyce from heauen but appeale from these testimonyes vnto Scriptures thinking that in them you haue eternall life search the Scriptures in Gods name I am content 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not superficially looke vpon theÌ„ but search deeply into them for being thus searched into they yield testimony vnto me Certainly if our Sauiour had been of the Protestants mind and would haue giuen the precept they pretend he would not haue sayd to the Iewes search the Scriptures because in them you thinke that you haue eternall life but search the scriptures because in them only eternall life is to be had or because nothing necessary vnto eternall life is to be belieued vntill it be cleerly proued by them This he doth not say but rather rebuketh the Iewes for this their Ministerial coÌ„ceite that nothing is to be belieued vpon any other testimony without Scripture He did not therfore command theÌ„ to vse the Scriptures but seing them obstinatly addicted vnto only Scripture he permitted them to proceed in their own way Euen as wheÌ„ Protestants caÌ„not be wonne to belieue neither the testimony of Iohn that is the consent of Fathers nor the testimony of Christs works that is of myracles done daily in his Church nor the Fathers liuely voyce from heauen that is Gods word vnwritten we at last say vnto them Search the Scriptures for euen they giue testimony vnto the Catholike doctrine Hence two thinges appeare First that your two assertions that Christ saying search the Scriptures did command and command euen simple people to vse Scriptures be two fancyes of your owne foysted into the Scripture not by way of interpretation but by way of Historical Relation of the sacred text which is grosse abuse thereof Secondly that if we search deepely into this text Search the Scriptures the same doth cleerly condemne the Protestant fancy that only Scripture is the rule of fayth and shewes this to haue been the ground and principle of Iewish Infidelity The text Matth. 24.24 That euen the elect be deceaued were it possible grossely applied THVS you write pag. 586. Although the Tradition and teaching of the Church be fallible yet vnlearned people where they inioy the free vse of Scripture as in ancient times all people did and if they be carefull of their saluation and desire to know the truth God blesseth his owne Ordinance and ordinarily assisteth them by grace in such sort as they shall not be seduced to damnation Math. 24.24 Thus you encourage simple people to be proud and obstinate in their priuate fancies agaynst the teaching and tradition of the Church For in this speach you assure theÌ„ that reading their vulgar Bible if they be carefull of their saluation and desire to know the truth though they will not regard the Church as the pillar ground and infallible Mistresse of truth yet God will so blesse and assist them as they shall not be seduced into daÌ„nable errour Now what is the bane of Christianity but this false and proud persuasion inserted into the heads of Sots Trinitarians Anabaptists Arians Brownists Familians do they not desire to know the truth who to that end so studiously peruse their Bible Be they not carefull of their Saluation that goe so readily to the fyre rather then abandon the doctrine which by their skill in the Vulgar Bible they iudge to be the sauing Truth In these Wretches you may see how in men desirous to know the truth God blesseth the ordinaÌ„ce of reading the vulgar Bible without regard had to the Church as an infallible Mistresse And as your doctrine is the seed springe of heresy so is the text of Scripture Matth. 24.24 most violently drawne to confirme it For what sayth the text They the false Prophets shall doe great signes wonders that euen the elect be induced into errour if it be possible By which text it is cleere that the elect people of God cannot be finally intrapped in damnable errour This is vnderstood as Deuines speake in sensu composito that is they cannot be deceaued because God ordaynes and foresees that they shall vse the meanes to know sauing Truth which meanes is to cleaue vnto the Tradition of the Church not trusting their owne skill Now then with what engines can you from this truth wrest your Paradoxe that men desyrous of the truth reading the vulgar Bible cannot be damned Are all men desirous of the truth that reade the Bible Gods elect If Heretiks dispute in this manner The Elect cannot be seduced vnto damnation Ergo If they presume on their skill in the Bible not respecting the Churches doctrine as infallible they shall not be seduced vnto damnation Why may not murderers argue in like sort The elect cannot be damned Therefore if they commit murder euery day and so perseuer vntill the end they cannot be damned This argument is as good as yours For the contemners of the Church can no more be saued theÌ„ murderers if our Sauiour say true who so heareth not the Church let him to thee as a Heathen and Publican The text Act. 17.11 about the Beroeans abused TO the same purpose of encouraging simple People to follow their fancyes gotten by reading their vulgar Bible you say pag. â—87 Vnlearnâ—d people by comparing the doctrine of the Church with the Scripture may certainly know whether it erreth or not Act. 17.11 Thus you What sayth the text that thence you may make such deductioÌ„s These were more Noble then those of Thessalonica who receaued the word with all readines of mind searching dayly whether these thinges were so Now behold your manifold abuse of this sacred Narration First the text doth not say these Beroeans were vnlearned how then can you hence conclude any thinge for the ability of vnlearned people to search the Scriptures Agayne the Text doth not say that by comparing the doctrine of Paul with Scripture they came to know certaynly that the doctrine of Paul was true but only that belieuing his doctrine they searched the Scriptures about the same without mention of the successe of their search And if they were resolued by Scripture this was only in one poynt to wit whether Iesus were the Messias about which the Scriptures are cleere and expresse How theÌ„ can you hence proue that vnlearned people may know certainly whether the doctrine of the Church be true by comparing the same
with Scripture in so many mayne articles of Controuersy about Fayth whereof some as you (a) pag. 106. confesse are only implicately contayned in the Scripture and must by the rules of Logicke and Deduction be thence wrunge out Finally the Beroeās read the Scriptures only for their greater cofirmatiō in Fayth in case they should find by their priuate reading the doctrine of S. Paul to agree with the Scripture They read not by way of doubtfull examination that is with purpose not to belieue S. Paul if so they should not find the Scriptures to yield playne testimony vnto his doctrine That they read not in this manner is cleere For the Scripture sayth that before they searched the Scripture they receaued the word with all alacrity and readines of mind But if they had been doubtfull of S. Pauls doctrine had to cleere that doubt gone to search the Scriptures it could not haue been truly sayd of them that they receaued the word with alacrity and all readines of mind and afterward searched the Scriptures Therefore they did not search Scriptures by way of doubtfull examination but with full resolution to belieue S. Pauls doctrine euen in case they should not find by their priuate industry the same cleerly deliuered in the Scripture How then may you by this example make good your Protestant doctrine that Vnlearned People may compare the doctrine of the Church with the Scripture in doubting manner that is with intention not to belieue the Church in case they should not be able to discouer her doctrine by priuate reading in their vulgar Bible Or in case that in the seeming of their priuate iudgment the Scripture should appeare as opposite vnto the Church The Text 1. Iohn 1.8 If wee say wee haue no sinne c. falsifyed WHEREAS the Iesuit pag 550. sayth out of S. Ambrose and S. Augustine that the Blessed Virgin neuer committed actuall sinne you pag. 551. reply It is a manifest vntruth For S. Iohn speaking in the person of all the Elect sayth 1. Iohn 1.8 If wee say we haue no sinne we deceaue our selues and there is no truth in vs. And vers 10. If we say we haue not sinned we make him a lyar and his word is not in vs. And pag. 517. much more bitterly thus you write to this purpose If our aduersaries wil be so gracelesse as to make any man in this life except the Holyest of the Holyes 1. Petr. 2.22 free from sinne the Apostle enrolleth him in the blacke booke of damnable lyars 1. Iohn 1.10 And they may with Acesius the Nouatian borrow a ladder and so climbe vp alone to heauen yea rather fall to Hell for who are more desperatly sicke quà m qui mentem febribus perdiderunt then they which by the feauer of pride haue lost the vnderstanding of their sinfull condition Thus you which you cannot deny to be bitter in excesse What is the Iesuits fault No other but this he sayth that not only Christ Iesus the holyest of the holyes was by nature Hypostaticall Vnion impeccable but also (*) Cōcil Trident sess 6. can 23. Sicut de Maria Virgine tenet Ecclesia that his Holy Mother was pure from all actuall sinne by speciall grace And why is this so great and damnable an offence Marry because S. Iohn sayth If wee say wee haue not sinned wee make God a lyar and this he spake not in the person of only ordinary Saynts but in the person of all the Elect euen of Saynts as singularly chosen as the Blessed Virgin This is the ground of your bitternes But first though the Scripture had sayd that all the elect commit actuall sinne yet perchance not without warrant we might except the mother of God but I will not stand herein agaynst you Shew in Gods word this text all the elect haue sinned or this S. Iohn sayd in the person of al the elect If we say we haue no sinne we deceaue our selues the Iesuit presently yieldes What can you wish more But if in the persō of all the Elect be as in truth it is your addition vnto the text ioyned therwith so cunningly as it may seeme the very letter of Gods word what may we thinke of you but only that your rayling agaynst vs is not so bitter but your iniury vnto Gods word is greater I adde that to say S. Iohn spake the aforesayd wordes in the person of all the Elect not only is not the text but also agaynst the text except wee will make S. Iohn excessiue in the conceyte of himselfe For thus I argue It is manifest S. Iohn spake the words aforesayd in the person of such Saynts in the number of which he ranketh himselfe If WEE say that WEE haue no sinne But S. Iohn could not without pride ranke himselfe in the number of Saynts as singularly chosen as was the glorious Virgin so that if the sense of his saying be If we that is Saynts as singularly priuiledged as Gods Blessed mother say wee haue not sinned we deceaue our selues what can be more arrogant Luther (a) Luther Serm. de Natiuit Mariae Sumus pares Matri Dei ac aequè Sancti sicut illa indeed hath left behind him written We are all as holy as the Virgin Mary but that S. Iohn euer sayd it or thought it the Minister will neuer an able to proue So that without any question as also the (b) S. Augustin de nat grat c. 42. 60. Epist. 95. Fathers note S. Iohn spake in the persō only of al cōmon holy Christians among whō he might without pride nūber himself As for your reproaches so many so bitter for two reasons you are to be pityed first for that your passion against the Iesuit is either so blind as you see not what lyeth before you or so fierce as not to spare him you let contumelious tearmes fly that must light on the head of the holy Fathers For this is your cēsure They that hold any except the Holyest of the Holyes to haue been free from actuall sinne are gracelesse are by S. Iohn enrolled in the blacke booke of damnable lyars mentem febribus perdiderunt they haue lost their witts by the phrensy of pride Now vnder this your Censure I subsume a knowne and vndeniable truth But holy Fathers exempt the Blessed Virgen frō actuall sinne not only S. (c) Serm. 2. de Assumpt Bernard S. (d) De excell B. Virg. c. 3. Anselme but also S. (e) Epist. ad Epict. Athanasius S. (f) In cap. 1. Reg. Gregory S. (g) Ser. 22. in Psal. 118. Ambrose yea S. Augustine (h) de Nat. Grat. c. 36. who thus speaketh for them all In matter of sinne no mention is to be made of the mother of our Lord she is not included in the generall sentences of that kind Scimus enim c. For wee KNOVV WEE ARE CERTAINE that vnto her singular Grace was giuē to conquer
Controuersy in which all other are inuolued and by the decision therof resolued the Church (b) 2. Tim. 3.15 Math. 16. Isa. c. 2. v. 3. Dan. c. 2. v. 35. being the Pillar and Foundation of truth the eminent Rocke and Mountaine filling the whole world on the toppe wherof standeth the Tradition of sauing doctrine conspicuous and immoueable If this Church be ouerthrowne the totall certainty of Christianity cannot but with it togeather fall to the ground if it be hidden made inuisible men must needes wander in the search of the first deliuered Christian doctrine without end or hope of euer arriuing at any certayne issue And if this CoÌ„trouersy be not examined and determined in the first place disputatioÌ„ by (c) Non ad Scripturas prouocandum nec in ijs constituendum certamen in quibus aut nulla aut parùm certa victoria Tertull. in praescrip c. 19. Scripture will proue fruitlesse by the sole euidency wherof no victory can be gotten against proteruious errour or at least no victory that is very (d) The Minister pag. 8. sayth that by the Church appareÌ„t victory caÌ„not begotten more then by the Scripture which is false For apparent victory is that wherby men are forced to yield or els to disclame from the authority of the Iudge If the true Church be found out and made Iudge men may be forced by her sentence to yield vnto truth or els to disclame from the Iudge which yet we see is not done by the Scripture For men that allowe the same Scripture to be Iudge neyther are forced to yield vnto truth nor to appeale from the Scripture yea sayth Luther Tom. 2. Witt. in Concion Domin octauae post Trinit fol. 118. Neuer any Heresy was so pestilent or foolish that did not couer it selfe with the veyle of Scripture apparent neither will answeres about particular Doctrines easily satisfy a mind preoccupyed with a long continued dislike of them BECAVSE the Minister hath repeated sundry false Principles and moued many doubts about the Resolution of Fayth declared in the two ensuing Grounds of the Iesuits Answere Because also this CoÌ„trouersy is the grouÌ„d of the rest by which they are finally resolued and except it be cleered in the first place Heresy will be still hyding it selfe in the obscurity thereof Hence I haue thought necessary in this very Entry to superadde and prefixe this ensuing Treatise A SHORT TREATISE CONCERNING THE RESOLVTION OF FAITH For the more full cleering of the ensuing Controuersies about Tradition Scripture the Church THIS Treatise is deuided into two Partes In the first I will set downe and refute the Protestant forme of Resolution In the second declare and proue the Catholicke The Protestant Resolution of Fayth declared §. 1. PROTESTANTS perceaue that if they pretend to belieue Christian Religion without seing the truth thereof vpon the sole authority of God reuealing they must consequently belieue that God reuealed it vpon the word and authority of the Apostles who preached the same to the world as doctrine vnto them reuealed of God then agayne that the Apostles did thus preach publish it by (d) Quid Apostoli praedicauerint praescribam non aliter probari debere quà m per easdem Ecclesias quas ipsi condiderunt Tertull. de praescrip c. 19. the light of the Church succeeding theÌ„ deliuering it haÌ„d to hand as froÌ„ them which TraditioÌ„ if they admit as a certayne infallible rule they are (e) To this purpose they say So long as we stay vpon the Fathers we shall still continue in our old Popish errors Peter Martyr de votis pag. 476. Luther de serâ—uo Arbitrio Tom. 2. Wittemberg pag. 434. Pomeran in Ionam Napier vpon the reuelations Calius Curio alij brought into streights and mightily pressed to receaue many doctrines of Tradition which they are now resolute neuer to belieue Therefore to lay the axe to the roote they would fayne build their fayth on an higher ground then the authority of God darkely reuealing to wit (f) Iohn White defence pag. 309. None can belieue except God illuminate their hartes but such as haue this illumination do SEE MANIFESTLY the truth of thinges belieued on Diuine illumination whereby they see manifestly the truth of thinges belieued whereby they are (g) Francis White Orthodoxe pag. 108. adding that Protestants herein are like to a man that sees a farre off an obscure glimmering but coÌ„ming to the place beholds the light it selfe And the same is taught by Caluin Institut l. 1. c. 7. n. 2. and the rest conuicted in conscieÌ„ce by the euidence of the thing it selfe that their Religion is Diuine by the lustre and resplendent verity of the matter of Scripture and maiesty of the doctrine thereof sensed according vnto their manner The former Resolution confuted by six Arguments §. 2. THis pretence of Resolution so much (h) Pag. 19. lin 4. pag. 28. lin 3. ibid. lin 28. pag. 68. lin 20. The Maiesty and lustre of Heauenly doctrine is such as it appeares illustrious though propounded by meane and obscure persons as a rich Iewell doth manifest his owne worth repeated by our Minister in this Reply is refelled by 6. arguments as being extremely arrogant ignorant disorderly fond desperate the deuise of Sathan The first Argument First what more Arrogant then to challenge ordinary illuminations more high rare and excellent then the Apostles had The Apostles though they had this priuiledge that Christian Religion was to them immediatly reuealed of God yet did they not see the resplendent verity shiâ—ing truth of the Doctrine therof but saw darkely belieuing what they did not see as S. Paul doth (i) 1. Cor. 13.12 Videmus nunc in speculo in aenigmate we se through a glasse darkely that is we be sure by belieuing Gods word of what we do not see testify Therefore illuminatioÌ„ shewing manifestly the truth of things belieued challendged by Protestants is more high rare and excellent light then that the Apostles had what greater (k) Innumerabiles sunt qui se Videntes non solùm iactant sed à Christo illuminatos videri volunt Sunt autem haeretici Augustin tract 43. in Ioan. arrogancy Swenkfeldians equall themselues vnto the Apostles pretending immediate reuelation and teaching from God such as the Apostles had but Protestants pretending to see manifestly the truth of things belieued equall themselues vnto the Blessed whose happines is to see (l) Fides est credere quod nondum vides cuius Fidei merces est videre quod credis Augustin de verb. Apostol Serm. 29. what we belieue specially seing one point of the doctrine Protestants pretend to see is the blessed Trinity the true light and resplendent verity whereof a man caÌ„not see manifestly without being blessed The second Argument Secondly what greater Ignorance against the Rudiments of Christian Religion then to resolue Christian fayth by the euidence and resplendent verity of the
by grace cannot discerne the same to be his voyce and word This is spoken with more confidence then consideration God hath an (s) Ioan. 1. Eternall Increate manner of speaking to wit the production of the Eternall Word by which the Blessed discerne him from all other speakers by the euidence of blisse-full learning but no created manner of speaking (t) This is also true wheÌ„ God speaketh inwardly to the soule For in that speaking he vseth the natiue intellectuall tongue that is the vnderstanding Faculty of the soule his diuine inspirations being apprehensions of vnderstanding of the will and affections Hence this inward speaking is not by the meere souÌ„d knowne to be Diuine but by the coniecture of some effects or by speciall reuelation is so proper to God as it can be knowne to be his speaking by the meere sound of the voyce without speciall reuelation or els some consequent miraculous effect Which I declare and proue by this argument If there were a man that had no proper sound and accent of voyce but could and did exactly vse the voyce of euery man as he pleased this man could not be known by his voyce Likewise if a man had no proper stile in writing but could perfectly write the stile of any authour as he should thinke good he could not be knowne from other writers by his phrase But God hath no proper external sound or accent of voyce nor any proper stile or phrase in writing but vseth the propeâ— tongue of those men whome it pleaseth him to inspire folding vp his heauenly coÌ„ceites in the Prophets naturall language whence ariseth (u) The differeÌ„ce of stile betwixt the Apocalyps and the Ghospell of S. Iohn is noted by Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Euseb. l. 7. c. 10. And Caluin Institut l. 1. c. 8. noteth variety of stile amongst the Euangelists Prophets Dauidi Isaiae â—ucunda suauis fluit oratio Apud Amos Pastorem Ieremiam ZachariaÌ„ asperior sermorusticitatem sapit such difference of stiles amongst the sacred writers So that it is great want of discretioÌ„ to thinke to know a book to be of God by the stile abstracting from the matter Now the matter is such as it doth not with euidence certainly shew it selfe to be nothing but truth as hath beene prooued Learned men as hath been sayd may from within Scripture gather arguments that probably perswade that the same is the word of God but euident probability cannot be the ground of persuasion certayne and ineuident it may be a comfortable coÌ„firmation not an assured foundation of Fayth The fifth Argument If Scriptures be not cleere and euident but only to such as haue the light and faculty of fayth they cannot be the prime principles of Fayth euident in themselues not prooued by the principles of faith This is cleere because euery faculty supposeth her principles by the light of them which the student bringes with him she sheweth truths pertineÌ„t vnto her skill that were hidden But the Scriptures are not cleere and euident but to such only as haue aforehand the light and faculty of fayth yea they be dark obscure vnto Infidels as not only the (x) Verbum eius infidelibus nox est Hilarius in cap. 10. Matth. 2. Caluin l. 1. Iustit c. 8. n. 9. Fathers teach but also Protestants graunt Therefore the Scriptures be not the prime principles of fayth supposed before fayth which Infidells seeing to be true resolue to belieue the mysteryes of Fayth but only are secondary truths darke and obscure in themselues belieued vpon the prime principles of fayth The sixt Argument Hence ariseth the sixt argument which is à priori If Scriptures may be prooued by the light of a superiour principle of Fayth they are not the prime principles of sayth euident in themselues and indemonstrable But Scripture is prooued by a superiour more euident principle of faith For the doctrine of the Scripture is proued to be true because God the prime verity authour of Scripture cannot deceaue nor be deceaued Now that prime verity cannot deceaue nor be deceaued is a principle of fayth superiour and more euident then that the Scriptures be of God and diuine Therfore Scripture is not the supreme indemonstrable principle of Fayth but is proued to be truth by the authority of God reuealing it to be of God by the miracles of the Apostles publishing it to be the Apostles by the tradition of the Church deliuering it as such euen as all as other mysteryes of Fayth are proued The seauenth Argument Finally Protestants for this their fancy of finall resolution of fayth by the resplendeÌ„t verity of the doctrine haue not any argument worth a rush Their chiefe Argument are two First Scripture is a principle of fayth but principles are to be euident in themselues and to be knowne by their own light This argument much often vrged by you your (a) Way pag. 37. Defence cap. 20. Brother is seely because al principles must not be euideÌ„t in theÌ„selues but only the first prime principles of euery faculty or hability of knowledge as all know But Scriptures are not as hath been shewed the prime principles of fayth but are secondary principles which being known we by the light of them may know many other things The second argument (b) This argument is vrged by the Minister pag. 16. and often elswhere The Scripture is light for the word of God is light and Scripture is the word of God But euery light is euident in it selfe and knowne by the euidence it hath in it selfe Therefore the Scriptures must of themselues appearâ— and shew that they are diuine truth I Answere the Minor of this Argument is false the whole argument grounded vpon ignorance in not discerning a difference betwixt corporall spirituall light True it is that euery corporal light that doth enlighten the eye of body must be euident in it selfe primely originally cleere but not so euery truth that illustrates mans vnderstaÌ„ding The reason is because the eye of body cannot by thinges seene inferre conclude things that are hidden but only can appreheÌ„d what doth directly and immediatly shew it selfe But mans Vnderstanding not only apprehends what sheweth it selfe but by things knowne inferreth breedeth in it selfe knowledge of thinges hidden Hence vnto Vnderstanding though things shewing themselues directly and by their owne light be her prime principles and meanes to know other thinges yet also things hidden in themselues being formerly knowne by the light of authority may thereby become lights that is meanes to know yet further of things hidden So that speaking of spirituall and intellectuall lights it is false that all lights enlightening mans Vnderstanding to know other thinges are euident in themselues yea some secondary Principles and Lights there are which must be shewed by superior light before they become lights In which kind is the Scripture being a Light vnto the faythfull
is granted on both sides The only question is by what rule these Doctrines inuolued are vnfolded and made knowne vnto vs as articles of fayth ProtestaÌ„ts say by Scripture and the rules of Logicke and Reason Wotton Triall of the Romish c. pag 88. lin 29. and by other things besides Scripture euident in the light of nature Feild pag 281. lin 20. Catholikes hold that the rule to expound Scripture binding all men to belieue deductions as matters of fayth is not Logicke but the Tradition and definition of the Church And this Catholicke doctrin is proued First because the rule of faith must be for the capacity of vnlearned men aswell as of learned But men vnlearned cannot be sure of the virtualityes of Scripture by the rules of Logicke or Logicall deduction for they cannot vnderstand when an argument is good by the rules of Logicke Secondly the Scripture it selfe to supply her wants sendeth vs not to the rules of Logicke but vnto traditions saying 2. Thessal 2.15 Hold fast the Traditions ye haue receaued by word or our epistle They send men to the Church as to the pillar and ground of truth 1. Tim. 3.15 which whosoeuer doth not heare is as a heaâ—hen and a publican Matth. 13.5.7 Therfore by the rule of Church-Tradition not by the rules of Logicke do we learne autheÌ„tically the confessed virtualities obscurities and inuolutions of Scripture about matters of fayth Thirdly the Fathers about matters inuolued in Scripture send men not vnto Logicke but vnto Tradition auouching the same to be a rule as certaine no lesse estimable then Scripture S. Chrysostome homil 4 in 2. ad Thessal The Apostles did not deliuer all things in Scripture but some things without writing and these are as much to be credited as the written It is a Tradition this is inough seeke no more The same is taught by S. Dionysius Eccles. Hierar c. 1. Iren. l. 2. c. 2.3 4. Eusebius lib. 1. de demonst Euang. c. 8. by S. Basill de Spirit sanct c. 27. Epiphan haeres 55. 61. Aug. de Baptis li. 2. c. 7. lib. 5. c. 23. and the rest Finally we dislike the Protestant manner of controlling the Church by Scripture For on the one side they contradict the vniuersall custome and Tradition of the Church at the least and as they grant of many ages saying The Popish doctrine during the space of nine hundred yeares hath spread it selfe ouer the whole world so that an vniuersall Apostacy was ouer the whole face of the earth for many hundred yeares Perkins Exposit. of the Creed pag. 307. 400. On the other side their Arguments out of Scripture are at the most but probable and they sometimes challenge no more homini non prorsus alienato probabilior apparet Whitak contr 1. q. 5. c 8. circa finem Others alledge Scripture not with as probable colour as we doe Iohn White defence pag. 321. Yea this Minister in his Reply doth acknowledge pag. 581. That by Sophistry we giue vnto their Scripturall arguments seeming and appearing solutions Now we Catholikes thinke it to be Hereticall as S. Augustine sayth insolent madnes vpon probabilities vpon Arguments froÌ„ Scripture that receaue seeming solutions to contradict the Christian vniuersall Tradition of many hundred yeares For what the Minister saith this to be done by Sophistry is ridiculous For if to giue seeming plausible and probable solutions vnto Scripturall arguments against the full Tradition of Christianity be Sophistry what is true Theology On the other side if for men to stand against the Tradition of so many whole Christian ages vpon arguments they confesse to be probably and seemingly answered be Christianity what is hereticall Obstinacy Fifthly whereas you obiect that pag. 199. lin 6. the Fathers disputed from Scripture negatiuely agaynst Heretikes in this sort Doctrine is not cleerly deliuered in Scripture therefore it is not to be receaued as Fayth You must know that the Fathers proceed vpon a supposition that was knowne vnto all and granted by the Heretickes themselues to wit that the doctrins they disputed agaynst were not the full and publicke Tradition of the Catholike Church For seing Scripture as we haue shewed doth necessarily suppose Tradition that we may know the true text and sense thereof so likewise the Fathers when they vrge that all doctrine is to be reiected which is not in Scripture still suppose that that doctrine is not the publicke Tradition of the Church Where we must also note that the Fathers did not only require of Heretikes proofe from Scripture by way of deduction Logicall inference for such all heretiks did pretend and herewith deluded seely sots as now Protestants doe but they required of Heretikes to shew their doctrine in Scripture ipsis dictionibus sayth Irenaeus l. 2. c. 36. expressely and in tearmes and proue it not by texts sayth S. Augustine de vnitat Eccles. c. 3. which require sharpenes of wit in the auditors to iudge who doth more probably interprete them not by places quae vel interpretem quaerunt which require an interpreter and an arguer making Logicall inferences vpon the text so concluding for his purpose but by places playne manifest cleere which leaue no place to contrary exposition and that no Sophystry can wrest them to other sense to the end that Controuersyes which concerne the Saluation of soules be defined by Gods formall word and not by deductions from it according to Logicall forme For sayth S. Augustine what more vniust then Ingeniorum contentionibus causam populorum committere Hence the Fathers negatiue argument from Scripture ouerthroweth Protestant Religion for thus I argue Nothing is matter of Fayth and of necessity which is not formally and expressely reuealed by the word of God eyther written or vnwritten deliuered by full Ecclesiasticall Tradition But no Heretikes euer did nor our Protestants now do or can pretend perpetuall publicke Tradition vnwritten for their doctrins agaynst the Catholicke and Roman Church nor can they proue their Tenets ipsis dictionibus ex scriptura by Scripture auerring them in expresse tearmes Only they clayme texts which as themselues confesse receaue seeming appearing solutioÌ„s agaynst which they haue nothing to say but that this is done by Sophistry so bringing the busines of the Saluation of the world to be decided by contentioÌ„ of wit Therefore their doctrins are to be reiected as vnchristiaÌ„ Finally it is great vanity in you to thinke that the Traditions vnwritten mentioned by Fathers are conforme to your Doctrine writing as you doe pag. 46. By Tradition the Fathers vnderstand not the Fabulous dreames and inuentions of Papals who like Pharisees corrupt the right sense of Scripture by their vnwritten Tradition and affirme those thinges to be Apostolicall which agree with the confessed doctrine of the Apostles like darkenesse with light Thus you with much bitternesse and no lesse falshood For what Gerson de signis ruinae Eccles. sig 5. sayth of the heresyes of his age to wit
saith he is Apostolical against which the ancient Fathers made no expresse opposition then these Protestant articles are Apostolicall that the Roman Bishop and Councell may erre that the substance of bread wine remayne after consecration that common prayer ought to be vttered in a known language I answere Not euery doctrine against which the Fathers doe not expresly oppose is Apostolicall for some heresies were not thought of in that tyme as this Protestant persuasion That Common prayer must be sayd by the publike Minister in a language vulgarly vnderstood of euery woman and that it doth not suffice that the more principal persons of the Church vnderstand it word by word and the rest being instructed doe for matter and substance though not word by word So not euery doctrine not opposed but euery doctrine that is taught confessedly as Christian doctrine by some anciēt Fathers was neuer expressly by name opposed by any of the Fathers Doctrine I say thus taught neuer opposed as such deliuered by full Tradition is infallibly Apostolicall Such are our doctrins as may be proued euen in the particular exāples brought by the Minister as for the contrary particularly in this first instāce of their doctrine That the Roman Bishop Councells may erre For was this Protestant doctrine neuer opposed by any Father doe not the Magdeburgians Centur. 4. col 550. acknowledge the auncient Ecclesiasticall Canon that the Councels are not to be celebrated without the sentence of the Roman Bishop And the Fathers held such Cōncells had the holy Ghost so as they could not erre so cleerly as Luther complaynes Postill Wittemb Dom. 8. post Trinitatem fol. 114.6 § 3 Gregory Augustin and many other holy Fathers erred in taking from vs power to iudge our Teachers commanding vs to belieue the POPE and Councells For this misery is very auncient in the Church Thus he This answere is full and a certayne ground of perswasion else as I sayd common people could neuer know the assured Tradition of their Auncestours vpon which they must as I prooued build their Chistian beliefe seing as D. Field in the epistle Dedicatory also noteth There be few and very few that haue leasure or strengh of Iudgenent to examine particular controuersyes by Scripture or Fathers but needes must rest in that doctrine which the Church deliuers as a Tradition neuer contradicted by any Orthodoxe Fathers To discredit therfore a cōstant receaued Tradition it is necessary to bring an Orthodoxe contradiction thereof not newly found out by reading the Fathers but a contradiction by the same of antiquity deliuered vnto posterity which kind of contradiction they cannot find agaynst any point of Catholike doctrine For let them name but one Father whom Antiquity doth acknowlege as a Contradictour of Inuocation of Saints Adoratiō of the Sacrament Reall Presence Prayer for the dead they cannot certainly though they bring diuers places to proue a thing which Antiquity neuer noted or knew of before that the Fathers be various and wauering about these points The Conclusion of this point shewing that Protestants Erre fundamentally §. 6. OVT of all this appeares that the Roman Church is the true Church and consequently (u) The Minister cauilleth at this cōsequence but it is euident for the Church is but One in which only saluation is had and if the Roman be this Church Protestants are not saued out of it that Protestants haue (*) The Minister in making answere vnto this Paragraffe is from the beginning to the end not only exceeding bitter and full of rayling but also impertinent not vnderstanding the state of the cōtrouersy nor what the Iesuite vndertaketh to proue The Iesuites conclusion bendeth against some Protestants with whom he dealt in his Conferences holding there is no fundamentall difference betwixt the Roman Church and the Protestant that men may be saued indifferently in the one and the other Protestant doctrines wherein they differ from the Roman though they should be errours not being fundamentall and damnable errours The Iesuits intention was agaynst these men not to proue absolutely that Protestants erre for then he would haue proued the Nine obiected articles to be errours by such testimonyes of Scriptures and Fathers as would haue puzzeled the Minister but supposing as giuen and not granted by his aduersaryes Dato non concesso that Protestants erre he vndertaketh to shew their errours to be mayne fundamental and damnable and that the mantayners therof cannot be saued and so no saluation to be had but in the one Catholike Church Hence it is euident that the Ministers labour to shew that the Protestant doctrines be not errours is impertinent for this the Iesuite did not intend to proue but supposing they are errours to proue they are damnable and fundamentall errours agaynst Adiaphorists that hold there is no fundamentall difference betwixt the Protestant and Roman Church fundamentall Errours about fayth Errours are (x) The Minister sayth that errours fundamentall must be conuinced to be such out of Scripture citing to this purpose the saying of S. Augustine De doctrin Christian. lib. 2. cap. 3. In these thinges that are cleerly deliuered in Scripture are contayned all those things which contayne fayth and good manners I answere S. Augustine sayth not that all necessary thinges are contayned expressely in Scripture not in particular and distinctly but in generall and according to the genericall name of necessary vertues as his words fully set down declare which are these All things that contayne fayth and good manners to wit hope and charity No doubt but the genericall dutyes of Fayth Hope Charity are expressely euen in so many words set downe in Scripture though not all particularityes about them seing now all Protestants graunt that some things are contayned in Scripture inuoluedly and implicitly that is in other tearmes intricately and obscurely fundamentall that is damnable eyther in regard of the matter because agaynst some substantiall matter of fayth the knowledge whereof is necessary for the performance of a required Christian duty or in regard of the manner they are held to wit so obstinately as in defence of them one denyes the Catholike Church Errours fundamentall of the first kind Protestants haue diuers particularly these Nine First their doctrine agaynst Tradition vnwritten wherby the (y) By Tradition is vnderstood Doctrine known precedently independently of Scripture though perchāce the same be written This doctrine precedētly knowne vnto Scripture the Minister professeth that Protestants deny pag. 105. lin 24. consequently they erre fundamētally For here by they be forced to make the resolution of their fayth by the euidence of the thing and light of the matter agaynst the first ground of Christiā Religiō that in this life we walk by faith not by euidēce as hath been shewed Foundation is ouerthrowne on which we belieue all other substantiall and fundamentall points as hath been shewed Secondly their denying the (z) The Minister
11.1 ad Cor. I heare saith he what the words of the supper import For Christ doth giue vs not only the benefit of his death and resurrection but also the very body wherin he died and arose againe from death Yea libro de Coena inter eius opuscula pag. 133. he saith that Negare veram corporis sanguinis substantiam to deny the true substance of the body and blood of Christ to be giuen in the supper is execrabilis blasphemia auditu indigna an execrable blasphemy against which we ought to stoppe our eares The Caluinian Doctrine that Christs body being only in heauen is Spiritually present not only by fayth not only according to the effects of his grace but also in his bodily substance yet only vnto the faythfull receauer not vnto the Sacramentall signe is both against Gods word and implicatory in reason First it is no lesse then the Zuinglian against the plaine expresse words of our Sauiour For our Sauiour by saying Take eate this is my body drinke yee all of this for this is my blood Matth. 26. doth auerre the Sacrament to be his body and blood in respect of that taking and eating vnto which by these words he doth inuite and exhorte But by this speach he doth inuite and exhorte vnto Sacramentall and corporall taking and eating This appeareth by the immediat practise of the Apostles who vpon these words of our Lord tooke the Sacrament with their corporall mouth This also our aduersaryes cannot deny seing they vrge by vertue of these wordes corporall receauing in both kinds Therfore the words of our Sauiour auerre the reall presence of his body in substance in respect of corporall taking and eating with the mouth of flesh which Doctrin Caluinists stiffely deny only holding the substantiall communication of Christs body in respect of spirituall receauing by the facultyes of the soule Secondly their Reall Presence is a fiction to no purpose For there is no reason to put the Reall Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament but only in respect of verifying the word of our Sauiour This is my body in a true and reall sense so making the thinge Christ had in his hand and which was demonstrated by the Pronowne This to be truly really his body But Caluinists put not a Presence which maketh the thinge Christ had in hand and demonstrated by the Pronowne This to be truly and really his body but only by figure This I proue That which is the body of Christ in figure and shew and not in substance is not truly really Christ his body Euen as what is a man in shew and figure not in essence and substance is not truly and really a man But Caluinists say that This or the thinge which Christ hath in his hands was Christs body in shew figure and not in substance Ergo they put not a Reall presence which makes that which Christ had in his hand did demonstrate by the particle This to be truly his body It is therefore a fiction deuised to satisfy the Caluinian fancy not the Christian fayth or the rigurous truth of Gods word Thirdly by this Doctrine they bind themselues and others to belieue an high and incomprehensible Mystery without any necessity or compulsion from Gods word For what can be more vnintelligible then that there should be true and reall vnion according to substance betwixt two distinct indiuiduall substances that be distant the one from the other as farre as heauen is from earth Hence Caluin saith libro de Coena that this is sublime arduum quod neque quidem cogitatione complecti possimus in Cap. 11.1 ad Cor. arcanum mirificum Spiritus sancti opus quod intelligentiae nostrae modulo metiri nefas sit But the word of God doth not inforce this Caluinian Mystery nor is there sufficient ground to affirme it This is proued because the mystery of their Reall Presence either hath no ground in Scripture or is grounded on these words of the Institution Take eate this is my body But Caluinists on these words cannot ground the incomprehensible mystery of their reall presence For they vnderstand these words of our Sauiour in a Figuratiue sense and say that they are not true properly and literally Now a mystery of Fayth cannot be grounded vpon the Figuratiue sense of a place of Scripture yea vpon meere Figuratiue construction of Scripture to obtrude vnto others an article of necessary beliefe is impudency as saith S. Augustine Epist. 68. Non nisi impudentiss mè nititur quis aliquid in Allegoria positum pro se interpretari nisi habeat manifesta testimonia quorum lumine illustrentur obscura Therfore the Caluinian Reall Presence is a mystery incomprehensible grounded on meere figuratiue construction of Gods word not backed by any literall text and consequently it is belieued without necessity or any Diuine and supernaturall warrant Hence I Inferre two things first that the belieuers of the Caluinian Reall Presence are vnwise For what greater folly then for men to deny their wits and breake their heads to belieue an hard and difficill matter in belieuing wherof ther is no merit of fayth In belieuing the Caluinian Reall Presence there is no merit of Fayth For the merit of Fayth is to captiuate our Vnderstanding vnto mysteryes cleerly deliuered by the word of God not vnto mans figuratiue expositions therof yea no figuratiue exposition aboue reason is to be belieued except it be proued by some literall text or be deliuered by the full Tradition as Gods word vnwritten Secondly I inferre that Caluinists beare more reuerence vnto Iohn Caluin then vnto Iesus Christ for Caluins mystery is belieued by Caluinists being confessedly a Doctrine most hard difficill incomprehensible and yet not the literall sense of Gods word but Caluins figuratiue comment ther-vpon On the other side Transubstantiation being acknowledged by them to be the litterall and proper sense of the word of Christ Iesus so that without Transubstantiation his word this is my body cannot be literally true as our Minister doth confesse pag. 397. yet because it is hard difficill incomprehensible Caluinists cannot be brought to belieue it What is this but to be more ready to belieue Caluin then Christ Specially seing the mystery of Christs literall sense is not so hard and vn-intelligible as Caluins figuratiue construction For one may more easily conceaue a body to be in two places at once which the litteral sense of Christs word doth inforce then a body to be truly and substantially giuen where truly and substantially it is not which is the article of fayth by Caluins figuratiue construction obtruded The Arguments agaynst the litterall sense of Christs Word vayne and idle §. 3. THE Minister to prooue that the words of the institution are to be figuratiuely vnderstood bringeth seauen Arguments pag. 391. one pag. 401. and three other pag. 418. but the first and third of these three are the same with the second
the body and bloud were giuen in the shape of â—read and wine as Venerable Bede in c. 22. Luc. out of whome you cite â—hese words substituting his body and bloud in the FIGVRE of bread and wine What is this but that the figure and shape of bread remaynes the body of our Lord being present in lieu of the substance therof Secondly your Minor assertion that the figure of a thing is not the â—ame with the thing figured is impious and directly opposite vnto Gods word First Christ Iesus is a figure of his Fathers substance Heb. 1.3 and yet is he the same substantially with the Father Iohn 10.30 Secondly S. Peter fishing in the sea and catching a great multitude of fish is a figure of himselfe preaching in the world and conuerting soules vnto Christ Luc. â— 10 and yet Peter fishing and Peter preaching is substantially the same person Thirdly Christ as found in the temple on the third day after his â—eesing was a figure of himselfe rising after the third day of his sepulture Ambros. in cap. 2. Lucae Also Christ as making a shew to goe further in his Iourney to Emmaus represented himselfe as mounting to heauen August cont mendac c. 13. and yet Christ found after three dayes and Christ rising after three dayes Christ making a shew to passe on and ascending to his Father is substantially one and the same person False then and impious is your assertion that the figure of a thing cannot be the same with the thing figured and consequently this your Argument The Eucharist is tearmed by the Fathers the figure of Christs naturall body Ergo it is not substantially properly his body is idle Hence the finall conclusion is that you haue no ground in Scripture not to take these words of our Lord This is my Body in the litterall sense and that the true reason you do not litterally vnderstand them is the difficulty of the matter and the Infidelity of your hart Now let vs returne vnto the Iesuits discourse That the Reall Presence of the whole Body of Christ vnder the formes of bread belonges to the substance of the Mystery §. 1. TO proue this I suppose as certayne that the body of Christ is truly and really in the Sacrament of his supper This I may iustly suppose seing your Maiesty doth professe to hold a presence (d) PraesentiaÌ„ credimus non minùs quà m vos veram haec fides Regis Regia Resp. ad Card. Peron in oper Regis pag. 399. 400. of the body of Christ in the Sacrament no lesse true then we hold and consequently you will not vnderstand the words of Christ figuratiuely as SacrameÌ„taryes do 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 only a presence by Imagination conceypt (*) This was supposed by the Iesuit as cleere and hath been proued in the former addition agaynst the Ministers Cauills as is euident wherin as your Maiesty knowes they contradict the ancient Church which teacheth expressely that Christ (e) Euthym. panop pa. 2. tit 22. Theop. in Marc. c. 14. Damascen Orthod fidei l. 4. c. 14. did not say This is a figure of my body but this is my body and exhorts vs to belieue Christ vpon his word He said This is my body (f) Gaudent tract 2. in Exod. Chrysost. in c. 26. Matth. hom 83. Ambros. de ijs qui mysterijs iuitiant c. 9. Epiph. in anchorato Hilar. l. 8. de Trinit Cyrill Hieros Cateches 4. I pray you let vs belieue him whom we haue belieued Verity cannot vtter vntruth And herein they acknowledge with your Maiesty a most high and incomprehensible mystery which were no mystery at all the words being vnderstood in a meere figuratiue sense As for some places of Fathers brought to the contrary how they are to be vnderstood your Maiesty is not ignorant S. Augustine (g) August in Psal. 3. IdeÌ„ cont Adimant c. 11. saying that Christ gaue to his disciples a figure of his body and bloud spake not of a bare empty figure but of the figure of a thinge really present As likewise in another place when he sayth Christ affirmed it was his body when he gaue a signe of his body though here he may seeme to speake in the opinion of the Manichees who held that Christ had not true flesh but a meere figure shadow and shape of flesh Against whoÌ„ in that place he vndertakes to proue that the figure of a thing may be termed the thing it selfe alledging argumento ad hominem that Christ said This is my body when he gaue but a figure of his body to wit (*) Had not S. Augustine argued in the opinion of Manichees that hold the flesh of Christ was not true but only a figure of flesh the Manichees might haue denyed this his example seing both the Gospell and the Fathers say the Eucharist to be truly Christs body and not a meere figure as you thinke Tertullian (h) Tertul. li. 4. cont Marcion hath this speach Christ taking bread into his hands and distributing it to his disciples made the same his body saying Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis mei Where figura corporis mei is referred not vnto Corpus meum as an explicatioÌ„ therof but vnto hoc in this manner hoc id est figura Corporis mei est Corpus meum This to be Tertullian his meaning appeares by the drift of his discourse in that place For Tertullian is to shew that wheras in the old Testament bread was a figure of the body of Christ as appeares by the words of the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem eius id est crucem in corpus eius Christ in the new Testament made this figure to be truly and really (i) Tertullian in saying that Christ made bread his body doth therby declare the conuersion of bread into his body euen as the Euangelist doth signify the conuersion of water into wine in saying Our Sauiour made water wine Iohn 2.9 his body taking bread into his hands saying this that is the figure of my body in the old Testament is my body truly and really in the new which is asmuch as if he had said Bread which anciently was a figure of my body I do now make to be truly and really my body And this is vsuall in Tertullian who not to interrupt the words of Scripture addeth his explication of the subiect not presently but after the Attribute (k) Tertul. contr Praxeam c. 29. as when he said Christus mortuus est id est vnctus the sense wherof is Christus vnctus mortuus est This supposed I inferre that the body of Christ is present in the mystical supper not only to the faithfull that receaue the SacrameÌ„t nor only to the place or church where the holy Synaxis is celebrated but vnder the formes
thereof is abolished into the body of Christ. Secondly the example you bring about Regenerate persons is by you vsed impertinently and truly pondered applyed serueth our purpose For in Regeneration the substance of man is not abolished because by Regeneration man is changed to be participant of the Diuine Nature not from what he is originally by the constitution of nature but from what he is by the corruption of the Diuell and sinne Hence by vertue of Regeneration a man ceaseth to be not according to the substantiall Origen of his nature but only according to the superinduced peruersion thereof by the Diuell But in the Eucharist Saint Ambrose sayth that bread by consecration passeth into the sacred body of Christ from the thing it was by the framing constitution of nature Ergo bread according to S. Ambrose ceaseth to be according to the thing it is by the framing of nature to wit the essence of bread VI The Minister Replyes That to a mysticall change the omnipotency of God is required as appeareth in Baptisme Therefore although some Fathers require an omnipotent power to eleuate and change the creatures of bread and wine yet it followeth not that they maintayned Transubstantiation Answere The Fathers indeed require the omnipotency of God in Baptisme not to change the nature of water into the nature and verity of Christs bloud but to the end that water remayning water vnchanged in nature be eleuated to produce sanctifying grace in the soules of men Thus Saint Leo by you often cited serm 4. de natiuit sayth Virtus altissimi quae fecit vt virgo pareret Saluatorem eadem facit vt regeneret vnda credentem He doth not say as you would make fooles belieue the Fathers vse to speake that the Diuine omnipotency doth change the water into the nature and verity of his bloud but That the same power of the Highest makes water being water to bring forth regenerate persons which caused a virgin remayning a virgin to bring forth the Sauiour But about the holy Eucharist the Fathers speake in another manner They require the Omnipotency of God not to eleauate bread wine that remayning still in nature bread and wine they may sanctify mens soules but to change them into Christs body and bloud by which change they become in thēselues without further eleuation proportioned meanes to sanctify soules as cōtaining within themselues the fountaine of grace Yea the Fathers speeches about the water of baptisme be so different from their speeches about the bread and wine of the Eucharist as this alone might suffice to conuert the Minister were he not obstinate What Fathers say that Christ at the Mariage of soules with him in Baptisme can doth conuert water into his blood by his omnipotency as he could and did conuert water into Wine at the carnall Mariage of Cana as S. Cyrill S. Gaudentius cited by the Iesuit say of the wine of the Eucharist What Father doth say that water changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotency of the word made his flesh as is sayd of the Eucharisticall bread by the Authour of the booke De Coena Domini VII Though some question be made whether this Authour was S. Cyprian yet learned men both Catholicks and Protestants agree he was an holy ancient Father The Authour of the booke de Coena Domini sayth M. Fulke agaynst the Rhem. Testam in 1. Cor. 11. fol. 282. was not in tyme much inferiour to Cyprian Erasmus in his Annotatiōs vpon S. Cyprian printed at Basill Anno 1558. fol. 287. sayth The Authour was some learned man of S. Cyprian his age as Pamelius doth demonstrate by many euident reasons so that we haue Transubstātiation as ancient as S. Cyprian For what the Minister sayth that this Authour meaneth only a mysticall and Sacramental change to be made is idle as I thus demonstrate The change this holy Father teacheth is made not in the shape quantity accidēts of bread but only in the inward nature and essence thereof panis non effigie sed natura mutatus But the Ministers mysticall conuersion is made vpon the shape quantity accidents of bread as he sayth pag. 425. it passeth vpon the quantity and accidents of bread as well as vpon the substance Ergo the conuersion of bread into Christs flesh taught by this holy ancient Father is an inward substantiall conuersion and not the Ministers mysticall change VIII What the Minister sayth to this Argument that the Fathers affirme the water of Baptisme to be changed into Christs blood by the vertue of his word is false nor hath he cited any Father that doth so affirme Yea such speaking of the water of Baptisme were ridiculous or rather impious as affirming thinges about the mysteryes of Religiō which may make them seeme senselesse and ridiculous without any ground so to affirme in Gods word For Christ neuer sayth of the water of Baptisme Be washed herewith for this is my blood as he sayth often in Scripture of the wine of the Eucharist drinke yee of this for this is my bloud IX To the fourth argument the Minister replyes that the Fathers exhort People to abnegate their senses in Baptisme wherein they mantayne no Transubstantiation I Answere The Minister still singes the same songe that the fathers speake in the same manner of the conuersiō of water into Christs blood in Baptisme as they speake about the conuersion of wine in the Eucharist which is most false and the Minister hath not cited the wordes any Father so affirming The Fathers about Baptisme exhort men to belieue that God can by water wash and purify the soule and this to be a supernaturall worke aboue the naturall force of water which one may belieue without contradicting the euidence of any of his senses yea without any great difficulty in reason For what great matter is it to belieue that God being omnipotent at the presence of water washing the body can inwardly by grace wash the soule But about the Eucharist they say that we must firmely and indubitately belieue that that which seemeth bread and wine is not bread wine but the body bloud of Christ so that vnder the forme of bread and wine is giuen vs the bloud of our Lord and though sense suggest the contrary that it is wine we must abnegate and not belieue our senses herein Shew one Father I say that doth thus affirme of the water of Baptisme that we must firmely and indubitately belieue the same not to be water in truth though it be water in shew and because our sight feeling and tast suggest that it is water that we must with full Fayth abnegate and deny this iudgment framed by sense X. The Minister heere pag. 429. bringeth three triuiall argumēts to prooue the Fathers held the substance of bread to remayne after consecration which are not worth the answering yet I will say a word to each of them not to omit any thing that
there may be great merit and excellent Fayth if it be a truth and on the other side though which is impossible it should be false yet in belieuing it we shall not fall into any damnable errour For although we suppose this vnpossible case yet what can be layd to our charge which we may not defend and iustify by all the rules of equity 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 heerin For seing the body is not made guilty but by a guilty mind euen our body may plead not guilty seing our mind our thoughts our deuotiō were totally referred vnto Christ whom we truly apprehend by faith as veyled with the accidents of bread and so may repell the reproach of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread-worshippers with saying Quae vouit mens est pani nil vouimus illâ Neyther did we belieue that the bread was changed into Christs body vpō slight reasons or mooued by the fancyes of our own head but contrary to our fancyes out of reuerence to the (q) The Minister here contradicting himselfe sayth that Trāsubstantiation is not inuolued in the litterall sense of Gods word And further that the same was neuer defined in Generall Councells For as the Ariās would allow no Councell to be lawfull which condemned Arius so with these mē no Councell is lawfull vpon which Iohn Caluin will not bestow his Blessing Otherwise why should not the Lateran Councell vnder Innocent the third and the second Councell of Nice celebrated aboue eight hūdred years agoe where the substātiue reall presence is defined and the figuratiue condemned be lawful general in which both the Latin and Grecian Church did concurre to define expresse wordes of Christ This is my body A sense declared by most ancient Fathers defined by many Generall Councels deliuered by full consent of our Ancestours so practised in the Church for many ages without any knowne beginning Finally confirmed with the most credible cōstant report of innumerable (r) The Minister sayth that these Miracles be but the lyes of Fryars which he proues by a iest that was rife in the mouth of Wickliffifts Est Frater Ergo mendax Answer The miracles done in proofe of the Corporall and substantiall permanent presence of Christs body in the Eucharist are related by most auncient Fathers and writers of which many whole Townes Cittyes and Countreyes haue been eye witnesses as it were madnes to questiō thē These may be read in Ioannes Garetius who hath gathered them together as also in Iudocus Coccius The Prouerbe He is Fryar Ergo a lyar is true of such Fryars as Martin Luther Bucer Peter Martyr Fryar Barnes and the like founders and pillars of the fifth Gospell And if the matter be looked into without passiō this inference Est Minister Ergo mēdax will seeme more iustifiable euen in Caluins iudgement who sayth that most of them that shew most zeale are ful of falshod fraud lying Hierom Zanchius a famous Protestāt in the Preface of his booke contra Arianum Anonymū saith of Ministers That euen they who are tearmed Pillars of the Ghospell are for the most part impudēt lying companions that out-face the truth euery way thereupon exclayming O Tempora O Mores most euidēt miracles Can a Christian belieue any point 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 prōpt credulity of Transubstātiation that is of Gods word takē in the playne proper sense Is it any iniury to his verity that they deny their senses correct their imaginatiōs reforme their discourses abnegate their iudgments rather then not to belieue what to them seemeth his word Is it iniury to his power to be perswaded that he can doe things incomprehēsible without number put the same body in innumerable places at once make a body occupy no place yet remayne a quantitatiue substance in it selfe Is it iniury to his charity to thinke that loue vnto men makes him vnite himselfe really and substantially with them to be as it were incarnate anew in euery particular faythfull man entring really into their bodyes to signify efficaciously his inward cōiunction by spirit vnto their soules Finally is it any iniury to his wisdome to belieue that to satisfy on the one side the will of his Father that would haue him euer in heauen sitting at his right hād on the other side the ardency of his owne affection vnto men desiring to be perpetually with them he inuented a manner how still remaining glorious in heauē he might also be continually on earth with his Church secretly not to take from them the merit of Fayth yet to affoard full satisfaction to his owne loue really by continuall 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 easy it is for men to erre that with the compasse of their vnderstanding measure the power of God how dangerous inexcusable their errour will prooue when they shal 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 answere if God lay to their charge the neglect of that most prudent reasonable aduise which S. Chrysostome Homil. 83. in Mat. giues Let vs belieue God sayth he let vs not resist his word though the same seeme absurd vnto our cogitation sense for his speach doth surpasse our reason and sense his words cannot deceaue vs but our senses be deceaued easily and often How will they reply if they be pressed with the interrogatory which S. Cyrill l. 12. in Ioan. makes vnto such vnbelieuers If thou couldst not comprehend the diuine operation of God why didest thou not accuse the imbecillity of mans wit rather then the omnipotency of God Or how disputing proposing so many Arguments agaynst Gods power reiecting or questioning the same because they could not vnderstand it neuer called they to mynd the saying (s) August lib. 12. de Ciuit c. 11. of Saint Augustine Ecce quibus argumentis Diuinae omnipotentiae humana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas THE SEAVENTH POINT Communion (*) Note that the holy Eucharist is both a Sacrifice and a Sacrament A Sacrifice as offered vnto God for thansgiuing and remission of sinnes A Sacrament as receaued by mē for the foode sanctification of their soules It is a Sacrifice because a liuely and expresse representation of Christs bloudy Sacrifice on the Crosse. It is a Sacramēt because representing exhibiting Christ Iesus as the full and all-sufficient