2. That this Worshippe was euer since the Apostles in the Church without beginning pag. 142.143 c. § 3. The places of Exodus Deut. with no probability vrged agaynst the Worship of Images by Protestants that make them pag. 154.155 c. § 4. Inconueniences which may come by occasion of Images easily preuented and their vtilities very great pag. 158.159 THE SECOND AND THIRD POINT II. Praying offering Oblations to the B. Virgin Mary III. VVorshipping Inuocation of Saints Angells pag. 172. § 1. An Eleauen Demonstrations that the Ancient Christian Church did euer hould Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Fayth Religion pag. 173.174 c. § 2. Inuocation of Saints not to be disliked because not expressed in Scripture pag. 194. § 3. Knowledge of Prayers made to them communicable communicated vnto Saints pag. 196.197 c. § 4. The Worship in spirit Truth with outward prostration of body due vnto Saints pag. 206.207 c. § 5. Praying to Saints not iniurious to Gods mercy but rather a commendation thereof pag. 211.212 c. § 6. Inuocation of Saints not an iniury but an honor to Christ the only Mediatour pag. 215.216 c. § 7. How it is lawfull to appropriate the obtayning of Graces and Cures vnto Saints pag. 219.220 c. § 8. Cōcerning Oblatiōs made to Saints p. 223.224 c. § 9. The Roman Churches set-formes of Prayer without cause misliked pag. 226.227 THE FOVRTH POINT IIII. The Liturgy priuate Prayers for the Ignorant in an vnknovvne Tongue pag. 130.131 THE FIFTH POINT V. Repetitions of Pater Nosters Aues Creeds especially affixing a kind of merit to the nūber of thē p. 241.242 c. THE SIXT POINT VI. The doctrine of Transubstantiatiō ¶ An Addition prouing the Catholike Reall Presence according to the litterall Truth of Gods word agaynst Ministeriall Metaphors Figures shifts pag. 248. ¶ § 1. The Zwinglian and Caluinian Religion about the Sacrament pag. 248. ¶ § 2. The Zwinglian Caluinian Presence confuted pag. 250. ¶ § 3. The Ministers Arguments agaynst the litterall sense of Christs word vayne idle pag. 253.254 c. § 1. That the Reall Presence of the whole body of Christ vnder the formes of bread belongs to the substance of the Mystery pag. 260.261 c. § 2. Transubstantiation belonges to the substance of Reall Presence pag. 266.267 c. § 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers pag. 271.272 c. ¶ A Refutation of the Ministers shifts to elude the former Testimonyes of the Fathers pag. 276.277 c. § 4. The seeming repugnances this Mystery hath with Sense should inclyne Christians the sooner to belieue it pag. 290.291 THE SEAVENTH POINT VII Communion vnder one kind abetting of it by Cōcomitancy pag. 305. § 1. The Doctrine of Concomitancy proued pag. 306.307 c. § 2. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Institution of Christ. pag. 311.312 c. § 3. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Sacrament pag. 315.316 c. § 4. Communion vnder one kinde not agaynst Christ his Precept pag. 319.320 c. ¶ The place of S. Iohn Qui manducat hunc panem c. explicated with an Answere to the Testimonies of the Fathers pag. 330.331 § 5. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the practice of the Primitiue Church pag. 332.333 c. THE EIGHT POINT VIII VVorkes of Supererogation specially vvith reference to the treasure of the Church pag. 334. § 1. The Doctrine of Merit declared pag. ibid. 335.336 c. ¶ The Ministers Arguments or rather Inuectiues against this Doctrine of Merit answered pa. 347.348 c. § 2. Merit of works of Supererogation p. 348.349 c. § 3. The Fathers taught works of Supererogation and proued them by Scripture pag. 352.353 c. § 4. The Doctrine of Satisfaction pag. 358.359 c. § 5. Workes with reference vnto the Treasure of the Church pag. 362.363 c. ¶ The Ministers rayling Argumēts agaynst the former doctrine censured pag. 372.373 c. THE NINTH POINT IX The opiniō of deposing Kings giuing avvay their Kingdoms by Papall povver vvhether directly or indirectly pag. 382. ¶ The Ministers fond Cauill That Iesuits honour not the King as Soueraygne pag. 383.384 c. ¶ His fond proofs of his Slaunder that Iesuits hold singular Opinions to the preiudice of Kings pa. 385.386 c. ¶ His Fondnes in Cauilling at the Iesuits words about the Temporall Soueraignity of Popes pag. 389.390 c. ¶ His miserable Apology for Protestāts p. 391.392 c. ¶ His Cauill agaynst the Iesuits speciall Vow of Obedience to the Pope pag. 393. c. THE CONCLVSION Faultes escaped in the printing In the Picture and Censure Pag. 10. lin 14. Christ read Christs Pag. 12. lin 17. in marg Ministery read Minister Pag. 13. l. 2. in marg conferunt read conferant Pag. 16. l. 20. place translated read place truly translated Pag. 25. l. 19. pleasore read pleasure Pag. 37. l. 7. are read were Pag. 86. l. 19. now read new Pag. 44. l. 3. this read his Pag. 104. l. 16. of read in Pag. 121. lin 32. an read be Pag. 132. l. vlt. diriue read driue In the Answere and Reioynder Pag. 4. l. 10. in marg if read it Pag. 19. line penult in marg seipsum read sensum Pag. 24. l. 1. God Though read God though Ibid. l. 16. could not read could not Pag. 56. lin 30. in marg this read thus Pag. 71. lin 32. in marg but must read but they must Pag· 74. l. 16. in marg do to proue read do proue Pag. 80. l. 30. in marg Votaies read Votaries Pag. 81. lin 32. Philip in dele Ibid. l. 34. in innumerable dele in Pag. 100. l. 1. 3. suppositious read supposititious Pag. 115. l. 16. in coll read in loc Pag. 119. l. 12. opinions read opinion Pag. 129. lin 1. Axione read Axiome Pag. 32. l. 34. in marg a positiue read a positiue precept Pag. 141. l. 11. in marg Sect. 3. read Sect. 1. Pag. 142. l. 26. in marg the argues read he argues Pag. 144. lin 21. viz. read verò Pag. 145. l. 10. reliueth read relieueth Pag. 152. l. 33. in marg Anthropomorphilae read Anthropomorphitae 177. l. 9. in marg praebitur read praebebitur Pag. 180. l. 22. wash awayt read washt away Pag. 227. l. 5. if they dele if Pag. 229. lin 23. in marg him that dele him Pag. 141. lin 9. reuerent read renewed Pag. 378. l. 22. satisfaction read satisfaction Pag. 396. l. 4. Roall read Royall Pag. 399. l. 2. fallable read fallible THE TRVE PICTVRE OF D· VVHITE MINISTER Or the Censure of his Reply vnto M. Fisher. The Reason of this Title THIS Short Censure is prefixed vnder the Name of your Picture that the Reioynder may correspōd in proportion vnto your Reply the beginning whereof is consecrated by an Image of your (a) For he teacheth
Mary 3. Worshipping Inuocation of Saints Angels 4. The Liturgy priuate Prayers for the Ignorant in an vnknowne Tongue 5. Repetitions of Pater Nosters Aues Creeds especially affixing a kind of merit to the number of them 6. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation 7. Communion vnder one kind the abetting of it by Concomitancy 8. Workes of Supererogation especially with reference vnto the Treasure of the Church 9. The Opinion of deposing Kings and giuing away their Kingdomes by Papall power whether directly or indirectly THE PREFACE Most Gratious and Dread Soueraygne A Conference about ReligioÌ„ between Doctor White and Me was occasion that your Maiesty called me to your gracious Presence not disdayning to dispute with one so meane and vnworthy as my self imitating his Benignity whose Vicegerent you are and according to the Phrase of Holy Scripture As (a) 2. Reg. 14.17 Sicut Angelus Dei sic est Dominus meus Rex his Angell And as it is the property of the Good Angell first to strike feare and terrour into them to whome he appeares but in the end to leaue them full of comfort in like sort your Maiesty For though the first salutation carryed a shew of seuerity yet your dismissing me was benigne and gratious not only pardoning my earnestnes in defending the part of the Catholike Church but also saying (*) What the Minister doth obiect against this narration is refuted in M. Fishers Booke about vntruths falsely layd to his charge You liked me the better The gratefull acknowledgement and admiration of this your Princely Clemency makes me desire from the bottome of my Soule that I could fully satisfy your Maiestie of my dutyfull and loyall affection which is fast tyed vnto your sacred person by a threefold (b) Funiculus triplex difficilè rumpitur Eccles. 14.14 inuiolable bond The (*) The Minister saith that the Iesuits Oratory is plausible and thereupon enters into a coÌ„mon place that Truth needs no Trimming which is true yet if needs many tymes Apologies Defence against Slaunders Law of nature obligeth me thereunto as being your Maiesties borne Subiect the transgression whereof were Vnnaturall Barbarous Inhumane The Law of God requires the like constant and perfect Allegiance at my hands binding me to regard you as his Lieutenant and to acknowledge your power and authority as (c) Rom. 13.1 his Ordination so that according to the doctrine of the Catholike Church I must not only outwardly obserue but also admit your Maiesties will and command with Reuerence into the secret closet of my inmost (d) Rom. 13.5 CoÌ„science Soule The Constitutions also of the Order wherof I am an vnworthy meÌ„ber do strictly command me the same in seuerest manner charging the Subiects therof no wayes to meddle in State-matters or in Princes affaires much lesse vnder pretence of Religion to attempt any thing or to consent vnto any enterprize that may disturbe the quiet and tranquillity of Kings and Kingdomes And seeing we are so deuoted to our own Institute that our (e) Colloquium de Secretis Iesuitarum Aduersaries thereupon amongst many other Calumniations lay to our charge that we more reuereÌ„tly esteeme carefully obserue the constitutions of our Rule then the Law of God I shall for your Maiesties fuller satisfactioÌ„ set downe some part of our Constitutions in this point in maÌ„ner following (f) Decret 101. Cong 5. General ac Can. 12. â—iusdem (g) Monita Gener. §. 18. The Constitutions out of which these are taken be tearmed Monita Generalia Generall Admonitions because they coÌ„cerne generally al persons of the Order by way of distinction from Particular which coÌ„cerne only some kind of persons as Preachers Maisters c. Which particular AdmonitioÌ„s are as publick as the generall Whereby you may see the Ministers ignoraÌ„ce in Logicke to be equall vnto his malice against Iesuits who sayth that the terme of Generall Admonitions forbidding to meddle in State-matters argueth that Iesuits haue other Secret Admonitions that warrant such medling As though Generall Admonitions were condistinct agaynst secret and particular against publik Wheras general may be kept secret particular be made publike Vt ab omni specie mali abstineatur querelis etiam ex falsis suspicionibus prouenientibus quoad fieri poterit occurratur praecipitur nostris omnibus in virtute Sanctae Obedientiae sub poena inhabilitatis ad quaeuis officia dignitates seu praelationes vocisque etiam actiuae quà m passiuae priuationis ne quispiam publicis saecularibus Principum negotijs quae ad rationem Status vt vocant pertineant vlla ratione se immiscere nec etiam quantumuis requisitus rogatus eiusmodires politicas tractandi curam suscipere audeat vel praesumat (h) Decret 57. Can. 17. Illa autem omnia quae à spirituali Instructione diuersa sunt negotia Status censeri debent qualia sunt quae ad Principum inter se foedera vel ad Regnorum iura successiones pertineÌ„t vel ad bella tam ciuilia quà m externa (i) In Regulis communibus Reg. 41. Iubet regula 41. vt saecularia negotia vtpote quae sunt à nostro Instituto aliena vehementer à spiritualibus auocant multùm auersemur (k) In Regulis Concionatorum Iubentur Concionatores Societatis à reprehensionibus Principum Magnatum Reipub abstinere obedientiaÌ„ erga Principes Magistratus frequenter seriò suis in Concionibus populo commendare (l) In Constitutionibus Iubent CoÌ„stitutiones nostrae varijs in locis vt oremus speciatim pro Principibus eorumque spirituali saluti praecipuâ curâ procurandae ac promouendae inuigilemus ob vniuersale bonum quod ad multos alios qui eorum authoritatem sequuntur vel per eos reguntur proueniet (m) In Instructionibus Extat denique Instructio pro Confessarijs Principum quâ Nostris seriò interdicitur ne occasione huius muneris rebus Politicis aut Reipublicae gubernationi se immisceant Iubentur etiam hanc InstructioneÌ„ Principibus ostendere curareque vt ij planè intelligant quid Societas ab eo postulat qui Confessarium sibi eligit neque per Leges nostras licere nobis alijs conditionibus id oneris suscipere I humbly craue pardon for offering so many particulers of our Rule vnto your Maiesties perusall which I should not haue done but out of a most strong desire to giue your Maiestie (n) The Minister shapeth this argumeÌ„t into this forme No Iesuite obseruing the Rules of his Order can meddle in state matters Euery Iesuit obserueth the rules of his Order Ergo No Iesuit doth meddle in State matters And theÌ„ in answere thereof he sayth He that belieues the Minor must be a stranger in the world and haue liued an Anchoret or Recluse in some Caue who neuer heard of Campian Parsons Creswell Garnet Suarez Bellarmin c. I
likenes and similitude confoundeth â—he sight not to discerne the one from the other In scriptuâ—es it is not so the doctrine proposed therein being not gold mingled with earth but pure Gold the word of God is pure syluer refined wilth fire so that the Scriptures be not mettals that require workemeÌ„ to seuer in their doctrine Drosse from Gold they offer a ready and refined treasure to them that seeke the riches hidden in them Thus S. Chrysostome and he doth there largely discourse how euery thinge in Scriptures euen the Chronologies and proper Names of men do affoard wholesome and profitable doctrine to the Reader but to find this treasure we must not as he there sayth nudam tantùm scripturam aspicere sed insistere cum studio repositas scrutari opes not only looke vpon the Scripture but insist with study search out the riches hoarded vp therein Haue you not theÌ„ notoriously falsifyed the sense of his discourse by the insertion of words of your owne In the behalfe of your Protestant sole-sufficiency of Scripture you cite (d) Pag. 50. in Marg. lit E. pag. 3. lin 6. in marg lit E. alibi saepe this sentence of Durand tearming him A famous Scholeman Ecclesia licèt Dei Dominationem habeat in terris illa tamen non excedit limitationem Scripturae Although the Church haue the power authority of God vpon earth yet that authority doth not exceed the limitation of the Scripture This place is by you alleadged many tymes in this your Reply but most impertinently For his meaning is that the Church though it haue the authority of God vpon earth (e) Matth. 16. v 20. Quicquid solueris quicquid ligaueris super terram erit solutum ligatum in caelis yet the same power is in some cases restrayned and limited by the Scripture In which respect the Church cannot dispense in many thinges wherein God might dispense In (f) Ecclesia licèt habeat authoritateÌ„ Dei in tertio illa tamen non excedit limitationeÌ„ Scripturae Scriptura autem docet expresse seruos conuersos ad fidem adhuc manere Dominis suis prioribus licet illi maneant infideles particuler she cannot saith he exempt slaues that be made Christians from their subiection vnto their old Maâ—sters because that the Scripture doth expressely teach that Slaues conuerted vnto the Fayth are to be still subiect to their former Maisters though their Maisters be Infidels Thus Durand Now what is this to the purpose of prouing that men are bound to belieue nothing but what is cleerly contayned in Scripture Except according to your skill in Logicke you will argue in this sort The Church cannot do the thinges forbidden her in Scripture because her power is not beyond the restraynt thereof giuen in the Scripture Ergo she cannot belieue teach doctrines proposed vnto her by the rule of Tradition without Scripture which is a thinge commended vnto her in Scripture Hold the Traditions you haue whether by speach or by Epistle 2. Thessal 2.15 How many tymes in this your Reply haue you cited this testimony of the Maister of the Sentences (g) Lombard l. 4. sent d. 18. lit f. God doth not still follow the iudgment of the Church which sometimes through ignorance and surreption iudgeth not according to truth This I say you cite (h) See pag. 89. in lit â— p. 93. lit d alibi to proue that the Church may erre in fayth at the least about secondary articles And yet it is most certayne and euident that he speakerh of iudgment in criminall causes For hence he inferretth (i) Soluere noxios vel damnare se putant innoxios cùm apud Deum non sententia Sacerdotum sed reorum vita queratur Et ita apertè ostenditur quòd non semper sequitur Deus iudicium Ecclesiae quae per ignorantiam surreptionem interdum iudicat the Church-meÌ„ must not thinke because Christ said vnto them whatsoeuer you bind or loose vpon earth shall be bound loosed in Heauen that therefore they may condemne the Innocent and absolue the Nocent For God in such case doth not follow their sentence but iudgeth according to the life of the accused To prooue that the Roman Bishop was not anciently acknowledged the supreme Pastour of the Catholike Church you say pag. 161. lin 15. Pope Stephen was sleighted by S. Cyprian and other Bishops of Africa In proofe whereof you cite in your margent (g) Ibid. lit D. these wordes of Firmilian (h) Firmil apud Cyprian epist. 75. Atque ego in â—ac parte iuste indignor in tam manifestam apertam Steâ—hani stultitiam quòd qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloriaâ—ur se successionem Petri tenere contendit And indeed I am iustly grieued against the open manifest folâ—y of Stephen that he so much glorieth of the dignity of his Bishopricke and standeth vpon his hauing the succession of Peter Thus you Now behold your falshood for I omit your ignoraÌ„ce in naming Firmiâ—ian as a Bishop of Africa whereas he was a Bishop â—f the East to wit of (i) Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. Caesareae Capadocensis Episcopus Caesarea in Cappadocia Your Legier-de-maine I say and falshood is twofold First you omit to let your Reader know that this Firmilian when he wrote this Epistle was a Quartaâ—eciman and also addicted to the Errour of Rebaptiâ—ing theÌ„ that had been baptized by Heretiks And because S. Stephen a most (k) Vincent Lyrinensis aduersus Haeres cap. 9. Holy Pope Martyr had made a decree against their Nouelty (l) Cyprian epist. 74. Nihil innouaÌ„dum praeâ—erquam quod traditum Let no nouelty be admitted â—ut let the ancient Tradition be kept this Firmilian wrote against him an Epistle full of sharpe contumelious speach Had you mentioned this quality of Firmilian which I do not doubt but you knew your impertinency would haue been apparent For this supposed your Argument goeth thus Some Bishops specially Firmilian erring against Fayth and blasted for the tyme with the spirit of Heresy wrote a coÌ„temptuous Epistle against the Sea of Peter Ergo the Sea of Peter is not by diuine Institution the Rocke of the Church agaynst which the gates of hell all Heresyes should rage but neuer preuayle Secondly you notoriously falsify the sentence of Firmilian in making him to rayle against the Roman Bishops being the successour of Peter For this euen in that his Hereticall passion wherof he afterward was (m) This is testifyed by Dionysius Alexandrinus who then liued in his Epistle to Xistus the Successour of S. Stephen apud Euseb. l. 7. Histor. c. 3. Niceph l. 6. c 7. penitent he neuer did yea he doth rather acknowledge the Roman Bishops succession froÌ„ Peter and thence argueth that seeing to Peter only Christ said To thee I will giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen c.
though he deny the Primacy of S. Peter yet is forced by the euideÌ„ce of the sacred Text to graÌ„t that wheÌ„ce this primacy is proued First p. 157. that S. Peter had the Primacy of spirituall authority vniuersall Iurisdiction ouer the whole Church with the rest of the Apostles Secondly that this was giuen him singularly to wit as appeares by the Ghospell Matth. 16.10 Ioan. 20.21 by the singular order institutioÌ„ Christ applyed to him Now this doth inforce Monarchicall primacy For the three different formes of gouernement Democracy Aristocracy Monarchy are nothing els but three different applications of the primacy of iurisdiction vniuersall to different persons Primacy of vniuersall Iuridiction applyed generally to the whole Commons is Democracy applyed principally to some few chiefe persons of the State Aristocracy applyed singularly to one indiuiduall person Monarchy And what is vnderstood by Monarchy but primacy of power and vniuersall Iurisdiction applyed singularly to one indiuiduall person ouer all the affaires of a whole and entiere state Hence the Apostles were as the Fathers say both equall and inferiour vnto Peter Equall in that they had the same kind of power that Peter had to wit the authority of the Key-bearers of the Rockes of the Pastors of the vniuersall Church nor doe we read in the Ghospell any kind of power giuen to Peter which was not also giuen for kind to the rest on the other side the other Apostles were inferiour vnto Peter as the same Fathers affirme in that they had the same kind of power in a lower degree with subordination vnto Peter as the chiefe no kind of power being giuen to the rest of the Apostles which we doe not expressely reade in the Ghospell to haue been giuen to S. Peter by singular commission order and institution Whence it is consequent that Peter was gouernour of the whole Church with the rest in more eminent degree of power and Iurisdiction then the rest all men being bound to obey him more specially more singularly and aboue the rest The eminency of the rest in the Church was vniuersall power had by commission directed coÌ„monly to them all wherby they all indifferently not one more then the other receaued commission of power in respect of all men of the Church distinct from themselues The eminency of Peter in the Church was vniuersall power giueÌ„ by commission directed singularly to his only person To Peter the sonne of Ionas Matth. 16.18 Wherby he was endued with primacy of Ecclesiasticall power in respect of all men in the Church distinct from himselfe in which number all Christians absolutely are comprehended not one excluded And this is Monarchy Now if Christ did ordayne and institute Monarchicall Gouernement in his Church then the gouernement thereof must be and was euer Monarchicall and that Peter still hath had a Monarchicall successour but if he had such a successour it is by all historyes more euident then the sunne that he had no other but the Roman Bishop What the Minister heere obiecteth agaynst the Roman Bishops Primacy is triuiall stuffe vrged without any new difficulty to wit about the tytle of vniuersall Bishop the Nicene Canon Contention of S. Cyprian with Pope Stephen the controuersy of the Africans about Appellations the Asians resisting Pope Victor All which Instances truly examined proue the primacy most euidently as is shewed by Bellarmine l. 2 de Pontif. lately by Fidelis Annosus de Monarchia Ecclesiastica l. 2. c. 5. 6. Primacy of S. Peter his successours the fundation which Christ layd of his Church necessary for the perpetual gouernment therof Matth. 16.18 Thirdly their questioning the infallible Authority of lawfull (a) The Minister heere rayleth agaynst Councells gathered by the authority of the Pope and in most grosse maÌ„ner falsifieth Cusanus in eight or nine particulars but in fine he dares not make direct answere to the question proposed whether Protestants hold the definitions of Lawfull Generall CouÌ„cels to be infallible or not His answere hereunto is like the oracle of Apollo giuen in generall and doubtfull tearmes to wit that Protestants giue the same authority vnto Councells that the ancient Church did in the margent he cites S. Augustine that Councells of Bishops are not to be equalled vnto Scriptures as doubtles they may not The truth is though he be ashamed to say it in plaine tearmes Protestants hold General CouÌ„cells lawfully assembled to be inferiour not only vnto Scripture but also vnto their exposition thereof For they teach that Councells be not assisted by the holy Ghost that it is most pernicious yea abominable to thinke so of them Luther Tom. 7. Germ. Wittenberg fol. 262. and though they proceed lawfully and be confirmed by the supreme Pastours yet be they fallible examinable refusable and subiect to the Protestant skill in Scripture In so much as the same Luther in his articles art 115. sayth When Councells haue defined then will we be Iudges whether they be to be accepted or not And the same sayth Caluin l. 4. Instit. cap. 9. Hence appeares how idle their pretence is that forsooth they would fayne haue a free Generall Councell To what purpose Surely they can intend nothing els but that they may bring the Councell to be of their humour or els if it be agaynst them to contemne it as not being in their iudgement conforme vnto Scripture It is reason M. White that you first meete amongst your selues You I say that pretend to be reformed and see whether you can agree that Generall Councells are infalliâ—â—◠〈◊〉 by the spirit of Christ so that no man may by his skill in Scripture or any other pretence reiect them This done then speake of meeting with Catholikes in a Generall Councell Otherwise Catholikes by meeting with you are sure to gayne no peace and vnity except they yield vnto you besides by the very yielding to meete with you they must for euer renounce the infallibility of Councells such a diuine stay of peace and vnity in the Church That this perpetuall renuntiation vnto CouÌ„cells must be made by meeting with you is cleere For by admitting you who question the authority of Councells into their Councells they must admit that it is at least questionable among Christians whether such Councells be infallibly assisted by Gods holy spirit or not els they cannot meet with you but must fly from you as damned heretikes If they admit the infallibility of Councells to be questionable they must bid this infallibility farewell for euer it can neuer be established by any ensuing consent of Generall Councels For if a Generall Councell should define that Generall Councells are infallible except we be sure aforehand that Councells are infallible we may doubt whether that Councell doth not erre in defining that Councels are infallible Wherefore this doctrine of the infallibility of lawfull Generall Councels is eyther to be abaÌ„doned for euer togeather with the vnity of the Church that so much depends theron or els
the Creed and prime Principles of Christianity in plaine and Catechisticall manner Besides it is easy for the RomaÌ„ Church to keepe her children from belieuing that Images be Gods or true liuing things or that any diuinity or diuine vertue resides in them as may be proued conuincingly in my Iudgement by experience had of her power in this kind about a point more difficill For what may seeme more euident then that a consecrated Hoast is bread of which foure senses sight feeling smel tast giue in euidence as of bread no lesse verily theÌ„ any other so farre as they can discerne And yet so potent is the word doctrine of the Church grounded on General CouÌ„cells declaring the word of God for TransubstaÌ„tiation as Catholikes denying their senses belieue assuredly that what seemeth bread is not bread but the true body of our Sauiour vnder the formes of accidents of bread Now caÌ„ any man with any shew of the least probability in the world thinke that it is difficill for this Church to perswade her childreÌ„ that the image of Christ is not a liuing thing nor hath any godhead or liuing diuine power lodged in it as plaine Scriptures shew and Generall Catholicke Councells particularly the Tridentine sess 25. and the Nicene act 7. define which doctrine neyther reason nor sense can mislike Or shall the sole similitude of members correspondent vnto humane liuing meÌ„bers which images haue so much preuayle in catholike minds so to bow down their thought to base Idolatry as to thinke a stocke or a stone to be a God and that the Church shall not be able by her teaching to direct them to a more high diuine apprehension being able to make them firmly belieue a consecrated hoast is not bread agaynst the Iudgement that they would otherwise frame vpon most notorious euidency of sense The ProtestaÌ„ts Church on the other side may seeme to haue no great vigour by preaching to perswade commoÌ„ people agaynst the Errour of the Anthropomorphits seing their Principle is that a world of preachers is not to be belieued agaynst the euident Scripture yea (r) Heere the Minister is bitter saying p. 277. lin 30. That it is impossible for Papists to deale sincerely That his Brother M. Iohn doth not speake of euery priuate man nor any company of people but that one Michaia one Stephen one Athanasius with the word of truth in mouth is to be preferred agaynst 4. hundred Baalites I answere The Minister denying his Brother spake of euery particular man shall receaue his doome by the breath of his Brothers owne mouth telling him the coÌ„trary who thus writeth in the place cited by the Iesuite to wit Way pag. 126. lin 12. It is lawfull and necessary for EVERY PARTICVLAR MAN to try all thinges and by the SCRIPTVRE to EXAMINE and to IVDGE of the things the CHVRCH teacheth him And when A MAN in this manner reiects the teaching of a Church as great and good as the Roman Catholike his iudgement therin is not PRIVATE as Priuate is opposed to SPIRITVAL Nor sayth he pag. 128. lin 2. is it impossible for a PRIVATE MAN to espy an errour in the best Church that is And pa. 150. lin 18. Whereas the Catholiks answer That the text of Scripture try the Spirits doth not allow EVERY MAN to doe this but only Pastours The Minister replyeth this is all false for the Epistle of S. Iohn speakes indiffereÌ„tly of ALL MEN Euery man by the Rule of Scripture is to try spirits that Epistle being directed not to the CLEARGY but to the PEOPLE And the reason added shewes that the PEOPLE are they that must try spirits for they must try the spirits that are in danger to be seduced by false Prophets and such are the PEOPLE and therefore they must examine theÌ„ All these are his brother Iohns words Now let the Reader iudge whether Iohn White doth not hold that not only extraordinary Prophets as Michaeas Stephen not only chiefe Patriarkes as Athanasius but that euery particular man of the people may iudge of the teaching of the whole Church and condemne as great a Church as the Protestants if by his spirituall exposition or by the spirit he be moued so to do What reason then had our Minister in respect of this allegation to be so bitter as to say it is impossible â—or Papists to deale sincerely Verily M. Francis had you as much natural vnderstanding togeather with knowledge of the Protestant Religion as had your Brother Iohn you wold see this doctrine that euery Priuate man is by diuine Order and InstitutioÌ„ to iudge of the Church how absurd soeuer to be necessarily consequent of the Protestant Principle That euery man must finally resolue his fayth into the light of the Scripture yea I could shew how your selfe euen in this reply haue giueÌ„ this authority of iudging the Church vnto euery priuate MaÌ„ as may partly appeare by the Censure sect 4. that a common ordinary man by Scripture may oppose as great and greater Church then is the whole Protestant Doctour White in his way pag. 59. Which principle being layd how will they conuince people that God is a pure spirit whome the Scripture doth so perpetually set forth as hauing humane members I may conclude therefore that their translating Scriptures into their vulgar languages breeds more danger vnto common people then our making of images But they will say the Translation of Scriptures into vulgar languages is commanded in Scripture and the Apostolicall Church practised it whereas we cannot proue by Scripture that the Apostles did warraÌ„t or practise the setting vp of images This they say with great confidence but any substantial proofe of this their saying I could neuer read or heare The testimonyes they bring in this behalfe Search the Scriptures Let his word dwell plentifully among you c. are insufficient to proue a direct and expresse precept or practise of traÌ„slating Scriptures into the vulgar tongue Catholikes on the coÌ„trary side though they boast not of Scriptures as knowing that nothing is so cleerly set downe in it but malapert errour may contend agaynst it with some shew of probability yet haue Scriptures much more cleere and expresse then any that ProtestaÌ„ts can bring for themselues euen about the vse of the image of Christ crucifyed in the first Apostolicall Church S. Paul to the Galatians c. 3. v. 1. sayth O yee foolish Galathians who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth before whose eyes Christ Iesus is liuely set forth Crucifyed among you The greeke word correspoÌ„ding to the English liuely set forth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to paint forth a thing In so much as eueÌ„ Beza traÌ„slates Iesus Christus depictus Câ—ucifixus Iesus Christ painted or pictured crucifyed before your eyes So that we haue in plaine and expresse tearmes that christ was pictured as Crucified in the Apostolical churches which the Apostle doth
Christians behaued thēselues towards it sayth Flecte genu lignumque Crucis venerabile adora Bow knee adore the Crosses sacred wood Origen Homil. 6. in Epist. ad Rom. So great is the power of the Crosse that if it be placed before the eyes and faythfully retayned in mind fixed vpon the death of Christ the army of sinne flesh is conquered S. Gregory called Illuminator who conuerted Armenia did as Euthim. panop part 3. tit 20. relates place wooden Images of the Crosse vpon the shrines of Martyrs bidding the multitude of people that thither resorted to giue worship vnto God by the Adoration of the Crosse. S. Procopius Martyr as doth witnes Nicephorus l. 7. c. 15. did adore a golden image of the Crosse of Christ crucifyed by it got great victoryes In the second age in the beginning wherof some of the Apostles liued Tertull. in Apol. c. 44. writing against Heathens that obiected that Christians were worshippers of the woodden image of the Crosse graunts the thing to be true defendeth the same Yea the Protestant Magdeburgians Centur. 5. c. 6. acknowledge that such Crosses of wood were then amongst Christians frequently vsed set vp in Churches S. Ignatius epist. ad Philip. doth acknowledge diuine power vertue in the image of the Crosse. It is sayth he the victorious trophey or the monument of Christs victory against the Diuell quod vbi viderit horret S. Martial Epist. ad Burdeg l. 8. exhorts Christians still to haue the Crosse before them in mente in ore in signo in mind in mouth in the image thereof this being the inuincible armour of a Christian agaynst Satan The Canons of the Apostles haue beene euer famous in the Christian Church wherof one is cited in 2. Nicen Synode which sayth Let not the faythfull be deceyued by Idolls but paint the diuine humane vnmingled image of the true God our Sauiour Iesus Christ of his seruants agaynst Pagans Iewes that so they neyther goe astray vnto Idolls nor be like the Iewes Finally that these images of Christ crucified were vsed in the Apostles time by their allowance the Iesuite proueth by the text of S. Paul to the Galathians 3.1 so cleerly as you are forced to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify to depaint agaynst all Lexicons agaynst the principall Protestants that so translate yea agaynst your selfe and yet you wonder at your aduersaries wondrous weakenes THE SECOND AND THIRD POINT 2. Prayings offering Oblations to the B. Virgin Mary 3. VVorshipping Inuocation of Saints and Angells I Haue ioyned these two Controuersyes togeather hoping I might doe it with your Maiesties good liking the maine difficulty of thē both being the same to wit worship and Inuocation of Angells and Saints For I am fully perswaded that if your Maiesty did allow of Inuocation of any Saint you would neuer deny that deuotion vnto the B. Virgin mother of God Opera Regia Respons ad ep Card. Peron p. 402. whome you honour and reuerence aboue the rest though perchance you may dislike some particular formes of our prayers that seeme to giue her Tytles aboue that which is due to a creature about which I shall in the end of this discourse endeauour to giue your Maiesty satisfaction In which question I will suppose without large and particular proofe being able to prooue it by testimonyes vndeniable if need be that Worship Inuocation of Saints hath byn generally receaued in the whole Christian Church at least euer since the dayes of Constantine HEERE the Minister either out of ignorāce or rather out of desire to out-face the truth writes in this sort pag. 290. You presuppose that which notwithstanding your outfacing you will neuer be able to proue that Inuocatiō of Saints was vniuersally receaued as an article of faith This Discourse following is an addition wherin is declared that the Ancient Fathers held Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Fayth euer since the dayes of Cōstantine Thus he Wherfore aswell because the matter is important as also to take away this tergiuersation I will heere make good the Answerers word and demonstrate that al the Fathers some one way some another haue testifyed to the world that they held Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Christian fayth and Religion An eleauen Demonstrations that the Ancient Christian Church did euer hold Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Fayth and Religion § 1. TO accomplish this more cleerly and with lesse tediousnesse vnto the Reader I shal reduce the Fathers saying vnto an eleauen heads which may serue as an eleauen different arguments demonstrations of this truth The first Demonstration If the Fathers held the doctrine that Saints are to be inuocated that men are aided by their merits as certain infallible then they held it as a point of faith or a reuealed truth for on what other ground but the word of God could they pretend to hold it as certaine the same not being euident in the light of nature But the Fathers teach this doctrine as a matter certayne and infallible not to be doubted of by Christians as their words declare S Augustine (a) Augustine de cur◠pro mortuis cap. 16. Illa quaestio vires superat intelligentiae meae quemadmodum Martyres opitulentur ijs quos per eos CERTVM est adiuuari This question is beyond the reach of my knowledge how martyrs help them whome it is CERTAINE that they help And againe (*) Idem serm 244. Tunc pro nobis absque vlla dubitatione Sancti Martyres intercedunt Then WITHOVT ANY DOVBT the holy Martyrs intercede for vs when they find in vs some part of their vertues S. Ambrose (b) Ambros. ser. 91. Quid non credunt vtrum quòd à martyribus possunt aliqui visitari hoc est Christo nou credere ipse enim dixit Et maiora his facietis Not to belieue that Martyrs may visit and relieue men liuing in this world is Not to belieue in Christ seing he sayd you shall do yet greater thinges Nectarius speaking vnto Saint Theodore Martyr (c) Nectar orat in primū Sabb. sanctorum Ieiuniorum in S. Theodorum Te post mortem viuere CREDIMVS vt ergo in Christo viuis stas prope eum precibus tuis propitium eum redde famulis tuis We belieue that thou doest liue in God a life without decay or end Therefore as thou doest liue in Christ stands by him so make him by thy prayers propitious mercyfull vnto vs thy seruants What is this but to say that as certainly as Saints see God so certaine it is that they pray for vs and heare our prayers S. Gregory Nazianzen (d) Gregory Nazianzen orat 26. in patrem suum Apostolium ferè ab initio NEC DVBITO quin hoc nunc quoque magis faciat postulatione sua quā priùs doctrinâ I do NOT DOVBT but this blessed Saint in
prooue that of necessity they are seen and so the Minister might haue spared the paper in citing the opinions of SchoolemeÌ„ coÌ„cerning the doctrin of the VoluÌ„tary glasse glasse of diamant so cleere and excellent that whatsoeuer is done in London in secretest corners should therein particularly and distinctly appeare surely he that hath eyes to see that glasse may likewise discerne what is done ouer the Citty Now most certayne it is that in God all creatures all actions done in the world and all the most secret thoughts of harts so perspicuously and distinctly shine as they are in themselues So that the Saints hauing light to see the diuine Essence may in him cleerly discerne whatsoeuer is done in the world beloÌ„ging to their state though neuer so secret according to the saying of S. (t) Basil. lib. de Virgin Basil There is not any Saint which doth not see all thinges that are done any where in the world And of S. (u) Greg. hom 40. Qui creatoris sui claritatem vident nihil in creatura agitur quod videre non possint Gregory Nothing is done about any creature which they cannot see who see the clarity of their Creatour And agayne (x) Lib. 12. Moral c. 13. We must belieue that they who see the clarity of the omnipotent God within themselues are not ignorant of any thing that is done without Which doctrine of the Fathers that Protestants may the lesse dislike I proue to be grounded on the Scriptures First if Saints by reason of their blissefull state do so participate of the diuine nature and wisdome About the first Argument as they communicate with him in the power of gouerning the nations of the world This argument is strong and you by strugling make the strength thereof more appeare You haue deuised 3. solutions First you say pag. 311. lin 10. That the Iesuits exposition is nouell and neuer heard of in the ancient Church Answer It is ridiculous when you are pressed with the cleere text of Scripture to call vpon the ancieÌ„t Church you I say who still specially in this question appeale from the ancient Fathers vnto the Scripture as pag. 302. and 298. you say that it is not iust to make ancient custome a law rule of right doctrine And if you will stand to the rule of antiquity I can produce more then fifty ancient Fathers that in expresse tearmes teach the doctrine the Iesuit doth establish by the literall sense of Gods word to wit that saints deceased are rulers and gouernours of mens actions liues Secondly you say pag. 309. that the text of the Apocalyps To him that shall haue conquered I will giue him power c. is not vnderstood of Saints deceased but of liuing Saints Answere This to be false is apparent by the very words which are these Apoc. 226. He that shall haue conquered kept my words VNTIL THE END to him I will giue power ouer nations c. But it is cleer that liuing Saints caÌ„not be said to haue conquered much lesse to haue kept the word of God vntil â—he end Therfore these words are violently wrested vnto liuing Saints Thirdly you say pag. 320. lin 3. That the promise I will giue them power ouer â—ations is vnderstood only of iudiciary power in the day of iudgement Answer This â—o be false is proued by the rule of interpretation of Scriptures which â—rotestants commend and praise aboue all other to wit when a text is â—oubtfull the same must be expounded by another which speakes of the â—â—me matter specially when the darke text doth expressely allude vnto â—he cleerer This place of the Apocalips about Saints I will giue them power â—uer nations and they shall rule them in a rod of iron they shall be broken in peeces â—â—ke pots of clay seemeth darke vnto Protestants and the question is wheâ—her this be spoken of Saints power in the militant Church or onely of â—he day of Iudgment To cleer this doubt there is another text of Scripture vttered in the same words to wit the second Psalme which saith of Christ That his father shall giue him nations to be his inheritance and he shall 〈◊〉 them in a rod of iron and shall breake them as pots of clay To this text of the Psalme the place of the Apocalips doth allude For our Lord in the Apocalips promiseth that he will giue to Saints power to gouerne in a rod of iron nations countryes as his father promised gaue the same power vnto him to wit in the aforesaid Psalme But that place of the Psalme is without doubt to be vnderstood of Christs power of gouernement in this world and of his ruling in the militant Church as Protestants grant it appeareth by the wordes precedent I will giue thee nations to be thine inheritance and thou shalt rule them in a rod of yron Ergo the power of gouerning iâ— a rod of yron promised to Saints must be vnderstood of gouernement in this world and in the militant Church then Saints haue knowledge of things that are done in this world else how could they be able to gouerne and rule it But Scripture in playne and expresse tearmes make Saints participate with Christ in the rule and gouernement of the world according to his promise (y) Because the Minister doth so much insult that the Iesuit hath not proued any thinge by Scripture I will that his folly may appeare examine particularly his answere vnto these texts Apocalip 2.26 To him that conquereth I will giue power ouer nations and he shall rule them with a rod of iron that is with power of inflexible equity And Apocal. 3. v. 12. I will make him a pillar in the TeÌ„ple of my God And the blessed say of themselues Apoc. 5.10 that they were chosen out of countreys and nations to be Priests of God that they should rule with him vpon the earth Therfore they know what is done vpon earth so far forth at least as the affayres of earth doe specially appertaine vnto them and such without doubt are our deuotions towardes them Secondly S. Paul Cor. 14.26 sayth Now we know but in part we prophesy but in part but when that of perfection shall come that of part shall be euacuated I know now but in part theÌ„ I shall know as I am known By which words the Apostle signifyes that all knowledge both humane diuine particularly the gift of Prophesy is contayned eminently in the beatificall â—ight so that the blessed Saints haue the gift of Prophesy in a more excellent degree theÌ„ had the Prophets in this world But by the light of Prophesy holy men vnited with God could see the secrets of harts as S. Paul sayth 1. Cor. 14.15 By the gift of Prophesy the secrets of harts are manyfested and also see things absent being present by light of vnderstaÌ„ding froÌ„ whence they were absent according to their substance (z) The Minister seketh two wayes
and in them that by nature loathed wine And as this is certayne and graunted on our part so it is no lesse certayne that the Primitiue Church did neuer practise the vse of the Cup as pertayning to the essential integrity of the Sacrament or as commaunded by diuine precept but thought the receauing vnder one and both kindes a thing indifferent This may be proued by the consideration of the tyme since Christ ascending frō our dayes vpward whence I gather fiue Arguments First is the Confession of our Aduersaryes amongst whome a Bohemian Protestant (p) Ioan. Przibrau confess Fid. Cath. c. 19. doth professe that hauing the feare of God before his eyes he dares not censure the Roman Church of Heresy in this point (q) Hospin Histor. Sacram p. 2. fol. 112. Hospinian writes that some Protestants confessed that whole Christ was really present exhibited and receaued vnder euery kind and therefore vnder the only forme of bread and that they did not iudge those to doe euill that Communicated vnder one kind (r) Melanct. in 2. edit Comm. impress Argent an 1525. fol. 78. Melancthon As to eate or not to eate swines flesh is placed in our power a thing indifferent so sayth he I Iudge of the Eucharist that they sinne not who knowing belieuing this liberty do vse eyther part of the signes And Luther (s) Luther de Captiu Babylon cap. de Eucharistia They sinne not agaynst Christ who vse one kind seing Christ doth not commaund to vse both but hath left it to the will of euery one And Hospinian alleadgeth (t) Hospin Histor. Sacr. p. 2. fol. 12. Luther affirming it is not needfull to giue both kindes but the one alone sufficeth The Church hath power of ordeyning only one and the people ought to be content therewith if it be ordeyned by the Church (*) The Minister p. 500. sayth Concerning Luther Melancthon c. I answere that your benefactour Coccius to whome you are perpetually obliged for your readings alledgeth some such sayings but how truly it is vncertayne Answer The Iesuit read the sayings he citeth in Luther Melancthon Hospinian not in Coccius vnto whome he is not so much beholding for his readings as you are vnto Chemnitius for yours yea he durst engage his credit that you cannot shew some of the testimonies by him cited in Coccius which sheweth your want of reading and that your desire to cauill is greater then your wit What you add that these sayings are not now foūd in Luther Melancthon is as much as to confesse that wherof the Lutherans accuse you of the Sacramētariā brood that you haue most impudently falsifyed the workes of Luther thogh also Hospinian a Sacramentarian as you are hath these sayings both of Luther other Protestants censuring them in this respect But these testimonyes though they may serue to stop the mouth of a clamorous Aduersary yet be they not sufficient to satisfy any iudicious mā in regard their Authours were men most vncertayne various in their doctrines about Religiō now auerring as Orthodoxe and diuine truth what soone after they fell to abhorre as hereticall impious I add secondly the definition of three generall Councells celebrated before the breach of Luther from the Roman Church The Councell of Florence (u) Concil Florentin in decreto Eugenij 4. wherein were present the Grecian and Armenian Bishops where Concomitancy is defined That Christ is whole vnder ech forme The Councell of Basill (x) Concil Basilien Sess. 30. though they allowed the vse of the Cup vnto the Bohemians defined the lawfulnes of Communion vnder one kind The Councell of Constance (y) Concil Constantiense Sess. 13. gaue example vnto both the former Councells being the first that defined this truth The third Argument is the receaued allowed generall Custome of the Church which spontaneously euen before the Coūcel of Constance did absteine from the Cup as the sayd Councell doth acknowledge which may be proued by the testimonyes of many that liued before the Councell of Constance yea Alexander Halensis (z) Halensis 4. p. q. 11. in 2. a. 4. sect 3. who liued two hundred yeares before the Coūcell of Constance saith That almost euery where Laymen receaued vnder the sole forme of bread And Venerable Bede (a) Beda Histor. Gent. Angl. l. 2. c. 5. l. 4. c. 14. doth signify that in the Church (*) The Minister pag. 502. You are guided by that spirit which is mentioned 3. Kings 22. v. 21. when you affirme that Venerable Bede sayth in the Church of England euer since her conuersion vnder S. Gregory Communiō in one kind was in vse for no such report is found in him Answere Take heed you be not guided by the spirit mentioned Reuelat. 12.11 who so perpetually calumniate your aduersary For he did not affirme that Venerable Bede did so say as though he had made mention thereof in expresse tearmes but that he doth so signify or insinuate which is true for l. 2. c. 5. Histor. Anglor he writes how the sonnes of a certayne Christian King that was deceased being yet Pagans sayd vnto a Bishop Why do'st thou not giue vs that white bread which thou wert wont to giue to our Father and do'st still giue to the people in the Church Which speach they did often at sundry times repeate without any mention of the Cup. What you bring as contrary to this that l. 4. c. 14. he writeth that a certayne man according to a reuelation did presently dye the masse being ended viatico Dominici corporis sanguinis accepto is idle For the Sacrament in one kind contayning in it Christs body bloud both may be tearmed Viaticum Dominici corporis sanguinis the food of the body and bloud of our Lord. of England euer since her first Conuersion vnder Saint Gregory was vsed Communion vnder one kind for the Layty which could neuer haue entred into the Church without being noted marked as an Heresy had not the Church euer held Communion vnder one or both kindes as a thing of indifferency The fourth Argument is drawne from many signes and tokens that the primitiue Church did sometymes vse Communion vnder one kind First the sicke receaued vnder the only forme of bread as may appeare by the History of Serapion related by (b) Euseb. l. 6. Histor. c. 36. ex ep Dionys. Alexandrin ad Fabium Eusebius and the Grecians at this day (c) Genebrardus though they giue the Cup to the Communicants in the Church yet to the sicke they send the Sacrament vnder one kind yea Saint Ambrose as Paulinus (d) Paulinus in vita Ambrosi◠relateth in his life at his death receaued the Sacrament vnder the sole forme of bread and straight after the receauing thereof gaue vp his soule Secondly it was an ancient custome in the Church to giue the Sacrament vnto Laymen (e) Tertullian ad vxor c. 55.