be vsed towards them accounting the loue faith and honour which are yeelded to his created Word to be loue faith and honour to himselfe Math. 10.14.42 2. Cor. 8.5 Gal. 4.14 Act. 10.34 But Papisticall fancie and imagination produceth none of these nor yet any other true kind of vnion neither hath God almightie in his word commanded duety seruice or worship to be giuen vnto them but on the contrarie by the Doctrine of holy Scripture he condemneth the same IESVIT The Histories of Christian Antiquitie are full of holy men Bishops Kings Queenes and other honourable personages who haue cast themselues downe on the ground before Beggers Lazars and Leapers kissing their feet and their sores out of venerable affection vnto Christ. In which kind memorable is the Charitie of the famous Queene Mathildes daughter of Malcolme King of Scotland and wife to Henrie the first of England whose custome was to wash with her owne hands the feet of poore people amongst whom some were Leapers and had loathsome diseases not disdaining with great reuerence on her knees to kisse their feet with her princely lips And when as the prince of Scotland her brother being then in the Court of England entring into her chamber found her imploied in so humble a seruice astonished thereat rebuked her saying Sister what do you can you with those your defiled lips kisse the king your husband She answered Know brother that the feet of the king of Heauen are more louely and venerable than are the lips of an earthly king Certainely this queene with all other addicted to the like deuotion when they kissed the feet of the poore outwardly with their lips did by imagination full of reuerent affection kisse the feet of Christ Iesus taking the poore as Images of him who said What you do to one of my least ones you do vnto me ANSWER There is great disparitie betweene reasonable creatures the liuing members of Christ the spirituall temples of the holy Ghost and betweene dead and sencelesse stockes which haue eyes and see not eares and heare not noses and smell not Beggers Lazars Leapers c. are recommended to the world by our Sauiour Ioh. 12.8 Luc. 14.21 and they are said to honour their Maker which are charitable to them Pro. 14.31 and he promiseth infinit reward to them which loue and honour the poore Where I pray you hath our Sauiour said of Images of stone wood c. nay of puppets and pranked babies What you do to one of these my least ones you do vnto me Surely the cloathing censing bowing pilgrimage going to Images deuised by mans braine hath neither precept promise example or praise in all Gods Booke neither is there any dignitie or excellencie in them formally or accidentally which may equall them to the meanest reasonable creature An Idol saith S. Augustine is the workemanship of an artificer and if this maker as he hath bestowed figure so he could haue giuen vnderstanding to his creature hee should himselfe receiue honour from the Image which he hath formed And in another place the Artificer is better than that which himselfe formeth Why art thou then ashamed to worship the Carpenter and doest not rather blush when thou adorest that which hee hath formed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Athanasius That which formeth another is better than the thing which is formed IESVIT Out of this the common Obiection of Protestants to wit That the worship of Christs Image is no where commanded in Scripture and therefore is a will Worship may bee answered For as themselues confesse many Actions belonging to Religion whereof there is no expresse Precept nor any practise in Scripture may be vsed when there be Principles in Scripture which prooue the lawfulnesse and necessitie thereof There is no expresse Precept in Scripture to Christen Jnfants nor is it there read that euer any were Christened yet because there be Testimonies which ioyned with reason prooue the lawfulnesse and necessitie of this Baptisme we may and must vse it In Scripture there is no expresse Practise nor Precept of worshipping the Image of Christ yet there be Principles which the light of Nature supposed conuince such Adoration to be lawfull ANSVVER Protestants obiect against Adoration of Images not onely that the same is no where commanded in Scripture but that it is prohibited and condemned Leuit. 26.1 Neither by Commandement vnderstand we expresse and literall Precept onely but deriuatiue and vertuall And could Papists demonstrate the lawfulnesse of this Action by diuine or supernaturall testimonie immediate or deriuatiue in such manner as the Baptisme of Infants is prooued to be lawfull and necessarie wee must approoue the practise thereof IESVIT For Christ being true God full of honour to whom all supreame adoration is due doth and must needs make honourable and adorable anything that represents him that is which must be taken by imagination as if it were his 〈◊〉 But supposing God to be truely man as Faith teacheth the light of nature sheweth that his image truely represents him that is makes him present to the imaginations of the beholders thereof and stands for him Ergo Christ Iesus his image is for his sake venerable and adorable as a thing standing for him in such sort that the honour done outwardly to it is done and ought to be taken as done by deuout and pious imagination to his person whence further is concluded the necessity of this worship ANSWER The Maior Proposition is denyed For although Christ be true God full of honour yet he imparteth not his honour in whole or in part to euery thing which man appointeth to be a representation of him but onely to such things as haue some excellency in them proceeding from his owne ordinance and influence into them Neither is it in the power of men 〈◊〉 their owne Imaginations either to forme representations of Christ capable of honour or when they haue formed them to appoint that they must be honoured and adored For if the Subiects of secular Princes cannot without speciall commission aduance euen worthy persons to dignities and honourable places in the Common-wealth much lesse are mortall men able to deriue the honours which Christ is Lord of to what they please and to inuest their owne handy worke with Christs honour IESVIT For God incarnate being most venerable and full of glory requires of a Christian that that which stands for him and represents him be honoured and adored for his sake ANSWER Not euery thing which stands for him and represents him according to the deuices and imaginations of men no nor euery thing that represents and stands for him according to his owne precept is to be adored with diuine honour as it is manifest in the brazen Serpent IESVIT If the honour due to a King be so great that the same redounds from his person to things about him as to his chaire of State which is honoured with
succeeded them for certaine ages continued in their Doctrine and exercised the deuotion of Prayer according to the forme appointed by them And concerning latter times our exception is the same with our Sauiours in another case Math. 19.8 From the beginning it was not so and we say with Saint Cyprian to all latter examples If veritie be changed or leane a toside wee must looke backe and returne to Diuine Euangelicall and Apostolike Tradition and deriue the order of our Action from the originall ground where it first began And Tertullian saith If a custome proceeding from ignorance or simplicitie be confirmed by vse of succession and opposed against veritie we must obserue that neither space of time nor priuiledge of persons may prescribe against truth for Christ is eternall and before all and in like sort veritie is most antient IESVIT I answer That the Primmar or Office so tearmed of our Ladie is not an Office properly and principally directed vnto her but an Office containing praises of God taken out of holy Scripture wherein commemoration of her is made so as I dare say That the Prayers of the Office of our Ladie that are directed towards her make not the hundred part thereof And seeing it is most certaine that the Christian Church in her best times did frequently pray vnto Saints what reason haue wee to thinke that in her set forme of Prayers she did not vse to craue the intercessions of Saints If it be lawfull pious and profitable when we pray vnto God to pray also to Saints by their Mediation offering our Prayer to him why should any dislike the doing of this in a set forme that is allowed by the Church why should this displease rather than an extemporall forme But further wee can prooue That the Church in her best times did pray vnto Saints in set formes as Catholickes now doe euen with a kinde of Lettanies a forme of Prayer acknowledged and confessed by the Magdeburgians to haue beene in vse euen in the fourth age after Christ. Jn which age the foure first generall Councells were held ANSWER You denie that the Primar or Office of our Ladie is an office properly and principally directed to her c. But the reason whereupon you ground this denyall is slight for although there is a mixture of Prayers and Praises to God contained in this Office yet the Virgin Marie is as directly and properly inuocated therein as God himselfe or Iesus Christ besides you haue many Psalters and Primers of our Ladie and in some of them the Virgin Marie is the most speciall Obiect and matter of the seruice The Romane Breuiarie saith In this day of solemnitie and gladnesse wee call vpon the sweet name of Marie And to the Apostles O yee to whose command the health and infirmitie of all is subiect heale all those that bee sicke in manners restoring vs to vertues To Thomas Didimus O Thomas Didimus by Christ whom thou deseruedst to touch we beseech thee with our loud sounding Prayers to succour vs wretches that wee be not damned with the wicked in the comming of the Great Iudge To the blessed Virgin Wash away our offences that we being redeemed by thee may be able to obtaine the seate of euerlasting glorie Also All haile holy Virgin the medecine of all our sorrowes by whom death was expelled and life brought in The Romane Breuiarie teacheth vs to pray That the merits of the Saints Abdon and Senon interceding we may deserue to be deliuered from all our necessities And for Leo his merits interceding absolue vs from all sinnes Also By the sword of sorrow which went thorow the Virgins heart and the compassion of teares which she shed vnder the Crosse haue mercie on vs. Also Let the Host to be consecrate bee pleasing vnto thee by the celebritie of the Martirs Primus and Faelicianus that by their glorious merits and Prayers it may purge our sinnes and reconcile to thee the Prayers of thy seruants The like superlatiue boldnesse was in the enditing and publishing Bonauentures Psalter wherein God and Christ are sacrilegiously robbed yea blasphemously dishonoured to embelish the Virgin Marie yet all this the Church of Rome digesteth permitteth authoriseth c. In that Psalter these and the like formes of Prayer are extant Oh blessed Lady my Sauiour I will put my confidence in thee and I shall not need to feare Oh blessed Ladie our Saluation is placed in thy hands who thou pleasest shall be saued and they shall perish eternally from whom thou turnest away thy face Blessed art thou my Lady the mother of the God of Israell who by thee hath visited and sent redemption vnto his people and hath raised vp the horne of Saluation euen thy chastitie in the house of Dauid thy seruant c. Thou ô Marie shalt be called the Prophet of God by thee hath he giuen the knowledge of Saluation for the remission of sinnes by the bowels of the multitude of thy mercies Visit vs ô thou day starre arising from an high Thou art the gate of Paradise the ladder of Heauen the Arke of Pietie and Grace the spring of Mercie the Mediatrix of God and men And in the same Psalter these words are found Whosouer will be saued aboue all things he must haue stedfast Faith of the Virgin Marie and the right Faith is among other Articles God assumed her bodily into Heauen where she sits on the right hand of Christ c. Secondly the Iesuit prooueth that set formes of prayers to Saints are lawfull by this Argument If it be lawfull to make intercessions to Saints then it is lawfull to performe this in a set forme But the first is true for the Primitiue Church did this and the Magdeburgians confesse That a kind of Letanie to Saints was vsed in Primitiue times Ergo c. I answer That if by Primitiue Church be vnderstood the Church Primitiue comprehending the Apostles and their immediate successours then the proofe of the assumption is false for that Primitiue Church vsed no such deuotion And if by Primitiue Church be vnderstood extensiue exclusiue the Church after the three hundred yeares inuocation of Saints was not vsed by the whole Church for three hundred yeares more neither can the practise of any Church excluding the Apostles produce doctrine of Faith or of necessarie duetie The Magdeburgians rehearse out of a counterfeit worke fathered vpon Athanasius a set prayer vsed to the Virgin Marie but they adde apparet multa esse deprauata supposita in istorum doctorum scriptis It is apparant that many things depraued and supposititious are found among the writings of these Doctors IESVIT But they will perchance say that they do not so much dislike set formes of prayer vnto Saints as some phrases and speeches in our praying bookes that seeme to giue too much vnto creatures as our calling the blessed Virgin Mother of
in respect of your exact Iudgement and excelse Dignitie yet in regard of the Author it is a free will Offering intended to the honour of God and of your sacred Maiestie and to confirme your Liege people in right Faith and true loue and obedience of your most iust and gracious Gouernment As an Angell of God so is my Lord the King to discerne good and bad therefore the Lord thy God will be with thee 2. Sam. 14. 17. Your Maiesties Chapleine and Seruant FRAN. WH TO THE READER IT is now two yeeres since I was first called by my Lord Duke of Buckingham to conferre with an Honourable Person who as then began to make Reuolt from the true Faith and Religion professed in our Church By this Occasion J entred into a Disputation with one Mr Iohn Fisher a Jesuit the same person which was the Author of the two Bookes against which my younger Brother Dr Iohn White wrote his Way to the true Church and the Defence of the same After my first Conference with the aforesaid Jesuit ensued not long after a Second at which his most excellent Maiestie himselfe was present The Cause as J afterwards perceiued of his Presence was a gracious desire to recouer the foresaid Honorable Person out of the Fishers Net Then there followed a Third Conference betweene a most Learned and Reuerend Bishop and the said Jesuit intended to the same purpose Lastly his Royall Maiestie in his deepe Judgement hauing obserued by the former Conferences and especially by the second that our Aduersaries are cunning and subtile in eluding our Arguments brought against them but of no strength especially in particular Questions when they come to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and confirmation of their owne Tenet He was pleased to haue Nine Questions of Controuersie propounded to the Jesuit that hee might in writing manifest the Grounds and Arguments whereupon the Popish Faith in those Points was builded For his Maiestie in his owne Judgement and Experience knew most certainely That Romists are not able to confirme 〈◊〉 Faith either by sacred Scripture or by antient Tradition And therefore their manner is when they dispute with Protestants viua voce to auoid other Controuersies and to set vp their rest vpon the Questions of the Visibilitie and Authoritie of the Church Therefore the better to discouer their weakenesse and to plucke them out of their Fox-hole of Personall Succession and Vistbilitie the King imposed this Taske of writing vpon the Nine Questions Besides his Maieftie had experience of the mfaithfull dealing of Pontificians when they make Relation of such things as passe by word of mouth onely in priuate Disputations and hee well vnderstood 〈◊〉 the Cretising Jesuit had dealt with a 〈◊〉 Bishop and with my selfe For had wee beene Schoole-Boyes of thirteene yeeres old he could not haue made vs seeme more childish and vnskilfull than hee did dispersing Hundreds of Papers to his owne prayse and our disgrace Wherefore it was necessarie that some publique Worke containing the Grounds and Arguments of his part and the Answere and Replie on ours might be extant wherein neither his nor our Yea and Nay should take place sed res cum re causa cum causa c. the weight of matter on each part might testifie for it selfe Now who could command this to be done but the King himselfe who therefore made the former proposition of Nine Questions to the Jesuit that the World might see the vttermost of his strength and againe they might haue meanes to iudge rightly of our Cause and of our proceedings in handling the same Mine owne purpose at the first was to haue published in Print a Narration of my two Disputations and as farre as my Memorie would serue me I had to that end collected in writing the summe of those Conferences But obseruing afterwards by another Disputation which was printed that our Aduersaries will perpetually tumultuate and accuse of falsitie all things which passe not vnder their owne hands knowing also that my selfe could not exactly remember all passages of the Jesuits Disputation and mine there being not a word written at the time when wee disputed J deferred the printing thereof vntill this greater Worke was finished The Aduersarie in this Answere which his Friend deliuered the King hath disputed Eight of the Questions propounded by his Maiestie and he declineth the Ninth for Reasons well knowne to the World and in stead of a Disputation he passeth ouer that Article of deposing Kings with a Rethoricall Declamation But before the Nine Questions hee placeth a large Disputation prouided no doubt aforehand and expecting onely a prosperous Wind of Occasion to send it abroad touching the Rule of Faith concerning Scripture and Tradition the Notes of the Church c. Then to counterpoise the Kings Nine Articles he chargeth our Church with Nine remarkable Errors as he accounteth them Jn the former part of his Tractate is contained the summe and substance of the first Conference betweene him and me before the Lord Keeper and the Lord Duke of Buckingham Jn the Questions of Jmages Transubstantiation Communion in both kinds is contained also the summe of the second Conference but there are many Additions in each Question and hee handleth matters more exactly in his written Worke than hee did in his priuate Disputations J haue examined his whole Treatise and answered euery passage thereof printing his Worke verbatim with mine owne The World must take notice that I am a constant Preacher in a Pastorall Charge and therefore J could not ose such expedition as other men may which imploy their whole time strength in writing Besides my Worke being finished before Michaelmas last bath bin long in Printing by reason of the number of Quotations in the Margen These Citations are for this cause word for word out of the Authors placed in my Booke that the Worke may be more vsefull especially to such persons as want the benefit of Libraries and much Reading themselues J haue with as much diligence as morally a Scholler can vse collected my Testimonies out of the very Authors themselues The Reader shall not need to feare or distrust vnlesse where the Printer hath made Escapes which cannot alwayes be auoided in a Worke of this nature And I must entreat the Reader where he obserueth any Error in the Print to correct the same with his Pen. Neither must the vnlearneder sort be offended if they light vpon some hard passages because the matter it selfe is many times very abstruse and disputing with Aduersaries which are Sophisters I am compelled to vse Schollasticke tearmes and to turne their owne Weapons vpon themselues But so farre as I am able I haue endeuored to be perspicuous Of my Aduersaries I request nothing at all for it is in vaine But if they reply it shall be for their greater honour to set downe my Text as I haue done theirs And they shall but beat the ayre vnlesse they confirme the maine Branches of their
cannot vse it so the Scriptures are a meanes to conuict proteruious 〈◊〉 as they were vsed by Christ and his Apostles and by the 〈◊〉 Councels or Papall Councels and the Bishops and Doctors of the Roman Church c. Answ. First Our Sauiour and his Apostles did both vse the Scriptures themselues and commanded others euen simple men to vse them Iohn 5 39. Ephes. 6 17. and they are commended who examined Doctrine by them Acts 17 11. Secondly they which vnderstand and applie the Scriptures truely vse them as Christ and his Apostles did and so the Scripture in their vse is a word of power and not as a sword in a childs hand Thirdly Scriptures were meanes to conuict Hereticks as they were vsed by the Fathers of the Church and other holie Persons before any generall Councells were gathered to wit the first three hundred yeares and before the Papall Supremacie was aduanced in the Church Fourthly it is ridiculous to imagine that the present Roman Church and the sole Adheres thereof according to the Trident Creed are the only true expositors of holy Scriptures or that 〈◊〉 exposition of Scripture repugnant and diuers from the present Roman Creed is false or Haereticall for neither hath the holie Ghost by expresse testimonie or euident demonstration appropriated the key of knowledge to this Church and few Heretickes haue more fouly corrupted and abused the Scriptures And the pillars of this Church 〈◊〉 sundrie times been vnskilfull Ideots vnlettered Gulls Monsters of mankind with whom the holie Spirit vseth not to haue commerce Wisdom 1. 2. Cor. 6. 15. Fiftly the place of Tertul. d. Praescript c. 19. doth not 〈◊〉 the imperfection of holie Scripture to conuict proteruious error according to the latter part of my former distinction for then he could not haue said Scripturae plenitudinem adoramus We adore the plenitude of the 〈◊〉 and Let Hermogenes teach that it is written and if it be not written let him feare the Wo denounced against them which add or detract any thing from the word of God but be 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures according to the first part of my distinction to wit That Heretickes blinded with malice and either denying or corrupting the text of the Scriptures cannot be so conuicted by them but they will still vse cauils and by Sophisticall slights borrowed from Philosophers elude the euidence of the plaine Texts of Scriptures But if this argue the Scriptures of imperfection it will also prooue the Authoritie of the Church and of Tradition to be insufficient as appeares in the Arrians and Donatists And Heretickes may with no lesse pretext take exception against Tradition and Ecclesiasticall Authoritie than against the Scripture Ireneus li. 3. ca. 2. When they are confuted by Scriptures they accuse them as being not well written and destitute of Authoritie or else so ambiguous that one cannot find the Truth by them c. And in like manner when we prouoke them to stand to triall by Tradition which came from the Apostles c. they oppose the same c. And thus they will consent neither to Scripture nor Tradition And Gregorie Valence himselfe saith The infallible teaching and proposition of the Church is no lesse obscure vnto vs than any other Article which we are to beleeue Sixtly we acknowledge the lawfull Power and Authoritie of the Church about expounding holy Scriptures and for maintaining Vnitie in right Faith and appeasing contention repressing proteruious Errants Heb. 13.17 Math. 18.17.1 Timoth. 3.15 2. Thessal 5.12 And in particular first wee beleeue the authority of Councels General and Nationall lawfully assembled and accordingly proceeding to be sacred And all Councels of this nature we reuerence with the same honour the ancient Church did affirming that priuate Christians and particular Churches are to submit their iudgement to the authority of the same except it bee manifest that they depart from Truth Secondly wee highly and reuerently esteeme exposition of Scripture deliuered by the vnanimous consent of the Primatiue Fathers and although wee yeeld eminent and supreme Authoritie to the holy Scriptures because the same is absolutely diuine yet when any question ariseth concerning Expositions we allow not priuate persons vpon vncertaine or probable reasons to reiect the sence which hath bin antiently and commonly receiued and against which no strong or solid exception can be produced Now this being obserued and other helps of expounding Scripture vsed there followeth nothing from our Tenet whereby Christianitie should be made vncertaine and Disputation from sole Scripture prooue fruitles or which may hinder apparent Victorie by the same against proteruious Error IESVIT The Preface ended our Aduersarie descendeth to his disputation and herein first he setteth downe a maine proposition which hee intendeth to prooue to wit The Roman Church is the onely true Church Secondly He deliuereth fiue Principles manifest in themselues and presupposed and confessed by Papists and Protestants Principle 1. No man can be saued without firme and sure apprehension of supernaturall Truth concerning his last end and the meanes to attaine thereunto Secondly Assurance of this kind is not had by cleere sight Demonstration humane Discourse or humane Authoritie but by Faith grounded vpon Gods Word reuealing things vnknowne by other meanes Thirdly God reuealed all Supernaturall Truth to Christ and Christ reuealed the same to the holy Apostles partly by vocall Preaching but principally by the immediate teaching of his holy Spirit to this end that they should deliuer them to mankind to bee receiued and beleeued euerie where ouer the World euen to the consummation thereof Fourthly the Apostles fulfilled this preaching to all Nations and deliuering partly by writing and partly by word of mouth the whole entire Doctrine of Saluation planted an vniuersall Christian companie and to deliuer vnto 〈◊〉 all they had 〈◊〉 from them Fiftly though the Apostles and their Primatiue Hearers be deceased yet there still remaines in the World a meanes by which men may assuredly know what the Apostles preached andthe Primatiue Church receiued of them because the Church euen to the endof the World must be founded on the Apostles and beleeue nothing as matter of Faith but that which was deliuered by them The former grounds being confessed a question remaineth to be examined What is the principall infallible meanes whereby a Christian may know what was and is the Doctrine of Faith originally preached by the Apostles Whether holy Scripture of the Apostles and Euangelists bee that meanes or perpetuall Tradition vnwritten deriued by Succession from the Apostles ANSVVER The Iesuit affirmeth the latter and produceth foure Arguments to prooue his Tenet and then supposing that he hath prooued the Question inferreth that the Roman Church is the only true Church because it is the only faithfull keeper and teacher of this Tradition IESVITS 1. Argument If the maine and substantiall points of our Faith are
16. 12. Iohn 10. 8. Ezek. 22. 26. Secondly the same apeareth to be true both by the example of the greater Prelates of the Asian Churches which corrupted true Doctrine and worship and prouoked the Almightie so much that he remooued their Candlesticke out of his place and also by the example of the West Church it selfe wherein Popes and greater Prelates haue been illiterate Monsters Diuels incarnate Apostataes men defiled with all wickednesse and abominable sinnes as Papists themselues report And concerning Doctrine it is euident by comparing their decrees with the Scriptures and the ancient Fathers and Councels that they are in many things departed from the truth And Occham saith Omnis congregatio quae potest errare contra bonos more 's potest errare contra fidem quia mali mores excacant intellectum Because euill manners blinde the iudgement therefore euery assembly which may erre notoriously in manners may erre against the Faith But if by true Church we vnderstand a number of Beleeuers smaller or greater teaching and professing right Faith in all substantiall and capitall points and willing to imbrace and teach all other diuine veritie when the same is made knowne vnto them then it is granted that there is a true Church of Christ alwayes in the world And this kind of Beleeuers doe either teach and professe their Faith and Religion in congregations apart or in the externall fellowship and common societie of corrupt Beleeuers as appeareth by the example of the Iewes in the dayes of their wicked Kings and Priests and in the time of the Pharisees The open and publicke ministerie of Priests was corrupt in those dayes yet God had a remnant of people and small Church in the middest of this blindnesse Esay 1.9 In the other part of this Section the Iesuite produceth an Argument to prooue That there is alwayes a true Church of Christ in the world The summe of his Argument is Christ neuer leaueth the world destitute of the ordinarie meanes of saluation and people cannot haue the meanes of saluation but from the true Church and by the Tradition thereof by which they receiue the Scriptures and the rule of Faith to guide them in the exposition of the Scriptures ANSVVER It is lost labour to spend time in proouing against vs that there is alwayes in the world a true Church for wee haue euer acknowledged this The thing that we denie is that although there bee alwaies in the world a Church the 〈◊〉 members whereof are free from damnable and 〈◊〉 errour yet there is not alwaies a true Church in the world whose commanding Prelates are free from all error or 〈◊〉 part of it from malicious error Secondly It is granted that Christ doth not according to his antecedent will leaue the world destitute of the meanes of Saluation Math. 23.37 1. Timoth. 2.4 2. Pet. 3.9 But notwithstanding this will of Christ many people may be actually destitute of the meanes of Saluation by the negligence of Preachers and through their owne negligence or malice contemning or repelling the said meanes when they are offered vnto them Acts 13.46 Thirdly A corrupt visible Church may truely deliuer some parts of sacred Truth and among other verities it may deliuer the Apostles Tradition touching the Canon of the Scripture and also the rule of Faith contained in the Apostles Creed This appeareth by the Churches of the Nestorians at this day and also of old by the Iewish Church which at such times as it was Idolatrous and vnsound preserued the Canon of the Scriptures of the Old Testament and by transcribing and reading deliuered the whole Text thereof truely Rom. 3.2 and Acts 15.21 Fourthly If we should grant which is false as appeareth by the Greeke Church that there was in some ages past no other Church but the Roman and the adheres thereof and affirme withall that the chiefe Prelats thereof and their faction maintained sundrie erronious and superstitious doctrines yet because all Doctors and people liuing within the externall communion of that Church were not equally poysoned and surprised with error but many among them firmely beleeuing all fundamentall 〈◊〉 were 〈◊〉 by adeu out and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some other points It followeth not that the world should be destitutes of all meanes of saluation for these founder members lining in the visible Roman Church might deliuer the maine and capitall Articles of Christianitie and their ignorance and error in other matters was in those daies pardonable because they offended in simplicitie and were 〈◊〉 unawares IESVIT Secondly this Church must be alwaies visible and conspicious for the Traditions of the Church must euer bee famous glorious and notoriously knowne in the world that a Christian may say with S. Augustine I beleeue nothing but the consent of Nations and Countries and most celebrious fame Now if the Church were hidden in secret invisible in any age then her Traditions could not bee Doctrines euer illustriously known but rather obscure hidden Apochriphall Ergo the Church the mistris pillar and foundation of Truth must bee alwaies visible and conspicuous which if need bee may be further prooued most euidently ANSVVER The Church according to the Popish Tenet is said to be Visible because it alwaies hath such an outward forme and appearance in the eyes of the world as that people are able by sence or common reason to know the same materially and to distinguish it from other societies of infidels and Hereticks And by the Church in this question they vnderstand a companie of beleeuers professing Christian Faith without error submitting themselues to the Bishop of Rome as to their vniuersall Visible head And they affirme concerning the said Church that it may at all times be sensibly knowne and discerned and that the place of aboad and the principall members thereof are openly knowne and the externall actions of the same to wit Preaching Praying administration of 〈◊〉 may bee alwaies heard and seene and that the same is perpetually sensible and 〈◊〉 like vnto earthly kingdomes and common weales Some few of them acknowledge that it is possible for the same for some short season to loose part of the externall amplitude and glorie and to be ouershadowed with clouds and stormes of Heresies Scismes and Persecutions but yet they all 〈◊〉 that euen in those tempestuous seasons it is conspicuous to the world in regard of the principall members and that the common and ordinarie condition of the true Church is to be amply famously and in a glorious manner visible But our Tenet is First That the true Church abideth oftentimes in persecution either of 〈◊〉 and externall enemies or of domesticall foes And in time of persecution by either of 〈◊〉 enemies it may be reputed a false Church or impious Sect by the multitude and consequently be vnknown to the wicked world vnder the Notion of holy and true and in such
controuerted or doubtfull But personall succession may bee found in a false Church as appeareth by the Iewish Church in the time of the Pharisees and by the Churches of the East in the dayes of the Arrians and our Aduersaries affirme the Greeke Church to be vnsound notwithstanding it is apparently descended from the Apostles by a lineall succession of Bishops Cardinall Bellarmine perceiuing the weight of the former Argument departeth from the common opinion of other Papists saying That although personall succession alone or by it selfe is not a proper note of a true Church yet the absence thereof prooueth a nullitie of the Church in them which want it But if this be so then personall and locall succession must bee expuged out of the Calendar of Churches notes for all proper notes argue and demonstrate their subiect both 〈◊〉 and negatiuely also they demonstrate the same of themselues without the assistance of other things If therefore externall succession prooueth not a true Church except right Faith bee concurring and if as Bellarmine teacheth it rather serueth to prooue there is not the true Church where it wanteth than to argue a true Church where it is then the same is not proper and conuertible and consequently it is no essentiall marke because to bee proper and conuertible are of the being of notes according to the Cardinals owne description It is likewise remarkeable that the ancient Fathers doe not onely or principally vnderstand personall succession when they mention succession in their writings because they argue affirmatiuely from succession and not negatiuely onely Therefore Romists in this disputation shall doe well to begin with the questions which concerne Doctrine and prooue that they haue succession of Doctrine in all those Articles wherein they oppose other Churches before they mention locall and personall succession but the manner of these men is to obserue a contrarie proceeding and from the latter to conclude the former which is against good reason and against the Custome and manner of the ancient Fathers IESVIT For how can the Tradition of Christian doctrine be eminently and notoriously Apostolicall if the Church deliuering the same hath not a manifest and conspicuous pedigree or deriuation from the Apostles which is a conuincing argument vsed by Saint Augustine how can we thinke that we 〈◊〉 receiued manifestly Christ if wee 〈◊〉 not also 〈◊〉 manifestly his Church It is a Principle of Phylosophie Propter quod vnumquodque tale illud magis But the name of Christ his glory his vertue and miracles are to the world famously knowne from age to age by reason of the Church and her preaching that in her first Pastours saw them with their eyes Ergo This Church must needes be more famous more illustrious as able to giue fame vnto the being and Doctrine and actions of Christ. ANSVVER I haue shewed in the former Section that the visible Church is principally called Apostolicall because it imbraceth the doctrine of the holy Apostles And euerie Church is Apostolicall so farre foorth onely as it consenteth with the Apostles in Doctrine Sacraments Inuocation and in that which is substantiall in Ecclesiasticall policie And in a precedent Section I haue declared That the visible Church may at some times bee more or lesse Apostolicall holy c. But it is not at any time simply or principally Apostolicall because it hath externall personall succession Occham a famous Schooleman and some others with him affirme That a true and Apostolicall Church may consist of a few lay people and if all the Prelates and Clerkes throughout the world should become hereticall God may raise vp Pastours either extraordinarily or else hereticall Bishops 〈◊〉 Pastours the Church may be reformed by them But to the Argument I answere as followeth First if the same were wholly granted nothing could bee concluded against the Church of England from it because the Bishops and Pastours of this Church are able to exhibite a Pedigree or deriuation both of their Ministerie and Doctrine from the Apostles 1. Of Ministerie in that they haue for substance the same descent of externall Ordination which the Romane Church hath 2. Of Doctrine because they maintaine the Primitiue Faith and accord in the same with the soundest part of the Catholicke Church in all ages And where we may seeme to discent from the Antient the same is either in things humane and adiaphorous or in matters which were not fully discussed or in points which were not deliuered by an vnanimous consent or in things which are reprooued by plaine demonstration of holy Scripture and wherein the Fathers permit libertie of dissenting and the Papists themselues take the like libertie Secondly the Iesuits Interrogation How can the Tradition of Christian Doctrine be eminently and notoriously Apostolicall if the Church deliuering the same hath not a manifest and perspicuous pedigree or deriuation from the Apostles is answered this may be performed two waies 1. By the historie and monuments of the Primatiue Church whose descent and pedigree from the Apostles was perspicuous 2. The same may be made manifest by the Scriptures of the Apostles which are diuine and authenticall Records of all Apostolicall Doctrine and contain in themselues many liuely and effectuall Arguments proouing to such as read and examine them with diligence and vnderstanding that they are the Doctrine of the holy Ghost and consequently the worke of the Apostles And the maiestie and lustre of heauenly Doctrine is such that if it be propounded by meane and obscure persons it will appeare illustrious euen as a rich Iewell if the same be deliuered by a poore Artificer doth manifest his owne worth and therefore the sequell of the Iesuits Argument is denied for it followeth not because the Doctrine of Christ must be illustrious that the Church which deliuereth the same must be alwaies so Thirdly S. Augustine in the place obiected Epist. 48. confuteth the Donatists which confined the Church vniuersall to one countrie only excluding the rest of the world from the communion thereof against this error he saith How can wee thinke that we haue receiued Christ made manifest if we haue not also receiued his Church made manifest From hence nothing can be inferred but that we receiue the true Church not only at one time or in one place but at all times and in all places where it is manifest and that Christ is reuealed and made manifest by the Doctrine of the Apostles and that this Doctrine must be preached although not at one time yet successiuely throughout the whole world But all this which S. Augustine speaketh being granted prooueth not that the true Church shall be notoriously eminent and visible at all times neither doth this Father say that Christ cannot bee manifest but by such a Church only as can lineally deriue her pedigree by Records and Tables from the Apostles And howsoeuer Papists boast of their owne pedigree yet when their
and be deceiued then the later Church may vpon their reports deliuer some errours together with truth and yet the Tradition thereof concerning matters which are grounded vpon diuine Testimonie is infallible The Church may speake of it selfe and vpon report of them whose Testimonie is humane and fallible And it speaketh also vpon the authoritie of Gods word In the first it may erre and bee deceiued and consequently the Testimonie thereof absolutely bindeth not people to beleeue But when it confirmeth her doctrine and Tradition by diuine Testimonie the Tradition thereof is the Tradition and voyce of God himselfe worthy of all acceptation Neither is her Testimonie fallible and doubtfull in this latter kinde because of errour in the first any more than the Prophesie of Nathan was fallible when he spake by inspiration to Dauid 2. Sam. 7.5 Although when he formerly answered by a humane spirit he was deceiued Balaam is a credible witnesse in all those verities which God put into his mouth Numb 23.5 18. 24. 1. And yet in other matters which proceeded from himselfe he was fallible And Iosephus a Iew is credited in the Testimonie which hee gaue of Christ Antiq. lib. 18. c. 4 although in many other reports he was deceiued The antient Fathers Iustin Martyr Ireneus Origen St. Cyprian erred in some things and yet their authoritie in other matters which they deliuered consonantly to holy Scripture is credible Our Aduersaries confesse that their Popes may erre personally and that their Popes and Councels may erre in the Premises and Arguments from which they deduce conclusions of Faith and yet they will haue their definitiue sentences to be of infallible authoritie Cardinall Iacobatius speaking in the Popes defence saith That it followeth not because one hath erred that therefore his testimonie is altogether inualid and to be refused And hee confirmeth this assertion by diuers Texts of the Canon Law IESVIT And whereas some Protestants affirme that the Church cannot erre in fundamentall points but onely in things of lesse moment The truth is that in her perpetuall Traditions she cannot erre at all If the Tradition of the Church deliuering a small thing as receiued from the Apostles may be false one may call into question her Traditions of moment especially if he please to thinke them not to be of moment for like as if we admit in the Scriptures errours in small matters wee cannot be sure of its infallibitie in substantiall matters So likewise if we grant Tradition perpetuall to be false in things of lesse importance we haue no solid ground to defend her Traditions as assured in other of moment wherefore as he that should say That Gods written word is false in some lesser matters as when it sayes That S. Paul left his cloake at Troas erreth fundamentally by reason of the consequence which giueth occasion to doubt of the truth of euery thing in Scripture Euen so hee that granteth that some part of Traditions or of the word of God vnwritten may bee false erreth substantially because he giueth cause to doubt of any Tradition which yet as I haue shewed is the prime originall ground of Faith more fundamentall than the verie Scripture which is not knowne to be Apostolicall but by Tradition whereas a perpetuall Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by its owne light For what more euident than that that is from the Apostles which is deliuered as Apostolicall by perpetuall succession of Bishops consenting therein ANSWER The true Church in her sounder members erreth not in points fundamentall nor yet in matters of lesse moment maliciously or with pertinacie But the same may be ignorant and also erre in secondarie Articles The reason of the first is because the same should then cease to bee the true Church by corrupting the substance of right faith expresly or vertually and consequently there should remaine no true Church vpon earth which is impossible The reason of the second is because the Church since the Apostles is not guided by immediate inspiration or by Propheticall reuelation but by an ordinarie assistance of grace accompanying the vse of right meanes which remooueth not possibilitie of errour but leaueth space for humane iudgement being regenerate onely in part Heb. 5.2 Gal. 5.17 Aug. Enchir. c. 63. to worke by his proper force and power Secondly the Church hath no perpetuall Traditions but such as are either contained in holy Scripture or which are subseruient to maintaine the faith veritie and authoritie of the holy Scriptures and the doctrine thereof Thirdly whereas the Iesuit saith That euen as no vntruth can be admitted in the holy Scripture in regard of such things as are of the least moment without ouerthrowing the totall authoritie thereof so likewise no errour great or small can bee admitted in the doctrine and Tradition of the present Church because vpon the same will follow the subuersion of all her Tradition euen in matters essentiall I answere That there is not the same reason of the Scripture and the Church for the Scripture is totally and perfectly diuine and must alwayes bee so esteemed and to admit any errour or possibilitie thereof in Scripture were to make God a lyar and consequently to ouerthrow all faith But the present Church is onely the seruant of God and of his word Iohn 10.27 and hath no credit or authoritie but from it and although the same may erre in some things yet there remaineth alwaies a higher and more soueraigne Iudge to wit the holy Ghost speaking in and by the Scriptures to whom Christians desirous of truth may appeale and by whose sentence the Doctrine and Traditions of the present Church are to bee iudged Whosoeuer admitteth any errour or vntruth in the holy Scripture taketh away all authoritie from that which is the prime foundation of supernaturall veritie But he that admitteth error or fallibilitie of iudgement in some Traditions and Doctrines of the Pastours of the present Church doth onely make the credit of a secondarie and inferior witnesse subiect to triall and examination of an higher Iudge And euen as in building the rule and measure of proportion must alwaies be euen and right in it selfe but the workemans hand may possibly leane or shake and applie his rule amisse so likewise the holy Scriptures which are the principles of Theologie and the most exact ballance and measure of diuine Veritie as S. Chrysostome speaketh must be free from all obliquitie of error and to admit the least error in the Scripture ouerthroweth the foundation of Faith But the Ministerie and Tradition of the Church is like an Artificers hand which may sometimes leane and goe awrie and yet the foundation of Veritie abideth firme in the prime authenticall rule and by the same the errour of mens Tradition and Doctrine may be corrected Fourthly the Iesuit affirmeth That Tradition to wit of the
where they preached so 〈◊〉 was necessarie but that they made a large and entire Commentarie vpon all their Scriptures and deliuered the same to posteritie to continue perpetually is not prooued by the confession of Chemnitius and the discord which is in the Commentaries of the Fathers yea of Romists themselues vpon the Scriptures argueth the contrarie IESVIT Whereupon S. Augustine argueth That they that deliuer the Text of Christs Gospell must also deliuer the Exposition affirming That he would sooner refuse to beleeue Christ than admit any interpretation contrarie to them by whom he was brought to beleeue in Christ. For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense why may they not also deliuer a false Text as receiued from the Apostles An argument conuincing and vnanswerable ANSVVER Saint Augustine in the place obiected Lib. d. vtil Cred. cap. 14. confuteth the Manichees who condemned Faith and affirmed That people ought to credit nothing but that which is demonstrated by reason And hee argueth against these Heretikes first out of some of their owne grounds for they were compelled to beleeue something in their Religion vpon report of others and they required people to giue credit to certaine Narrations which could not be demonstrated by reason onely Secondly This Father prooueth the necessitie of Faith because without giuing credit to some report it was impossible to receiue the knowledge of Christ. Thirdly Whereas the Manichees required that men should learne to know Christs word from them Saint Augustine saith That if he had no better Guides to follow than such new and turbulent Companions as those Heretikes were he should sooner persuade himselfe not to beleeue in Christ than to beleeue vpon their bare report or to receiue this Faith from any other than from those by which he first beleeued But Saint Augustine in this place treateth not of the sense of the Scripture neither doth he say absolutely that he would sooner refuse to beleeue Christ than to admit any interpretation contrarie to them by whom he was brought to beleeue in Christ but he speaketh comparatiuely and according to humane reason hee should more easily be persuaded to beleeue nothing than forsaking the authoritie and testimonie of his first Teachers yeeld credit to these men vpon their Hereticall grounds It is cleare that Saint Augustine did not alwayes tye himselfe to the same exposition of Scripture which those that were before him had deliuered For in the questions of Grace and Free-will he found out many expositions by searching the Scriptures which both himselfe and other men before him were ignorant of vntill the heresie of Pelagius arose and in his worke De Doctrina Christiana he makes twofold charitie the modell of expounding Scripture and not the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall Teachers whom hee oftentimes expoundeth with mitigation or reiecteth with modestie and hee is most constant in aduancing the authoritie of Scripture before any Ecclesiasticall authoritie whatsoeuer IESVIT For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sence Why may they not also deliuer a false Text as receiued from the Apostles An argument conuincing and vnanswerable ANSWER The Iesuit imagineth that this Argument is inuincible But let not him that girdeth on his harnesse boast himselfe as hee that putteth it off 1. Kings 20. 11. And Sauls brags That God had deliuered Dauid into his hand prooued vaine 1. Sam. 23. 14. and 24. 5. The Argument reduced to forme will discouer its owne weakenesse If the Text of the Scripture may 〈◊〉 easily bee corrupted as the sence then all they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sence may also deliuer a false Text. But the Text of the Scripture may as easily bee corrupted as the sence Ergo All they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sence may also deliuer a false Text. The assumption of this Syllogisme which although it were concealed by the Paralogist yet it must bee added to make the Argument perfect is apparantly false and the contrary is true The Text of the Scripture cannot so easily bee corrupted as the sence and therefore it is not necessarie that they which following humane Tradition or their owne inuention may deliuer a false sence shall likewise deliuer a false Text. First the Text of the Scripture is contained in Records and Bookes which are dispersed throughout the whole Christian world and preserued in all Churches and the Coppies and Transcripts of them are innumerable Tradition is in the brest of a few and authentically as Papals affirme in the brest of the Pope and his Church onely Secondly when God Almightie would haue the knowledge and memorie of things to bee perpetuall he commanded that they should bee committed to writing Exod. 17. 14. and 34. 27. Deut. 31. 19. And although the law of nature was ingrauen in mans heart and might haue beene preserued for euer by vniforme succession yet God himselfe wrote the same in Tables Deut. 10.4 and inspired Moses to write it in Bookes Exod 20. Deut. 5. And although the Precepts of the Law of Nature were more firmely fixed in mans heart and the Tradition thereof was more generally diffused than any positiue Tradition can bee yet in processe of time many parts thereof were corrupted both in regard of knowledge and practise Thirdly experience of all ages testifieth that the Text of the Scripture hath beene preserued inuiolable euen among Iewes and Heretickes whereas the sence of the Scripture made knowne by Tradition onely is forgotten in part and they which disagree about the sence and some parcels of the Canon of the Scripture are at one concerning the verie letter of the Text. For although there were some which in antient time reiected the Epistle of St. Iames and the latter of St. Peters c. yet the literall Text of these Scriptures was faithfully preserued alwayes in the Church Fourthly whereas the Iesuite compareth vnanimous Tradition of the sence of Scripture with the written letter and Text of the Scripture vnlesse he equiuocate in the name terming that Tradition which is collected from the Scripture such vniforme Tradition as he boasteth of is verie rare for it must be such as in all ages and in all Orthodoxall Churches hath beene the same Now the most vndoubted and vniforme Tradition of all other is concerning the number and integritie of the Bookes of holy Scripture and yet in this difference hath beene betweene one Church and another and the later Romane Church disagreeth with the antient the one denying and the other affirming d the bookes of Macchabees to be Canonicall The Articles also of the late Popish Creed compiled by Pope Pius the fourth are not agreeable to the antient Tradition of the Catholike Church or to the Tradition of the elder Romane Church it selfe and among sundrie other matters in question betwixt vs this Iesuit is not able to shew by
eloquij per suspitionum suarum abrupta praecipitari There is extant the sacred authoritie of diuine Scripture from whence wee may not deuiate nor forsaking the infallible ground of Gods word be carried into the precipicies of mens fancies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith great Athanasius The sacred Scriptures giuen by diuine inspiration are all-sufficient of themselues to the demonstration of sacred verity But a theefe saith Chrisostome entreth not into the sheepfould by the testimonie of the Scriptures which are called a doore that most iustly because they leade vs to God and manifest diuine knowledge to vs they make vs Christs sheep and preserue vs so as wolues cannot rush in vpon vs. But he that vseth not the holy Scripture but climeth in some other way that is a way not permitted the same is a theefe Now Protestants follow the Scriptures and Romists enterby humane Traditions THE THIRD PART OF THIS TREATISE Wherein the Iesuit disputeth Nine Questions propounded by his MAIESTIE IESVIT AN ANSWER TO THE Nine Points proposed by your most EXCELLENT MAIESTIE I Haue beene large in my former Proofes That the Roman is the onely true Catholike Church whose Traditions comming downe by perpetuall succession from Christ and his holy Apostles are so constantly and strongly to be beleeued that no proofes out of Scripture by priuate interpretation vnderstood though seeming most euident may stand to contest against them And this I haue done not without purpose assuring my selfe that if your Maiestie were thoroughly persuaded in this Point you would without any mans helpe most easily and fully satisfie your selfe in particular Controuersies out of your owne excellent Wisedome and Learning For as some that haue beene present at your Maiesties discourses casually incident about Religion report few of our Diuines though trayned vp continually in Academies and Exercises of Theologie are able to say more than your Maiestie in the defence of the Catholique cause for particular Controuersies when you please to vndertake the patronage thereof which I can easily beleeue out of my owne experience who could not but 〈◊〉 seeing your Maiestie so well acquainted with our Doctrines and so readie and prompt in Scholasticall subtleties Wherefore I most humbly beseech your most excellent Maiestie to honour these my poore Labours with a gracious perusall of them accepting of my Answeres when they may seeme reasonable being in defence of Doctrines receiued from Auncestors which deserue approbation when there is no euidencie against them And out of your abundant Clemencie pardon my prolixitie seeing the Questions by your Maiestie proposed were so difficill and obscure as I could hardly haue made any shorter full explication of them ANSVVER YOu haue beene large and prolixe Nam quid est loquacius vanitate for what is more wordie than Vanitie in depressing the sacred Scriptures which are the Oracles of God himselfe and aduancing the Customes and vsurped Authoritie of the Romane Sect. Sed quis tam vanus vt veritati consuetudinem praeferat Who will be so mad as to preferre Custome before Veritie And whereas you glorie of the Pedigree of Romish Traditions pretending that they are descended by perpetuall succession from Christ and his holy Apostles and that the same ought so strongly and constantly to be beleeued that no proofes out of Scripture interpreted against your Tenet though seeming to be most euident may stand to contest against them Surely there is hitherto nothing solid or euident produced by you to confirme this Assertion and therefore Quae ista obstinatio est quae ve praesumptio humanam traditionem Diuinae dispositioni anteponere What presumption and obstinacie is this to preferre humane Tradition before Diuine Ordinance Ipsam fidem quae in Scripturis manifesta est non vultis discere You will not learne the right Faith which is manifest in the Scripture Nec remanet vobis nisi sola infirmitas animositatis quae tanto est languidior quanto se maiores vires habere aestimat Your onely support is the infirmitie of an high or ouerweening stomacke which is so much the more feeble by how much it ouer-valueth its owne strength Hence proceedeth the assuring your selfe of successe in persuading no meaner a Person than his most excellent Maiestie to rellish your Superstition But Saint Basil saith Solo rore aluntur Cicadae Grassehoppers feede wholly vpon deaw and Ephraim feedeth vpon the Wind Hos. 12. 1. His Maiestie is a Cedar of Libanus grounded on Veritie established in the right Faith one which by reason of habit and long vse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath his senses exercised to discerne good and euill Heb. 5.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Captaine of the Host of the Lord Lex Dei in corde eius The Law of God is in his heart his foot can neuer slide It is therefore subtletie rather than hope which induceth you to vent these fond surmises of his propension or inclination towards your part For although such fancies are rediculous to prudent men yet they serue your turne in being baits to delude and intrap the credulous and incautelous who commonly regard not what indeed is but what in their owne fancie may be Lastly whereas vpon fame or hearesay which according to Tertullian Plurimum mendax ne tunc quidem cum veri 〈◊〉 adfert sine 〈◊〉 vicio est you report That his Maiestie doth at some times shew his excellent Wisdome and Learning in the patronage of your Catholike Pseudo-Catholike Cause you should rather haue made mention of that which is certaine How often and with what admirable soliditie his Maiestie vndertaketh by his Word and Penne the confusion and demolishing of your Babylonian Cause But were it so that his excellent Maiestie should sometimes propound and vrge your Obiections for the better resolution of Points in question there is as little reason to interprete this as a fauour to your Cause as to construe some passages of king Salomons Ecclesiastes vttered by way of tentation in the person of Epicures to haue beene spoken seriously in fauour of that wicked Sect. THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES IESVIT 〈◊〉 Haue more hope to giue your MAIESTIE satisfaction in this Article because all kinde of Theologicall Proofes stand for the same and nothing against it as I am persuaded which I declare by this Discourse ANSVVER YOu were no Loyalist if you could not promise golden Mountaines but the Worship of Images is a practise so absurd in reason and so repugnant to all diuine Authoritie that to speake in Saint Augustines phrase Non solum infideliter sed etiam infaeliciter impudenter c. The defence thereof cannot be vndertaken without infidelitie impudencie and vnluckie successe IESVIT If the custome of Worshipping Images bee grounded on the prime Principles of Nature and Christianitie If the same hath beene receiued in the Church vniuersally without any knowne time of beginning If places of Scripture that
the like bowing and kneeling that is vsed to his person and to his image vnto which whosoeuer offereth iuiury is punishable as offering iniury to the King himselfe shall not the honour due to Christ Iesus infinitelie greater so flow out of his person vnto things that belong and concerne him as to make his Image Crosse and such holy monuments of his passion and life venerable for his sake and to be adored with bowing kneeling and other exteriour honour as would be vsed to his person were he visibly present not so that the worship rest in the image but be referred by imagination and affection to the person imagined ANSWER This similitude halteth for the Kings chaire of State and his image when they are honoured or dishonoured are conioyned with his Person by ciuile ordinance and relation but the artificiall image of Christ and of his Crosse c. are not conioyned with Christ by diuine ordination or by relation grounded vpon Christs word but by an imaginary act of the superstitious worshipper also ciuile and religious worship are of diuers beginnings and formes and euery thing that is possible lawfull and commendable in the one is not so in the other IESVIT But the image of Christ being a true representation of God incarnate and able to conuey our imaginations directly and truely towards him 〈◊〉 very 〈◊〉 vnto the parts of his sacred person hath 〈◊〉 right in reason and nature which cannot be taken from it to represent him and to stand in our imaginations for him Wherefore the image of Christ hath a right which without impietie cannot be denyed vnto it to be honoured and outwardly adored for his sake by kneelings bowings 〈◊〉 and kissings referred in mind by deuout thoughts and affections to his person ANSVVER Is the painted image a true representation of Christ incarnate because Romists say so and were it a true representation is it therefore impietie to refuse to worship it Many Doctours both of the Romane and of other Churches haue allowed and maintained the Historicall vse of images which condemned adoration And if it be outwardly to be adored for Christs sake why is it not inwardly also to be adored And if inwardly then either with the same worship wherewith Christ himselfe is adored or with inferiour not with the same for then a creature which is not personally vnited to the Creatour may be honoured as God If with inferiour then either with inferiour honour belonging to the person represented but there is none such or with the honour of some other person but this cannot be because the image of Christ hath reference to no other person but Christ. And if the painted images of Christ and the woodden Crosse whereupon he was crucified were to be adored with 〈◊〉 honour absolute or respectiue much more were the liuely images of Christ to wit the blessed Saints so to be adored and the blessed Virgin aboue all other because she was more neerely conioyned to him than the woodden Crosse. IESVIT And this right is a dignitie which an image of Christ hath aboue other creatures who though they be referred vnto God as to their Author yet God may not be honoured in them in that manner as Christ is honoured in his image ANSVVER This Idolist heapeth conclusion vpon conclusion but hee groundeth them either vpon no premises or vpon such as are sandie How doth it appeare that an image of Christ figured by a Roman Painter hath a dignity aboue other creatures Are Roman Painters more excellent workemen than God himselfe Hath a dead picture and worme-eaten statue greater dignitie than the liuely images of Christ to wit the Saints which are vpon earth and 〈◊〉 in vertue How much more worthy to be beleeued is the saying of Clement If you desire truely to honour the image of God let me open the truth to you Rather yeeld honour and reuerence to man formed after the image of God than to empty and breathlesse figures IESVIT The reason is because creatures represent God their Author so rudely remotely darkely imperfectly that onely spirituall men and perfect Contemplants can acknowledge God in them and so such men onely and that onely priuately to themselues may worship God in and by them which is all that Vasq. so much accused doth teach But as for publique and promiscuous adoring of creatures he condemnes it as vndecent and scandalous saying expressely that Indiscriminatim creaturas adorandas proponere esset multis manifesta causa periculi In which respect Saint Leo reprehends some Christians at Rome that bowed vnto the Sunne mentally referring that bowing vnto God the Author thereof because Panyms seeing that outward action of adoring might imagine that Christians adored the sunne in their superstitious manner the relation which the sunne hath to God as to his Creator not being euident vnto sight But the image of Christ as I said is apparantly so representatiue of Christ that vpon sight thereof our thoughts flye presently to him and his picture is no sooner in our eyes than his person by imagination in our mind neither is there any excellency appearing in the picture worthy to bee adored or sufficient to stay our thoughts and affections in it So that no man can with any probabilitie suspect that any reason besides reuerence to his Maiestie makes vs bow our bodies to his image ANSWER Your reason is no reason but a meere verball asseueration for being reduced to forme it sounds in this manner That which is so representatiue of Christ as that the sight thereof carrieth our thoughts presently by imagination to Christ and yet hath nothing in it worthy of adoration for it selfe hath a right and dignity to be worshipped aboue other creatures which doe so rudely remotely darkely and imperfectly represent God that none but spirituall men and perfect contemplants can acknowledge and worship God in them But artificiall images of Christ c. are representations of the first sort and other creatures are onely representatiue in the latter manner Ergo Painted and carued images of Christ haue a right and dignity to be worshipped aboue other creatures Both Propositions of this Argument are denyed First The Maior is false for imaginarie representation onely without speciall Institution and other grounds in the thing representing may bee onely a motiue and not a terminatiue obiect of Worship as hath formerly beene shewed Secondly The Minor hath no pretext or colour of Truth for some Creatures doe so represent Christ as that they are his liuely Image by Communion and Participation of Grace 2. Pet. 1.4 And they carrie the mindes of Beleeuers by their actions to wit by their Doctrine and Example into the distinct and sauing knowledge of Christ and they stand heere in the world in the roome and stead of Christ by his owne Ordination 2. Cor. 5.20 But Painted and Carued Images represent onely a Bodie and a thing externall And without other meanes people cannot know Christ nor
that Papists adore and worship Images with some kind of reall worship to wit such as the Trident Councell expresly defineth for if such adoration of Images bee an Article of Faith and not onely a thing Adiaphorous but a necessarie dutie then the same must haue apparant ground in Diuine Reuelation but if it be neuer commanded or prescribed in the Old or New Testament nor was for sundrie ages affirmed by Orthodoxall Fathers to be an Apostolicall Tradition and yet the Trent Councell presumeth to make it diuine obliging all Christians vpon paine of damnation to the beliefe and practise thereof Protestants haue iust cause to condemne this doctrine and to refuse conformitie with Papists in the practise thereof Papists condemne those of heresie which refuse to worship Images where they haue power they burne them to Ashes They hold it lawfull to dethrone Kings and Princes from their royall dignitie for opposing this practise It must therefore be necessarie for them to demonstrate their Tenet by manifest Testimonies or Arguments taken from diuine Reuelation and not to triflle off the time in bequarrelling Iohn White concerning the meaning of the Trident Councell For it is apparant that the Councell intendeth to make that an Article of 〈◊〉 which hath no foundation in the rule of Faith and it yeeldeth libertie to the most grosse opinions which former Papists held concerning adoration of Images And it is sufficient for Protestants to manifest thus much IESVIT Nor is Maister Whites Argument good We worship Christ and his Image by the same Act but the worship of Christ is diuine honour Ergo The worship of the Image is diuine honour for this prooueth 〈◊〉 That the worship of the Image is diuine as referred to Christ not as referred vnto the Image Otherwise if Maister White should helpe to pull his fellow Ministers horse out of the mire 〈◊〉 thereunto out of Christian charitie and friendship one might by the like Argument prooue that he beareth Christian charitie towards horses for he relieueth the horse and pleasureth his friend by one and the same Act. The pleasuring of his friend is an Act of Christian charitie towards him Ergo The pulling the horse out of the mire is an Act of Christian charitie towards the horse A foolish Argument because that one Act is vertually twofold as referred to the man owner of the horse Christian charity as referred to the horse onely no charitie at all but a baser kind of loue and that for his friends sake The like is when wee kisse with our corporall lips the feet of the Image of Christ at the same time by deuout and reuerent imagination kissing his true feet represented by the Image we honour Christ and his Image by one and the same Physicall Act and that Act is diuine Worship though not diuine as referred to the Image but onely as referred vnto Christ. A thing so easily vnderstood by learned men as I meruaile Ministers vnderstand it not or will wrangle in a matter so cleare if they sincerely seeke truth ANSWER The Argument which you father vpon Maister Iohn White and whereunto you apply your flearing and myerie similitude is not extant in his Way to the Church pag. 400. So farre therefore as I can obserue you fight with your owne shaddow But if the Argument had beene propounded in this manner Many learned Papists to wit Aquinas and the Maior part of the Schoole adore the Artificiall Images of Christ as they are conioyned with the Samplar with the Act of Latria Therefore they adore some Images with Diuine worship I cannot perceiue that your nice distinctions of Physicall and vertuall acts diuine as referred to Christ not diuine as referred to the Image would haue beene sufficient to vindicate your Tenet from the mud of superstition for that which is worshipped with any act matorially or formally of Latria is worshipped with diuine honour at least in part or by accident But no degree of diuine honour can iustly be yeelded to any creature which is not substantially vnited to the Deitie or at least wise which is not by some diuine Ordinance accidentally vnited and made capable of such adoration But no artificiall Images are thus vnited and no diuine ordinance exalteth them to such a dignitie IESVIT And though the Ignorant vnderstand not the tearmes of Theologie by which Diuines declare the manner of honouring the Prototype and the Jmage both by one Act yet may they honour an Jmage as securely and with as little danger and erring as any that vnderstand them For as the Clowne who knowes no more of the nature of motion than that he is to set one foot before another doth mooue in the very same manner as Philosophers who 〈◊〉 that Action by tearmes most obscure of intrinsecall and extrinsecall beginning and ending and per vltimum non esse primum non 〈◊〉 So likewise a Catholicke that vnderstands no more of honouring Christ his Image than that he is by beholding the Jmage to remember Christ and with pious and affectuous imaginations to adore him doth honour our Sauiour and his Image by one and the same Act as truly verily and religiously as the greatest Diuine that can learnedly explicate the manner how that Adoration is performed as being done outwardly relatiuely and transitorily vnto the Image inwardly affectuously absolutely finally vnto Christ. ANSWER Although this Assertion is false and the Proofe thereof borrowed from a similie is impertinent for vulgar persons among you commit grosse Idolatrie in Image Worship as they which haue liued beyond Seas and some of your own part report neither is there the same reason of naturall motion and the exercise of religious actions yet because it serueth not to prooue the Assumption of your maine Sillogisme to wit Protestants cannot assigne any time when Image worship began c. I will not insist vpon the examination of it The latter branch of this Clause to wit Adoration is performed to Images as being done outwardly relatiuely and transitorily vnto the Image inwardly affectuously absolutely and finally vnto Christ is boldly affirmed but not confirmed by any Argument First how proue you by diuine reuelation and testimonie that adoration is to be performed according to your distinction of outwardly relatiuely and transitorily to Images And against such loose and voluntarie presumptions we say with S. Chrisostome Diuinae Scripturae testimonia sequamur neque feramus eos qui timerè quiduis blaterant we are to follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 testimonie of diuine Scripture and not to regard them which at rouers and without ground blatter out what they please Secondly if you adore Images outwardly relatiuely and transitorily then you make Images a partiall obiect of adoration but God himselfe who saith I will not giue my glorie to another to wit in whole or in part neither my praise to grauen Images Esa. 42.8 hath excluded Images from copartnership
is bread of which foure sences sight feeling smell tast giue in euidence as of bread no lesse verily than any other so farre as they can discerne and yet so potent is the Word and doctrine of the Church grounded on generall Councells declaring the word of God for Transubstantiation as Catholikes denying their sences beleeue assuredly that what seemeth bread is not bread but the true body of our Sauiour vnder the formes and accidents of bread Now can any man with any shew of the least probabilitie in the world thinke that it is difficile for this Church to persuade her children that the Image of Christ is not a liuing thing or bath any Godhead or liuing diuine power lodged in it as plaine Scriptures shew and generall Catholike Councells particularly the Tridentine and Nicene define which doctrine neither reason nor sence can dislike or shall the sole similitude of members correspondent vnto humane liuing members which Images haue so much preuaile in Catholike minds so to bow downe their thoughts to base Idolatrie as to thinke a stocke or stone to be God and that the Church shall not be able by teaching to erect them to a more high and diuine apprehension being able to make them firmely beleeue a consecrated Hoast is not really bread against the Iudgement that they would otherwise frame vpon most notorious euidencie of sence ANSVVER This passage is wasted in magnifying the power which the Roman Church hath in preseruing her adheres from the infection of superstition in worshipping Images The argument vsed by the Idolist to this purpose is The Roman Church performeth that which is more difficile to wit it persuadeth people contrarie to the experience of all their senses to beleeue that consecrate bread is not bread but the true body of Christ vnder the formes and accidents of bread Therefore it is able to persuade people that the Images which they adore are not very God or that any diuinitie or diuine vertue resides in them I answer that it is not more difficile to persuade some people to beleeue transubstantiation than to rectifie their iudgement in adoration of Images for mans nature being of it selfe through inbred corruption prone to beleeue lies and the members of Antichrist hauing a speciall curse of God vpon them 2. Thes. 2. 10 11. no maruell if they credit false doctrine although it be most absurd But they which beleeue and obey their Masters when they teach lyes doe not alwayes follow their directions if they instruct them in truth Neither are such people free from scandall iustly taken if they conceiue not images to be Gods or indued with diuine vertue residing in them for without such imagination they performe an vnlawfull worship neuer instituted but alwayes condemned by the Holy Ghost And this alone without further abuses is sufficient to condeme the doctrine and practise of the Romane Church IESVIT The Protestant Church on the other side may seeme to haue no great vigor by preachings to persuade common people against the errour of the Anthropomorphits seeing their principle is That a world of Preachers is not to bee beleeued against the euident Scripture Yea that a common ordinarie man by Scripture may oppose as great and a greater Church than is the whole Protestant Which principle being laid how will they conuince people that that God is a pure Spirit whom the Scripture doth so perpetually set forth as hauing humane members I may conclude therefore that their translating of Scripture into the vulgar languages breedes more danger vnto common people than our making of Images ANSWER The Iesuit is fallen vpon a Paradoxe affirming that there is more danger for Protestants to be mislead by reading Scriptures translated into the errour of the Humaniformians than the Papists to be seduced by images And his reason is because Protestant Ministers cannot by preaching the contrarie doctrine persuade people to desist from any errour which seemes to them agreeable to any literall text of holy Scripture for one of their owne principles is That a world of Preachers is not to be beleeued against euident Scripture c. and he citeth Mr. Iohn White in his Way pag. 59. I perceiue it is impossible for Papists to deale sincerely Mr. Iohn White affirmeth not that euery priuate person or that any companie of people whatsoeuer are to be credited vpon the sole allegation of a text of Scripture expounded as the outward letter soundeth for we know that sometimes the letter killeth and Saint Augustines rule concerning Scriptures exposition is neither strange nor vnpractised by vs but Mr. Iohn Whites doctrine is That if foure hundred Baalites or a whole Councell of Pharisees or Errants deliuer vntruths one Micajah one Stephen one Athanasius in whose mouth is fouud the word of Truth although the persons seeme neuer so priuate must be preferred before them which teach lyes or doctrine repugnant to holy Scripture truely expounded IESVIT But they will say the translation of Scripture into vulgar languages is commanded in the Scripture and the Apostles and Apostolicall Church practised it Whereas wee cannot prooue by Scripture that the Apostles did warrant or practise the setting vp of Images This they say with great confidence But what substantiall proofe is of this their saying I could neuer reade or heare The testimonies they bring in this behalfe Search the Scriptures Let his word dwell plentifully among you c. are insufficient to prooue a direct and expresse precept or practise of translating Scriptures into the vulgar tongue ANSWER Wee affirme with great confidence both that the reading of holy Scripture by Lay people which must needes imply Translation of them is a Diuine Ordinance and that Image worship was neither warranted by the Apostles nor practised by the Primatiue Church succeeding the Apostles Neither doe wee alledge onely those Sentences of holy Scripture Iohn 5. 39. Collos. 3. 16. which the Iesuit thinkes himselfe able to elude by subtile distinctions as the Arrians in times past eluded the Text of Saint Iohn Cap. 10.30 But we cite also the Precept of God giuen to the Church before Christ his comming and the perpetuall practise of the godly in the Old and New Testament and the vehement exhortations of the Primatiue Fathers exhorting Lay people to the reading and meditation of holy Scripture and magnifying the fruit and benefit arising from thence The Eunuch is commended for reading holy Scripture Acts 8. 28. The Baereans are called Noble by the holy Ghost for searching the holy Scriptures Acts 17. 11. Hee is called Blessed which readeth and heareth Apoc. 1. 3. The Galathians read the Scripture Gal. 4.21 The Ephesians Cap. 3.4 The Collossians Cap. 4. 16. The Thessalonians 1. Thes. 5.27 The Fathers are so plentifull in this Argument as I haue elsewhere shewed that it would astonish any man who hath read them to behold such impudencie in Papists as to denie this Practise to haue beene Primatiue and
Catholicke But necessitie hath no Law for if the Scriptures may be suffered to speake Papistrie must fall like Dagon before the Arke IESVIT Catholickes on the contrary side though they boast not of Scriptures as knowing that nothing is so clearely set downe in it but malapert errour may contend against it with some shew of probabilitie yet haue Scriptures much more cleare and expresse than any that Protestants can bring for themselues euen about the vse of the Image of Christ crucified in the first Apostolicall Church S. Paul to the Galathians saith O ye foolish Galathians who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth before whose eyes Christ Iesus is liuely set foorth crucified among you The Greeke word corresponding to the English liuely set foorth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to paint foorth a thing insomuch as euen Beza Iesus Christus depictus crucifixus Iesus Christ painted crucified before your eyes so that we haue in plaine and expresse tearmes that Christ was Painted crucified in the Apostolicall Churches which the Apostle doth allow thence drawing an Argument to prooue the Galathians were sencelesse and sottish that keeping in their sight Christ painted as Crucified they would be saued by the Law and not by the merits of his Crosse for it was madnesse and folly to paint Christ and honour him as crucified and not to thinke that by his death vpon the Crosse he redeemed the world ANSVVER There is reason why Romists which stile themselues Catholickes but are not should bee sparing in boasting of Scripture but the reason assigned by the Aduersarie which is that Scriptures may be peruerted by Errants is vnsufficient for it is common to Tradition and to Histories and monuments of antiquitie to be peruerted and abused and the same happeneth not by the kind and nature of the Scripture but accidentally through the malice and subtiltie of man peruerting the right wayes of the Lord. And there is sufficient matter in the sacred Scripture to demonstrate veritie and to conuince Errants when they peruert the right sence And whereas you affirme in the next place that Romists haue Scriptures more cleare and expresse than any that Protestants can bring for themselues euen about the vse of the Image of Christ. First If this were true it prooueth not the question That Images ought to be worshipped but onely that they may bee vsed for Historie Ornament and Signification as the Cherubins and other Pictures of the Temple in the old Law for Vse being a generall and Worship a speciall you cannot conclude affirmatiuely from the former to the latter Secondly You depart from your owne receiued Principles when you indeuour to prooue Image worship by Scripture for the same according to your doctrine is a diuine Tradition and such a Tradition according to learned Bannes as is neither expresly nor infoldedly taught in holy Scripture Wherefore then doe you attempt to prooue Iconolatrie out of Scripture which being in your Tenet a Tradition is Doctrina tantum non Scripta a Doctrine altogether vnwritten It is a vaine thing to promise to fetch Treasure out of a Chest or water out of a flint stone in which a man himselfe confesseth there is none Thirdly St. Paul his Text Galath 3.1 Nullis machinis can by no ingens or deuices be wrested to your Tenet All Expositors antient and moderne which haue Commented vpon this Text are against you and you haue neither the letter nor matter of the Text fauourable to you The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vpon which you insist is translated by your owne Interpretors Proscribed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iud. v. 4. Prescribed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 15.4 Haue beene written and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 3. 3. I haue written before And whereas you flye to Beza translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Depictus Painted before he telleth you in his Annotation that hee vnderstandeth not artificiall but Theologicall depainting not externall but spirituall to wit by the euident and powerfull Preaching and Doctrine of Saint Paul Christ Iesus was so liuely reuealed and set foorth to the vnderstanding of the Galathians as if they had indeed beheld him crucified before them And in this manner Chrysostome Theophilact and Oecumenius expound Saint Paul and with them agree your owne Doctors Aquinas Adam Sasbot Estius Cornelius Iustinianus Vasques Salmeron c. There is no small difference betweene vocall and spirituall depainting and betweene materiall or artificiall betweene painting vpon mindes and painting vpon materiall Tables betweene intellectuall beholding Christ Iesus crucified in the Storie of the Gospell or in the Sacrament and in a visible Statue or painted Table And therefore from St. Pauls affirming the former the Iesuits latter followeth not IESVIT I know that some Catholickes expound this place That Christ was painted out vnto the Galathians Metaphorically by preaching which I doe not denie but this doth not repugne with the other sence that he was also materially painted as crucified the which being more conforme to the natiue and proper signification of the words is not to bee forsaken but vpon euident absurditie especially seeing it hath more connexion with the drift of the Apostles discourse which is to prooue the Galathians sencelesse in forsaking Christ crucified painted before their eyes for to forsake Christ crucified set forth by preaching as the Sauiour of the world though it be impious yet is not sencelesse yea rather Saluation by the Crosse of Christ did seeme follie vnto the Gentiles But to haue Christ painted as crucified before mens eyes honouring him by Christian deuotion in regard of his crucifixion and death and not to expect Saluation by him is sottish and senceles And of this materiall painting of Christ Athanasius expoundeth this place whom Turrianus citeth wherefore I may iustly say that we haue more cleere and expresse Scripture for the vse of Images than haue Protestants for their vulgar Translations ANSVVER First yeeld vs but one Father or learned Papist who in their Commentaries expound this place literally according to your sence Secondly It is neither comformable to the signification of the words for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to be written afore and not to be pictured before neither hath it any necessarie connexion with the drift of the Apostles discourse c. For the Galathians being Christians conuerted from infidelitie and not Heathens or Iewes to whom the Crosse or death of Christ vpon the Crosse seemed foolishnesse 1. Cor. 1.18 were more sencelesse that is to say more void of right iudgement by forsaking Christ Iesus crucified which was by the preaching of the holy Ghost and Sacraments ordained by God euidently reuealed to their conscience and receiued by Faith than if they had forsaken him painted onely in a Crucifix for to forsake a thing written in the heart and beleeued
vpon the Doctrine and by the power of the holy Ghost is farre more vnreasonable than to forsake that which is exhibited by a dead and dumbe picture Thirdly your counterfeit Athanasius is a child of darkenesse not placed at all in the workes of Athanasius by your selues read the seuerall impressions of this Author at Rome Paris Basill c. Anno 1520 1555 1564 1572 1581 1582 1598 1608 and there is no such worke of his to be found and therefore Harding Turrian Gretsar and your selfe abuse the world in alleading such bastardly stuffe IESVIT And therefore the danger of ignorant peoples erring by Jmages is without reason so much insisted vpon by Protestants their English Translation being as I haue shewed a more dangerous blocke for fooles to stumble at and so fall into damnable errors If they presume that by diligent instruction they may and would haue vs thinke that they doe preserue their people from that error why should they not thinke that the Roman Church being so potent with her children can keepe them from the foolish error of attributing life and diuinitie vnto dead and dumbe Images and that shee will so doe being so strictly commanded by the Councell of Trent to vse her greatest diligence in this point that ignorant people fall not into error by any Image which otherwise haue many profits and vtilities ANSWER It is possible for ignorant people notwithstanding admonitions to worship Images not thinking actually of the Prototype and in this case their worship is terminate in the verie Image But it is needlesse for vs to insist vpon the matter of abuse for if the thing it selfe to wit adoration of Images be vnlawfull then it is in vaine to deliuer precepts and cautions to moderate excesse in the performance of it But that adoration of Images is vnlawfull it hath formerly beene prooued by the words of the morall Law and the perpetuall practise of the Iewish Church and of the Primitiue Church for certaine ages which neither worshipped Images and which reiected in a manner all vse of them in religion IESVIT About which J will not inlarge my selfe but onely mention some of them The first is an easie and compendious way of instruction in which respect they are tearmed by S. Gregorie The Bookes of the vnlearned and as another Gregorie saith The silent Pictures speakes in the wall and profiteth very much ANSWER This reason whether it be true or false serueth onely to commend the Historicall vse of Images and yet some learned Papists reiect this kind of teaching by Images and Pictures Among which Durand saith Ei autem quod dictum est quod Imagines sunt Laicorum literae obuiat illud Euangelij habent Mosen Prophetas The sentence of the Gospell They haue Moses and the Prophets let them heare them is repugnant to that which is spoken by some Images are lay-mens Bookes IESVIT The second is to increase in men that keepe and honor them the loue of God and his Saints which effect S. Chrisostome experienced as he testifieth saying J loloued a Picture of melted waxe full of Pietie And S. Gregorie the Great saith They inflame men that behold them in the loue of their Lord and Sauiour The third is to moue and incite men to the imitation of the vertues of Christ and his Saints which vtilitie S. Basill doth declare and highly esteeme in his Sermon of the fortie Martyres And examples might be brought of men reclaimed by sight of godly Images euen in the 〈◊〉 of sinfull affection The fourth is to stay our thoughts vpon Christ and his passion that our imaginations in prayer may not so easily wander which vse of Images Catholickes in their deuotions do often experience Finally that in his Jmage wee may honour Christ the honour of the Image redounding to the originall and who crowneth the Kings Image honoureth the King whose Image it is saith S. Ambrose In which kind memorable is the deuotion of our victorious and religious King Canutus who tooke the Diademe that he vsed to weare on his owne head and there with crowned an Image of Christ crucified which in his daies was deuoutly reserued in the Church of S. Peter and S. Paul in Winchester and afterwards would neuer haue any crowne come on his head out of humble reuerence to his crucified Lord. ANSWER It is againe to little purpose to examine the places of the Fathers here produced concerning the vtilitie which may follow vpon the visible aspect of Pictures Images for all these testimonies serue only to commend Historicall vse but they prooue not Adoration Also the vtilitie of Images mentioned by them is spoken onely according to their humane opinion But that Images by diuine institution haue such vtilitie or that God Almightie hath promised in his word any such effects and blessings vnto them is not affirmed by the Fathers neither can it be warranted by diuine reuelation S. Ambrose Serm. 10. in Psalm 118. treateth of the liuely Images of God to wit iust persons poore afflicted people the members of Christ these Images he exhorteth vs to honour illustrating his Doctrine by an humane similitude which is He that crowneth the Image of the Emperour honoureth him whose Image he crowneth c. Then he applieth the former similitude saying By honouring the liuely Images of Christ we worship Christ himselfe But speaking of dead Statues and Pictures he addeth Gentiles lignum adorant quia Dei Imaginem putant sed inuisibilis Dei Imago non in 〈◊〉 est quod videtur Gentiles adore wood thinking it the Image of God but the Image of the inuisible God is in that which is inuisible and not in it which is seene As for your storie of Canutus the first Danish king raigning in England wherewith you close vp your question of Images you name no Author that so we might haue examined the qualitie of Canutus his action and if the same happened according to your report yet it is not antient because it was a thousand yeeres and more after Christ Neither is the consequence necessarie that because he placed his Crowne vpon an Image of the Crucifixe therefore he worshipped the Image for Iacob powred oyle vpon the top of a Pillar Gen. 28.18 yet his Oblation was made onely to the Deitie and not to the Pillar Lastly Let it be obserued that our Aduersarie hath manifested wonderous weakenesse in this Romish Article concerning worship of Images for he hath not throughout his whole disputation produced one plaine Text of holy Scripture or one cleare sentence of Antiquitie proouing the necessitie or lawfulnesse of Iconolatrie Wherefore I conclude that this doctrine is destitute of all diuine authoritie written or vnwritten and consequently that they are impostors which impose the same as a necessarie dutie vpon the Church of Christ. The Second and Third Point PRAYINGS AND OFFERING OBLATIONS TO THE B. Virgin MARY WORSHIPPING AND Inuocation
sight of the inferiour world and of the secrets of hearts is without cause reputed incommunicable with them according to the saying of Saint Prosper Nothing is so secret as the knowledge thereof may bee denyed vnto the perfectly Blessed their seeing God with pure vnderstanding being without comparison a thing more excellent Thus Saint Prosper whose Argument doth conuince That Saints may know what is done in the world and also the secrets of hearts For to see the whole world and what is done in it is not higher knowledge nor requires a more perfect vnderstanding than to see face to face the Diuine essence immense and incomprehensible before whom the world is no more than Momentum staterae guttaroris antelucani but the Saints of God according to Christian Faith haue an eleuated vnderstanding able to behold clearely and distinctly the Diuine essence with the infinite beauties and perfections thereof How then can a Christian conceiue so meanly of them as to doubt whether they haue sufficient vnderstanding to behold things done in this inferiour world as farre as they belong to their state ANSVVER If it be not certaine either by Diuine Reuelation or by other infallible demonstration That the blessed Saints deceased heare and vnderstand our Prayers and behold the secret thoughts and intention of the heart then it is a vaine thing to pray vnto them by the confession of many of our Aduersaries but it is not certaine either by Diuine Reuelation or by any other infallible demonstration That the soules of the blessed Saints deceased heare and vnderstand our Prayers and behold the secret thoughts and intention of the heart First This degree of knowledge is appropriated to God himselfe 1. Kings 8.39 2. Chro. 6.30 Rom. 8.27 Ier. 17.10 Heb. 4.13 1. Cor. 14.25 Iob 34.21 22. Psal. 11.4 Pro. 15.3 1. Cor. 1. 11. Secondly That hee communicateth the same at leastwise ordinarily to the glorified Saints is not reuealed in his Word Thirdly The Iesuits Argument to wit The glorious Saints behold the Diuine essence immense and incomprehensible with the infinite beautie and perfections thereof face to face 1. Cor. 13. 12. 1. Iohn 3.2 Ergo They behold the secrets of mens hearts liuing on earth is denied for glorious Saints behold the Diuine essence in a finite manner and according to the measure and capacitie of creatures and so farre foorth onely as it pleaseth God and is sufficient for their beatitude But no diuine Reuelation affirmeth that it pleaseth God or is necessarie to their beatitude that they should vnderstand the secrets of mens hearts heere vpon earth and accordingly Saint Augustine saith The soules of the defunct are there where they see not all things which are done or which happen to people in this life And concerning the sequel of the former Argument Aquinas himselfe saith The blessed Angels behold the Diuine Essence and yet they know not all things but they are ignorant of future things being contingent and of the cogitations of the heart And whereas the Argument is further pressed They which know or see the greater vnderstand and behold the lesse But the Saints behold the Essence of God which is the greater and therefore they vnderstand the secrets of mens hearts The Answere is That if the greater and the lesse be of the same kinde and if the greater doe necessarily represent the lesse ad extra or externally and hee which vnderstandeth the greater comprehendeth the whole perfection and latitude thereof then it is true that they which know or see the greater vnderstand and see the lesse but if any of these conditions be wanting then the same is false First Euery one which beholdeth the Sunne doeth not behold euery thing which the Sunne effecteth or inlightneth Secondly Angels behold the face of God Math. 18. 10. and yet they may be ignorant of some inferiour things to wit of some supernaturall misteries Eph. 3.10 and of the houre when the day of iudgement shall be Math. 24.36 And Bannes saith No blessed Saint beholdeth all indiuiduals or their cogitations in the diuine Essence IESVIT Secondly As for the secrets of hearts God is without comparison more spirituall more secret more inuisible and out of the sight of naturall vnderstanding than is any the most secret thought of man or Angell and yet the Saints haue so cleere penetrating and all discouering light as they do most perspicuously discerne the diuine most hidden and vnsearchable Essence What reason then is there why Christians should thinke the secrets of mens hearts inuisible and vnsearchable vnto them If we looke into Scripture as the heart of man is said to be vnsearchable but to God onely so likewise God is said to be inuisible but only to himselfe so that to Saints together with the sight of hearts we must deny the fight of God or else interpret the sayings of Scipture That mans heart and God are inuisible to wit by meere naturall light and that both are visible vnto Saints by that light whereof the Prophet said In thy light we shall see the light ANSWER The inconsequence of this Argument is palpable for there is the same reason of Angells and of glorified Saints in respect of beatifical vision But Angels although they behold the face of God yet they vnderstand not the cogitations of mans heart according to the Tenet of Aquinas himselfe And if the Aduersarie flie to diuine Reuelation and will affirme that Angels and blessed Saints vnderstand the thoughts of mens hearts because God doth manifest the same vnto them as he did sometimes to the Prophets First he must remember that his bare word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no proofe for he was neuer in heauen to bring vs newes from thence the word of God is silent in teaching this Doctrine Secondly if God reucale and report the prayers of the liuing to the Saints before the Saints know them God is a Nuncio and as it were a Mediator betweene one creature and another and the inuocation of Saints is a circle first passing immediately to God himselfe then from God to Saints and then backe againe to God Thirdly Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe sheweth the weakenesse of the former assertion of our Aduersarie saying If the Saints needed a new Reuelation the Church could not with such boldnesse say to all the Saints Pray for vs but it should rather beseech God at least sometimes that he would reueale our Prayers vnto them Besides the reason could not so easily be giuen why Saints should be inuocated now and not be inuocated before Christs comming IESVIT If there were a glasse of Diamond so cleere and excellent that whatsoeuer is done in London in secret corners should therein particularly and distinctly appeare surely he that hath eyes to see that glasse may likewise therein discerne what is done all ouer the citie Now most
examples of this kinde yea so much as one example then you might iustly say Neither haue Protestants reason c. But you are and will be as mute as a fish in producing any one example to this purpose From the example of the Angell refusing to be worshipped Apoc. 19.10 22.8 9. we argue in this manner That which the Angel refused to admit when hee was present and came as an Ambassadour of Christ is not to be giuen to blessed Saints and Angels when they are absent But the Angel refused a lesser degree of adoration when hee was present and came as an Ambassadour of Christ than Papists yeeld to Angels and to blessed Saints being absent Ergo c. The Iesuit imagineth but he prooueth nothing either that Saint Iohn would haue exhibited diuine Adoration to the Angell and for this reason his worship was refused or that being modest and also feruent about his present imployment he esteemed such worship vnmeet to wit at that present rebus sic stantibus and in regard of the extraordinarie dignitie of Saint Iohn who was so great and glorious a friend of God The first solution is reiected by learned Papists themselues Ribera Alchasar Salmeron Viegas Mendoza c. and it is apparant by the Text of the Reuelation that St. Iohn knew it was an Angel which spake to him Apoc. 1.1 and Christ had many times reuealed so much to him The second Answere The Angel in modestie c. hath nothing at all in the Text to warrant it but is voluntarily faigned by the Iesuite First Let him giue vs any the like example of such modestie elsewhere in holy Scripture vsed by any Angel Secondly His comparison from a Preacher refusing to bee praised c. is altogether vnlike for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adoration are actions of a diuers kinde the one may be refufed in modestie by a Preacher a wayfaring man for feare of vaine-glorie But religious adoration is an vndue seruice for any creature and must be refused in right Neither doth any man when he praiseth a Preacher prostrate himselfe religiously Also if religious Adoration had beene due to the Angel why should he in modestie refuse it because he was an immediate Ambassadour of Iesus Christ and the admitting thereof would haue beene a leading case for posteritie to teach them their dutie to Angels if such dutie had belonged to them The third answere The Angel refused adoration from St. Iohn because of the dignitie of this great Apostle is confuted by the Text Apoc. 22.9 For the Angel yeelding a reason of his refusall assignes a cause which argueth that such adoration was not due to him from any other seruant of Iesus Christ saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. See thou doe it not for I am thy fellow seruant and of thy brethren the Prophets and of them which keepe the sayings of this Booke worship God Hence it is manifest that if the Angel refused religious worship because God alone is to bee worshipped in this manner and because he was the fellow seruant of all iust persons then he refused not this worship onely because of the speciall dignitie of St. Iohn but he would haue refused the like worship from any other Christian as well as he did from him Saint Ambrose vpon the Reuelation Chap. 19. saith The Redemption of Christs Blood brought this to the faithfull that they should be made the sonnes of God and companions of Angels Therefore the Angel feared to be worshipped of a man who worshipped one aboue him which was God and man To the like purpose also speaketh Ansbertus The Spirit of God no doubt foresaw the errours which would spring vp in future times and therefore hee left vpon Record this remarkeable example in the Reuelation to manifest his will and to be an Antidotarie against the superstitious worship of Saints and Angels And let men cauill and descant vpon this Scripture as they please It is euident from the same that the Angel would admit no worship of himselfe and hee draweth man to the immediate worshipping of Christ Hee doth not distinguish saying Worship me with religious worship as Gods friend or worship me not as the prime fountaine and principall doner or with Latria but simply and without all distinction he protesteth against this religious and sacred reuerence saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yeeld thy worship to God As for me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am thy fellow seruant and a fellow seruant c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See thou do it not let no other do it Lastly If our Aduersaries will haue vs regard their distinctions let them not like spiders spinne them out of their owne braines but let them yeeld vs any Text or example in the new Testament wherein holy Angels or blessed Saints or the blessed Virgin liuing or defunct did euer require or receiue or our Sauiour or any of his Apostles in their behalfe did euer appoint such religious worship to bee yeelded vnto them as Papists require IESVIT § 4. Praying vnto Saints not iniurious vnto Gods mercie but rather a commendation thereof THe fourth cause why Protestants out of their zeale vnto God refuse to inuocate Saints is the high conceit of Gods mercie for seeing he calleth all men immediately to himselfe Come vnto me all you that labour and I will refresh you We wrong his infinite goodnesse in not approaching vnto him by Prayer without the intercession of Saints This their zeale is not ioyned with science of the course of Gods mercifull prouidence whose Diuine wisedome prescribeth certaine bounds and as it were lawes to the infinitie of his mercies which orders and prescripts whosoeuer doth neglect and yet hopes to obtaine fauours hee doth not truely confide but erroniously presume God is infinitly mercifull and saith Come to me all that labour yet the man that should seeke to him for the remission of sinnes and would not submit himselfe to the Sacrament of water should hope in vaine and to no purpose challenge him of his promise Come to me all wherefore it imports vs verie much to know and to vse those meanes of approching vnto God that he hath appointed Now that the intercession of Saints is one meanes without which God will not bestow many graces and fauours as well spirituall as temporall Christian Tradition doth deliuer vnto vs which Tradition is suitable with the bountifull and noble disposition of God which is not onely to honour and glorifie those that haue beene zealous of his honour to the effusion of their bloud but also to make the world know and vnderstand that he doth honor them for this knowledge is both for his glorie and also for the good of men that seeing how highly God honoureth his constant friends they be prouoked to indeauour by pure life to gaine his fauours ANSWER First our doctrine and zeale are grounded vpon diuine reuelation for we are
dealing of their Mother than serue as lawfull witnesses of that which the Aduersarie intendeth to prooue by them The Vaile in the Greeke Church of which S. Chrysostome speakes Hom. 61. ad Pop. Antioch was not vsed to depriue the people of hearing but it was a ceremonie admonishing and signifying that prophane and vncleane persons were vnworthie to behold or pertake the sacred mysteries And as this Father sheweth Hom. 3. in Ephes. the drawing open of the curtaines signified the opening of Heauen and the descending of Angels at the celebration of the holy Eucharist Metrophanes a Monke of Greece in a certaine tractate testifyeth the forme or vse of the Vaile or Curtaine in the East Church to be That the Priest may within or vnder the same prepare aforehand the things requisit for the administration of the Sacrament and when this is done then the Canopie is drawne at the pronouncing of the holy Creed which is vttered with a loud voice euen as all other parts of the Liturgie are that all people may heare Now this action signifieth according to Dionisius that God reuealeth these mysteries to those only which are Orthodoxall in Faith and hee communicates his diuine grace to none but those which are sound in the diuine worship and to such all things are manifested whether men or women poore or rich c. The Iesuit therfore is ignorant of the reason wherefore the Greeke Church vseth a Canopie and shutteth and openeth the same at the holy Communion for the same was not done to take away audience of any part of the Seruice from lay people for the whole Liturgie from the beginning to the ending was pronounced with a loud voice but to admonish and signifie the due preparation which all persons were to vse when they pertake the sacred mysteries IESVIT Besides it is certaine that the Scripture was not read in any language but Greeke ouer all the Church of the East as S. Hierom witnesseth Also the Greeke Liturgie of S. Basil was vsed in all the Church of the East and yet the Grecian was not the vulgar language of all the Countries of the East as is apparant by manifest testimonies of the Cappadocians Mesopotamians Galatians Lycaonions Egyptians Syrians yea that all these countries and most of the Orient had their proper language distinct from the Greeke is manifest out of the Acts of the Apostles No lesse manifest is it that the Latine Liturgie was common antiently for all the Churches of the Westerne parts euen in Africke as appeareth by testimonies of Augustine but it is manifest that the Latine was not the vulgar language for all nations of the West And though the better sort vnderstood it yet some of the vulgar multitude onely knew their owne mother tongue as may be gathered out of the same S. Augustine who writes that he pleading in Latine against Cryspinus a Bishop of the Donats for possession of a village in Africke whereunto the consent of the villagers was required they did not vnderstand his speech till the same was interpreted to them in the vulgar African language So that the Christian Church did neuer iudge it requisit that the publique Liturgie should be commonly turned into the Mother language of euery nation nor necessarie that the same should be presently vnderstood word by word by euerie one of the vulgar Assistants neither doth the end of the publique diuine Seruice require it ANSWER Omitting things doubtfull this is apparant that common people both of the East and West had the vse of the Scriptures in such a language as they vnderstood for otherwise the Fathers would not haue exhorted them to read the holy Scripture but such exhortations are most frequent in S. Chrysostome S. Hierome and in other Fathers Read before pag. 279. And that the people of Asia vnderstood Greeke and the Africans Latine is prooued by the learned of our part out of many Authors and where this was wanting people had Translations and Seruice in their natiue tongue Also such people as were conuerted to Christianitie if they wanted Translations in their Mother tongue were careful to learne the ordinarie language in which diuine Seruice was vsed and wherein the holy Scriptures were commonly read But what proofe can the Aduersarie make that Christian people altogether ignorant of the language vsed in the publique Seruice came into those congregations and were pertakers of the holy Sacraments IESVIT As for the comfort that some few want in that they do not so perfectly vnderstand the particulars of diuine Seruice it may by other meanes bee aboundantly supplied without turning the publique Liturgies into innumerable vulgar languages which would bring a mightie confusion into the Christian Church First the whole Church should not be able to iudge of the Liturgie of euerie countrie when differences arise about the Translation thereof so diuers errours and heresies may creepe into particular countries and the whole Church neuer able to take notice of them Secondly particular countries could not be certaine that they haue the Scripture truely translated for thereof they can haue no other assured proofe but onely the Churches approbation nor can she approoue what she doth not vnderstand Thirdly were vulgar Translations so many as there be languages in the world it could not be otherwise but that some would be in many places ridiculous incongruous and full of mistakings to the great preiudice of soules specially in languages that haue no great extents nor many learned men that naturally speakethem Fourthly the Liturgies would be often changed together with the language which doth much alter in euerie age as experience sheweth Fiftly in the same countrie by reason of different dialects some prouinces vnderstand not one another And in the island of Iaponia as some write there is one language for noble men another for rustickes another for men another for women Into what language then should the Iaponian Liturgie be turned Finally by this vulgar vse of Liturgie the studie of the two learned languages would bee giuen ouer and in short time come to be extinct as we see that no antient language now remaines in humane knowledges but such as haue beene as it were incorporated in the publique Liturgies of the Church and the common vse of learned tongues being extinct there would follow want of meanes for Christians to meet in generall Councells to communicate one with another in matters of Faith Jn a word extreame Barbarisme would be brought vpon the world ANSVVER They cannot be some few onely in this case but the maior part yea an hundred to one which want the benefit and comfort of the holy Scriptures and publique Seruice of the Church And to supplie this want by preaching or priuate instruction it is morally speaking impossible it may be performed more compendiously and easily if Papists would chuse rather to follow S. Pauls doctrine 1. Cor. 14. than stifly to adhere to the late custome of
the Roman Church Now the reasons which the Aduersarie and his consorts vse to prooue the inconuenience of Translations c. are no other than such as will make against Preaching and Catechising in a knowne tongue as well as vsing publique Seruice in the same For are Romists able to translate Catechismes Homilies Meditations and priuate Prayers into a vulgar tongue and to accommodate all sorts of people according to the diuersitie of their languages without detriment to the common Faith and shall it be impossible to do the like in translating Scripture and the Seruice of the Church And to the reasons I answer First the whole Church whensoeuer it is requisite may iudge of translated or peculiar Liturgies by the helpes of the learned and iuditious who vnderstand both the vulgar language of the place and also Latine or other Language fit for Ecclesiasticke communication Secondly It may take notice of heresies and iudge of Translations by the same meanes And in the third fourth fift and sixt place as the obiected inconueniences are preuented in Preaching Catechising and priuate Prayers so they may bee preuented in publicke Liturgies yea God Almightie will giue a blessing and bee assistant to such as obserue his owne Ordinance The same also would be so farre from causing Ignorance and barbarisme in the world that nothing could more increase good literature and polish barbarous Languages than the often comparing of one Language with another and the refining and inlarging of that which is rude and ouer-narrow and sparing out of Tongues more ample and elegant Experience teacheth this in Great Britaine whose deficient and rude natiue Language by meanes of all sorts of Translations is made most polite and copious IESVIT Priuate Prayer for ignorant people in their vulgar Languages we practise we allow yea the Pater noster and the Creed are to be knowne of all in their mother Tongues which two formes containe the whole substance of Prayer For the end of Prayer being threefold to praise God for his infinite perfections to giue him thankes for his benefits bestowed vpon vs to demand of him such necessaries as we want as well for the maintaining of this present as for the attaining vnto eternall life The Creed being a summe of the perfections of God and his benefits towards man affoords sufficient knowledge to complie with the two former ends of Prayer and the Pater noster being an abridgement of all those things which we need containes a full instruction for the third Other Prayers doe but more plainely expresse things contained in the Pater noster and the Creed and our many Bookes doe shew that these kind of Prayers in vulgar Languages are by vs written esteemed and practised We adde that ordinarily speaking Common people doe more profit by saying Prayers in their mother tongues than in the Latine because not onely their affections are mooued vnto pietie but also their vnderstanding edified with knowledge Notwithstanding some Prayers though translated into English be so difficile to be vnderstood as they will rather distract ignorant especially curious people than instruct of which kind are many Psalmes of Dauid and these Prayers as wee thinke may more profitably be said in Latine So that I see no great difference either in practise or in Doctrine betweene Protestants and the Romance Church concerning priuate Prayers in a Language vnknowne ANSVVER The Opposition of Protestants hath brought you to this and yet you enterfere in your Tenet for many of your fellowes teach That it is not necessarie to make priuate Prayer in a knowne Language And as you permit vulgar Translations of holy Scripture rather to satisfie the importunitie of people than for any good will you beare the Scripture so likewise if your Kingdome were as absolute in the World as sometimes it was wee may iustly suspect that you would recall your later Indulgences and reduce each thing to the old Center But taking you at the best it 〈◊〉 strange to vs that you should approoue a knowne Tongue as most fit for priuate Prayer and account the same a Canker in the publike Liturgie One of your Order is not ashamed to traduce our Seruice because it is vsed in a common Language as pernicious prophane sacrilegious detestable and opposite to all Religion and Apostolicall Tradition But hauing examined whatsoeuer this Author or your selfe can say I obserue in neither of you so much as one probable Argument to support the high conceit you haue of your Roman Seruice and the partiall respect or rather despect you carrie against ours It is Custome therefore and not Veritie which hath emboldened you and you leane vpon a broken Reed when you ground your Faith in this and other Questions vpon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Trident Synod Sapientiam sibi adimunt qui sine iudicio inuenta maiorum probant ab alijs more pecudum ducuntur saith Lactantius They remooue wisedome from themselues which without iudgement maintaine the inuentions of their Elders and which like Animals are led by other mens Deuices THE FIFTH POINT REPETITIONS OF PATER-NOSTERS AVES AND CREEDS ESPECIALLY affixing a kind of Merit to the number of them IESVIT I Am persuaded that your Maiestie doth not intend to dislike Repetition of Prayers so the same be done with renewed Deuotion and Affection For this Repetition is iustified not onely by the example of the blind man who still cryed vpon our Sauiour with Repetition of the same Prayer Iesu fili Dauid miserere mei by which Repetition he obtained his sight Nor onely of the Princely Prophet who in his 135. Psalme repeats 27 times Quoniam in aeternum misericordia eius Nor onely of the Seraphins who in praysing their Creator repeat three times ouer the same word Holy Holy Holy But also by the example of our most blessed Sauiour himselfe who thrice at the least in the Garden repeated the same Prayer Pater si fieri potest transeat à me Calix iste veruntamen non mea voluntas sed tua fiat Wherefore to repeat the same Prayers is very good and pious so the same be done with new Deuotion which new deuotion that it may not be wanting there is appointed for euery Pater noster Aue and Creede a speciall Meditation that may stirre vp new deuotion at euery repeated praier and seeing we cannot pray long but we must needs repeat ouer the Pater noster in sence for what can we demand of God that is not there conteyned Why may wee not also repeate the same in words ANSVVER TWo points are controuerted in this Article First Whether the repetitions of Creedes Aues and Paternosters according to the formes prescribed in Primers and Rosaries is a conuenient meanes to honour God and the Saints Secondly Whether the same be meritorious and satisfactorie Concerning the first the Iesuit vseth this argument Sundry examples are extant in holy Scripture of repetitions vsed in prayers and thanksgiuing to wit
none of the antient Fathers maintained Romish Transubstantiation and I haue not obserued one expresse Testimonie produced by Romists wherein the Primatiue Fathers nay where Damascene or Theophilact affirme That the whole materiall substance and forme essentiall of bread and wine being destroyed the bare accidents and quantitie of bread and wine remaine or that the abstracted figures and qualities of those creatures are receiued into the mouth and stomacke and are tasted felt and conferre nourishment without any earthly matter conioyned to them But on the contrarie many Fathers affirme That after consecration bread and wine remaine Theoderet saith That they lose not their proper nature but remaine after they are sanctified in their former essence figure and kinde Gelasius saith Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to bee Bertram saith Secundam creaturarum substantiam quod fuerunt ante consecrationem hoc postea consistunt According to the substance of creatures they persist the same before and after consecration Ireneus teacheth That bread which is from the earth receiuing diuine calling or sanctification is not common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two seuerall things or matters one earthly and the other coelestiall Saint Chrysostome Before Sanctification wee call it bread onely but when diuine Grace hath sanctified it it is deliuered from the name of bread and is counted worthie of the Appellation of the Lords bodie although the nature of bread remaine in it still Damascene saith As a fierie coale is wood and fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not onely bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but bread vnited to the Diuinitie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is apparent that when fire is vnited to a coale that the materiall substance of wood remaineth at least in part The Aduersarie in answere to Theoderit and Gelasius pretendeth that these Fathers by the words Substance Nature and Kind vnderstand onely the naturall qualities and accidents which flow from the Nature and Essence of Bread and Wine and he yeeldeth a reason saying That in ordinarie speech the naturall properties and qualities of things are tearmed the nature of the thing c. But this Answere is insufficient because it might perhaps salue the Obiection grounded vpon the word Nature but the Fathers affirme also that the Sacramentall signes remaine in their essence substance and kinde and they adde farther that they may bee sensibly tasted and felt and haue force of nourishing the bodie and that they are compounded of many cornes and of many grapes which make one substantiall bodie of bread and wine Now these things cannot truely bee said of the naked shapes and accidents of bread and wine suspended and diuided from their materiall substance Besides the Fathers deliuer the foresaid Doctrine to prooue the veritie and distinction of the two substantiall natures in Christ by making a comparison betweene the holy Eucharist and the two natures in Christs Person but if the substance of bread and wine cease and are changed into the very bodie and blood of Christ then the former comparison would rather confirme the false beleefe of the Hereticke than maintaine the Orthodoxall Faith of Christs humanitie remaining euen after his Ascension for the Hereticke might inferre vpon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation two errours about the humane nature of Christ. First That as in the Eucharist there is onely the outward shape and forme of bread and not the reall substance euen so in Christ there was the shape and forme of flesh but not the verie nature Secondly Euen as in the Eucharist the essentiall forme and materiall substance of bread and wine are swallowed vp and conuerted into the bodie and blood of Christ so likewise after Christs Ascension the humane nature is absorpt and conuerted into the Deitie IESVIT § 4. The seeming repugnancies this Mysterie hath with sence should incline Christians the sooner to beleeue it THe former proofe of Transubstantiation might satisfie were this Mysterie easie and not accompanied with many seeming absurdities and repugnances against sense 〈◊〉 these foure First That a bodie as big as our Sauiours remayning still truely corpulent in it selfe should be contained within the compasse of a round Hoast scarce an inch long and broad Secondly That a bodie so glorious should be combined vnto corruptible elements and so made subiect vnto the indignities and obscenities that may befall vnto them Thirdly That the same bodie may be in heauen and on earth in innumerable places at once Fourthly That the substance of bread being conuerted into Christs bodie the sole accidents remaine by themselues performing the whole office of substance no lesse than if it were present euen to the nutrition of mans bodie These difficulties so scandalize Protestants that some condemne Transubstantiation as impossible yea as absurd ridiculous barbarous others professe they cannot subdue their vnderstandings to beleeue it as a 〈◊〉 of Faith To giue full satisfaction in this point I set downe this Proposition That these seeming absurdities should not auert but rather incline a true Christian minde to beleeue this Mysterie In proofe whereof I present vnto your Maiestie these three Considerations ANSVVER WEe measure not supernaturall Doctrine by humane sence or reason neither can any seeming repugnances of reputed Philosophie to Diuine Reuelation hinder our Faith where the holy Ghost commaunds vs to beleeue as appeareth in the articles of the sacred Trinitie Incarnation Resurrection c. Est quidem de communibus sensibus sapere in Dei rebus sed in testimonium veri non in adiutorium falsi quod sit secundum diuinam non contrà diuinam dispositionem saith Tertullian We must haue vnderstanding in the things of God out of common sence but this must serue to testifie truth and not to patronise errour according to diuine disposition Reuelation not against it So farre as sence and reason are not repugnant to diuine veritie but subseruient we may giue credit to them and euerie good Christian saith S. Augustine Vbicunque inuenerit veritatem Domini sui intelligat esse Wheresoeuer he findeth veritie taught either by nature or grace must vnderstand that it is his masters The question betweene the Romists and vs is not Whether if Transubstantiatiō be reuealed by God we may notwithstanding therefore refuse to beleeue it because the matter is difficill to be conceiued or because it hath manie seeming repugnances to sence for if they be able to demonstrate the first we must renounce the latter But the question is Whether Transubstantiation hauing no certaine and manifest ground in diuine Reuelation and many repugnances to common sence and reason and besides being expressely repugnant to the letter of the Scripture we are to beleeue the same First the holy Scripture calleth consecrated Wine the fruit of the Vine and consecrated Bread by the name of verie Bread
Luc. 22.18.1 Cor. 10.16 11.26.27.28 Secondly the same affirmeth not that the substance of Bread and Wine is abolished Thirdly naturall reason sheweth that accidents must haue a subiect of inhaerencie and that bare formes and shadowes of things cannot nourish without corporall substance Fourthly the sences of Tast and Feeling discerne apparantly a corporietie in the elements receiued In this case there is no reason to imagine that our sences are deluded or that God almightie by miracle worketh in a contrarie manner to the course of nature and to that which he hath otherwise reuealed in his word It is not sufficient for Romists to affirme That God vseth a miraculous course in these things and to palliate absurdities repugnant to sence reason and scripture vnder pretext of Gods omnipotencie but they must prooue by diuine Reuelation that he will doe this for God effecteth not all things by his omnipotencie which men may imagine to be possible In the wordes of our Sauiour This is my Bodie This cuppe is the new Testament in my Bloud c. there is not a sillable concerning accidents without a subiect or concerning any miracle wrought in the Sacrament by omnipotencie neither is there any such doctrine elsewhere reuealed And if Christs words be expounded figuratiuely according to S. Augustine Tertullian Theoderit Origen Bertram c. they make nothing for corporall presence by indistance of place and if they be vnderstood literally they prooue not Transubstantiation for Bread may be called the bodie of Christ by an inusitate forme of speaking which according to the Tenet of some learned Diuines is no trope or figure And if neither of these expositions content our Aduersaries they might haue beleeued the words of the holy Text as they sound literally and a reall presence of Christs Bodie and Bloud wrought by the power of the holy Ghost without defining and determining the expresse manner how For if they beleeue that accidents subsist without a substance and nourish and are tasted and felt and passe into the stomach and yet are not able to expresse the distinct manner how and if they beleeue a substantiall presence of Christs indiuiduall humane bodie in many hosts and yet are vnable to declare the maner how Why might they not haue suspended other questions concerning the distinct manner of presence and maintained onely a true and mysticall presence the distinct manner whereof is incomprehensible in this life and not haue disturbed the peace of the Church by defining as an article of Faith such a doctrine as hath no foundation in diuine Reuelation to make it appeare certaine and infallible IESVITS 1. Consideration The first is grounded vpon the supposall of two things most certaine First that the Primitiue Church preaching vnto Pagans Iewes and other Infidels the rest of Christian mysteries as the Trinitie the Incarnation the Resurrection of the bodie did most carefully keepe as much as might be from their knowledge the mysteries of the Eucharist yea Catechumens and Nouices were not before Baptisme fully taught or instructed therein Secondly the reason moouing the Primitiue Church to be carefull in this point was least Catechumens and Infidels being fully acquainted with the whole mysterie the one should be scandalized and the other mocke thereat Hence it was accounted such a haynous offence that Christians should discouer this secret vnto Infidels or dispute about the difficulties thereof in their presence The Councell of Alexandria relating the crimes of Arians number this as one of the greatest They were not ashamed in publique and as it were vpon a scaffold to treat of the mysteries before Catechumens and which is worse before Pagans And a little after Jt is not lawfull to publish the Mysteries before them that are not initiated for feare least Pagans out of ignorance mocke and Catechumens entring into curiosities be scandalized And againe Before Catechumens and which is more before Iewes and Pagans blaspheming Christianitie they handled a question about the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour S. Ambrose saith To declare the mysteries vnto them that be Catechumens is not Tradition but Prodition seeing by such declarations danger is incurred least they be diuulged vnto Jnfidels that will scoffe at them This supposed I infer that the seeming absur dities of the Catholique reall presence should incourage a true Christian mind to beleeue it for a true Christian desires to beleeue and firmely cleaue vnto the reall presence that was beleeued by the Primitiue Church But this was a reall presence accompanied with many so seemingly grosse absurdities that the Church had no hope to satisfie Infidels therein or to keepe them from blaspheming but by concealing the mysterie from them and consequently they held the Catholique not the Protestant Doctrine in this point The Protestant Doctrine that makes Christs bodie present spiritually by Faith vnto the deuout Receiuer that communicating thinks sweetly of Christs passion and death containes no mysterie to be concealed in respect of the seeming absurdities ANSWER In the daies of the Fathers Heathens Iewes and Heretickes might enter into the Church and heare the publicke Sermons and preaching as appeareth by the fourth councell of Carthage and Infidels might read the bookes and tractates of the Fathers But the Fathers in their sermons to the people and also in their written bookes deliuered the Doctrine of the holy mysteries as appeareth by Ireneus Iustin Martyr S. Cyprian Gregorie Nissen Cyrill of Hierusalem S. Chrysostome S. Augustine S. Ambrose c. Neither is it apparant that the said Fathers taught any other secret Doctrine touching the holy mysteries than such as they preached in their Homilies and penned in their Bookes and therefore these Homilies and Bookes being publique it appeareth not that the Primitiue Church was more carefull to conceale the Doctrine of the Eucharist than of Baptisme or of the Trinitie The Obiections out of Athanasius and S. Ambrose shew that it was held vnlawfull in those ages to treat or dispute of the holy Eucharist intempestiuè that is before Heathens which were not at all instructed in the first Principles of Religion or to treat of this Doctrine in prophane places or auditories But what is this to Transubstantiation For it was held vnlawfull in the Primitiue Church in maner aforesaid that is in an vndue time order place to treat or dispute of the mysteries of Baptisme or of other profound mysteries belonging to Christian faith Also if it were granted that some antient Fathers beleeuing a reall Presence did therefore conceale the doctrine of the holy Eucharist Ratione scandali because of offence of Infidels arising vpon many difficulties and seeming contradictions to sence and common reason it followeth not from hence that those Fathers beleeued Popish Transubstantiation for many difficulties and repugnances to sence and common reason are found in Consubstantiation as well as in Transubstantiation and sundrie places of the Fathers may with more
probabilitie be alleadged in fauour of reall Presence by Consubstantiation than for Transubstantiation Lastly The mysticall vnion betweene Christ and his members is ineffable and the manner incomprehensible and the Protestant Doctrine teaching a reall donation of the bodie and blood of Christ and a mysticall coniunction by the operation of the holy Ghost with the soules of faithfull Receiuers and that dead and corruptible creatures can be a meanes and instrument heereof is a great mysterie of godlinesse incredible to prophane persons and therefore the Primitiue Church which beleeued this Doctrine might iustly require that this Mysterie should not be manifested before Infidels and other infirme Christians vntill they were first instructed in the rudiments of Christianitie IESVIT Yea the Fathers did not feare to declare vnto Catechumens this Sacrament so farre as it was commemoratiue of Christ and his Passion as appeareth by the Treatises of Saint Augustine vpon Saint Iohn made before Catechumens out of which Treatises Protestants for their meere commemoratiue presence alleadge many Sentences to little purpose For he there explicates spirituall manducation by Faith and he excludes the grosse imagination of eating Christs bodie in his proper shape tearing it in pieces with the tooth but denies not yea rather insinuates another kind of spirituall manducation not onely by Faith but by reall sumption though to conceale the Mysterie from Catechumens he speakes not so clearely thereof Wherefore as the Palme tree the heauier the waight is that is laid vpon it the more it riseth vpwards as it were ioying in difficulties so a true Catholicke Christian feeling in the doctrine of Transubstantiation many seeming absurdities that presse carnall imagination to the ground groweth thereby more strong to beleeue it imbracing these difficulties as manifest signes that this doctrine was beleeued by the Primitiue Apostolicall Church On the other side Protestants finding the Presence of Christs body by Faith to be deuoyd of such difficulties may by the very lightnesse thereof suspect it is not the doctrine which the Fathers concealed from Jnfidells as more absurd to humane Imagination than any other mystery of Christian Religion ANSWER You obiect that the Fathers declared to Catechumens that is to Nouices in Christianitie a commemoratiue presence in the holy Eucharist but not a corporall presence by Transubstantiation and from hence you would inferre that the Fathers held two kinds of Presences of Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist the one soly spirituall by intellectuall apprehension the other corporall by reall sumption of Christs body into the mouth and stomacke of the receiuer and you pretend that S. Augustine was of this iudgement But you must remember that you are not now to deale with Aduersaries which will credite your bare words and proofes you haue none Therefore I answer First that the Fathers taught no other kind of Presence to them which were baptised and receiued the holy Eucharist than to Catechumens or vnbaptised Christians although they instructed the one sort more fully than the other Secondly S. Augustine teacheth not that Christs body is receiued inuisibly insensibly and according to the nature of a spirit by the mouth and stomacke of each Communicant but he teacheth onely two kinds of manducation in the Sacrament one both corporall and spirituall wherein the body of man receiueth the externall elements of Bread and Wine and the soule receiueth the true body and bloud of Christ by faith the other corporeall onely wherein the receiuer partaketh the outward signe and not the thing signified Panem Domini non panem Dominum the visible Sacrament of Christs body but not his very body and he affirmeth not vpon the sixt chapter of S. Iohn That a malicious sinner continuing such receiueth the very body and blood of Christ. Thirdly Protestants beleeue not onely a commemoratiue but also an exhibitiue presence of the thing signified together with the outward signe according to the manner formerly declared pag. 405. and this Presence is mysticall and such as may seeme incredible to vnbelceuers because of sundry difficulties repugnant to common sence to wit That Christs flesh by the vnspeakeable power of the holy Ghost should be after a sort incorporated into the soule and that corruptible and dead creatures should be eleuated and made effectuall instruments to apply and communicate Iesus Christ and the vertue of his death to faithfull Communicants IESVITS 2. Consideration This consideration is drawne from the qualitie of the difficulties obiected against this Mysterie which be such as a Christian in honour should neglect them For if it be the part of a prudent and intelligent man not to permit Imagination to preuaile against his Reason What a disgrace is it for a Christian that his faith should be conquered by these kind of difficulties For that the seeming absurdities of this misterie be not in respect of naturall Reason but meerely of Jmagination may hence appeare that some naturall truths be in a manner as difficile and incredible which will be seene if we compare the foure aboue mentioned difficulties with the difficulties some truths euident in nature haue ANSWER When difficulties obiected arise from experience of sence and principles of nature and there is no expresse or manifest word of God sufficient to mooue vs to beleeue the contrarie it is the part of each intelligent and prudent man rather to credite that which is apparent to sence and common reason than to beleeue Paradoxes vpon no true ground and reason IESVIT First we cannot imagine that the whole body of Christ can be contained in the compasse of a small Hoast But it is not more incredible that in a thing of small quantititie for example the wing of a Flye there should be so many parts as vnfolded and laid together would couer the whole face of the world both of heauen and earth And yet it is demonstrable in Philosophy That euen in the wing of a Flye there are so many parts as broad and long as the wing though still thinner and thinner that Almightie God separating and vnfolding them may therewith couer the whole world For certaine it is that some finite number of such parts so separated each of them as long and as broad as a Flyes wing would couer the face of the whole world certaine also it is That the wing of the Flye is still diuisible into more and more such parts so that no finite number is assignable but God may still separate from that wing a greater number without any end therefore it is certaine that in the wing of a Flye there is so much quantity as is sufficient to couer the face of the whole world both of heauen and earth if God would but separate and vnfold the same Is not this Secret of Philosophy as incredible to carnall Imagination as the being of Christs body within a small Hoast Wee that cannot comprehend things we see with eyes and feele with hands certainely we shall haue much adoe
Cup the Blood of Christ. And Paschasius after him saith That the Flesh or Bread is not lawfully receiued without the Cup or Blood But whatsoeuer our Sauiour himselfe and his Apostles and their successours and the antient Church by perpetuall succession taught and practised a thousand yeeres and vpward yea euen the Latine Church it selfe and the Easterne Churches to this day the Romish generation exalting it selfe aboue God not onely presumeth to commit Sacriledge at home but it censureth the followers of Christs Testament of damnable Heresie Now that they may with some colour aduance their owne Tradition against the Ordinance of Christ they prie into euery corner and inuent friuolous Glosses and Pretexts as wee shall further perceiue by that which followeth in our Aduersaries Discourse IESVIT Hence wee may probably inferre That Christ gaue no speciall Precept thereof because Christ hath commanded no more concerning the vse of the Eucharist than what by the substance of the Institution and nature of the Sacrament we are bound vnto leauing accidentall circumstances belonging thereunto to be ordained by the Apostles and Pastours of the Church as S. Augustine noteth saying Our Lord did not appoint in what order the Sacrament of the Eucharist was to be taken afterward but left authoritie to make such appointments vnto his Apostles by whom he was to dispose and order his Church So clearely doth S. Augustine speake that Christ gaue no commandement to his Church concerning the vse of the Sacrament besides such as are contained in the substance of the Institution of the Sacrament of which kinde Communion vnder both kinds cannot be as hath beene prooued which will farther appeare by pondering the places alleadged to prooue a Precept ANSVVER Ecclesiasticall power to adde detract or alter any thing about Sacraments is confined to things adiaphorous and Saint Augustine in the place obiected speaketh expresly of these but the materiall parts of Sacraments belong to their substance euen as the matter of the heauens is of the substance of the heauens and the matter of the Scripture is of the substance of the Scripture And if in the holy Eucharist the Element of Wine is not of the substance thereof then the Eucharist may bee administred without wine also the kinde of the Element may be changed and milke or broath substituted in the place of wine and the Communion may be celebrated in wine without bread In all compounded things the moitie of the matter is the moitie of the substance and whatsoeuer Iesuited Romists teach I see not how their Laickes can truely say that they haue at any time in all their liues beene partakers of this Sacrament for if halfe a man be not a man then likewise halfe a Communion is not a Communion If they except That they receiue the Blood of Christ Consecutiue or by Concomitancie I reply This Answere solueth not the difficultie for I dispute of the materiall Element and the direct receiuing thereof and not of receiuing the blood of Christ spiritually or any other way Now the wine is a moitie of the substantiall outward matter of the Eucharist and therefore if they receiue not the wine they receiue not the one halfe of the substantiall outward matter of the Eucharist and consequently they receiue no Eucharist for as the poope of a ship the prowe being broken away is no ship and as halfe a cloake is not a garment to keepe a man warme so likewise halfe a Communion is no Sacrament And concerning the being of Christs Blood in the bread by Concomitancie I answere If this were granted they receiue not Christs blood Sacramentally but some other way for nothing is receiued Sacramentally but that which is caused by the words of consecration Ergo It is not there Sacramentally and consequently it is not receiued Sacramentally IESVIT The words of Christ Doe this in remembrance of me doe no wayes inferre a Precept of both kinds First because he said Doe this in remembrance of me onely of the Sacrament in forme of bread of the forme of wine not absolutely but conditionally Doe this as often as you drinke in memorie of me that the Aduersaries of the Church might not haue any the least plausible shew to complaine of her neglecting Gods Precept For this Precept Doe this being the onely Precept giuen by Christ to his Church as shall afterwards appeare and giuen absolutely of the forme of Bread conditionally of the forme of Wine there is no colour to accuse the Church of doing against Christs Precept by Communion vnder one kinde ANSWER The first reason vpon which you presume that our Sauiours words Doe this in remembrance of me are not Preceptiue in regard of Communion in both kinds is an emptie shadow without substance of matter Our Sauiour in your Tenet saith not Doe this as often as you Lay men communicate but whensoeuer you receiue the cup and drinke then doe it in remembrance of me But if this be the whole sence then Christs words must be resolued against sence in this manner As often as you Lay people drinke which needeth neuer to be done by you according to Romish Diuinitie Doe this nothing in remembrance of me Secondly Quotiescunque biberitis as often as you drinke maketh not the Precept conditionall in respect of the cup more than of the bread for in the very next verse it followeth Quotiescunque ederitis panem hunc as often as you shall eate this bread and therefore if as often as you shall drinke restraineth the speech in regard of the cup then as often as you shall eate restraineth the Precept in regard of the bread And Haimo saith Idem sensus est c. There is the same sence of Doe this being referred to the cup as of Doe this being referred to the bread But Doe this referred to the bread is a Precept Ergo Doe this referred to the cup is also a Precept But the Romanist infatuated with this conceit croweth as followeth That the Aduersaries of the Church might not haue the least plausible shew c. The Vermine is deceiued in calling vs Aduersaries of the Church for wee are fast friends to the true Catholicke Church and we are Aduersaries to Romists an vnsound Church no otherwise than Saint Paul was to the Galathians when he said Am I therefore become your enemie because I tell you the truth Gallat 4. 16. And touching the fancie of this Obiectour I adde That euen as when Saint Paul said 1. Cor. 10. 31. Whether yee eate or drinke or whatsoeuer thing else ye doc doe all to the glorie of God If these words should be resolued in this manner As often as ye eate and drinke doe this to the glorie of God the placing of this word As often restraineth not the speech from being a Precept so likewise when Saint Paul saith As often as ye shall drinke doe this in remembrance of me this manner of speaking altereth not his words from
remission of sinnes and because he is intreated by the same to release the punishment deserued The first kind of satisfaction was made by Christ alone both for fault and guilt of sinne The latter according to the speaking of sundry Fathers is performed by penitent Persons by their contrition 〈◊〉 confession and other penitentiall actions Fiftly repentance may be exercised priuately onely before God or els openly and before men The antient Church obserued a seuere discipline and imposed vpon notorious and enormious sinners open penance causing them to make satisfaction to the Church and to testifie their vnfeigned repentance to God by externall signes and by actions of humiliation and mortification Also in the dayes of the Fathers sinners which had voluntarily confessed their offences to the Pastours of the Church were by them inioyned to a strict manner of humiliation and exercise of workes of charitie and mortification And the fathers stiled these Penitentiall actions by the name of Satisfaction partly in respect of men offended partly in the regard of Offenders themselues who because they did that which was inioyned them by their spirituall guides to appease the indignation of God were said to make satisfaction But the Fathers did not hereby exalt Poenitentiall deedes to a sufficiency or equalitie of satisfying Gods iustice for this effect is proper onely to the actions aud passions of the Sonne of God but they tearmed that satisfaction which they iudged meet or necessary for sinners to performe that they might preuent Diuine indignation and whereby they might repaire the spirituall detriment which they had incurred by falling into sinne Sixtly and lastly Marsilius ab Inguen a famous Schoolman obserueth 〈◊〉 That Satisfaction sometimes importeth all the actions 〈◊〉 or imperate which a sinner must performe on his part that God may be pacified and thus it containeth Contrition Confession c. Sometimes it noteth onely those Acts which follow Contrationand Confession and are either voluntarily assumed or imposed by a Confessour The Fathers vsed the word Satisfaction in the first notion and they knew no Sacramentall Satisfaction but onely of Discipline or priuate humiliation Now the Romists in their course of Doctrine haue miserably 〈◊〉 all this First That which the Fathers speake of the fault and guilt of sinne they wrest to the temporall paine of mortall sinne remayning after the remission of the euerlasting guilt Secondly That which the Fathers stiled Satisfaction improperly and by way of deprecation they make Satisfaction of Condignitie yea in rigour of Iustice and for veniall sinnes more effectuall than Christs satisfaction Thirdly That which in the ancient Church was a worke of discipline or Christian mortification they make Sacramentall Fourthly Whereas the Fathers placed Satisfaction in all 〈◊〉 actions inward and outward and especially in such actions as were commanded by God as necessarie to obtaine remission of sinnes The Romists restraine the same to externall actions succeeding Contrition and Confession and principally to electious and voluntarie actions Fiftly The Fathers gaue not absolution to 〈◊〉 vntill such time as they had accomplished the penitentiall actions inioyned Romists set the Cart before the Horse and absolue before satisfaction is made which is as one saith To set Easter before Lent IESVIT But J suppose they are to your Maiestie well knowne and therefore in the proposed difficultie supposing the satisfaction for sinne to be possible you mooue this doubt Whether the penitents can so fully satisfie for themselues as their satisfactions may superabound and bee referred vnto the treasure of the Church to satisfie this doubt three Propositions are to be prooued ANSWER It is well knowne to his gracious Maiestie that you peruert the meaning of the Fathers and from the word Satisfaction vsed by them in one Notion you argue to another that is from Satisfaction impetrant which is an action or fruit of the vertue of Repentance you conclude your Romish Sacramentall Satisfaction of Condignitie IESVIT The first That Good workes of Saints that are poenall and afflictiue doe not onely merit heauen but also satisfie for sinne this is prooued giuing of Almes for the loue of Christ is meritorious witnesse our Sauiour himselfe who to the iust in reward of their Almes will giue The Kingdome prepared from the beginning of the world ANSVVER First You argue out of Saint Matthew 25. 34. from reward of Workes to merit of Workes But you must obserue that there is a reward of meere bountie as well as of desert 〈◊〉 127.2 Ezech. 29.18 Gen. 30.18 Also 〈◊〉 reason and cause why the kingdome of Heauen is bestowed is not meritorious but some causes are dispositiue 〈◊〉 or impetrant IESVIT And it is also satisfactorie for sinne witnes Daniel who gaue this councell vnto the Babylonian King Redeeme thy sinnes with Almes-deeds and thine iniquities with mercies vnto the poore ANSWER The place of Daniell 4.24 according to the vulgar Translation speaketh of redeeming sinnes in regard of the fault and eternall guilt and not onely of temporall punishment Also of redeeming sinnes in this life and not of redeming them in Purgatorie Besides if Nabuchadonosor were an vniust person Esa. 14.15 then according to your owne position he could not make satisfaction for sinne Lastly the punishment threatned and foretold in that Scripture is such as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth belongeth not to the Court of Penance and Papall Indulgences And if Popes Pardons and Romish Satisfactions could deliuer sinners from frenzie and losse of outward goods and temporall dominion the mad-men in Bedlam and decayed merchants and other afflicted persons throughout the Christian world would become suitors to his Holinesse to insert these and other such like temporall calamities into the Patent of his Indulgences and Iubilees Also the place of Daniell is vnderstood litterally of breaking of sinnes by almes-deeds as if one preaching to an extortioner should say Breake off thy sinfull courses by imitating Zacheus c. Now what merit is there in this or what immediate satisfaction to God for this is rather satisfaction to man in regard of ciuill iniurie Lastly there is no ground either in Scripture or in Tradition for this Romish doctrine to wit the temporall paine of personall sinne remaining after this life may be remooued or expiated by humane satisfactions for whatsoeuer is spoken in holy Scripture or by antient Fathers concerning redeeming sinnes by Satisfaction belongs to the fault and eternall paine of sinne as well as to the temporall punishment and the satisfaction must be performed by the delinquent person himselfe in this present life Also the redemption or satisfaction possible to be performed by man is by way of deprecation onely and not by iust compensation And if there were a Purgatorie because the paines thereof would be proportioned and stinted by the diuine Will and Decree it could not rest in the
vnto vs confusion of face v. 9. To the Lord our God belongeth mercy and forgiuenesse though we haue rebelled against thee and v. 18. O my God encline thine eare and heare open thine eyes and behold our desolations c. for we doe not present our supplications before thee for our owne righteousnesse but for thy great mercies Three things are remarkeable in this Scripture First Daniell was a sanctified person and a Prophet one of those which according to our Aduersaries Tenet communicates Satisfactions to fill vp the Churches Treasurie Secondly he prayeth to God not onely for the remission of the eternall guilt of sinne but also for the pardon and release of temporarie punishment Thirdly he presenteth not his owne Satisfactions neither yet the superabundant Passions of any other of the Patriarchs or Prophets but he resteth wholy vpon the free mercy of God and the future satisfaction of the Messiah to come Therefore I conclude that they which conioyne the passions of Saints with the sufferings of Christ to make condigne Satisfaction for the temporarie punishment of sinne are iniurious to the All-sufficient Passion of Christ and attribute that vertue to the actions of men which is proper to the Sacrifice of the Sonne of God Now if the Aduersarie in his answer relye vpon the distinction of eternall and temporall paine affirming that Christ alone and by himselfe hath fully satisfied the iustice of God for the first but not for the latter he must remember That it is not sufficient in a matter of such consequence to affirme but he must confirme by diuine Testimonie the veritie of his answer And if the former Principles and the arguments deduced from them when they are propounded in a due forme conclude not his assertion then his distinction is a begging of the question and not a solution of the Obiection Lastly if the Iesuit will be so rigide as to admit no argument on our part which may receiue any colourable answer I must require him likewise to confirme his owne positions at leastwise with probable reasons and not pester his papers with Illations ridiculous to children But among other things I intreate him to deliuer so much as one probable Argument in due forme I will not require a demonstration proouing that the Roman Bishop or any Prelate vnder him haue power ouer soules in Purgatorie for if his Monarchy be onely ouer the Church Militant and the Church Militant is onely vpon earth by what authoriy doth the Roman Bishop intermeddle with soules in Purgatorie Also how doth his holynesse or his Emissaries the Iesuits and Fryars know which soules are in Purgatorie gatorie and how long they continue in the same and the time and season when it is expedient to apply suffrages and indulgences to them Dominicus Soto and Thomas Zerula say That soules continue not in Purgatorie ten or twentie yeeres and yet the Pope granteth Pardons for many thousands of yeeres Also by what experience or testimonie doe Papists vnderstand the state of soules in Purgatorie the qualitie of their paine their ingresse and egresse from that place of torment or the meanes to apply remedie to them Now let them answere what they please touching the difference of the yeeres of Penance in this life with the measure of Purgatorie paines or concerning any of the former assertions and withall let them be intreated to confirme their Tenet with any probable Argument and wee shall thinke they are lesse partiall when they admit no proofe as sufficient on our part which can be euaded by any straine of wit THE NINTH POINT THE OPINION OF DEPOSING KINGS AND giuing away of their Kingdomes by Papall power whether directly or indirectly IESVIT THe Question proposed in the ninth place being a Controuersie betweene two powers both each in his kind Soueraigne and Supreame both instituted and appointed of God both necessarie for the preseruation of Religion and gouernment of the Christian world both Sacred Venerable Honoured and reuerenced of me in the inmost affections of my soule for me to vndertake the discussion thereof betweene them were to put my selfe into imminent danger of incurring their offence whose fauour J desire and esteeme aboue all worldly blessings ANSVVER IN your entrance into this ninth Question you deliuer these Particulars First That the question is concerning two Powers in their seuerall kinds supreame Secondly Both these Powers Regall and Papall are vnfainedly honoured by you Thirdly You professe your owne vnwillingnesse to discusse this question because of offence To the first I answer That Papall iurisdiction is not supreame in Spirituals by Diuine institution whereas regall is by diuine naturall and ciuill in things ciuill and temporall Gregorie the Great a Roman Pope saith as followeth None of the Romane Bishops my predecessours assumed to himselfe the name of Vniuersall Bishop and if any man else assume the same I say It is a swelling of arrogancie a prowd nouell pompous peruerse temerarious superstitious prophane and impious title A name of Singularitie a title of Errour a word of Vanitie and Blasphemie and whosoeuer taketh vpon him or desireth this arrogant title by this exalting himselfe he is a forerunner of Antichrist and if he be permitted to vsurpe the same it will prooue the bane of the Faith of the vniuersall Church Also if the Roman Monarchie were of Diuine institution how could an Oecumenicall Councell one of those foure which Pope Gregorie himselfe honoured as the foure Euangelists appoint equall dignitie iurisdiction and priuiledges to the Episcopall See of Constantinople and to the See of Rome Againe other Bishops in auntient time stile the Romane by the name of Brother Colleague fellow Priest fellow Bishop c. They resist him and controll his Actions And that which is principally to be considered It appeareth not by diuine Reuelation that our Sauiour or his Apostles granted any Monarchie to the Romane Pope or that he is the onely Successour of S. Peter or that S. Peters authoritie and priuiledges are deuolued vpon the Romane Bishops onely Yea it is not infallible that S. Peter himselfe was a Monarch Luc. 22.24 for in the whole diuine Historie no Monarchicall actions of his are reported He is sent vpon a message by other Apostles Acts 8.14 he giues the right hand of fellowship to S. Paul and Barnabas Gal. 2. 9 and many of the Fathers say the rest of the Apostles were his Compeeres Secondly Your protestation that you honour Papall and regall dignitie must be vnderstood Iesuitically with mentall limitation to wit that you hononr the Pope as an earthly God yea so farre as that if he lead you to Hell you are readie to follow him But you honor Kings as the Popes vassals or in a subordination to the Pope and so farre onely as the Pope will licence you And if you speake plainely and from your heart concerning your loyaltie
the matter by Scripture onely that Protestants may seeme to haue the vpper hand yet Charitie will mooue this Question Whether the Testimonies and Arguments they bring from Scripture are so vndeniably cleare and so vnauoidably strong that no answere or euasion may bee found but the Romane Church must bee refused notwithstanding so much discord and dissention so much inconstancie and incertainetie about Religion which as reason prooueth must and as experience sheweth doth thereupon ensue ANSWER First Protestants doe not onely bring Arguments and Testimonies of Scripture against the Roman faith but also the testimonie of Antiquitie and all other grounds of veritie Secondly their arguments from Scripture are such as cannot be auoided but onely by Sophistrie and in this manner the very arguments of Christ for the resurrection Matth. 22. 32. and the testimonies which Councells and Fathers vse 〈◊〉 Arrians Pelagians and sundry other Heretikes may receiue appearing and seeming solutions Thirdly if the Scripture it selfe and the doctrine of the Primitiue Church with other grounds of learning cannot as our Aduersarie obiecteth de facto or presupposing the malice of some persons 〈◊〉 all discord and inconstancie of Religion much lesse can the determination of the Roman Church effect this For if men will not regard Moses and the Prophets c. If an Angell come from heauen or if one rise from the dead they may still cauill and refuse to beleeue But for the externall repressing of petulant Spirits a free and lawfull Councell were to be desired and a disposition of heart in Christian Princes and in other worthy members of the Church to submit themselues to a Tryall by the holy Scripture and the doctrine of the Primitiue Church and vpon the same to conclude a common Peace in Christianitie and to represse by Discipline and Authoritie factious and turbulent Incendiaries either of the Romish or Protestant part IESVIT For if you cast away the Roman Church and her authoritie no Church is left in the World that can with reason or dares for shame challenge to be infallible in her definitions and 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 ANSWER You doe well to name Daring and 〈◊〉 for if the Papall faction had not passed all shame they had not to their vsurpations of iurisdiction added the forgerie and vaunt of absolute intallibilitie a priuiledge which I make no doubt no Pope without or with his Papall Councells euer in his inward conscience thought himselfe to haue But as for Ecclesiasticke decisions and determinations we say that although the absolute authoritie of the Roman Church be refused and although no other Church in the world can truely challenge absolute infallibilitie of iudgement but conditionall onely or restrictiue so farre as it propoundeth and confirmeth doctrine out of the Sacred Scriptures yet the learned may be preserued in peace and the ignorant in assurance of veritie First The Holy Ghost hath already determined all questions of faith necessary for the Church to vnderstand by his owne immediate decisiue voice deliuered in Sacred Scripture expresly or deriuatiuely Secondly if any other question arise touching History matter of Fact naturall or morall Veritie Ceremonies and externall Policie c. the same may bee sufficiently decided by Christian prudence working vpon the principles of Reason humane Historie rules of Art and by the examples of former times and principally by the generall rules of holy Scripture and many questions are raysed by the curiositie and subtletie of men wherein if the Church be ignorant and vnresolued there ensueth no preiudice in respect of faith Thirdly if contentious persons lust to continue such the determination of the Roman Church or Councell cannot quell or stifle contention but onely as an humane Iudge and by the same authoritie with other Churches It is also remarkeable that the definitions of the Roman Church it selfe are vncertaine ambiguous mutable and such as Defacto leaue matter of strife among those persons which submit themselues to the resolution thereof The Dominicans and Iesuits contend egerly at this day concerning the sence and Exposition of the Trent Councell in the question of Grace and Free-will Suares and Vasques two prime Iesuits are diuided about the sence of that Councell in the matter of Merit and Satisfaction the like differences are found among many moderne Schoolemen touching the manner of worshipping Images and concerning the presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist whether the same be there by adduction or production wherein Bellarmine holdeth the first and Suares the latter opinion And if our Aduersarie eleuate these dissentions pretending them to be small surely they are as waightie as the differences amongst Protestants And lastly whatsoeuer Romists pretend to the contrarie the transcendent Authority of Popes is no sufficient or Soueraigne means to preserue vnitie either of faith or charitie in the Christian world for when the Papacie was most predominant the Christian world was distracted with contentions about Religion to wit between the Romans Graecians and other Churches and it was imbroyled with bloudy wars betweene Popes and other Princes and Emperours and the Roman See it selfe was rant into Factions by occasion of Antipopes Neither was the transcendent authority of the Roman Church any effectuall meanes to promote common vnitie but the Ambition and Oppression thereof was a perpetuall Seminarie and incentiue of mischiefe and discord therefore the meanes for his most excellent Maiestie to cause vnitie in the Christian world is not the aduancing of Papall Supremacie which is a firebrand of contention but the maintaining of the Supreame authoritie of the Scripture and the procuring if it might be of a free and lawfull Councell wherein the word of Christ may haue Preheminence and wherein the Pope may be a Subiect as well as other Pastours IESVIT A Church fallible in her teaching is by the learned to be trusted no further than they doe see her Doctrine consonant vnto Scripture and so they may neglect her Iudgement when they seeme to haue euidences of Scripture against her and if this libertie of Contradiction be granted What hope of vnitie remaines when a priuate man may wrangle eternally with the whole Church and neuer be conuinced apparently of teaching against the Scriptures whereof we haue too many examples ANSWER A Church fallible in Iudgement is to be trusted when it confirmeth her doctrine by the word of God which is an infallible witnesse And although a Church be subiect to possibilitie of Errour and although the doctrine thereof wanting Diuine proofe is not to be receiued of the learned as matter of Faith yet no libertie of contesting the lawfull authoritie of the same when it confirmeth her sayings by Gods word is hereby permitted to contentious Spirits and it is more probable That Pastors of the
should be fully and sufficiently knowne as by Diuine and infallible Testimonie Lumine proprio by the resplendencie of that Light which it hath in it selfe onely and by the witnesse that it can so giue it selfe I could neuer yet see cause to allow For as there is no place in Scripture that tells vs such Bookes containing such and such particulars are the Canon and the infallible Will and Word of God so if there were any such place that were no sufficient proofe for a man might iustly aske another Booke to beare witnesse of that and againe of that another and where euer it were written in Scripture that must be a part of the whole And no created thing can alone giue witnesse to it selfe and make it euident nor one part testifie for another and satisfie where Reason will but offer to contest Besides if it were so cleare by 〈◊〉 and in giuen Light What should hinder but that all which heare it and doe but vnderstand the Tearmes should presently assent vnto it as men vse to doe to Principles euident in themselues which dayly experience teacheth vs they doe not And this though I cannot approoue yet me thinkes you may and vpon probable grounds at least For I hope no Romanist will denie but that there is as much Light in Scripture to manifest and make ostension of it selfe to be infallibly the written Word of God as there is in any Tradition of the Church that it is Diuine and infallibly the vnwritten Word of God And the Scriptures saying from the mouths of the Prophets Thus saith the Lord and from the mouths of the Apostles That the Holy Ghost spake by them are at least as able and as fit to beare witnesse to their owne Veritie as the Church is to beare witnesse to her owne Traditions by bare saying they come from the Apostles And your selues would neuer goe to the Scripture to prooue that there are Traditions as you doe if you did not thinke the Scripture as easie to be discouered by inbred Light in it selfe as Traditions by their Light And if this be so then it is as probable at the least which some of ours affirme That Scripture may be knowne to be the Word of God by the Light and Lustre which it hath in it selfe as it is which you affirme That a Tradition may be knowne to be such by the Light which it hath in it selfe If this Argument were in ieast this were an excellent Proposition to make sport withall 3. For the third Either some thinke that there is no sufficient warrant for this vnlesse they fetch it from the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost and so looke in vaine after speciall Reuelations and make themselues by thisvery conceit obnoxious and easie to be led by all the whisperings of a seducing priuate Spirit or else you would faine haue them thinke so For your side both vpon this and other occasions doe often challenge that wee resolue all our Faith into the Dictats of a priuate Spirit from which wee shall euer prooue our selues as free if not freer than you To the Question in hand then Suppose it agreed vpon that there must be a Diuine Faith Cui subesse non potest falsum vnder which can rest no possible error That the Bookes of Scripture are the written Word of God If they which goe to the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost for proofe of this doe meane by Faith Obiectum Fidei The Obiect of Faith that is to be beleeued then no question they are out of the ordinarie way for God neuer sent vs by any word or warrant of his to looke for any such speciall and priuate Testimonie to prooue which that Booke is that wee must beleeue But if by Faith they meane the Habite or Act of Diuine infused Faith by which vertue they doe beleeue the Credible Obiect and thing to be beleeued then their speech is true and confessed by all Diuines of all sorts For Faith is the gift of God of God alone and an infased Habite in respect whereof the Soule is meerely recipient And therefore the sole Infuser the Holy Ghost must not be excluded from that worke which none can doe but he For the Holy Ghost as hee first dictated the Scripture to the Apostles so did he not leaue the Church in generall nor the true members of it in particular without grace to beleeue what himselfe had reuealed and made credible So that Faith as it is taken for the vertue of Faith whether it be of this or any other Article though it receiue a kind of preparation or occasion of beginning from the Testimonie of the Church as it proposes and induceth to the Faith yet it ends in God reuealing within and teaching within that which the Church preached without For till the Spirit of God mooue the heart of man he cannot beleeue be the Obiect neuer so eredible The speech is true then but quite out of the state of this Question which enquires onely after a sufficient meanes to make this Obiect credible and fit to be beleeued against all impeachment of follic and temeritie in beleefe whether men doe actually beleeue it or not For which no man may expect inward priuate reuelation without the externall meanes of the Church vnlesse perhaps the case of necessitie be excepted when a man liues in such a Time and Place as excludes him from all ordinarie meanes in which I dare not offer to shut vp God from the soules of men nor to tye him to those ordinarie wayes and meanes to which yet in great wisedome and prouidence hee hath tyed and bound all mankind Priuate Reuelation then hath nothing ordinarily to doe to make the Obiect credible in this That Scripture is the Word of God or in any other Article For the Question is of such outward and euident meanes as other men may take notice of as well as our selues By which if there arise any doubting or infirmitie in the Faith others may strengthen vs or we affoord meanes to support them whereas the Testimonie of the Spirit and all priuate Reuelation is within nor felt nor seene of any but him that hath it so that hence can be drawne no proofe to others Miracles are not sufficient alone to prooue it 〈◊〉 both they and the Reuelation too agree with the Rule of Scripture which is now an vnalterable Rule by Man or Angell 4. The last which giues Reason leaue to come in and prooue what it can may not iustly be denyed by any reasonable man For though Reason without Grace cannot see the way to Heauen nor beleeue this Booke in which God hath written the way yet Grace is neuer placed but in a reasonable creature and prooues by the verie seat which it hath taken vp that the end it hath is to be spirituall eye-water to make Reason see what by Nature onely it cannot but neuer to blemish Reason in that
which it can comprehend Now the vse of Reason is verie generall and man doe what he can is still apt to search and seeke for a Reason why he will beleeue though after he once beleeues his Faith growes stronger than either his Reason or his Knowledge and great reason for this because it goes higher than eyther of the other can in this life In this particular the Bookes called the Scripture are commonly and constantly reputed to be the Word of God and so infallible Veritie to the least Point of them Doth any man doubt this The World cannot keepe him from going to weigh it at the Ballance of Reason whether it be the Word of God or not To the same Weights he brings the Tradition of the Church the inward motiues in Scripture it selfe all Testimonies within which seeme to beare witnesse to it and in all this there 's no harme the danger is when a man will vse no other Scale but Reason for the Word of God and the Booke containing it refuse not to be weighed by Reason But the Scale is not large enough to containe nor the Weights to measure out the true vertue and 〈◊〉 force of either Reason then can giue no supernaturall ground into which a man may resolue his Faith That Scripture is the Word of God infallibly yet Reason can goe so high as it can prooue that Christian Religion which rests vpon the Authoritie of this Booke stands vpon surer grounds of Nature Reason common Equitie and Iustice than any thing in the World which any Infidell or meere Naturallist hath done doth or can adhere vnto against it in that which he makes accounts or assumes as Religion to himselfe The antient Fathers relyed vpon the Scriptures no Christians more and hauing to doe with Philosophers men verie well seene in all the subtleties which naturall Reason could teach or learne they were often put to it and did as often make it good That they had sufficient warrant to relye as much as they did vpon Scripture In all which Disputes because they were to deale with Infidels they did labour to make good the Authoritie of the Booke of God by such arguments as vnbeleeuers themselues could not but thinke reasonable if they 〈◊〉 them with indifferencie And it is not altogether impossible to prooue it euen by Reason a Truth infallible or else to make them denie some apparant Principle of their owne For example It is an apparant Principle and with them That God or the absolute prime Agent cannot be forced out of any possession for if hee could be forced by another greater he were neither Prince nor Absolute nor God in their owne Theologie Now they must graunt That that God and Christ which the Scripture teaches and wee beleeue is the onely true God and no other with him and so denie the Deitie which they worshipped or else denie their owne Principle about the Deitie That God cannot be commanded and forced out of possession For their Gods Saturne and Serapis and Iupiter himselfe haue beene adiured by the name of the true and onely God and haue beene forced out of the bodies they possessed and confessed themselues to be foule and seducing Deuils And their confession was to be supposed true in point of Reason for they that were adored as Gods would neuer belie themselues into Deuils to their owne reproach especially in the presence of them that worshipped them were they not forced This many of the vnbeleeuers saw therefore they could not in verie force of Reason but they must either denie their God or denie their Principle in Nature Their long Custome would not forsake their God and their Reason could not forget their Principle If Reason therefore might iudge among them they could not worship any thing that was vnder command And if it be reasonable to doe and beleeue this then why not reasonable also to beleeue that the Scripture is his Word giuen to teach himselfe and Christ since there they find Christ doing that and giuing power to doe it after which themselues saw executed vpon their Deuill_Gods Besides whereas all other written Lawes haue scarce had the honour to be duly obserued or constantly allowed worthie approbation in the particular places where they haue beene established for Lawes this Law of Christ and this Canon of Scripture the container of it is or hath beene receiued in almost all Nations vnder Heauen And wheresoeuer it hath beene receiued it hath beene both approoued for vnchangeable Good and beleeued for infallible Veritie This persuasion could not haue beene wrought in men of all sorts but by working vpon their Reason vnlesse wee shall thinke all the World vnreasonable that receiued it And certainely God did not giue this admirable facultie of Reasoning to the Soule of man for any cause more prime than this to discouer or at least to iudge and allow of the way to himselfe when and howsoeuer it should be discouered One great thing that troubled Rationall men was that which stumbled the Manichee an Heresie it was but more than halfe Pagan namely That somewhat must be beleeued before much could be knowne Wise men vse not to beleeue but what they know And the Manichee scorned the Orthodox Christian as light of beleefe promising to lead no Disciple after him but vpon euident knowledge This stumbles many but yet the Principle That somewhat must be beleeued before much can be knowne stands firme in Reason still For if in all Sciences there be some Principles which cannot be prooued if Reason be able to see this and confesse it if almost all Artists haue granted it Who can iustly denie that to Diuinitie A Science of the highest Obiect God himselfe which he easily and reasonably grants to inferior Sciences which are more within his 〈◊〉 And as all Sciences suppose some Principles without proouing so haue they almost all some Text some Authoritie vpon which they relye in some measure and it is Reason they should For though these make not their Texts infallible as Diuinitie doth yet full consent and prudent examination and long continuance haue woon reputation to them and settled reputation vpon them verie deseruedly For were these Texts more void of Truth than they are yet it were fit to vphold their credit that Nouices and young beginners in a Science which are not yet able to worke strongly vpon Reason nor Reason vpon them may haue Authoritie to beleeue till they can learne to conclude from Principles and so to know Is this also reasonable in other Sciences and shall it not be so in Theologie to haue a Text a Scripture a Rule which Nouices may be taught first to beleeue that so they may after come to the knowledge of those things which out of this rich Principle and Treasure are deduceable I yet see not how right Reason can denie these grounds and if it cannot then a meere naturall man may be thus farre conuinced That the
admit the case to be like B. So indeed you said And not you alone It is the common Obiection made against all that admit not euerie later Councell as that Councell of Nice famous through all the Christian World In the meane time nor you nor they consider that the case is not alike as the B. told you If the case be alike in all Why doe not you admit that which was held at Ariminum and the second of Ephesus as well as Nice If you say as yours doe It was because the Pope approoued them not I will put off the inualiditie of this Answere to a sitter time in the meane space suppose it true and strong this ground is gained That the case is not alike for consent to all Councels And if you looke to haue this graunted That the Pope must confirme or the Councell's not lawfull we haue farre more reason to looke that this be not denyed That the Scripture must not be departed from in Letter or necessarie Sense or the Councell's not lawfull And the consent and confirmation of Scripture is of farre greater Authoritie to make the Councell Authenticall and the decisions of it de Fide than any confirmation of the Popes The Councell of Nice had the first you say We are sure it had the second The Councell of Trent we are able to prooue had not the second and so wee haue no reason to respect the first And to what end doe your learned men maintaine That a Councell may make a Conclusion de Fide though it be simply Extrà out of all bound of Scripture but out of a iealousie at least that this of Trent and some others haue in their determinations left both Letter and Sense of Scripture Shew this of Nice and the B. will graunt so much of the case to be like But what will you say if Constantine required That things brought into question should be answered and solued by Testimonie out of Scripture And the Bishops of the Nicene Councell neuer refused that Rule And what will you say if they professe they depart not from it but are readie by manie Testimonies of Diuine Scripture to demonstrate their Faith Is the case then alike betwixt it and Trent But you say the B. pretended somewhat else for his not admitting the case to be like F. Pretending that the Pope made Bishops of purpose for his side But this the Bishop prooued not B. No nor had he reason to take on him to prooue what he said not He knowes it will be expected he should prooue what hee saith and it is hard to prooue the purpose of the Popes heart For if it be prooued that hee made Bishops at that time that some of them were titular onely and had no liuelyhood to subsist but out of his Purse and so must hang at the strings of it that some of these thus made were sent to the Councell and sure not without their Errand yet if the Pope will say he neither made nor sent them to ouer-rule the Holy Ghost at that meeting or of purpose for his side as no question but it will be said Who can prooue it that is not a Surueyor of the Heart But though the Popes heart cannot be seene yet if these and the like presumptions be true it is a great signe that Trent was too corrupt and factious a meeting for the Holy Ghost to be at And sure the case in this not alike at Nice That which 〈◊〉 B. said was That Trent could be no indifferent Councell to the Church the Pope hauing made himselfe a strong partie in it And this the B. prooued though you be here not onely content to omit but plainely to denie the proofe For did not the B. prooue it thus and you answered not That there were more Italian Bishops there than of all Christendome besides more yea more than double And this he prooued out of the Councell it selfe which you had in your hand in Decimo Sexto but had no great heart to looke it For where the number of Prelates are expressed that had Suffrage and Vote in that Councell the Italians are set downe to be 187 and all the rest make but 83. So there were more Italian Bishops by 104 than of all the rest of Christendome Sure the Pope did not meane to be ouer-reached in this Councell And whatsoeuer became of his infallibilitie otherwise he might this way be sure to be infallible in whatsoeuer hee would haue determined So the B. prooued this sufficiently For if it were not to be sure of a side giue any satisfying reason Why such a potent partie of Italians more than double to the whole Christian World should be there Shew me the like for Nice and I will giue it that the case is alike betweene these two Councels But you haue not yet done with the B. You adde F. In fine the B. wished That a lawfull Generall Councell were called to end Controuersies The persons present said That the King was enclined thereunto and that therefore wee Catholikes might doe well to concurre B. And what say you to the Bishops wish You pretend great loue to the Truth would you not haue it found Can you or any Christian be offended that there should be a good end of Controuersies Can you thinke of a better end than by a Generall Councell And if you haue a most gracious King enclined vnto it as you say it was offered how can you 〈◊〉 your selues if you doe not consent Yes it seemes you can for you say againe F. I asked the B. Whether he thought a Generall Councell might 〈◊〉 He said It might B. I presume you doe not looke the B. or I for him should enter into a proofe of this Controuersie Whether a Generall Councell may erre in determination or not Your selfe brought no proofe that it cannot and till that be brought the Bishop his speech is good that it can And yet he hopes to be found no infringer of any power giuen by Christ to his Church But it seemes by that which followes you did by this Question Can a Generall Councell erre but seeke to win ground for your other which followes F. If a Generall Councell may erre What neerer are wee then said I to vnitie after a Councell determined Yes said he although it may erre yet we should be bound to hold with it till another come to reuerse it B. Whether a Generall Councell may erre or not is a Question of great consequence in the Church of Christ. To say it cannot erre leaues the Church not onely without remedie against an Error but also without sense that it may need a remedie and so without care to seeke it which is the miserie of the Church of Rome at this day To say it can erre seemes to expose the members of the Church to an vncertaintie and wauering in the Faith makes vnquiet spirits not onely disrespect former Councels of the Church but also slight and contemne
in the second The Conclusion and not the Meanes For the Conclusion must follow the nature of the premisses or Principles out of which it is deduced therefore if they be sometimes vncertaine as is prooued before the Conclusion cannot be infallible Not in the third The Meanes and not the Conclusion For that cannot but be true and necessarie if the Meanes be so And this I am sure you will neuer graunt because if you should you must denie the infallibilitie which you seeke to establish To this for I confesse the Argument is old but can neuer be worne out nor shifted off your great Maister Stapleton who is miserably hampered in it and indeed so are yee all answers That the infallibilitie of a Councell is in the second course that is It is infallible in the Conclusion though it be vncertaine and fallible in the Meanes and proofe of it How comes this to passe It is a thing altogether vnknowne in Nature and Art too That fallible Principles can either father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion Well that is graunted in Nature and in all Argumentation that causes knowledge But wee shall haue Reasons for it First because the Church is discursiue and vses the weights and moments of Reason in the Meanes but is Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Reuelation from the Spirit of God in deliuering the Conclusion It is but the making of this appeare and all Controuersie is at an end Well I will not discourse here to what end there is any vse of Meanes if the Conclusion be Propheticall which yet is iustly vrged for no good cause can be assigned of it If it be Propheticall in the Conclusion I speake still of the present Church for that which included the Apostles which had the Spirit of Prophesie and immediate Reuelation was euer propheticke in the Definition Then since it deliuers the Conclusion not according to Nature and Art that is out of Principles which can beare it there must be some supernaturall Authoritie which must deliuer this Truth That say I must be the Scripture For if you flye to immediate Reuelation now the Enthusiasme must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the verie Exposition of all the Primitiue Church neyther say it nor inforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your Prophesie in the Conclusion I know no other thing can warrant it If you thinke the Tradition of the Church can make the World beholding to you Produce any Father of the Church that sayes this is an vniuersall Tradition of the Church That her Definitions in a Generall Councell are Propheticall and by immediate Reuelation Produce any one Father that sayes it of his owne authoritie That he thinkes so Nay make it appeare that euer any Prophet in that which he deliuered from God as infallible Truth was euer discursiue at all in the Meanes Nay make it but probable in the ordinarie course of Prophesie and I hope you goe no higher nor will I offer at Gods absolute Power That that which is discursiue in the Meanes can be Propheticke in the Conclusion and you shall be my great Apollo for euer In the meane time I haue learned this from yours That all Prophesie is by Vision Inspiration c. and that no Vision admits discourse That all Prophesie is an Illumination not alwayes present but when the Word of the Lord came to them and that was not by discourse And yet you say againe That this Propheticke infallibilitie of the Church is not gotten without studie and Industrie You should doe well to tell vs too why God would put his Church to studie for the Spirit of Prophesie which neuer anie particular Prophet was put vnto And whosoeuer shall studie for it shall doe itin vaine since Prophesie is a Gift and can neuer be an acquired Habite And there is somewhat in it that Bellarmine in all his Dispute for the Authoritie of Generall Councels dares not come at this Rocke He preferres the Conclusion and the Canon before the Acts and the deliberations of Councels and so doe wee but I doe not remember that euer he speakes out That the Conclusion is deliuered by Prophesie or Reuelation Sure he sounded the Shore and found danger here He did sound it For a little before he speakes plainely Would his bad cause let him be constant Councels doe deduce their Conclusions What from Inspiration No But out of the Word of God and that per ratiocinationem by Argumentation Neyther haue they nor doe they write any immediate Reuelations The second Reason why hee will haue it propheticke in the Conclusion is Because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Faith not of Knowledge And that therefore the Church proposing it to be beleeued though it vse Meanes yet it stands not vpon Art or Meanes or Argument but the Reuelation of the Holy Ghost Else when we embrace the Conclusion proposed it should not be an Assent of Faith but a Habit of Knowledge This for the first part That the Church vses the Meanes but followes them not is all one in substance with the former Reason And for the latter part That then our admitting the Decree ofa Councell would be no Assent of Faith but a Habit of Knowledge What great inconuenience is there if it be graunted For I thinke it is vndoubted Truth That one and the same Conclusion may be Faith to the Beleeuer that cannot prooue and Knowledge to the Learned that can And S. Augustine I am sure in regard of one and the same thing euen this the verie Wisedome of the Church in her Doctrine ascribes Vnderstanding to one sort of men and Beleefe to another weaker sort And Thomas goes with him And for further satisfaction if not of you of others this may be considered too Man lost by sinne the Integritie of his Nature and cannot haue Light enough to see the way to Heauen but by Grace This Grace was first merited after giuen by Christ. This Grace is first kindled in Faith by which if wee agree not to some supernaturall Principles which no Reason can demonstrate simply wee can neuer see our way But this Light when it hath made Reason submit it selfe cleares the Eye of Reason it neuer puts it out In which sense it may be is that of Optatus That the verie Catholike Church it selfe is reasonable as well as diffused euerie where By which Reason enlightned which is stronger than Reason the Church in all Ages hath beene able either to conuert or conuince or stop the mouthes at least of Philosophers and the great men of Reason in the verie point of Faith where it is at highest To the present occasion then The first immediate Fundamentall Points of Faith without which there is no saluation they as they cannot be prooued by Reason so neither need they be determined by any Councell nor euer were they attempted they are