recom Sacrae scripturae Ergo A Christian is built fundamentally on Scripture I wish that this my Discouery may make you wise vnto your eternall Saluation as is doth lay open your shamefull Ignorance vnto your temporall disgrace for here you are so grossely and togeather vnluckily ignorant as you are fallen into the very same fault in Logicke wherof without cause you charged your Aduersary as peccant to wit of making Syllogismes whereof both propositions were affirmatiue in the second figure An argument is affirmatiue in the second figure when the Meanes of proofe is affirmed in both propositions Your Meanes to prooue that a Christian is fundamentally built on Scripture is this terme Built on the rocke and this is the very thing affirmed in both your propositions In your maior Built on the rocke is affirmed of the Christian The Christian or he that is fundamētally built is built on the rocke In the minor the same is affirmed of him that is built on Scripture The Scripture is the rocke that is he that is built on the Scripture is built on the rocke Hence your conclusion Ergo The Christian or he that is fundamentally built is built on the Scripture is affirmatiue in the second figure How fond inconsequent this forme of arguing is you may feele by this of the same tenour with change of matter He that is borne in Sicily is borne in an Iland He that is borne in England is borne in an Iland Ergo He that is borne in England is borne in Sicily This is a folish Sophisme because concluding affirmatiuely in the second figure so is yours For as it is not consequent if a man be borne in an Iland that he is borne in Sicily because there be other Ilands besides Sicily so this is no good consequence A Christian is built on the Rocke Ergo on the Scripture because Scripture is not the only Rocke the word of God as deliuered by Tradition being a rock and ground of Fayth no lesse sure infallible then Scripture or Gods Word as written Abraham Isaac Iacob Ioseph and innumerable other holy persons were fundamentally built in fayth yet not built on Scripture the word of God not being then extant in writing S. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. doth write that in his dayes many Nations were Christian and did diligently obserue the true Christian Religion printed in their harts and yet had not any Scripture nor the word of God as written False then is this negatiue which your argument put into true forme doth imply No man is built fundamentally on the Rocke that is not built on the word of God as written Your third argument (k) Reply pag. 48. The seed of fayth is the roote and foundation of euery Christian But the Scripture is the seed of fayth Ioan. 20.41 for it is the word of God Luc. 8.11 Ioan. 1.18 1. Cor. 4.15 This argument is also an idle fallacy and sophististicall sillogisme for both the propositions thereof are particuler which forme as hath been said is vicious and not lawfull in any figure This you may perceaue by this argument formed punctually according to the shape of yours with chāge of matter The seed of Fayth is the roote and foundation of euery Christian. But the bloud of Martyrs is the seed of Fayth for it is the seed of the Christian Church Ergo The bloud of Martyrs is the roote and foundation of euery Christian. This argument is like yours and both are vaine because the Argument being in the first figure the Maior proposition is particuler which ought to be vniuersall in this sort Euery seed of fayth is the roote of euery Christian The Scripture or word of God as written is the seed of Fayth Ergo. The Scripture or word of God as written is the roote of euery Christian. This argument is in lawfull forme but the maior therof is false for euery seed of Fayth is not the roote of a Christian but only that seed which first breedeth fayth in him and whereon all other seedes depend Now the seed which first breedeth Fayth in Christians is not the word of God as written but the word of God as deliuered by tradition For vpon the credit of Tradition we know the written word and without this ordinarily speaking and without new immediate Reuelation we cannot know the Scripture or written word to be from the Apostles and by them of God Ergo the word of God not as writtē but as deliuered by tradition is that seed of fayth which is the roote of euery Christian. The fourth Argument (l) Reply pag. 48. The Scripture giuen by diuine inspiration is simply and without exception to be receaued and all tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be refused Hence it followes that Scripture is a rule of Tradition and not Tradition of Scripture This argument proceedeth vpon the supposal of an impossibility so is idle sophisticall inept Logitians are taught by their Mayster Aristotle if one impossibility be admitted a thousand other impossibilityes and absurdityes will be thence concuded You suppose in this argument that the word of God as deliuered by full tradition may be repugnant vnto the word of God as written Hence you inferre that Tradition is not simply to be receaued but only so far forth as it agrees with the Scripture Your supposition is blasphemous for the word of God vnwritten cannot be repugnant vnto truth being the words of the Prime VERITY that cannot deceaue nor be deceaued This impossibility supposed your cōsequence is not good Ergo Tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be reiected and Scripture to be held only simply as the rule of Fayth For if Gods vnwritten word could be repugnant vnto the written it would not follow that the vnwritten word were to be reiected and the written simply to be receaued but that neyther the written nor vnwritten were to be credited This is cleere because if God may lye and deceyue vs by his word of liuely voyce deliuered by Tradition why not also in his writings deliuered by Tradition What authority doth writing adde to Gods word that God cannot lye in writing if he may lye in speaking I hope I haue shewed apparently these your Arguments wherein you so much glory to be not only false in respect of matter but also fallacious in respect of forme The same I could shew of allmost all the rest of your Arguments of this your Reply Is not then the case of your ignorant Proselites most deplorable and desperate whome you persuade to trust these your halting consequences rather then the perpetuall Traditions of the Church You will haue them to make themselues Iudges not only of what is contayned expressely in Scripture but also of what is thence deriued by Arguments according to the rules of Logicke wherein if they chance to mistake they erre and are damned The third Example §. 3. A Third Example of Logicall Ignorance is your heaping togeather of many fond
〈◊〉 Tradition vnwritten that this is the prime ground of â—ayth more fundamentall then Scripture you most larâ—ely labour to refell and tearme it pag. 91. an Anti-â—hristian and impudent assertion to depresse the written â—ord of God exalt the prophane bastardly Apocriphal â—â—aditions of the Pope This is bitter inough yet cerâ—â—ynly you teach that there be traditions maintayâ—ing and vpholding the Scripture in authority or 〈◊〉 you speake ineptly not knowing what you affirâ—e For some two pages before this your reprochfull words to wit pag. 89. you thus distinguish about Traditions The Church hath no perpetuall Traditions but such as are EYTHER contayned in Scripture OR which are subseruient to MAINTAINE the Fayth Verity and AVTHORITY of the Scripture the doctrine thereof Thus you I demand of you These subseruient Traditious about fayth and doctrine be they contayned in Scripture or not If they be your distinction is senselesse one member thereof not being condistinct agaynst the other for if subseruient traditions be traditions coÌ„tayned in Scripture what more inept then to say traditions eyther contayned in Scripture or subseruient If they be not contayned in Scripture but condistinct from them then according to your distinction there be some traditions not contayned in Scripture which maintayne and vphold the authority of Scripture and the verity and doctrine thereof If you grant this as you must vnlesse you will grant your distinction be voyd of iudgment then must you also grant tradition to be more fundamentall then Scripture For thus I argue That which is the ground of the authority of Scripture is more fundameÌ„tall then Scripture That which doth mantayne and vphold the authority of Scripture is the ground and foundation of the authority of Scripture Ergo That which doth vphold and mantayne the authority of Scripture is more fundamentall then Scripture Now your selfe ascribe vnto Tradition subseruient condistinct agaynst written Tradition the office of mantayning the authority of Scripture So that eyther you know not what you doe write or else by your owne distinctions you are conuinced to establish that very doctrine which elsewhere you so sharpely censure as Antichristian impudeÌ„t prophane bastardly Certainly you are a seely Disputant about matters of Theodogy No more sense or iudgement is there in the distinctioÌ„ you make of holy Belieuers into triumphant militant pag. 49. The tearme Church say you is taken in the holy Scripture for the vniuersall number of holy belieuers in all ages and more strictly for the whole number of holy belieuers vnder the new Testament Hebr. 12.23 Apoc. 5.9 Ephes. 5.25.27 And thus it comprehendeth both the Church militant triumphant Thus you distinguishing the Church of belieuers into militant and Triumphant whence it is consequent that the Triumphant Saynts in heauen are belieuers What more ridiculous and agaynst the prime and knowne Notion of Triumphant Saynts It may be God permitted you to stumble vpon this grosse simplicity through want of reflexion that you might thereby be warned to reflect vpon the foulenes of another doctrine which wittingly willfully you mantayne though being no lesse exorbitant then this The doctrine is that your Protestant Militant Church is a multitude who (a) Iohn White in his Defence pag. 309. by diuine illumination see manifestly the truth of thinges belieued of the Blessed Trinity and other mysteryes that you are like not vnto men (b) Francis White Orthodoxe pag. 108. which see a farre off a certayne obscure glimmering of the light but vnto men that coming to the place where the light is behold the sayd light in it selfe Verily to tearme the Church militant a multitude of BEHOLDERS resolued of truth by manifest light euidence is as Exoticall and as idle Gibberish in Christian Theology as to call the Church triuÌ„phant a multitude of BELEEVERS that warre and walke by Fayth As for your Protestant triuÌ„phant Church if they did not formerly belieue in this life the word of God without seing the light lustre and resplendant verity of the doctrine thereof as you pretend they did not I do not doubt but they are belieuers in the next world to wit in the number of them of whom the Apostle writeth Ioan. 2.9 credunt contremiscunt Ignorance in Scripture SECT IV. CONCERNING Holy Scripture you brag intollerably in euery page of your Reply how the same standeth cleerly on your side and that the Iesuit hath not been able to proue any of the Nine Poynts by Scripture How vaine this your vant is doth appear by the Reioynder wherin you are proued almost in euery controuersy to forsake the litterall and plaine sense of Scripture and to deuise now figuratiue typicall and mysticall interpretations How idlely also you dispute out of Scriptures for matters of greatest moment which you most confidently maintayne in your Religion is made euident by what hath been shewed concerning your arguing for the preteÌ„ded Diuine Ordinance binding ignorant Laymen to read the Scripture Notwithstanding that your ignorance herin may more indeniably appeare I will add here some other arguments and tokens of the same to wit vnto what shamefull shifts you are forced to answere Scriptuâ—es brought by your Aduersary in the behalfe of Caâ—holicke doctrine You deny the Text and Context of Scripture §. 1. FIRST many times you are enforced by your aduersary when you cannot answere to deny the â—ext context of Scripture wherof I alleadge two â—xamples The Iesuit pag. 480. to proue that Christ â—romised eternall life vnto the worthy participant â—f the sacrament vnder the forme of bread bringeth â—he words of our Sauiour Iohn 6. Qui manducat hunc â—anem viuet in aeternum he that eateth this bread shall â—ue for euer You in the place quoted answere The â—cripture Iohn 6.51 saith not whosoeuer eateth sacraâ—entall bread without wine shall liue for euer but if any â—â—te this bread which came downe from heaueÌ„ to wit Christ â—â—sus incarnate shall liue for euer And then it followeth â—nlesse you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke 〈◊〉 blood you shall not haue life in you Iohn 5.53 Thus 〈◊〉 Now marke vnto what straytes maugre your â—â—agging you are brought by the Iesuite First you are not acknowledge these words cited by the Ieâ—â—ite he that eateth this bread liueth for euer to be our â—â—uiours but onely those If any shall eate c. Wherâ—â— they be our Sauiours the expresse text of Scripâ—â—re in so many words syllables Iohn 6.59 which â—â—yth He that eateth this bread liueth for euer Seâ—â—ndly you are compelled to answere that Christ â—â—ter he had said he that eateth this bread liueth for â—â—er said Vnlesse you eate the flesh and drinke the â—â—oud of the sonne of man you shall not haue life in â—ou By which ensuing senteÌ„ce he did as you thinke â—eclare the former If any eate this bread c. that it must not be vnderstood of Sacramentall bread without wine This is
for theÌ„ it would follow that she hath no milke in her two breasts but written doctrine but he sayth her two breasts are the two Testaments of Diuine Scriptures Hence you may gather that in ech of her breasts in ech of the Testaments the milke of Scripture is contayned but that only the milke of writteÌ„ doctrine is in them contayned you cannot from this text truly cited inferre therefore both by addition and transposition of wordes you help the dyce To proue That the Tradition of the Church hath no credit or authority but from Scripture and that though this Tradition might be false yet Fayth would subsist because there remayneth allwayes an higher and more soueraigne Iudge to wit God speaking in the Scripture To proue this I say you (i) Pag. 90. in margin lit c cite this text of (k) Augustin lib. 11. 〈◊〉 Faust. c. â— Tanquam in sede quâ—dam in sublimi collocata est cui seruiâ—t omnis Fidelis pius intellectus S. Augustine It is placed as it were in an high throne of authority vnto which euery faythfull and pious vnderstanding must be subiect What is this Why doe you not name it Because you durst not set downe the wordes that immediatly precede which make cleerly agaynst you to wit these (l) Excellentia Canonicâ—â— authoritatis Veteris Noui Testamenti Apoâ—stoloruÌ„ confirmata temporibus per SVCCESSIONES EpiscoporuÌ„ Propagationes Ecclesiarum tanquam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est c. The Canonicall authority of the Scriptures confirmed in the Apostles dayes is by SVCCESSIONS of Bishops propagations of Churches placed in an high throne of authority c. How directly is this testimony of S. Augustine agaynst that which you would proue thereby How hath Tradition no credit or authority but from Scripture if the Scripture by successiue tradition of Bishops hand so hand froÌ„ the Apostles hath gotten quoad nos in the persuasion of the Christian world the high seate of Diuine authority to be honoured as Gods word vnto which euery maÌ„ must yield If this successiue Tradition on which as S. Augustine teacheth our persuasion about the authority of Scripture dependes be made weake fallible by Protestants how shall the Scripture be able to keepe her credit and authority in our Fayth Verily it cannot except Christians will cease to rely on the authority of God reuealing and on doctrine deliuered by the succession of Bishops hunt after Diuine and Apostolicall Scripture by the sent and smell of the doctrines deliuered therein as you doe Likewise by addition of the Particle Only you falsify the saying of (*) Pag. 95. lin 31. in Marg. lit Paschasius For whereas he (m) Paschas in Matth. c. 28. Cum electis semper adfuturum se promittit sayth Christ promised to be with his Elect all dayes vntill the consummation of the world you cite him as saying Only with the elect More grossely in the same place you falsify Druthmarus for whereas (n) In cap. 28. Matth. he sayth Christ is with the Reprobate by the presence of his Godhead but with the Elect in another manner you make him say Christ promiseth to be only with the elect contrary to his meaning who teacheth that the presence and perpetuall assistance of our Sauiour are so vnited vnto his Church her Pastors that they may not erre but still teach all that he coÌ„manded but that presence whereof that Text properly speaketh is not only affoarded vnto the Elect but vnto wicked men for the Saluation of all worthy Communicants as your selfe (o) Pag. 52. lin 14. affirme You (q) See pag. 105. rayle bitterly against the Iesuit for prouing that your Protestant Church cannot be the true Church nor part thereof because you seuered your selues from the Roman Church and did not ioyne vnto any preexistent Christian Society of Pastors but aparted your selues froÌ„ the Communion of the whole world For this his argument you rayle agaynst the Roman Church for a whole leafe pag. 106. and 107. Where thus you conclude your foule Foliall Inuectiue They since their Synode of TreÌ„t haue proceeded from euill to worse (s) The Minister in proofe of all this bringes nothing only in the Margent he nameth the Massacre of Paris Was that done by the Fathers of the Councell of Trent Doth that proue obscuring and out-facing of Truth Had not the Protestants then slayne been Traytors agaynst their king Was not the king informed of their plot to murdâ—r him his mother his brethren the cheiefest of his Nobles If to preuent his owne instant death the king did by martiall law without Iuridicall forme proceed agaynst knowne Rebells iâ— this such a thing as yow may say It surpasseth all perfidious Stratagems and immane Cruelty of Infidels what idle Eloquence is this obscuring outfacing the truth with forgery and sophistry They haue conspired agaynst Kingdomes and States they haue surpassed professed Infidells in perfidious stratagems and immane cruelty And whereas they expelled vs by Excommunication and chased vs away from them by persecution yet this Roman Aduocate taxeth vs with Schisme Apostasy neuer remembring what (*) lib. 5. de Baptism c. 1. S. Augustine long since deliuered The Sacriledge of Schisme is then committed when there is no iust cause of Separation Thus by long continued fierce bitter blasts of false reproach you diriue your vnwary Reader vpoÌ„ the hidden rocke of a falsifyed sentence of S. Aug. as though this most Diuine Doctour had insinuated the lawfullnes of reuolt separatioÌ„ from all ChristiaÌ„ Churches What can be more false He disputeth agaynst the Donatists who had seuered themselues from the Christian world pretending that CaeciliaÌ„ Bishop of Carthage other Catholikes had giuen vp the Holy Bibles to the fire S. Aug. doth conuince them of Schisme two wayes First because this pretence were it true is not iust for there can be no iust cause of separation from the whole world and of beginning a new distinct Christian Church These be his wordes (t) Augustin ep 48. ad Vincent Fieri non potest vt aliqui iustam causam habeant qua communionem suam separent à coÌ„munione Orbis terrarum eamue appellent Ecclesiam Christi quòd se iuste ab omnium geÌ„tium communione separauerint Ibid. Nos ideo certi sumus neminem se à coÌ„munione omnium Gentium iuâ—â—è separare potuisse c. We are certayne that none could iustly separate themselues from the Communion of the whole world And againe It is no way possible that any should haue reason to separate themselues from the coÌ„munion of the whole World and so tearme themselues the Church because vpoÌ„ iust cause they haue deuided theÌ„selues from the Society of all nations Thus S. Aug. What can be more direct agaynst that doctrine for which you cite him Or more efficacious to conclude that you Protestants are guilty of damnable Schisme Secondly sayth
of Waldo Wickliffe and Husse Fabulae sunt they are Fables you turne as by him spoken of perpetuall Traditions of the Catholicke and Roman Church The Pharisees did indeed corrupt Scripture But how By Logicall deductions out of the same according to your Protestant and the common Hereticall fashion pretending greater skill then all their Ancestors That they did affirme that their speciall obseruations were Traditions vnwritten from Moyses the Scripture hath not a word yea the thing they most of all obiected agaynst our Sauiour was the written Tradition of Moyses about keeping the Sabboth Day Ioan. 7. From which precept not by Tradition vnwritten but by Logicall inference they concluded that our Lord brake the Sabboth-Day by healing diseased persons thereon So that Pharasaicall Traditions were neuer so much as pretended to be doctrines vnwritten as you imagine but to be doctrines concluded from the text of Scripture by the rules of Reason and Logicke iust according to your Protestant pretence Also what you say that the Fathers Traditions vnwritten be not our doctrines but yours is spoken because you would haue men so thinke though they erre not because you can thinke the same to be so in truth For thus I argue agaynst this your seely Shift The Fathers as appeareth by their wordes vnderstand by Tradition Apostolical vnwritten Dogmata quae peti non possunt è Sacra Scriptura Doctrines of fayth that cannot be gathered froÌ„ the holy Scriptures with such certitude as they may therevpon be belieued as articles of fayth But you pretend and glory that all your Doctrines of Fayth be ex sacris Scripturis petitae so drawne and gathered from holy Scriptures as they are belieued as Fayth only vpon this rule Ergo it is great vanity for you to say that the Fathers by Apostolical Tradition vnwritten vnderstood the Doctrine not of the Roman Church but of your Protestant Separation And if from generality vpon which Ministers whose drift is to deceyue do willingly dwell we descend to particulars we shall find that you reiect those Doctrines customes of the Roman Church as Fabulous dreames and human inuentions which the Fathers expressely and in tearmes affirme to be Apostolicall Traditions To pray for the reliefe of the Soules of the faythfull deceased Protestants esteeme fabulous the (1) (1) Chrys. Homil 69. ad Pop. Fathers affirme it was ab Apostolis sancitum ordayned by the Apostles The binding of the Cleargy-men and those that are in the holy Ministery to single life and from woing wiuing do not Protestants detest as impious (2) (2) Concil Carthag Can. 2. yet the fathers say haec docuâ—runt Apostoli haec seruauit antiquitas this the Apostles taught this was kept by the Ancients That it is damnable Sin for Votaries to marry after their vowes do not Protestants contemne as a fabulous inuention yet (3) (3) Epiphan haeres 61. the Fathers say tradiderunt Sancti Dei Apostoli this is the Tradition of the holy Apostles of God The custome of making the signe of the Crosse on the forhead ProtestaÌ„ts deride as foolish (4) (4) Basil. de Spirit Sanct. c. 27. yet the Fathers affirme hoc tradiderunt Patres nostri in silentio sine literis it was taught by our Fathers the Apostles in silent Tradition without writing The Fast of Lent is it not in neglect and derision with Protestants yet the (5) (5) Hieron Epist. ad Marcell de erroribus Montan. Fathers sayd as we do QuadragesimaÌ„ semel in anno ex Apostolica traditione ieiunamus we fast one Lent a yeare by the tradition of the Apostles Do not Protestants also scorne the feast of Ember-weeke foure tymes in the yeare And yet the (6) (6) Leo de ieiunio sexti mensis Serm. 6. de Pentecost Fathers say ex Apostolica traditione seruantur they are receyued by Apostolical Tradition To fast one fryday or the sixt Day of the weeke in memory of our Sauiours passion Protestants condemne as superstitious yet (7) (7) Epiphan haeres 75. the Fathers say hoc decreuerunt Apostoli the Apostles made this decree and the Church by Tradition from them hath perpetually obserued it The making and blessing of holy water do not ProtestaÌ„ts reiect as magicall Yet the (8) (8) Basil. de spir san c. 27. Fathers say expressely it is a Tradition of the Apostles To mingle water with Wine in the Chalice of the holy Eucharist is thought by Protestants to be fabulous But by the Fathers (9) (9) Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. Dominica institutio the institution of our Lord by Tradition vnwritten deriued to vs. Luther dareth to cast off with a iest the commandement not to receiue the holy Eucharist but fasting that so the body of our Lord may enter in at our mouth before other meates (10) (10) Aug. Ep. 118 ad Ianuar c. 6. yet the Fathers say hoc placuit Spiritu sancto hoc Christus per Apostolos disposuit it pleased the holy ghost it should be so and by his inspiration the Apostles did so appoint What shall I say of (11) (11) Aug. lib. 4. in Iulian. Leo primus Ep. 14. Exorcizandi sunt secundum ApostolicaÌ„ regulam Exorcismes ExsufflatioÌ„s vsed in Baptisme the (12) (12) Origen Homil. 5. in Num. A magno Pontifice Christo eius filiis Apostolis traditam forme of interrogations answeres and other ceremonies That (13) (13) Fabian Ep. 2. ad Oriental Christus instituit they that be baptized be afterwards Chrismed with the oyle of balme (14) (14) Tertul. li. 1. ad vx Apostolica praescriptio Epiphan haer 50. Propter eminentiam celebrationis traditam That they who haue beene maried more then once be not promoted vnto Priesthood out of reuerence vnto that dignity (15) (15) Aug. lib. 17. de Ciuit. c. 4. Hoc votum illi potentissimi vouerant That the Apostles made the vow of Religions perfection That (16) (16) Chrys. homil 17. ad Paph Antiochen A Christo introducta Casian Coenobitarum disciplina tempore praedicationis Apostolorum sumpserat exordium Monasticall profession began by their institution (17) (17) Tertul. de Corona Militis Anniuersarios dies colimus the keeping festiuall Dayes in the honour of Saints deceased (18) (18) Concil Antioc Apostol citat in 7. Synod act 1. The placing the Images of Christ and his Saints in the Church (19) (19) Damascen orat 4. de Imagin Synod Nicen 2. act 7. Their Worship (20) (20) Aug. Serm. 17. de verbis Apost Cyril cathec 5. Mystagog To commend our selues vnto the prayers of Saintes deceased in the holy Sacrifice of Masse These things Protestants detest as Superstitions all which yet the Fathers mantayne to be Apostolicall Traditions metamorphize the word Profitable as to make it signify the same with the word Sufficient which is very hard yet were the text much ouer-short to proue their intent that Scripture alone
ad com Philip. in 1. ad Corinth This may conuince our Minister that his allegations be of no credit and that Iudgement of the Sanctity of a Church is not to be made by the report of zealous complaint but by the euidence of sight ruled by vnpartiall search By which rule one may find in the Catholike Cleargy thousands and thousands that shew admirable charity specially in conuerting Infidells yea that winne the glorious crowne of Angelicall Chastity for which they would neuer haue striuen had not the Church bound them thereunto So that if human infirmity by occasiō of this law make some men impure that otherwise perchance in marriage would haue beene chast so the Grace of God by the same occasiō worketh in innumerable Angelical Saints who had neuer beene such but for the Churches exaction And this haruest makes full recompence for that losse specially seing also many of such delinquents be not lost but saued by Pennance yea become more excellent Saints then they had beene had they neuer fallen Chastity Obedience Charity in vndergoing labours for the help of soules Fortitude in suffering of heroycall Martyrdomes Zeale and Patience in the rough and rigorous treaty of their bodyes by miraculous fasting another austerityes This sanctity shineth not in all children of the Church but in her more eminent preachers professours Which kind of sanctity togeather with miracles if the Church did want she could not be a sufficiēt witnes of the truth vnto Infidells who commonly neuer begin to affect admire Christianity but vpon the sight of such wōders of Sanctity other extraordinary works Holy for doctrine in regard her Traditions be diuine and holy without any mixture of errour For if the Church could deliuer by consent of Ancestours togeather with truth some Errours her Traditions euen about truth were questionable could not be belieued vpon the warrāt of her traditions for who can without danger and securely feed on that dish that may aswell containe poyson as wholsome sustenance And whereas some Protestants affirme that the Church cannot erre in fundamentall points but only in thinges of lesse moment the truth is that in perpetuall Traditions she cannot erre at all If the Tradition of the Church deliuering a small thing as receyued from the Apostles may be false one may call into question her Traditions of moment For like as if we admit in the Scripture errours in small matters we cannot be sure of its infallibility in substātial matters So likewise if we graunt Traditions perpetuall to be false in things of lesse importance we haue no solide ground to defend her Traditions as assured in others of moment Wherfore as he that should say Gods written word is false in some lesse matters as when it sayes S. Paul left his Cloake at Troas erreth fundamentally by reason of the consequence which giues occasion to doubt of euery thing in Scripture euen so he that graunteth that some part of Traditions or of the word of God vnwritten may be false erreth substantially because he giueth cause to doubt of any Tradition which yet as I haue shewed is the prime and originalll ground of Faith more (q) The Minister heere rayleth largely lustily tearming this assertion impudent Antichristian prophane bastardly c. yet the assertion is euident truth his reasons agaynst it are of no force For they goe not agaynst the assertion but proue another thing to wit the excellency of Scripture which none denyes For Tradition Scripture according to different cōparisons are equall superiour the one to the other Compare them in respect of certainty of truth they are equal as the Councell of Trent defineth sess 4. both being the word of God the one Written the other Vnwritten and so both infinitly certayne Compare them in respect of depth sublimity and variety of doctrine the Scripture is farre superiour vnto Tradition Tradition being playne and easy doctrine concerning the common capitall and practicall articles of Christianity wheras the Scripture is full of high hidden senses and furnisht with great variety of examples discourses and all manner of erudition Aug. Epist. 3. Compare them in respect of priority and euidence of being the Apostles the Scripture is posteriour vnto Tradition in tyme and knowledge and cannot be proued directly to be the Apostles therfore Gods but by Tradition as sometime not only Fathers but euen Protestants afffirme As Philosophy is more perfect then Logicke and Rhetoricke then Grammer in respect of high excellēt knowledge yet Logike is more prime originall fundamentall then Philosophy Grammer then Rhetoricke without the rules and principles wherof they cannot be learned Euen so Tradition is more prime and originall then Scripture though Scripture in respect of depth and sublimity of discourse be more excellent then Tradition fundamentall then the very Scripture which is not knowne to be Apostolicall but by Tradition wheras a perpetuall Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by its owne light For what more euident thē that that is from the Apostles which is deliuered as Apostolicall by perpetuall succession of Bishops consenting therein The Propertyes of the Church proued by Matth. 28.20 §. 4. ALL this may be cleerly prooued to omit other pregnant testimonyes by the words of our Sauiour in the last of S. Matthew Going into the world teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to keepe all that I haue commanded you and behold I am with you all dayes euen to the consummation of the world A (r) The Minister pag. 195. lin 4. sayth that this promise is conditionall in repect of Pastours succeeding the Apostles to wit that Christ will assist them conditionally whē they teach and baptize as he hath commanded but that they shall so still teach he doth not promise p. 24. lin 28. This exposition is false first because our Sauiour here promiseth his Presence vnto the Apostles and their successours to baptize and teach vntill the worlds end by one and the same forme of speach and indiuiduall breath so that the promise cannot be conditionall in respect of the successors except it be also conditionall in respect of the Apostles But in respect of the Apostles the promise is absolute as the Minister grants pag. 94. lin 23. Therefore it is also absolute in respect of their successors Not that this or that Pastour may not be deceaued but that they shall neuer deliuer by ioynt consent any falshood as the Apostles doctrine Secondly if the promise be conditionall then the sense is this I will alwayes assist you to teach Christen aright when you teach christen according to my commandement as the Minister expounds pag. 94. lin 22. But this sense is idle and iust nothing as if Christ had sayd Behold I will assist you to teach aright when you teach aright for what is to teach Christian Religion aright but to
from no other Church but the Roman is equiualent or equipollent vnto this Euery Church deliuering scriptures vnto Protestants is Roman Wherefore to reduce the Iesuits argument in true forme vnto the first Figure you should haue made the maior (d) For as Logicke teaches In prima Figura maior semper est vniuersalis Vniuersall in this sort Euery Chuch that deliuered vnto Protestants the scriptures is the Catholike The Roman deliuered the Scriptures vnto Protestants Ergo the Roman Church is the Catholike Church If you say the Meanes of proofe in the Iesuits argumeÌ„t is Indiuiduall and so the Syllogisme Expository not according to the ordinary forme why then do you reprehend his argument as being affirmatiue in the second figure seing Expository Syllogismes may be affirmatiue in any figure Are yow a Doctour a Deane a Maister in Israell and know not these things Being so ignorant of Logicke were yow so destitute likewise of discretioÌ„ as yow could not keepe your selfe from carping at the Iesuit as peccant in Logicke Could you not at least haue been silent about figures and formes of arguing concerning which yow speake no more assuredly then a blind man of colours Some may say that though yow be ignorant of Logicke yow do not greatly care because this your Ignorance howsoeuer euident vnto the learned cannot be made palpable vnto the Ladyes who esteeme yow and are lead away by yow I answere Although your Ignorance in Logicke cannot by this discourse be made palpable vnto Ladyes yet the falshood of your Religion euen about your ground and rule of fayth may be made palpable vnto them Yow make the rule of Fayth to be not expresse scripture affirming a thing in so many words for then the Ladyes that can read might straight discouer the falshood of your Religion wherof not one article against vs is expressely deliuered in scripture You therefore I say make the rule of Fayth to be not only Scripture but also (e) The doctrine of fayth is eyther expressely or deriuatiuely coÌ„tayned in Scripture Fran. white pag. 300. What is deduced by necessary consequence according to the rules of Logicke VVottâ—n Triaâ—l pag. 88. what doctrine soeuer is by Principles of reason and Rules of Logicke deduced from the Scripture Now wheÌ„ a thing is deduced from scripture by good consequence by true art and not by Sophistry Ladyes except they haue diligently studyed Logicke cannot possibly know This is euident For nothing is deduced by good consequence from scripture which is not deduced by discourse in lawfull figure forme not by Sophistry or a fallacious shew But the Ladyes cannot possibly know when an argument is in true moode and figure nor consequently discerne Syllogismes from Sophismes which their insufficiency they must needes feele in themselues if they be in their senses Therfore they cannot possibly be assured by the ground and rule of Fayth you prescribe them nor consequeÌ„tly can they groundedly belieue Christian Religion nor be saued They must trust ignorant Ministers who crye Sophistry Sophistry agaynst argumeÌ„ts in lawfull forme as now you haue done not so much out of malice but as I am persuaded out of meere Ignorance of such Rudiments of discourse as men are taught in their childhood The second Example §. 2. YOv not only accuse the Iesuits Arguments of Sophistry when they are lawfull but also pretende to bring inuincible Demonstrations when your Arguments be childish knowne Sophismes Behold hereof notorious Examples Your aduersary to proue the traditioÌ„ of the Church to be more Prime and Originall then the scripture bringes 4. Arguments Yow on the contrary side to requite him in the same number haue set downe other 4. to proue that a Christian is built originally and fundamentally on the word of God not as deliuered by tradition but as written In these Arguments yow glory (f) Reply pag. 47. and 48. saying That the Iesuits are but funiculus vanitatis a bundle of vanity and a potsheard couered ouer with the drosse of siluer Now these your arguments in comparison of which you so debase the Iesuits are all and euery one of them idle triuiall fallacyes as I will particulerly and cleerely demonstrate The first (g) Reply pag. 48 is That which is most excellent in euery kind is the modell of the rest but I trow yow will grant the Scripture to be the most excellent part of Gods word 2. Pet. 19. August l. 17. cont Faust. c. 5. Ergo the scripture is the modell and patterne of the rest This Argument is constans ex quatuor terminis that is hath foure different termes whereas all true forme of arguing ought to haue only three Scripture is one terme Modell and patterne of the rest a second Most excellent in euery kind a third the most excellent part a fourth for it is not all one to say the excellent thing in euery kind the most excellent part of many partes Amongst whole and totall things the most excelleÌ„t in euery kind may in some sort be said to be the patterne of the rest but amoÌ„gst parts the most excellent is not the ground of the rest In substantuall Compounds the substantiall forme is more excellent then the substantiall matter yet the substantiall forme is not the ground of the matter yea rather the matter is the ground of the forme being the fundamentall radicall cause out of which materiall formes are produced Who sees not that Walles Chambers and Galleryes are more excellents parts of the house and more beautifull then the fundations Yet the fundations are more prime originall and wheron the Walls and Chambers depend and are kept in being In this manner the word of God as written is more excellent in respect of deep and profound learning then Tradition yet the word as deliuered by Tradition is more prime originall fundamentall because it is the sole ground and foundation by which wee know which is the word of God the Apostles deliuered in writing Hence yow are such a Bungler in Logicke as yow vndertake to proue one thing and conclude another Yow vndertake (h) Reply 47. lin 28. to proue that the foundation of Christian Religion is the word of God not as deliuered by tradition but as written yow conclude that the written word is the patterne and modell of all other kinds of Diuine Reuelations Now to be the ground of the rest is different from to be the patterne of the rest yea the ground of thinges is seldome or neuer the patterne of them The grape by common consent is held the most excellent of all kind of fruite and so by your rule the modell and patterne of the rest yet the grape is not the ground the roote and seed of all other fruite nor do all other fruite spring and proceed from it Your second Argument (i) Ibid. pag. 48. A Christian is built fundamentally on the Rocke but the scripture is the rocke Cardinalis Cameracensis quaest vespert
subscribed vnto as containing (m) See the Approbation I Francis White c. nothing but what is aggreable to the publike Faith and Doctrine established in the Church of England And yet heere yow say It is certaine that the Pope is the man of sinne sonne of perditioÌ„ so shewing your selfe to be of their number whome the said Authour in that very place doth rebuke as Omnium horarum homines Halters in opinions for priuate ends I omit also your folly in exclaming at the misery of English Romists for that they adhere vnto your supposed Antichrist not marking that to cleaue to the Antichrist of your forming must euen according to your owne principles be singular happines For Antichrist according to your Tenet doth sit gouerne in the House and Temple of God and so by the same breath wherwith you make men vassals of Antichrist you make them Gods Domesticks his House his Temple Will it be misery to be found such at the day of Iudgement Yea rather the Church of Christ the Temple of God being onely one out of which no saluation is had what a misery will it be at the day of Iudgement wheÌ„ by your owne mouth you shall be conuinced to haue forsaken that company which you confesse to be the Church and Temple of God through feare of your owne shaddow and fancy For what can be more foolish then to fasten the name of Antichrist vpon the Gouernour of the ChristiaÌ„ Church who doth dayly professe to belieue in Christ Iesus the sonne of God and Sauiour of the world who by his Adherents doth more then all the world besides defend and propagate amongst Pagans his most holy Name Religion But to let these things passe marke how you coÌ„tradict your selfe in saying on the one side that that caÌ„not be the House Temple of God which now hath or in former times hath had wicked Pastours On the other side that that is the House and Temple of God in which the Man of sinne that is a succession of wicked Pastours hath a long while for many ages gouerned and doth rule and gouerne So hard is it for men blinded with passion agaynst Christian Doctrine deriued by succession from the Apostles to run in their passionate conceipts without falling into the pit of open contradiction whereby their folly comes to be manifest vnto all men The third Errour You profâ—sse Infidelity about the Blessed Sacrament §. 3. THVS you write pag. 179. To that part of the Iesuits speach that we deny the Reall Presence or else the mayne Article of the Creed that Christ is still in heaâ—en because we will not allow a body in two places at â—nce I answere We cannot graunt that one indiuiduall â—ody may be in many distant places at one and the same â—nstant of time vntill the Papalls DEMONSTRATE THE POSSIBILITY THEREOF by teâ—timony of Scripture or the ancient TraditioÌ„ of the Church â—r by apparent reason Thus you This is playne deaâ—ing and open profession of Infidelity For what â—s heretical obstinacy but to reiect the word of God â—bout the mysteries of our Fayth in the playne exâ—resse and literall sense vntill the possibility of â—hat sense be first demonstrated No Heretike was eâ—er so barbarous as to prefer his reason beyond Gods word so farre as to affirme that the word of God contrary to his reason was false Their impiety was to reiect Gods word about some mistery of fayth in the literall sense flying to morall and mysticall interpretation because they could not comprehend and therefore would not belieue the possibility of the playne and litterall sense The Arrians did not deny the word of Scripture saying (n) 1. Ioan. â— 7 of the Father Word and Holy Ghost these three are one nor the Word of Christ (o) Ioan. 10.30 I and my Father are one to be true morally and mystically in respect of vnity by singular affection and consent betwixt these three persons They were Heretikes for denying the truth of these wordes in the proper and substantiall sense because the same seemed to them impossible For seing that we might not expound the Scriptures about mysteries of fayth to an easy figuratiue sense when the same according to the letter goeth beyond the capacity of our vnderstanding God doth so often in holy Writ (p) Gen. 18.17 Numquid Deo quid est difficile Hieâ—rm 32.17 Non est difficile tibi omne verbum Et v. 27. Numquid mihi difficile erit omne verbuÌ„ Luc. 1.37 Non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbuÌ„ Et Deo omnia possibilia sunt Matt. â—9 26 Luc. 18.27 Omnia possibilia sunt credenti Mar. 9.22 assure vs that nothing is impossible or difficile vnto him and (q) Iob. 9.10 That he can do things incomprehensible without number What greater obstinacy then for Christian men to professe that they will neuer belieue his word about the mysteryes of fayth in the literall sense vntill the possibility of the sense be demonstrated vnto them that is brought within the compasse and comprehension of their wit You may perchance excuse your selfe by saying the words of Christs institution This is my body takeÌ„ in the literall sense do not inforce that Christ according to his corporall substance is in two places at once I answere this you cannot say without contradicting not only the word of Scripture as is proued in the Reioynder but also your selfe For you do plainly affirme that this our doctrine yea euen Transubstantiation is contayned in the literall sense of the words of the Institution If say you the substance of bread and wine be deliuered in the Eucharist then the wordes are figuratiue and cannot be true in the proper sense because one indiuiduall substance cannot be predicated of another properly Thus you (r) Reply pag. 3â—7 whereupon I thus argue That without which the word of Christ cannot be true in the proper and literall sense is inforced and prooued by the word of Christ taken in the literall sense But except the substance of bread be absent and Christ in lieu thereof present according to his corporall substance the word of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the literall and proper sense as you affirme Ergo Transubstantiation and the presence of Christ on earth according to his bodily substance in lieu of bread is inforced proued by the literall sense of the word of Christs institution Wherfore to professe as you â—o neuer to belieue Christs body to be in two places at once vntill it be demonstrated vnto you to be possible is to professe you will not belieue the word of God in the literall sense about mysteries of fayth further then the possibility thereof can be made euident vnto you Is not this to professe Infidelity Secondly you may say that when you require that we demonstrate by testimony of Scripture that a body may be in two places at once you meane not that we bring texts of
Scripture that demonstrate by reasō how this is possible but only that we bring places that expresly say that This is possible vnto God For as you say pag. 438. In the wordes of our Sauiour This is my body there is not a sillable concerning accidēts without a subiect or of a bodyes being in two places at once or concerning any miracle wrought by Gods omnipotency I answere that likewise in this text of Scripture (s) Ioan. 1 1◠The Word was made flesh there is not a sillable that a perfect substantiall nature can exist without proper personality or that two complete natures can subsist togeather in the same Hypostasis nor of any miracle done by the diuine omnipotency yet because this text of Scripture about the mistery of the incarnation cānot be true in the literall sense except those hard incomprehensible things be graunted to be possible by diuine omnipotency we must togeather with the mistery implicitly belieue that God can separate proper subsistance from complete substantiall natures that two natures infinitly distant in perfection can subsist in the same Hypostasis though the Scripture doth not expressely so affirme In like manner though the words of Christ This is my body do not expressely say that his body may be in many places at once nor that accidents can exist without a subiect by diuine omnipotency yet because this his word whereon we grounde our fayth concerning this mistery cannot as your selfe graunt be true in the proper and literall sense except Transubstantiation and the Presence of his body in many places at once be belieued hence we must togeather with the reall presence and litterall sense of Gods word implicitely belieue these miracles to be done Wherfore in saying you will neuer belieue them except their possibility be first demonstrated vnto you through ignorāce of Theology you professe Infidelity For to resolue not to belieue seeming implicācies inuolued in the misteries of faith except they be eyther seuerally expressed as possible in Gods word or els demonstrable by reason is the right way to belieue iust nothing there being no mistery of faith which doth not imply some difficultyes the possibility of which is neyther expresly auerred in scripture nor can be demonstrated by reason A fourth Example of your Ignorance in Theology §. 4. I Adde another Example about the Blessed Eucharist wherein you discouer grosse Ignorance not only against Theology but euen common sense And this Example may serue as a patterne how insufficiently and impertinently you answere the Iesuites argument The Iesuit pag. 406. argueth in this sort Christ doth affirme that the Sacrament is truly really substantially not the figure and effect of his body but his very body but how can consecrated bread be termed truly really and substantially the body of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with it Thus you answere pag. 406. To the effecting hereof locall corporall presence is not necessary A Father and his Sonne may be absent by distance of place one from the other yet the Sonne is TRVLY AND REALLY VNITED with his Father so as his Fathers nature is in him and he hath right in his Fathers person and state A mans goods may be at Constantinople and yet he liuing in England is a true possessour and owner of them and he may communicate and vse them and distance of place hindreth not his right and propriety Now although there be a difference betweene things temporall and spirituall yet thus farre there is agreement that euen as we possesse temporall things being locally absent so likewise we may receyue and partake Christs body and bloud by the power of Fayth and donation of the Holy Ghost according to a celestiall and spirituall manner Thus you Now behold how many wayes yow discouer grosse Ignorance in this answere First were all that you say true yet is it impertinent and ineptly brought in answere of the Iesuits argument For the question is not whether men may receiue by the vertue of Fayth and donation of the holy Ghost sanctity and grace through the merits of Christs body and bloud that are absent for this al acknowledge to happen in Baptisme and to be possible in the Eucharist if Christ had so ordained The question is about the truth of Gods word whether consecrated bread may be truly and really called the body of Christ being as you say a thing not only indiuidually distinct but also locally distant from his body A man being in London may possesse iuridically an Horse that is in the Countrey is it therfore true to say that this man in London is truly really the Horse in the Countrey A Merchant in London may haue great treasures of money in Constantinople and a right to lay them vp in his Coffers at London may one therfore shewing his empty coffers at London say truly this is a treasure of money In like manner suppose which is false that a man hath iuridicall authority ouer Christs body absent and existing in heauen to dispose therof at his pleasure may he therfore be sayd to be truly and really Christs body May one therefore shewing the Sacrament being in your Tenet an empty thing in respect of containing Christs bodily substance say truly therof This is really Christs body and corporall substance who will maintaine such absurdities that is sober Wherefore your discourse that a man may truly posesse a thing absent serues nothing to satisfy the Iesuites question how can consecrated bread be truly verily really the body of Christ if he be not so much as present in place with it Secondly what more absurd then what you affirme that a man may not only in right possesse but really and truly vse his things that be absent Can a man in London vse and ride on his horse that is at Yorke Or a Merchant in Bristow feed on his grapes that are growing in his vineyard in Spayne If they cannot and it is ridiculous to say they can how can a man existing on earth receaue truly and really Christ distant from him as farre as the highest heauen Receaue him I say not in a signe only according to gracious Effects but euen according to his body and corporall substance with their mouth of flesh For Christ did not say This is a figure of my body or this is soule-feeding grace giuen by the merit of my body and bloud but This is my body euen to your corporall mouth wherewith I bid you to take and eate it Thirdly who cā forbeare laughing to heare you so soberly affirme that the Son that is absent from his Father as far as Constantinople is from London is not only morally by Loue and Affection but TRVLY and REALLY VNITED with his Father For Vnion is the way vnto Vnity so that whensoeuer two indiuiduall things are truly really vnited by this vnion is made a third indiuiduall thing distinct frō ech of them a part from all other
THEE â—ise vnto saluation made vnto Timothy in regard he was aforehand taught and grounded in the fayth of Tradition cannot be challenged of them that are â—f a differrent stampe from Timothy to wit men â—hat were neuer taught the fayth of Tradition or â—lse so vngrounded therein as vpon a seeming euiâ—ence of Scripture they be ready to chaÌ„ge their fâ—rst â—eceiued fayth Hence it is manifest that the Iesuit â—ad reason to say Ministers abuse Gods word when â—hey cite it the Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto â—aluation making that common to all men which was spoken onely to Timothy and vnto such as he was Will you haue another example of the same kind The Iesuit saith the words of Christ Do this in remembrance of mee was spoken of the Sacrament in the forme of bread not vnder the forme of wine For our Sauiour speaking of the SacrameÌ„t vnder the forme of 〈◊〉 saith (h) 1. Cor. 11. not absolutely doe this as he did of bread 〈◊〉 conditionally do this as ofteÌ„ as you drinke in memorâ—â— of me that the Aduersary of the Church might not haue 〈◊〉 much as a plausible shew to condeÌ„ne coÌ„munâ—o in one kind 〈◊〉 against Gods word You after much bitter rayling calling the Iesuit infatuated Romanist vermine for 〈◊〉 vrging you beyond your learning answere thus 〈◊〉 the end Touching the fancy of this obiection I furtheâ— say that euen as when S. Paul said 1. Cor. 10.31 whetheâ— yee eat or drinke or whatsoeuer else you do do all to the glory of God If these wordâ— should be resolued 〈◊〉 this manner As often as yee eate or drinke or do any thing else do all to the glory of God the placing 〈◊〉 this word as often restrayneth not the speach froÌ„ being a precept so likewise when S. Paul saith As often as yeâ— drinke do this in remembrance of me this manneâ— altereth not his words from being a commandement Thus you confirming the Iesuits answere For no example could haue been deuised or imagined more fit to shew that Christs words as ofteÌ„ as you drinke import not an absolute but onely a conditionall precept Which thus I demoÌ„strate You grant that the words of Christ Do this as often as you drinke in remembrance of me be preceptiue in the same manner as no more then these of S. Paul as often as yee eate or drinke or walke abroad or do any thing else do all to the glory of God But no man that hath his right senses will say that this speach doth absolutely command Christians to eate or drinke or sleepe or ride or walke or to do any of the like actioÌ„s of human life but onely doth conditionally command or direct men that when they will eate or drinke or sleepe or â—â—de or walke that they do all to Gods glory Ergo 〈◊〉 words of Christ saying do this as ofteÌ„ as yee drinke 〈◊〉 â—emembrance of me do not imply an absolute precept of â—â—â—nking of the cup but onely a conditionall direction that â—â—en men drinke they do that Sacramentall action in â—emory of his Passion So that in lieu of soluing the 〈◊〉 of the Iesuits argumeÌ„t you intangle your selfe 〈◊〉 tye the same more fast You send the Iesuite to God for an Answere §. 6. THE Iesuit (i) See the Reply pag. 256. chargeth the Protestant doctrine that holy Images may be lawfully made not â—â—wfully honored to be destitute of all shew of Scripâ—â—re For the (k) Exod. 20.4.5.6 Deuter 5.6.7 text of the Law is no lesse cleer aâ—â—inst the making of such Images then against their â—eing adored Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any image â—â—ou shalt not worship nor adore them HeÌ„ce he argueth â—he images which by this precept we are forbidden 〈◊〉 adore be such as by the same we are forbidden to â—ake But the Images of Christ be not such Images 〈◊〉 we are forbidden by this precept to make Ergo â—â—ey are not the Images we are forbidden by this â—â—ecept to adore And wheras Protestants expound 〈◊〉 first part of the precept Thou shalt not make â—â—em to wit with purpose and intention to adore â—his exposition saith the Iesuit is not onely violent â—â—ainst the text but also incongruous against sense For 〈◊〉 (l) Some may obiect that God doth forbid Adultery in the 6. Commandment Non â—oechaberis and yet in the ninth he forbids by speciall commandment the purpose and intention of adultry Non concupisâ—es vxorem proximi tui I Answere that the ninth Precept doth not forbid the doing of â—â—â—nges with purpose and intention of Adultery for this was sufficiently forâ—â—â—den in the sixâ— precept but this supposed forbiddeth inward desires lusts 〈◊〉 Adultery though without doing any thing with purpose and intention thereâ—â—â— And so our Sauiours Praecept Matth. 5.28 Not to looke vpon a woman to lust 〈◊〉 her supposeth the doing of things with intention of Adultery to be vnlawâ—â—â— and forbiddeth the looking vpon a woman with lustfull delight desire 〈◊〉 without intention of doing the act of Adultery prohibition of things doth likewise forbid the doing thinges with intention to doe agaynst the Preceâ—â— Hence I argue The Precept thou shalt not adore Images doth forbid the making of them with intentioâ— to adore as much as the precept Thou shalt not kill doth forbid the making of weapons with intention to kill But the precept thou shalt not kill doth so fully and sufficiently forbid the doing of any thing with intention of murther that it had been superfluoâ—â— to haue set downe that precept in this forme Thou shalt not make or weare weapons with intention to kill thou shalt not kill Therfore without sense weâ—â— the precept Thou shalt not make any Images Thoâ— shalt not adore them had the first part no more sensâ— then you giue it to wit Thou shalt not make Imaâ—ges with intention to adore Besides as to make an image to adore is Idolatry 〈◊〉 to take it in hand to looke on it to that purpose whâ—â— theÌ„ was not such looking on or taking in hand witâ— purpose of adoratioÌ„ forbidden aswell as making 〈◊〉 if looking on theÌ„ with intention to adore them is 〈◊〉 cleerly forbiddeÌ„ in the precept Thou shalt not adoâ—re theÌ„ as there needed not further expression whâ—â— need was there or reasoÌ„ that making of images with intention to adore should be more largly or fully expressed You answere As for the Iesuites interrogâ—â—tions Why then What need was there we refeâ—â— him to the Lawgiuer to challeÌ„ge or demand reasons of him And as for our selues we rest vpoÌ„ the reuealed will of God not daring to question or demand reason of his actionâ— Thus you Wherby it is manifest that you grant thâ— Iesuites arguments against your expositioÌ„ of Scripture to be so cleere as you cannot answer them 〈◊〉 must send him to God to aske an answere of hiâ— â—ndeed if Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any images with â—â—tention to adore them
Scriptures Fathers speak as they please This your cogging in Scripture is already discouered Now about the Fathers Seauen Testimonies of S. Augustine about Scripture and Tradition falsifyed §. 1. TO note some few of the many Pag. 22. lin 5. to make S. Augustine seeme to fauour your Protestant fancy that men are resolued in fayth by the resplendent Verity and euidence of the Christian Doctrine you cite him as saying (*) Cont. Ep. Fund c. 4. Manifest Verity is to be prâ—fered before all other thinges wherby I am hâ—ld in the Catholike Church In this quotation the word other is cogged into the text to change the sense as if S. Augustine had sayd I haue many motiues to belieue the Catholike Doctrine amongst other the manifest verity of the things reuealed this is the chiefest of all S. Augustines true text is manifest verity so cleerly shewed as no doubt therof can be made praeponenda est omnibus is to be preferred before all these thinges whereby I am held in the Catholike Church Hence it is cleere that the manifest Verity was not the stay and motiue of S. Augustines fayth For what is preferred before all the motiues that stayed him in the Catholike Church was none of his motiues But he saith that manâ—fâ—st verity so cleerly shining as no doubt thereof can be made is to be preferred before all his motiues Ergo S Augustin was not befooled with this foppery that Fayth is resolued finally into the manifest resplendeÌ„t verity of the doctrine and thinges reuealed in Scripture Neere to the same (a) Pag. 21. lin â—2 and in marg lit b. c. place you cite S. Augustine (b) Aug. l. 2. de Baptis c. 3. saying That former councells are corrected by latter Whence you inferre that the Tradition of the Church is fallible For what sentence of the Church is infallible if that of Councells be fallible In which say you some Papists place the soueraignty of Ecclesiasticall authority Heere you shew Ignorance and Falshood Ignorance about the doctrine of Catholikes For though some preferre the Councell before the Pope others the Pope before the Councell in case the whole Councel should be opposite to the Pope in matters of Fayth to be defined which case yet neuer happened yet all preferre perpetual Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles before both Pope and Councell For how can we know that Church definitions made by Pope Councell be infallible but by Tradition Some may say that is cleerly proued by Scripture It is true but how shall we know the texts assumed in this proofe to be the Apostles Scripture but by Tradition How should we be so sure that we truly expound the Texts aright did we not see the Tradition and practise of the Church to haue been still conformable to the sense we giue of those Scriptures Your Falshood is in that you conceale the words that immediatly follow in S. Augustines sentence which had you set down Aug. lib. 2. de Baptis c. 3. Ipsa plenaria Concilia saepe priora posterioribus emeÌ„dari cùm EXPERIMENTO â—erum aperitur quod clausum erat it would haue been euideÌ„t that he doth attribute fallibility and corrigibility vnto Councells only in matters of fact or Ecclesiasticall Lawes about manners For the whole sentence is Amongst plenary Councells the former are corrected by the latter cùm experimento rerum c. when by EXPERIMENT of thinges something is brought to light which before was hidden Now the truth of matters and mysteries of Fayth is not brought to light by tyme and experience but the truth of matters of fact is of which One sayth Quicquid sub terra est in apricum proferet aetas Therefore S. Augustine speakes not of matters of Fayth but of matters of fact or of Ecclesiasticall Lawes about manners which in some cases tyme and experience doth discouer to be inconuenient therefore to be recalled In the same place to prooue S. Augustine (d) Pag. 21. in lit b. c. held that the Church in her perpetuall Traditions may be deceaued you cite him saying (e) Aug. l. 2. cont Crescon c. 21. Eâ—clesiastici Iudices sicut homines plerumque falluntur Ecclesiasticall Iudges as men may be deceaued and (f) Lib 2. de Baptism c. 3. EpiscoporuÌ„ litteras quae post confirmatum Canonem Scriptae sunt c. licere reprehendi Non debet Ecclesia se Christo praeponere vt putet à se iudicatos baptizare non posse ab Illo autem iudicatos posse cùm Ille semper veraciter iudicet Ecclesiastici autem Iudices sicut homines plerumque falluntur the writings of any Bishops since the Apostles may be questioned and called into doubt I do not doubt but you know in your conscience that S. Augustine in both the places is alleadged oppositely to his meaning In the first place he speaketh not about Church-errours in matters of fayth but about errors in matters of fact or Church iudgments concerning criminall causes For this is his whole sentence The Church ought not to preferre herselfe before Christ as to say that men condemned by him as wicked may validely baptize but such as she doth condemne may not seeing He in his iudgements neuer erreth whereas Ecclesiasticall Iudges as being men are often deceaued Who doth not see that you wrong Saint Augustine to bring this his testimony for his holding the perpetuall Tradition of the Catholicke Church hand to hand from the Apostles by the succession of Bishops to be fallible And no lesse iniuriously you produce him in the second testimony For he speaketh of single Bishops considered ech of them by themselues that their writings are obnoxious vnto errour and so may be questioned and examined by Scripture thence inferring that the Donatists should not wonder that he did examine the Epistle of S. Cyprian agaynst the Baptisme of Heretikes so cleere it is he speakes of single Bishops not of Tradition by the full consent of Bishops Pag. 37. lin 33. For only Scripture you cite the same S. August as thus writing (g) August in epist· 1. IoaÌ„ tract 3. The Church hath only two breasts wherwith she feedeth her Children the Scriptures of the Old New TestameÌ„t You corrupt this place by addition false translation First by adding to the text the word only to make men belieue S. Aug. held that no doctrine of Fayth is to be belieued which is not cleerly contayned in Scripture whereas (h) l. 4. de Baptis c. 6. 24. l. 5. c. 22. he hath an expresse principle to the contrary many tymes repeated in his workes Sundry thinges to wit of fayth such as was the doctrine that Baptisme giuen by Heretiks is valide are most iustly belieued to be the Apostles though they be no where written in the Scriptures Secondly S. August sayth not as you traÌ„slate that the Churches two breasts are the Scriptures of the Old New TestameÌ„t
S. Augustine the cause you Donatist pretend is nulla none at all it is an vntruth (u) Calumniarum suarum â—umos â—actantes D. Baptis l 5 c 1. Caecilian hauing cleered himselfe from that crime and byn absolued in all maner of Courtes Yea though the same were true yet by (x) Restat vâ— fateantur nulla maloruÌ„ etiam cognitorum tali communione Ecclesiam maculari 〈◊〉 cùm fassi fuerint non inuenient causam cur se ab Ecclesijs separauerinâ— your owne principles it is conuinced to be no iust cause Wherefore your separation is not only Schisme but most eminent and notorious Schisme For then is Apeâ—â—issimum autem sacrilegium eminet Schismatis cùm NVLLA fuit causa Separationis the Sacriledge of Schisme most notoriously eminent when there was NO cause of separation He doth not say When there is no iust cause of separation Schisme is coÌ„mitted as though there might be some iust cause and then Schisme is not committed but when there is no cause of all which may with any colour or shew be pretended for separation then Schisme is not only committed for it is still committed when separation is made from the whole Christian world what cause soeuer be pretended but then it is notoriously most euidently committed Behold how changing the text of S. Augustine and agaynst Iustice cogging into the same the word iust you make his speach to haue a sense iust contrary to his meaning How iustly might I charge you with obscuring out-facing of the truth by forgery which calumniously without any proofe you obiect vnto the Sacred Councell of Trent But like to like such a Religion such an Aduocate Seauen Testimonies of other Fathers falsifyed §. 2. LET vs also discouer some of your corruptions about other Fathers besides S. Augustine For the fulnes of Scripture about all poynts of fayth you cite these wordes of (*) Serm. de Bapt. S. Cyprian Christian Religion findes that from this Scripture the rules of all learning flow and that whatsoeuer is contayned in the discipline of the Church doth arise from this and is resolued into this These wordes Puritans might better then you alleadge for their Geneuian Principle that not only Church-doctrine but also Church-discipline must be contayned in Scripture proued by the cleere Texts thereof But happily they neuer saw it or if they did they durst not be so impudent as to alledge it as you do agaynst the meaning of the Authour For S. Cyprian speakes not of the whole volume of Scripture but only of twelue or thirteene wordes therof to wit this little senteÌ„ce (z) Praecipis Domine vt diligam te de proximo iubes vt ad meam eum mensuram complectar c. Legat hoc vnum verbum in hoc mandato meditetur Christiana Religio inueniet ex hac Scriptura omniuÌ„ doctrinarum regulas emanasse c. Loue thy Lord God with all thy hart thy neighbour as thy selfe This would haue appeared had you not omitted the wordes immediatly precedent in the very same sentence Let Christian Religion reade this one word and meditate on this commandment and it shall find that from this Scripture the Rules of all learning flow c. And this example may serue to make euident to the eye your perpetuall Protestant Impertinency in alleadging wordes of the Fathers in which they commend the perfection fulnes of Scripture for your fancy of only-only-only Scripture For the Fathers meaning is that all is contayned in Scripture in a generall and confuse manner not so particularly and distinctly as Scripture may be the sole rule for all necessary poynts of Fayth This is cleere for what they say of the whole Scripture they say of some principall particle thereof as of this Thou shalt loue thy Lord God with all thy hart and thy neighbour as thy selfe But no man that is in his iudgment will say what this sole sentence is a sufficient Rule of Fayth for all necessary poynts of Doctrine and Discipline Therefore their commendations of the plenitude of Scripture can inforce no more then that all is contayned in Scripture in some generall manner not so particularly but that for explication and distinctioÌ„ of many poynts the rule of Churches Tradition is necessary For the clarity of Scriptures that vnto them that know not the Tradition of the Church they are easy you (b) pag. 45 lin 10 cite S. (c) Homil. 2. de verbis Isa. Vidi Dominum Chrysostome Scriptures are not like Metalls which haue neede of workemen TO DIGGE THEM OVT but they deliuer a treasure ready at hand to them which seeke hidden riches in them It is sufficient that thou looke into them c. Here you falsify the Text of S. Chrysostome by adding vnto it to digge theÌ„ out whereby you make both the Father to contradict himselfe and his speach to be senselesse For if the Riches of the Scripture be hidden in the Text thereof as he sayth how is it a Treasure ready at hand without digging or searching How it is inough to looke into the booke to find it Had you digged deepely into the golden Mine of S. Chrysostome you would perchance haue found out his true meaning not haue imposed vpon him this false and pernicious doctrine S. Chrysostome in getting gold out of mines doth consider that a double labour is to be vndergone The one to digge out that earth wherwith Gold is mingled The other to seuer the gold froÌ„ the earth The first labour he sayth is necessary that we find out the Treasure true sense of Scripture we must sayth (d) Chrysost. Homil. 40. in Ioan. FODERE nos profundius iubet vt quae altè delitescunt inuenire possimus Idem in Gen. Homil. 37. Indagatis Profundis verum sensum veritatis percipere he not only looke into the booke not only attend to the bare reading but we are coÌ„manded to DIGGE DEEPELY that wee may find out the thinges that lye hidden in the bottome For wee digge not for a thinge that lyes open and READY AT HAND but for a treasure that is hidden in the deepe Thus S. Chrysostome How directly against his mind do you make him say that the sense of the Scripture is a treasure so ready at hand and obuious as we need not digge for it In respect of the second labour to wit of seuering drosse from Gold when the same is found this labour S. Chrysost. sayth is needlesse in regard of the Scripture In metallis difficile est inuenire quod venantur Etenim cùm metalla Terra sint Aurum non aliud quam Terra similitudo celat aspectum eorum quae quaeruntur In Scripturis non est eadem ratio Neque enim proponitur Aurum terrae commixtum sed Aurum purum c. In Mines sayth he men haue difficulty to â—ind out what they hunt for The Mines being earth and Gold also earth this
Scripture say that the Bookes of the Prophets and Apostles be diuine yet shall I not certainly belieue it except I haue aforehand belieued the Scripture which doth 〈◊〉 affirme to be diuine For also in sundry places of Mahoâ—â—ts AlcoraÌ„ we read that the same was sent of God froÌ„ heaâ—â—â—â— yet do we not belieue it Is there no difference betâ—â—xt these two sayings A maÌ„ is not bound to belieue the Sâ—â—ipture affirming the bookes of the Prophets to be Diuine 〈◊〉 then the Alcoran and this I should not belieue the Sâ—ripture saying the bookes of Prophets are diuine except I 〈◊〉 belieue the Scripture that so sayth Verily they differ 〈◊〉 much as Hell and Heauen as Blasphemy and Truth With Hosius you ioyne Petrus Soto to be a debaser 〈◊〉 Scriptures (m) Pag. 152. in lit a. citing these words as his (n) Petrus Soto â—nstructio Sacerdotum Part. 1. lect 6. pag. 17. if he be truly cited for in my Edition it is pag. 25. Quae 〈◊〉 cultum pertinent magis ex traditione Spiritus Sancti â—â—â—ustratione quà m ex scriptura petenda sunt The things 〈◊〉 belong vnto worship are to be taken by Tradiâ—â—on and the light of the Holy Ghost rather then froÌ„ 〈◊〉 Scripture Thus you Omitting and putting in â—â—ordes chopping and changing the Text. Let vs â—â—are the Authours very words (o) Aduerâ—aÌ„t hunc Doctrinae Euangelicae modum Quod ad vitae rationem attinet post illa quae communia sunt omnibus qualia sunt praecepta Decalogi atque dilectionis Dei Proximi de quibus Christus frequenter loquitur Post haec inquam omnia aduerâ—ant plura esse quaerenda extraditione illustratione Spiritùs Sancti potiùs quà m ex Scriptura praecipuè quae ad cultum pertinent Post haec omnia â—â—uertant plura quaerenda esse ex Traditione illustraâ—â—one Spiritus sancti quà m ex Scripturis praecipuè quae ad â—â—ltum pertinent After all these thinges that is after a â—riest knowes not only the articles and mysteries of â—ayth but also in respect of manners and good life 〈◊〉 communia omnibus de quibus Christus frequenter loâ—â—itur those thinges that are commonly to be kept 〈◊〉 all Christians as the Ten Commandements and 〈◊〉 like about which Christ doth frequently speake â—fter they know these things let them remember that more â—â—ings yet are to be sought for rather by Tradition and the 〈◊〉 Ghosts illumination then by the Scripture spâ—cially 〈◊〉 thinges that belonge vnto Reuerence In these words â—etrus Soto deliuers two thinges First that the things â—oncerning matters not only of Fayth but also of good life that are common and must be knowne of all Christians are largely deliuered in holy Scripture Secondly that post haec omnia after the knowledge of all these common substantiall matters 〈◊〉 for other particuler thinges they are to be learned by Tradition more then by Scripture Hence I inferre that Petrus Soto by the words quae ad cultum pertinent doth not meane the mayne dutyes of Latriae and Religion but Reuerentiall carriage and ceremonyes to be vsed in the administration of the Sacraments This is cleere For by things pertinent vnto Reuerence he meanes thinges that are not common vnto all nor to be knowne and obserued of all But the mayne dutyes of Latria Religion are common vnto all Christians Therefore Soto doth not meane them in his wordes Quae ad cultum pertinenâ— but only things of ceremoniall Reuerence in the vse of the Christian sacrifice and Sacraments as the Authour (p) Quae autem in celebratione Baptismatis qua ratione agenda sunt vbi est scriptum Credendúmne est tantum Ministerium sine vlla praeparatione SOLEMNITATE RITV quae ad eius excitant venerationem traditum esse Ibid. pag. 26. doth also in that place declare So that it is in you wonderful boldnes by so many leauings out by so many alterings and transposings of words to change Sotus his meaning as though he had been besotted with Swenckfeldian fancy of immediat Reuelation without Scripture In your Reply to the Preface (m) These leaues want numbers but it is in the sixt leafe the first side froÌ„ the beginning of the Reply to the Preface you say Thâ—â— the Roman Church doth require that Protestants send the holy scriptures packing and not reckon the same among Dâ—â—uine Principles To make this slaunder good you 〈◊〉 in the margent (n) Had Bosius spoken inconsideratly what folly or impotent malice is it to vrge the vnaduised speach of a priuate writer as the fayth of the Church Bosius de sig Eccles. lib. 16. cap. 10. scriptura non refertur inter eiusmodi principia the Scripture is not reckoned amongst these principles 〈◊〉 wit Diuine This saying of Bosius you repeate ouer ouer in your Booke yea the same is twice repeated in your answere to the Iesuits Preface In your Orthodoxe you haue it also and your (o) Defence pag. 1â—1 Brother more ofteÌ„ as though Bosius did say the Scripturs were not Diuine But your slaunder is intollerable for he doth not say that Scriptures are not reckoned amongst Diuine Principles but only not amongst the articles of the Creed His wordes are We know that amongst other articles of the Creed one is I belieue the holy Catholike Church Now these articles are as it were certayne principles which must be knowne and belieued in the first place But the Scripture is not numbred amongst THESE Principles although it be named HOLY and SACRED Hence appeareth how notoriously you slauÌ„der and falsify Bosius by making him say that Scriptures are not numbred amongst Diuine Principles First because he sayth not they are not numbred amongst Diuine Principles but only not amongst the twelue Articles of the Creed which is a truth so manifest as Ministers cannot be ignorant thereof if they be acquainted with the Creed SecoÌ„dly because in that very place and sentence he doth affirme the contrary to wit that the Scriptures are holy and sacred What is this but Diuine Verily this accusation that Protestants if they will be Catholikes must send the Scriptures packing is as true as what you (s) Answere to the Preface fol. 6. pag. 1. lin 19. there also affirme That they must let the Roman Nahash pluck out their right eye and vow blind obedience vnto him Which you proue because Bonauenture (t) In vitâ— Francisci c. 5. sayth that S. Francis exhorted his Fryars vnto blind Obedience As though Protestants might not be admitted into the Roman Church except they will be Fryars or that by Religious obedience men put out their right eye which regardeth God and Heauen and not tather the left which looketh vpon earth and worldly pleasure Had you eyther the right or left eye of Wisdome you would not write as you doe Had you any sparke of diuine Wisdome you would not vent such false odious slanders Had you any dramme of humane Wisdome you
by grace cannot discerne the same to be his voyce and word This is spoken with more confidence then consideration God hath an (s) Ioan. 1. Eternall Increate manner of speaking to wit the production of the Eternall Word by which the Blessed discerne him from all other speakers by the euidence of blisse-full learning but no created manner of speaking (t) This is also true wheÌ„ God speaketh inwardly to the soule For in that speaking he vseth the natiue intellectuall tongue that is the vnderstanding Faculty of the soule his diuine inspirations being apprehensions of vnderstanding of the will and affections Hence this inward speaking is not by the meere souÌ„d knowne to be Diuine but by the coniecture of some effects or by speciall reuelation is so proper to God as it can be knowne to be his speaking by the meere sound of the voyce without speciall reuelation or els some consequent miraculous effect Which I declare and proue by this argument If there were a man that had no proper sound and accent of voyce but could and did exactly vse the voyce of euery man as he pleased this man could not be known by his voyce Likewise if a man had no proper stile in writing but could perfectly write the stile of any authour as he should thinke good he could not be knowne from other writers by his phrase But God hath no proper external sound or accent of voyce nor any proper stile or phrase in writing but vseth the propeâ— tongue of those men whome it pleaseth him to inspire folding vp his heauenly coÌ„ceites in the Prophets naturall language whence ariseth (u) The differeÌ„ce of stile betwixt the Apocalyps and the Ghospell of S. Iohn is noted by Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Euseb. l. 7. c. 10. And Caluin Institut l. 1. c. 8. noteth variety of stile amongst the Euangelists Prophets Dauidi Isaiae â—ucunda suauis fluit oratio Apud Amos Pastorem Ieremiam ZachariaÌ„ asperior sermorusticitatem sapit such difference of stiles amongst the sacred writers So that it is great want of discretioÌ„ to thinke to know a book to be of God by the stile abstracting from the matter Now the matter is such as it doth not with euidence certainly shew it selfe to be nothing but truth as hath beene prooued Learned men as hath been sayd may from within Scripture gather arguments that probably perswade that the same is the word of God but euident probability cannot be the ground of persuasion certayne and ineuident it may be a comfortable coÌ„firmation not an assured foundation of Fayth The fifth Argument If Scriptures be not cleere and euident but only to such as haue the light and faculty of fayth they cannot be the prime principles of Fayth euident in themselues not prooued by the principles of faith This is cleere because euery faculty supposeth her principles by the light of them which the student bringes with him she sheweth truths pertineÌ„t vnto her skill that were hidden But the Scriptures are not cleere and euident but to such only as haue aforehand the light and faculty of fayth yea they be dark obscure vnto Infidels as not only the (x) Verbum eius infidelibus nox est Hilarius in cap. 10. Matth. 2. Caluin l. 1. Iustit c. 8. n. 9. Fathers teach but also Protestants graunt Therefore the Scriptures be not the prime principles of fayth supposed before fayth which Infidells seeing to be true resolue to belieue the mysteryes of Fayth but only are secondary truths darke and obscure in themselues belieued vpon the prime principles of fayth The sixt Argument Hence ariseth the sixt argument which is à priori If Scriptures may be prooued by the light of a superiour principle of Fayth they are not the prime principles of sayth euident in themselues and indemonstrable But Scripture is prooued by a superiour more euident principle of faith For the doctrine of the Scripture is proued to be true because God the prime verity authour of Scripture cannot deceaue nor be deceaued Now that prime verity cannot deceaue nor be deceaued is a principle of fayth superiour and more euident then that the Scriptures be of God and diuine Therfore Scripture is not the supreme indemonstrable principle of Fayth but is proued to be truth by the authority of God reuealing it to be of God by the miracles of the Apostles publishing it to be the Apostles by the tradition of the Church deliuering it as such euen as all as other mysteryes of Fayth are proued The seauenth Argument Finally Protestants for this their fancy of finall resolution of fayth by the resplendeÌ„t verity of the doctrine haue not any argument worth a rush Their chiefe Argument are two First Scripture is a principle of fayth but principles are to be euident in themselues and to be knowne by their own light This argument much often vrged by you your (a) Way pag. 37. Defence cap. 20. Brother is seely because al principles must not be euideÌ„t in theÌ„selues but only the first prime principles of euery faculty or hability of knowledge as all know But Scriptures are not as hath been shewed the prime principles of fayth but are secondary principles which being known we by the light of them may know many other things The second argument (b) This argument is vrged by the Minister pag. 16. and often elswhere The Scripture is light for the word of God is light and Scripture is the word of God But euery light is euident in it selfe and knowne by the euidence it hath in it selfe Therefore the Scriptures must of themselues appearâ— and shew that they are diuine truth I Answere the Minor of this Argument is false the whole argument grounded vpon ignorance in not discerning a difference betwixt corporall spirituall light True it is that euery corporal light that doth enlighten the eye of body must be euident in it selfe primely originally cleere but not so euery truth that illustrates mans vnderstaÌ„ding The reason is because the eye of body cannot by thinges seene inferre conclude things that are hidden but only can appreheÌ„d what doth directly and immediatly shew it selfe But mans Vnderstanding not only apprehends what sheweth it selfe but by things knowne inferreth breedeth in it selfe knowledge of thinges hidden Hence vnto Vnderstanding though things shewing themselues directly and by their owne light be her prime principles and meanes to know other thinges yet also things hidden in themselues being formerly knowne by the light of authority may thereby become lights that is meanes to know yet further of things hidden So that speaking of spirituall and intellectuall lights it is false that all lights enlightening mans Vnderstanding to know other thinges are euident in themselues yea some secondary Principles and Lights there are which must be shewed by superior light before they become lights In which kind is the Scripture being a Light vnto the faythfull
because knowne by the Churches perpetuall Tradition to be from the Apostles by the Apostles miraculous authority to be of God by Gods supreme Verity who cannot deceaue nor be deceaued to be the truth THE SECOND PART About the Catholike Resolution of Fayth NO doubt but that to the end a man may belieue diuine inward illuminatiō annointing his hart is necessary The question is what is the externall infallible ground vnto which Diuine inspiration moueth men to adhere that they may be setled in the true sauing fayth The answere in few words is this The Resolution of true Religion is firmely assured about foure Principles agaynst foure Enemyes by foure Perfections belonging vnto God as he is Prima veritas Prime and Infinite Verity that cannot deceaue nor be deceaued This I declare and proue The first Principle prooued §. 1. THE first Enemy of true Christian Religion is the Pagan (a) Dicunt pagani Ben◠viuimus or Prophane (b) Fuerunt Philosophi de virtutibus vitijs sublimia multa tractantes Aug. Tract 45. in Ioan. Philosopher who is persuaded he may attayne vnto perfect felicity and Sanctity by the knowledge of sole naturall truth Against this enemy is the first principle of true Christian Religion The Doctrine of Saluation is that only which was reuealed of God vnto his Prophets About this Principle true belieuers are resolued by a perfection which in the first place belonges vnto God as he is Prime Infinite verity to wit that he cannot lye nor reueale any vntruth when he speaks immediatly himselfe by secret inspiration Hēce we thus resolue God the Prime verity cannot reueale vntruth specially about the State-matters of saluation when he speakes by secret inspiration immediatly himselfe But he reuealed in this manner by inspiration vnto his Prophets that men cannot serue him truly nor be saued without knowing supernatural truthes beyond the (c) As mans felicity the blissfull visiō of God is aboue the forces of Nature so it was conueniēt God shold bring him vnto it by belieuing truth aboue the reach of his reason reach of Reason which truthes in particular he reuealed vnto them Therfore the doctrine of saluation is supernaturall truth such as was reuealed of God vnto his Prophets and others whome he did vouchsafe to teach immediatly by himselfe and send them to be the teachers of the world This the prime and highest principle of Christian resolution Protestants not in expresse words but in deeds and by consequence reiect from being the stay of their fayth For as they that belieue the doctrine of Aristotle lastly and finally by the light and euidence therof because it sheweth it selfe to be conformable to reason do not build vpon the authority of Aristotle nor vpon his bare world euen so they that belieue the doctrine of Scripture by the light resplendent verity thereof because it shewes it selfe to be diuine and heauenly truth as Protestants pretend to doe do not build vpon the authority of God the authour and doctour of Scripture nor his bare meere pure word This is most euident for who doth not see that it is one thing to belieue the word of some Doctour by the light of the doctrine and another to belieue his word through reuerence vnto his authority as knowing him to be infallible in his word Hence the Protestant fayth is so independent of the authority of God as though God were not prime verity but fallible in his words yet their fayth might subsist as now it doth This is cleere because let one be neuer so fallible and false yet when his sayings shew themselues to be true we may yea we cannot but belieue his word in respect of the resplendent verity therof But Protestants pretend that the sayings of Scripture shew themselues to be true by the light lustre of the Doctrine belieued therin vpon this resplendēt verity they build lastly their fayth Therfore though God were fallible might be false yet their fayth that his Scripture is truth which sheweth it selfe to be truth by the resplendent verity of the doctrine might subsist Is this the true Christian fayth which depends not vpon Gods being the Prime and Infallible Verity which giues no more credit vnto God then men wil giue vnto a lyar to wit to belieue him so farre as they see him To credit the word of his teaching so farre as it sheweth it selfe to be truth by the light of the doctrine Verily this forme of Fayths resolution is grosse and vnchristian which I am persuaded Protestants would not mantayne did they well vnderstand what they say or could they find some other way of Resolution wherby they might know what doctrine is the Apostles and therfore Gods without being bound to relye vpon the Tradition of the Church The second Principle demonstrated §. 2. SOME will say God is prime Verity by whose word we cannot be deceaued But how prou◠you these pretended diuine reuelations to be truly such Here cōmeth in the second enemy of true Religion who following his blind passion labours to depriue the world of the proofes of diuine reuelations that are more euident then the Sunne This Enemy is the Iew who graūting the doctrine of saluation to be supernaturall truth reuealed of God denies the reuealed doctrine of God to be Apostolicall that is the doctrine which the Apostles preached to the whole world as the doctrine of saluation Agaynst this Enemy is the second Principle of true Religion The Doctrine of saluation reuealed of God is no other but Apostolicall that is which the Apostles published to the world About this principle true belieuers are resolued by a second perfection of the prime Verity which is That he cannot with his seale that is with miracles and workes proper to himselfe warrant or subsigne falshood deuised or vēted by any man Hence we make this resolution God being Infinite verity cannot by signe and miracle testify falshood deuised and vented by men God hath by manifest miracles testifyed the doctrine of the Apostles to be his word and message Ergo the same is not a false religion inuented of men but the doctrin of Saluation reuealed of God The miracles by which the Prime verity hath giuen testimony vnto the Apostles doctrine may be reduced vnto foure heades First the miraculous predictions of the Prophets most cleerly punctually fullfilled in Christ Iesus his B. Mother his Apostles his Church Secondly the miraculous workes in all kindes which Christ Iesus and his disciples haue wrought which are so many so manifest so wonderfull aboue nature as we cannot desire greater euidences Thirdly the miraculous conuersion of the world by twelue poore vnlearned Fisher-men the world I say which thē was in the flowre of human pride glory in the height of human erudition and learning bringing them to belieue a doctrine seemingly absurd in reason to follow a course of discipline truly repugnant vnto sensuality to imbrace a way of saluation
Gods Ergo God being the prime verity cannot permit Catholicke Christian Tradition to be falsifyed How the Churches Tradition is proued infallible independently of Scripture §. 4. HENCE is answered the common Obiection which Protestants make that Tradition of doctrine from hand to hand made by men is fallible subiect to errour for they may deceaue or be deceaued If We answere that Christian Catholicke Tradition of doctrines is infallible through Gods speciall assistance They reply this infallibility of traditioÌ„ through diuine assistaÌ„ce cannot be knowne but by the Scripture and so before we can build our fayth on Tradition as infallible we must know the Scripture to be the word of God and consequently we cannot build our persuasion of the Scriptures being Apostolicall and diuine on Tradition except we comit a Circle I Answere First that Catholicke Tradition is proued to be (m) Est suÌ„mus gradus certitudinis humanae de qua SIMPLICITER dici potest noÌ„ posse illi falsum subesse Suarez de gratia l. 9. c. 11. n. 11. Et hoc ibid. probat simply infallible by the very nature thereof For TraditioÌ„ being full report about what was euident vnto sense to wit what doctrines and Scriptures the Apostles publickly deliuered vnto the world it is impossible it should be false Worlds of men cannot be vniformely mistaken and deceaued about a matter euident to sense and not being deceaued being so many in number so deuided in place of so different affectious and conditious it is impossible they (n) Neglexerit officiuÌ„ suum Villicus Christi c. Quî verisimile vt tot tantae Ecclesiae in vnam fidem errauerint variasse debuerat error EcclesiaruÌ„ Caeterùm quod apud multos vnuÌ„ inuenitur non est erratuÌ„ sed traditum Tertullian de praescript c. 28. should so haue agreed in their tale had they maliciously resolued to deceaue the world Wherefore it is impossible that what is deliuered by full Catholicke tradition from the Apostles should be a thing by the traditioners first deuised Secondly I say that how soeuer human Tradition may be by nature fallible yet the Christian Catholicke is assisted of God that no errour can creep into the same Which diuine assistance to be due vnto it is demonstrated by the perfection of Diuine verity by the nature of tradition precedently independently of Scripture and therefore without any Circle by two Arguments The first is the same we before touched God beâ—ng Prime Verity cannot conniue that the meanes of conueying the Apostles doctrine vnto posterity which bindeth Religious belieuers to receaue the same as his word should secretly be infected with damnable Errour For being Infinit Verity in his knowledg this cannot be done without his priuity Knowing thereof being infinit veracity in his teaching the truth he cannot yield that the meanes of conueying his truth obliging men to belieue should â—mperceptibly be poysoned whereby men for their deuotion vnto his Verity incurre damnation This being so I assume But the Catholicke tradition of doctrine from the Apostles bindeth Christians to whome it is deliuered to belieue the same as Gods word This I proue When doctrine is sufficiently proposed as Gods word men are bound to belieue it But that is sufficiently proposed as Gods word vnto Christians which is vnto them sufficiently proposed â—s Doctrine of the Apostles Now that Catholicke Tradition of doctrine from the Apostles is sufficient proposition and proofe that that Doctrine is the Apostles is proued first because Catholicke tradition of doctrine is by nature simply infallible as hath bin shewed but proposition knowne simply to be infallible is sufficient to bind men to belieue Secondly Catholicke tradition that is the report of a world of Ancestors coÌ„cerning sensible matters of fact is so pregnant and obligatory as it were insolent madnes to deny it In so much as euen (o) Caluin Institut l. 1. c. 8. n. 9. Quaerunt quis nos certiores fecerit à Moyse aliis Prophetis haec fuisse scripta quae sub eorum nominibus leguÌ„tur c. quis non colaphis flagellis castistandum illum insanum dicat Certô certiùs est ipso rum scripta non aliter peruenisse ad posteros quà m de manu in manuÌ„ TRADITA Caluin sayth that such as deny the tradition of Ancestors concerning the authors of the Canonicall bookes are rather to be reformed with a Cudgell then refuted by Argument Thirdly God himselfe sendeth children vnto the tradition of their Ancestors to learne of them the sensible workes of his miraculous power done in former ages (p) Deuteron 32.7 Aske thy Father and he will tell thee thyne Auncestors and they will certifye thee Fourthly the proofe of tradition is so full and sufficient as it conuinceth infidels For though they be blind not to see the doctrine of the Apostles to be Diuine yet are they not so voyd of common sense impudent and obstinate as they will deny the doctrine of Christian Catholicke tradition to be truly Christian Apostolical Whence two thinges are euident First that Catholicke tradition from the Apostles is an externall sufficient proposition and a conuincing argument that the doctrin so deliuered is Apostolicall consequently Diuine reuealed Doctrine Secondly that Heresy which stands agaynst this tradition 〈◊〉 willfull obstinacy and madnes and worse then Paganisme The second argument God being Prime verity binding all men that will be saued to know and firmely belieue the Apostles doctrine euen vntill the worlds end cannot conniue that the only Meanes to know this doctrin perpetually and euer after the â—postles decease be secretly insensibly poysoned with errours agaynst the truth of Saluation This is â—eere The only meanes whereby men succeeding â—he Apostles may know assuredly what Scriptures â—nd doctrins they deliuered to the Primitiue Cathoâ—icke Church is the Catholicke tradition by worlds â—f ChristiaÌ„ Fathers Pastors vnto worlds of Chriâ—tian children and faythfull people Ergo Catholike Tradition is by God the Prime verity so defended â—reserued assisted as no errour agaynst Saluation â—an be deliuered by the same consequently it apâ—eareth by the very notion of prime Verity indepenâ—ently of Scripture that Catholicke tradition is â—roued to be infallible through Gods speciall assiâ—tance â—he difference between Propheticall and ordinary Diuine Illumination by which Protestants Cauills are answered §. 5. AGAYNST the Minor of the former argument Protestants obiect first that though the testiâ—ony of tradition be a good (q) Reply pa. 15. lin 32. morall human and proâ—able proofe that these Scriptures were by the Apoâ—tles deliuered yet the chiefe ground of fayth in â—his poynt is inward illumination the testimony â—f the spirit speaking within our hart and assuring 〈◊〉 of the truth I answere God may assure men of â—ruth by inward inspiration two wayes first by the â—â—ght of inward teaching and inspiration without â—he mediation and concourse of any externall inâ—allible ground of assurance Secondly by the light
to wit to be True to be Reuealed of God to be Preached and deliuered of the Apostles The highest ground by which I am perswaded that my fayth is true is the authority of God reuealing it The highest ground on which I am resolued that my Fayth is reuealed is the credit and authority of Christ Iesus his Apostles who deliuered the same as Diuine and Sacred But the highest ground that moueth me to belieue that my fayth was (c) The Mynister and especially the Bishops Chaplin pag. 16. 17. charge the Answerer to resolue fayth of the Scriptures being the word of God into only Tradition This is a slaūder for he doth distinguish expresly in scripture the being preached by the Apostles from the being reuealed of God or his word This second property is spirituall and hidden and belieued not vpon Tradition from the Apostles directly but vpon the word of the Apostles so affirming confirmed with the testimony of miracles wrought by the Holy GHOST but to be preached and planted in the world was a publike sensible thing so is knowne by Tradition hand to hād from the Apostles Thus the Church as belieuing her doctrine to be true is built vpon God as belieuing her doctrine to be of God is built on the Apostles as belieuing her doctrine to be the Apostles is built on the Tradition of Pastours succeeding them The ground and pillar of Truth by office as our Minister graunts pag. 9. lin 5. preached by the Apostles is the perpetual tradition of the Church succeding the Apostles that so teacheth me Into this principle (d) Aug. cont epist. Fund cap. 5. Saint Augustine resolued his fayth agaynst the Manichees who pretended that the Scriptures of the new Testament had been corrupted confuting them by the Tradition of the Church affirming That he would not belieue the Ghospell did not the Authority of the Catholike Church induce him assigning this as the last stay of his resolution in this point For though he belieued the Gospell to be soueraignely certaine and true vpon the authority of God reuealing it and that it was reuealed of God vpon the authority of the Apostles who as Sacred preached it yet that this Ghospell as we haue it came incorrupt from the Apostles he could haue no stronger or more (e) The Minister forced by this testimony graūteth two things which ouerthrow his cause first pa. 22. l. 13.14 that Nouices and simple persons ground their fayth on the authority of the Church as also Field graunteth appendix part 1. pag. 11. now I assume But the fayth of Nouices is sauing fayth as S. Aug. there sayth contra Epist. Fundamenti c. 2. and cōsequently their fayth is diuine Ergo sauing supernaturall fayth is grounded on the authority of the Church Secondly he graunts pag. 23. lin 2. 3. that The Church as including the Apostles can proue the Scripture whence it is cōsequent that the Scriptures are not principles knowne by themselues but haue another higher diuine principle by which they are proued The Church comprehending the Apostles being as Protestāts grāt Field l. 4. of Church c. 21. of greater authority then Scripture excellent proofe then the testimony of the present Church descending by the cōtinuall succession of Bishops from the Apostles Neyther can we imagine an higher except we fly to particular priuate reuelation which is absurd The second Argument SECONDLY I proue that common vnlearned people the greatest part of Christianity are persuaded about all substantiall points of fayth by Tradition not by Scripture Common vnlearned people haue true Christian fayth in all points necessary and sufficient vnto saluation but they haue not fayth of all these mayne and substantiall points grounded on Scripture for they can neyther vnderstand nor read any Scripture but translated into vulgar languages so if they belieue vpon Scrpture they belieue vpon Scripture translated into their Mother tongue but before that they can know that the Scriptures are truly translated euen in all substantiall points that so they may build on it they must first know what are the mayne and substantiall points (f) To this proofe that Christians belieue their Creed more firmely then any translation the Minister hath not answered one word nor can answere for it is conuincing as appeares by this syllogisme Perswasion more certayne and firme cannot be grounded on perswasion lesse firme and certayne Such as are true Christians belieue the articles of their Creed more firmely then they do that Scriptures are truly translated into their vulgar tongue Ergo True Christians do not build their Fayth of the Creed on Scripture translated but on doctrine knowne to be the Apostles formerly and more firmely then that Scripture is truly translated firmely belieue them so that they would not belieue the Scriptures translated agaynst them For if they know them not before how can they know that Scriptures in places that concerne them are truly translated If they doe not before hand firmely belieue them why should they be ready to allow translations that agree with them and to reiect the translations that differ from thē Ergo (g) The Minister pag. 26. sayth That Ignorant men resolue their faith into Scripture yet not into Scripture so distinctly knowne as they can tel the names of the seuerall Bookes Authours and Sections and so they resolue implicitly not explicitly This is idle For if they know the doctrine of the Scripture because it is written though they know not the name of the booke nor number of the Chapter Verse nor the formall text what groūd firmer thē their Creed haue they this to belieue originally before they know any Scripture they haue fayth grounded on the Traditiōs of Ancestors by the light wherof they are able to iudge of the truth of Translations about such substantiall points as they firmely belieue by Traditiō And this is that which Protestants must meane if they haue any true meaning when they say that the common People know Scriptures to be truly translated by the (h) The Minister is forced to fly to a found paradoxe confuted already That vnlearned Rusticks know the Scripture to be Gods word by the matter and forme of the bookes and by seing the resplendent verity of the doctrine pag. 28. lin 3. He addeth lin 7. That they which actually resolue their fayth into the doctrine of Scriptur do virtually mediatly resolue the same into the very Scripture though they know not that it is written in Scripture This is friuolous and false For the Pagan and Infidells that know hony to be sweet and taken in abundance to be hurtfull should virtually resolue their persuasion into the very Scripture because they actually belieue a thing affirmed in Scripture Prou. 25. 27. Yea the Iew belieuing that Christ was crucified belieues a doctrine of Scripture doth he therefore resolue and build virtually vpon Scripture No. That one build on Scripture it is not
inough to know actually some doctrine which is in Scripture but he must know that it is in Scripture and belieue the Scripture â—o be the word of God but ignorant persons cannot know infallibly Scriptures to be the word of God truly translated further then they find them conforme to the doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of the Church Therfore they build their Fayth finally vpon Tradition not vpon Scripture truly translated light of the doctrine shining in true Translations to wit by the light of the doctrine receiued by Tradition of Ancestors and thereupon so firmely belieued as they will acknowledge Scriptures to be truly translated so far and no further then they perceyue them consonant with the fayth deliuered vnto them so that their last and finall resolution for substantiall points is not into Scriptures truly translated into their vulgar tongue but into Tradition by the light whereof they discerne that the Translations are true more or lesse according to the measure of knowledge they haue by Tradition The third Argument IF all the mayne and substantiall poynts of Christian Fayth must be knowne and firmely belieued before we can securely read and truly vnderstand the Holy Scripture then the mayne and substaÌ„tiall points of fayth are belieued not vpon Scripture but vpon TraditioÌ„ precedently vnto Scripture This is cleare because true fayth is not built but vpon Scripture truely vnderstood neyther can Scripture before it be truly vnderstood of a man be to him a ground of assured persuasion But we cannot vnderstand the Scripture securely and aright before we know the substantiall articles of fayth which all are bound expressely to belieue the (i) The Minister here laboureth to proue that the rule of fayth is contained in Scripture and therfore cannot be Tradition vnwritteÌ„ Which discourse is impertinent and the inference false For himselfe grants pag. 150. lin 16. that the rule of fayth is both written Tradition and vnwritten The Doctrine then of TraditioÌ„ is tearmed vnwritten not because it is no waies written but because as the Answerer sayth it is knowne by preaching precedently and independently of Scripture summary comprehensioÌ„ of which poynts is tearmed the Rule (*) Tertul. de Praescr c. 13. of fayth This is (k) The Answerer here brings three ArgumeÌ„ts that coÌ„uince that none can vnderstand Scripture securely and without danger of damnable errour that are not aforehand grounded in the substantiall articles of fayth The Minister though he professe to haue set downe the Answere Verbatim leaueth all this out and then cryeth thus agaynst the Iesuite pag. 34. circa finem That men must be first instructed in the necessary poynts of fayth before they can securedly read and interprete Scriptures is affirmed by the Iesuite but not proued Thus he What not proued The Iesuit bringes three large coÌ„uictiue proofes thereof which you because you cannot answere omit and then cry the Iesuit doth say and not proue This dealing is grosse proued by the acknowledgement of Protestans in whose name (l) D. Feild l. 3. of the Church cap. 4. D. Feild writeth in this sort We hold with the Papists that neither conference of places nor consideration of antecedentia and consequentia nor the knowledge of tongues and lookinge into the originalls â—s of any force vnlesse we find the things which we conceiue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant vnto the rule of fayth (m) D. Feild l. 4. of the Church cap. 14. 19. For who can be able to vnderstand the Scriptures but he that is setled in those things which the Apostles presupposed in their deliuery of Scripture Secondly by the experience both of all former ages and this present prouing by too many examples that such as come to reade expound Scripture without being aforehand setled by Tradition in the rule of fayth do fall into errours most damnable against the maynest articles of the Creed as the Creation of the world the blessed Trinity and the Incarnation Baptisme and other So that reading interpretation of Scripture makes not men Christians but supposeth them to be made by Tradition at the least for substantiall poynts such as euery one is bound expressely to know Thirdly we are not more able to vnderstand Scripture then were our Forefathers the auncient Doctors of the Church neither is there reason that we should so thinke of our selues but they thought themselues vnable to interprete Scripture precisely of it selfe by conference of places without the light of ChristiaÌ„ Doctrine aforehand knowne and firmely belieued vpon the Churches perpetuall Tradition from the Apostles witnes (n) Ruffinus Eccles. hist. l. 2. c. 9. S. Basill and S. Gregory Nazianzen the two grande Doctors of the Grecian Church and Origen who thus writes (o) Orig. tract in Matth. cap. 29. In our vnderstandinge of Scriptures we must not depart from the first Ecclesiasticall Tradition nor belieue otherwise but as the Church of God hath by succession deliuered to vs. Ergo no man is able to read interprete Scripture without (p) Protestants affirme as Whitaker contr 1. q. 4. c. 2. and others that no man can vnderstand Scripture that bringes not with him the light of fayth and Christian piety puras sanctas mentes which doth most euidently demonstrate that fayth about substaÌ„tial poynts is grounded on Gods word precedently vnto Scripture That persuasion which is precedent vnto the knowledg of Scripture and is the rule guiding vs in our knowledge of Scripture cannot be grounded vpon knowledge of Scripture But Christian fayth piety as they grant is precedent vnto knowledge of Scripture yea must be brought vnto the reading thereof and direct vs in it Ergo fayth is not originally grounded on Scripture the light assistance of firme Christian fayth aforehand conceiued by the voyce of the Church deliuering what by Tradition from Auncestors she receiued Whence I also conclude that it is exceeding dangerous boldnes in men of this age so to presume on their interpretations of Scriptures gotten by diligent reading and conferring of places as they care not though a (q) Luther de captiu Babyl Tom. 2. Wittenberg pag. 344. thousand of Cyprians Augustins Churches Traditions should stand against them The fourth Argument THOSE that vnderstand the Scriptures aright must be such as they were to whom the Apostles writ and deliuered the Scriptures and whose instruction they intended by their writing but the Apostles as D. (r) Lib. 4. of the Church c. 4. in the margent Feild acknowledgeth wrote to them they had formerly taught more at large that were instructed and grounded in all substantiall and necessary poynts of fayth that knew the coÌ„mon necessary obseruations of Christianity Ergo they that reade and presume to interprete the Scriptures without first knowing and firmely belieuing by tradition at the least all necessary and substantiall poynts of fayth (s) The Minister pag. 34. lin 34. chargeth the
Iesuite to say that men not belieuing forehand all necessary points of fayth cannot haue any certaine vnderstanding of Scripture This is a slauÌ„der He onely sayth that such ignorants and wanters of beliefe cannot vnderstand aright Scriptures in all necessary points but they will erre in some chiefe article or other though they may happily vnderstand something aright For there was neuer Heretike that did erre in all necessary points But it is inough to damnation to erre in one substantiall pointe therefore we must not presume to reade interpret Scriptures till we be well grounded in them by the Tradition of the Church caÌ„not with assurance vnderstand them but may euen in maynest poynts mightely mistake for the blessed Apostles wryting to Christians that were beforehand fully taught and setled in substantiall Christian Doctrines and customes doe ordinarily in their writings suppose such things as abuÌ„dantly knowen without declaring them anew onely touching them (t) Thus S. Peter act 9.3 4. repreheÌ„ding Ananias for the breach of his Vow doth by the way teach the holy Ghosts Diuinity Why hath Satan filled thy hart to lye to the holy Ghost Thou hast not lyed vnto men but vnto God For what is spoken directly and of purpose in Scripture is no more infallible truth then what is spokeÌ„ but cursorily by the way Wherfor the former speach of S. Peter doth assure vs that the holy Ghost is God as much as that it is a sinne to breake a vow and yet that is spoken by the way and this of purpose Whence you may see the Ministers great weakenes of IudgemeÌ„t who holding that some points of fayth are coÌ„tained in Scripture only consequently pag. 32. lin 3. raileth at the Iesuite for saying that some thinges are sayd in Scripture cursorily and by the way For to be written cursorily and by the way which the Iesuite giues vnto Scripture is more then to be onely virtually and consequently written cursorily by the way and therfore obscurely so that they who are already taught might well vnderstand their sayings and no other Concerning the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture §. 2. HENCE I may further inferre that Protestants haue not yet throughly pondered the place of the Apostles to Timothy which they so vehemently vrge to proue the all-sufficiency of sole Scripture for euery man as though the Apostles had sayd absolutely that the Scriptures are able to instructe or make any man wise vnto saluation which he sayes not but speaking particularly (u) 2. Tim. 3.14.15.16.17 vnto Timothy sayth They are able to instructe or make Thee wise vnto saluation Thee (x) The Minister here laboureth impertinenly to proue that speaches vnto one single person may be generall vnto many other in Scripture which no man denies And so this speach They are able to make Thee wise is generall vnto all persons that are like to Timothy that is instructed aforehand and setled in the fayth of Tradition For what is sayd vnto one single person is not sayd vnto others further theÌ„ they agree with that party in the cause for which it is truly sayd of him What God sayd vnto Abraham Gen. 15.12 I am thy Protectour is not sayd to all men but only to all meÌ„ that were like Abraham that is deuout worshipers of the true God as he was that hast bene aforehand instructed by word of mouth doest thervpon firmely belieue all substantiall doctrines and knowest all the necessary practises of the Christian discipline Verily the Apostle in that place speaketh onely of the Scriptures of the Old Testament affirming them not sufficient for euery man but for Timothy and not sufficient for him by themselues alone but per fidem quae est in Christo Iesu that is ioyned with the doctrine of the Christian fayth which Tymothy had heard and belieued vpon the liuely voyce of Tradition And the consequent words of the Apostle so much insisted vpon All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach c. If Protestants could so (y) The Minister heere heapeth many speaches of Fathers that say the Scriptures are sufficient to proue that Profitable signifyes the same that Sufficient This is ridiculous The Iesuit grants the Scripture to be sufficient for them that know Tradition yet he will still deny that profitable signifyes the same as sufficient How Catholicks grant the same sufficiency to be in Scripture as Protestants and the true state of the Question about sufficiency of Scripture and of Tradition THE Minister here enters into a longe impertinent discourse about the clarity sufficiency of Scripture setting titles ouer the heads of his pages Many Scriptures playne the Scriptures sufficient c. as who would say the Answerer had denied this To discouer these his false insinuatioÌ„s and to cleere this controuersy most important we must know 5. things First that there was once a controuersy betwixt Protestants and vs about the sufficieÌ„cy clarity of Scripture For in their beginning they taught all matter of fayth to be EXPRESSED in Scripture and nothing inuolued Omnia expressa nihil inuolutum De tota Scriptura dico nullam eius partem obscuram esse So Luther de â—erâ—to Arbitrio in Tom. 2. Wittenberg Nothing is to be belieued without the word of God though it seeme deduced by good consequence Luther in locis coÌ„mun 1. part c. 24. pag. 69. Secondly now Protestants euen our Minister pag. 32 lin 2. and often in this reply disclaime from expresse and formall Scripture and pretend that all things are written eyther formally or virtually and so confesse that there is herin no difference betwixt the most learned Papists and them So saith Field Church l. 4. c. 20. pag. 241. lin 6. Thirdly when some Catholicks as Dominicus Bannes so many tymes cited by the Minister pag 151. Marg lit f. pag 109. lin 40. pag. 189. marg lit b. pag. 580. marg lit a. say that some points be neither expressely nor inuoluedly in Scripture they do not meane that they are not virtually inuolued in thinges contayned in Scripture as effects in their cause so are deduceable from Scripture but only that they are not formally inuolued in thinges of Scripture as parts in their whole in sort as they can be articles of fayth by sole Scripture For thinges formally inuolued in Scripture as parts in the whole a soule and body in man indiuidualls in the whole masse of their kind be articles of fayth by vertue of Scripture Thus when the Scripture â—aith Iob was a man it is said inuoluedly yet formally that he had soule body c. when the Scripture sayth Libanus hath Cedar trees it sayth not formally but virtually it hath imputrible wood Fourthly the question now resting between Protestants and vs is not whether the Scripture be virtually intricate and inuolued about some points of fayth nor whether some rule of interpretatioÌ„ be necessary for that the Scripture is inuolued and needeth an vnfolding rule
is granted on both sides The only question is by what rule these Doctrines inuolued are vnfolded and made knowne vnto vs as articles of fayth ProtestaÌ„ts say by Scripture and the rules of Logicke and Reason Wotton Triall of the Romish c. pag 88. lin 29. and by other things besides Scripture euident in the light of nature Feild pag 281. lin 20. Catholikes hold that the rule to expound Scripture binding all men to belieue deductions as matters of fayth is not Logicke but the Tradition and definition of the Church And this Catholicke doctrin is proued First because the rule of faith must be for the capacity of vnlearned men aswell as of learned But men vnlearned cannot be sure of the virtualityes of Scripture by the rules of Logicke or Logicall deduction for they cannot vnderstand when an argument is good by the rules of Logicke Secondly the Scripture it selfe to supply her wants sendeth vs not to the rules of Logicke but vnto traditions saying 2. Thessal 2.15 Hold fast the Traditions ye haue receaued by word or our epistle They send men to the Church as to the pillar and ground of truth 1. Tim. 3.15 which whosoeuer doth not heare is as a heaâ—hen and a publican Matth. 13.5.7 Therfore by the rule of Church-Tradition not by the rules of Logicke do we learne autheÌ„tically the confessed virtualities obscurities and inuolutions of Scripture about matters of fayth Thirdly the Fathers about matters inuolued in Scripture send men not vnto Logicke but vnto Tradition auouching the same to be a rule as certaine no lesse estimable then Scripture S. Chrysostome homil 4 in 2. ad Thessal The Apostles did not deliuer all things in Scripture but some things without writing and these are as much to be credited as the written It is a Tradition this is inough seeke no more The same is taught by S. Dionysius Eccles. Hierar c. 1. Iren. l. 2. c. 2.3 4. Eusebius lib. 1. de demonst Euang. c. 8. by S. Basill de Spirit sanct c. 27. Epiphan haeres 55. 61. Aug. de Baptis li. 2. c. 7. lib. 5. c. 23. and the rest Finally we dislike the Protestant manner of controlling the Church by Scripture For on the one side they contradict the vniuersall custome and Tradition of the Church at the least and as they grant of many ages saying The Popish doctrine during the space of nine hundred yeares hath spread it selfe ouer the whole world so that an vniuersall Apostacy was ouer the whole face of the earth for many hundred yeares Perkins Exposit. of the Creed pag. 307. 400. On the other side their Arguments out of Scripture are at the most but probable and they sometimes challenge no more homini non prorsus alienato probabilior apparet Whitak contr 1. q. 5. c 8. circa finem Others alledge Scripture not with as probable colour as we doe Iohn White defence pag. 321. Yea this Minister in his Reply doth acknowledge pag. 581. That by Sophistry we giue vnto their Scripturall arguments seeming and appearing solutions Now we Catholikes thinke it to be Hereticall as S. Augustine sayth insolent madnes vpon probabilities vpon Arguments froÌ„ Scripture that receaue seeming solutions to contradict the Christian vniuersall Tradition of many hundred yeares For what the Minister saith this to be done by Sophistry is ridiculous For if to giue seeming plausible and probable solutions vnto Scripturall arguments against the full Tradition of Christianity be Sophistry what is true Theology On the other side if for men to stand against the Tradition of so many whole Christian ages vpon arguments they confesse to be probably and seemingly answered be Christianity what is hereticall Obstinacy Fifthly whereas you obiect that pag. 199. lin 6. the Fathers disputed from Scripture negatiuely agaynst Heretikes in this sort Doctrine is not cleerly deliuered in Scripture therefore it is not to be receaued as Fayth You must know that the Fathers proceed vpon a supposition that was knowne vnto all and granted by the Heretickes themselues to wit that the doctrins they disputed agaynst were not the full and publicke Tradition of the Catholike Church For seing Scripture as we haue shewed doth necessarily suppose Tradition that we may know the true text and sense thereof so likewise the Fathers when they vrge that all doctrine is to be reiected which is not in Scripture still suppose that that doctrine is not the publicke Tradition of the Church Where we must also note that the Fathers did not only require of Heretikes proofe from Scripture by way of deduction Logicall inference for such all heretiks did pretend and herewith deluded seely sots as now Protestants doe but they required of Heretikes to shew their doctrine in Scripture ipsis dictionibus sayth Irenaeus l. 2. c. 36. expressely and in tearmes and proue it not by texts sayth S. Augustine de vnitat Eccles. c. 3. which require sharpenes of wit in the auditors to iudge who doth more probably interprete them not by places quae vel interpretem quaerunt which require an interpreter and an arguer making Logicall inferences vpon the text so concluding for his purpose but by places playne manifest cleere which leaue no place to contrary exposition and that no Sophystry can wrest them to other sense to the end that Controuersyes which concerne the Saluation of soules be defined by Gods formall word and not by deductions from it according to Logicall forme For sayth S. Augustine what more vniust then Ingeniorum contentionibus causam populorum committere Hence the Fathers negatiue argument from Scripture ouerthroweth Protestant Religion for thus I argue Nothing is matter of Fayth and of necessity which is not formally and expressely reuealed by the word of God eyther written or vnwritten deliuered by full Ecclesiasticall Tradition But no Heretikes euer did nor our Protestants now do or can pretend perpetuall publicke Tradition vnwritten for their doctrins agaynst the Catholicke and Roman Church nor can they proue their Tenets ipsis dictionibus ex scriptura by Scripture auerring them in expresse tearmes Only they clayme texts which as themselues confesse receaue seeming appearing solutioÌ„s agaynst which they haue nothing to say but that this is done by Sophistry so bringing the busines of the Saluation of the world to be decided by contentioÌ„ of wit Therefore their doctrins are to be reiected as vnchristiaÌ„ Finally it is great vanity in you to thinke that the Traditions vnwritten mentioned by Fathers are conforme to your Doctrine writing as you doe pag. 46. By Tradition the Fathers vnderstand not the Fabulous dreames and inuentions of Papals who like Pharisees corrupt the right sense of Scripture by their vnwritten Tradition and affirme those thinges to be Apostolicall which agree with the confessed doctrine of the Apostles like darkenesse with light Thus you with much bitternesse and no lesse falshood For what Gerson de signis ruinae Eccles. sig 5. sayth of the heresyes of his age to wit
is sufficient for euery man seing the Apostle speakes not of euery man but expressely of him who is Homo Dei the man of God that is one already fully instructed and firmely setled by Tradition in all the mayne poynts of Christian fayth and godly life such an one as Timothy was The Scriptures for men in this manner aforetaught and grounded in fayth are abundantly sufficient who will deny it But this proueth at the most the sufficiency of the Scripture ioyned with Tradition not of Scripture alone or of onely-onely-onely Scripture as Protestants bookes in great Letters very earnestly affirme Hence also we may conclude that the (z) The Minister to proue Scriptures are cleere vnto Infidels that haue not the Spirit of fayth heapes many testimonies of Fathers that teach Scriptures in some matters to be cleere Who denyes this they are so to the faythful not vnto Infidels not vnto them that are vnsetled in the Catholike fayth yea many places he brings speake expressely only of the faythfull pious Sicut vera Religio docet accedunt as S. Augustine others by him alleadged affirme and therefore are brought impertinently to proue the sufficiency clarity of Scriptures in respect of Infidels pag. 34.35.36 many allegatiōs of Fathers which Protestants bring to proue the Scripture to be cleere in all substātiall points are impertinent because the fathers speake of mē aforehand instructed in all substantiall poynts who may by the light of Tradition easily discouer them in Scripture as they that heare Aristotle explicate himselfe by word of mouth may vnderstand his booke of nature most difficill to be vnderstood of thē that neuer heard his explicatiō either out of his owne mouth or by Tradition of his Schollers I hope I haue in the opinion of your most learned Maiesty sufficiently demonstrated this first GROVND of Catholicke fayth to wit That a Christian is originally and fundamentally builte vpon the word of God not as written in Scriptures but as deliuered by Tradition of the Church successiuely from the Primitiue vpō the authority wherof we belieue that both Scriptures and all other substantiall articles of fayth were deliuered by the Apostles thence further ascending inferring they came from Christ and so from God the prime veracity author of truth THE SECOND GROVND That there is a visible Church alwaies in the world to whose Traditions men are to cleaue That this Church is One Vniuersall Apostolicall Holy §. 3. THIS principle is consequent vpon the former out of which six things may be clerly proued First that there is alwaies a true (a) The Minister still cōeth forth with his distinctiō that by Church we may vnderstand a Hierarchy of mitred prelates thē he denyes that there is still a church teaching the truth in the world Secondly for a number of belieuers smaller or greater teaching and professing the right sayth in all substantial points then he grants there is still a true Church of Christ in the world This distinction so much repeated specially pag. 57. and 58. is impertinēt for by Church we vnderstād not euery small number of right belieuers but a Christian multitude of such credit and authority as vpon her tradition we may be sure what Scriptures doctrines were the Apostles For this is a fundamentall pointe necessary to be knowne that so we may know what Doctrine is of God and it cannot be knowne but by Tradition of the Church as hath bene proued Now whether this Church be Mitred or not Mitred goe in Blacke or in White or in Scarlet doth little import Let the Minister but shew vs a Church that hath euident Tradition of Doctrine hand to hand frō the Apostles we will say she is the true Church though she haue no Surplisse or Miter but be as precise as Geneua it selfe but if there be no Church in the world but this Hierarchy of Mitred Prelates whose Tradition hand to hand can assure men which be the Scriptures and doctrines of Religiō deliuered by the Apostles men ought not to beare such spleen against a Miter or Corner-Cap or Surplisse as in respect of them to fly from the Church that onely hath Catholicke Tradition from the Apostles Church of Christ in the world for if there be no meanes for men to know that Scriptures and all other substantiall Articles came from Christ and his Apostles and so consequently from God but the Tradition of the Church then there must needes be in all ages a Church receiuing and deliuering these Traditions els men in some age since Christ should haue bene destitute of the (b) The Minister pa. 59. lin 15. sayth A corrupt Church may deliuer vncorruptly some part of sacred truth as the Scripture and Creed by which men may be saued Answer We may conceaue two wayes of deliuering an incorrupt text The one Casuall by chance and so a corrupt Church yea a Iew an Infidell a child may deliuer an vncorrupt Copy of the Bible The other Authentike assuring the receauer this to be the incorrupt text of the Apostles Scripture and binding him so to belieue This Authentik and irrefragable Tradition cannot be made by a false Church erring in her Traditiōs as is cleer Now it is necessary to saluation that men not only Casually haue the true Scripture but must be sure that the text therof be incorrupt Therfore ther must be stil a Church in the world whose Tradition is Authentike that is a sufficient warrant vpon which men must belieue Doctrines to come from the Apostles ordinary meanes of saluation because they had not meanes to know assuredly the substantiall Articles of Christianity without assured Fayth wherof no man is saued Secondly this Church must be alwaies (c) The Minister pag. 61. lin 15 lin 26. obiects that in time of persecution the true Church may be reputed an impious sect by the multitude and so not be knowne by the notion of True and Holy nor can her truth be discerned by sense and common reason I answere As there are foure properties of Church-doctrin so likewise there are foure notions of the Church The first is to be Mistresse of the sauing truth According to this notion the Church is inuisible to the naturall vnderstanding both of men and Angels For God only his Blessed see our Religion to be the truth The second is to be Mistresse of Doctrine truly reuealed by secret inspiration According to this notion ordinarily speaking the Church is inuisible to almost all men that are or euer were the Apostles onely and the Prophets excepted The third to be Mistresse of Doctrine which Christ and his Apostles by their Miraculous preaching planted in the world According to this notion the Church was visible to the first and Primitiue world but now is not The fourth to be Mistresse of Catholike doctrine that is of doctrine deliuered and receaued by full Tradition and profession all the aduersaryes therof being vnder the name of
Catalogue of Doctours in his Epistle to the Reader sayth In the yeare 605. more then a thousand yeares agoe falshood preuayled and then was the whole world ouerwhelmed in the dreggs of Antichristian filthines abominable Traditions and superstitions of the Pope M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed pag. 307. 400. sayth During the space of Nine hundred yeares the Popish Heresy hath spread it selfe ouer the whole world and for many hundred yeares an vniuersall Apostacy ouerspread the whole face of the earth so that our Protestant Church was not then visible to the world M. Fulke treatise agaynst Stapleton and Martiall pag. 25. The Pope hath blinded the world these many hundred yeares some say 900. some 1000. some 1200. Mayster Napier Reuelat. pag. 64. 101. The Antichristian and Papisticall raygne beganne about the yeare 316. after Christ raigning vniuersally without debatable contradiction Gods true Church abiding certainly bidden and latent confessed by the Proteâ—tants whose testimonies plentifull in this behalfe if need require shall be brought First that the doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestants refuse haue byn vniuersally receyued for many ages a thousand yeares at least euer since Boniface the third Secondly that Protestants cannot tell the tyme when the Church of Rome began to change and deuiate from the Apostolicall doctrine deliuered by succession Ergo the Roman Church neuer changed her fayth so that her doctrines are to be receaued as Apostolicall if the Maior of the first argument be true to wit that (n) The Minister pag. 15. sayth The Iesuite conueyeth into S. Augustins proposition certayne wordes to wit doctrines vniuersally receiued c. which are not found in S. Augustine for this Father did neuer allow that the vniuersall Church belieue any doctrin of faith not coÌ„maÌ„ded in Scripture I answere The wordes of S. Augustine will discouer the Minister what he is for these they are formally in the place cited by the Iesuite l. 5. de baptis c. 23. Many things are Held by the Vniuersall Church therefore are TRVLY belieued to haue beene COMMANDED by the Apostles though they be NOT WRITTEN Thus he And though there be no doctrine which may not be in some sort proued by Scripture and deriued from thence by coÌ„sequence yet this Logicall Deduction doth not suffice to make doctrines to be vniuersally matters of fayth except they be also deliuered expresly by Tradition or the word of God vnwritten as hath been often shewed in this Reioynder doctrines vniuersally receyued whose beginning are not knowne are to be belieued as Apostolicall And what more true this being a principle set downe by S. Augustine lib. 4. de Baptism cont Donat. c. 6. lib. 5. cap. 23. allowed by Doctour Whitguift late Archbishop of Canterbury Defence pag. 351. 352. who in his booke written by publike authority agaynst Puritans citing diuers Protestants as concurring in opinion with him sayth Whatsoeuer opinions are not known to haue begunne since the Apostles tyme the same are not new or secundary but receyued their originall from the Apostles But because this principle of Christian Diuinity brings in as M. Cartwright there alleadged speaketh all Popery in the Iudgment of all men I will further demonstrate the same though of it selfe cleere inough The spirit of Christ or Christ by his spirit being still with the Church cannot permit errours in fayth so to creepe into the church as they grow irreformable eueÌ„ by the principles of christianity but if errours could so creepe into the church as their beginning could not be known since the Apostles and neuer be espyed till they be vniuersally receaued then errour could so creepe into the Church preuayle that by the principles of christianity they are irreformable This I prooue because errors 〈◊〉 (o) The Minister sayth that the errours of the Pharisees were vniuersally receaued in the Iewish Church and yet reformed by our Sauiour I answere First his desire to make our ReligioÌ„ like the Pharisees makes him fashion vnto the Pharisees a Religion of his owne head as if he had neuer read the Ghospell For the Traditions of the Pharisies were certaine practises of piety inuented by themselues deducted by their skill from Scripture wherby they would seeme singularly religious non sicut caeteri hominum Secondly Christ Iesus prouing himselfe to be true God might reforme errours vniuersally receaued the Church of the Iewes falling erect a new Church of Christians as he did But this is lawfull for no man eyther before or since For Christian Religion must continue vntill the worlds end by vertue of the first Tradition therof neuer interrupted without extraordinary and Propheticall beginning by immediate reuelation miracles and so if errours be deliuered by the full consent of Christian Tradition they are irreformable irreformable by the Principles of â—hristianity when whosoeuer vndertakes 〈◊〉 reforme them is by the Principles of â—hristianity to be condemned as an Hereâ—â—ke But he that will vndertake to reâ—orme doctrines vniuersally receaued by â—he church opposeth agaynst the whole Church and therfore is by the most receaâ—ed and knowne principle of Christianity and Christs owne direct precept to be accounted as an (p) The Minister sayth that one man may oppose the whole Church and oppugne her errours by Scripture and not be as an Heathen or Heretike For not euery one that opposeth the Church is to be accounted an Heathen but only such as in ordinatly and without iust cause oppugne it Thus he pag. 136. I answere By this doctrine euery particular man is made examiner of the whole Church and her iudge and Hellish Confusion brought into Christendome If agaynst the sentence of perpetuall vniuersall Tradition a priuate maÌ„ may without Heresy pretende Scripture stand stifly therin and though the Church giue seeming appearing answeres vnto his Scriptures yet coÌ„demne her saying these answeres are sophisticall as our Minister doth p. 581. what can be more disorderly or what is hereticall obstinacy if this be not Wherfore S. August epist. 48. sayth absolutly it is impossible men should haue iust cause to depart and impugne the whole ChristiaÌ„ Church adding nos cerâ—ò scimus herof we Christians are sure And why but because it is a ruled Christian case He that heareth not the Church is an Heretike Heathen and Publican Matth. 18. vers 17. And as S. Augustine â—ayth Epist. 118. to dispute agaynst the whole Church is most insolent madnes specially wheÌ„ the doctrin is ancient without any known beginning as are the supposed erroneous customes doctrins of the RomaÌ„ Church For then the vndertaking Reformer must striue agaynst not only the whole present Church but also the whole streame of the visible Church tyme out of mind since the Apostles Et quis ad haec idoneus who is able to beginne a new course of Christianity and to ouerthrow that doctrine which is vniuersally receyued cannot be prooued by any Traditions of Ancestours
saith he is Apostolical against which the ancient Fathers made no expresse opposition then these Protestant articles are Apostolicall that the Roman Bishop and Councell may erre that the substance of bread wine remayne after consecration that common prayer ought to be vttered in a known language I answere Not euery doctrine against which the Fathers doe not expresly oppose is Apostolicall for some heresies were not thought of in that tyme as this Protestant persuasion That Common prayer must be sayd by the publike Minister in a language vulgarly vnderstood of euery woman and that it doth not suffice that the more principal persons of the Church vnderstand it word by word and the rest being instructed doe for matter and substance though not word by word So not euery doctrine not opposed but euery doctrine that is taught confessedly as Christian doctrine by some anciēt Fathers was neuer expressly by name opposed by any of the Fathers Doctrine I say thus taught neuer opposed as such deliuered by full Tradition is infallibly Apostolicall Such are our doctrins as may be proued euen in the particular exāples brought by the Minister as for the contrary particularly in this first instāce of their doctrine That the Roman Bishop Councells may erre For was this Protestant doctrine neuer opposed by any Father doe not the Magdeburgians Centur. 4. col 550. acknowledge the auncient Ecclesiasticall Canon that the Councels are not to be celebrated without the sentence of the Roman Bishop And the Fathers held such Cōncells had the holy Ghost so as they could not erre so cleerly as Luther complaynes Postill Wittemb Dom. 8. post Trinitatem fol. 114.6 § 3 Gregory Augustin and many other holy Fathers erred in taking from vs power to iudge our Teachers commanding vs to belieue the POPE and Councells For this misery is very auncient in the Church Thus he This answere is full and a certayne ground of perswasion else as I sayd common people could neuer know the assured Tradition of their Auncestours vpon which they must as I prooued build their Chistian beliefe seing as D. Field in the epistle Dedicatory also noteth There be few and very few that haue leasure or strengh of Iudgenent to examine particular controuersyes by Scripture or Fathers but needes must rest in that doctrine which the Church deliuers as a Tradition neuer contradicted by any Orthodoxe Fathers To discredit therfore a cōstant receaued Tradition it is necessary to bring an Orthodoxe contradiction thereof not newly found out by reading the Fathers but a contradiction by the same of antiquity deliuered vnto posterity which kind of contradiction they cannot find agaynst any point of Catholike doctrine For let them name but one Father whom Antiquity doth acknowlege as a Contradictour of Inuocation of Saints Adoratiō of the Sacrament Reall Presence Prayer for the dead they cannot certainly though they bring diuers places to proue a thing which Antiquity neuer noted or knew of before that the Fathers be various and wauering about these points The Conclusion of this point shewing that Protestants Erre fundamentally §. 6. OVT of all this appeares that the Roman Church is the true Church and consequently (u) The Minister cauilleth at this cōsequence but it is euident for the Church is but One in which only saluation is had and if the Roman be this Church Protestants are not saued out of it that Protestants haue (*) The Minister in making answere vnto this Paragraffe is from the beginning to the end not only exceeding bitter and full of rayling but also impertinent not vnderstanding the state of the cōtrouersy nor what the Iesuite vndertaketh to proue The Iesuites conclusion bendeth against some Protestants with whom he dealt in his Conferences holding there is no fundamentall difference betwixt the Roman Church and the Protestant that men may be saued indifferently in the one and the other Protestant doctrines wherein they differ from the Roman though they should be errours not being fundamentall and damnable errours The Iesuits intention was agaynst these men not to proue absolutely that Protestants erre for then he would haue proued the Nine obiected articles to be errours by such testimonyes of Scriptures and Fathers as would haue puzzeled the Minister but supposing as giuen and not granted by his aduersaryes Dato non concesso that Protestants erre he vndertaketh to shew their errours to be mayne fundamental and damnable and that the mantayners therof cannot be saued and so no saluation to be had but in the one Catholike Church Hence it is euident that the Ministers labour to shew that the Protestant doctrines be not errours is impertinent for this the Iesuite did not intend to proue but supposing they are errours to proue they are damnable and fundamentall errours agaynst Adiaphorists that hold there is no fundamentall difference betwixt the Protestant and Roman Church fundamentall Errours about fayth Errours are (x) The Minister sayth that errours fundamentall must be conuinced to be such out of Scripture citing to this purpose the saying of S. Augustine De doctrin Christian. lib. 2. cap. 3. In these thinges that are cleerly deliuered in Scripture are contayned all those things which contayne fayth and good manners I answere S. Augustine sayth not that all necessary thinges are contayned expressely in Scripture not in particular and distinctly but in generall and according to the genericall name of necessary vertues as his words fully set down declare which are these All things that contayne fayth and good manners to wit hope and charity No doubt but the genericall dutyes of Fayth Hope Charity are expressely euen in so many words set downe in Scripture though not all particularityes about them seing now all Protestants graunt that some things are contayned in Scripture inuoluedly and implicitly that is in other tearmes intricately and obscurely fundamentall that is damnable eyther in regard of the matter because agaynst some substantiall matter of fayth the knowledge whereof is necessary for the performance of a required Christian duty or in regard of the manner they are held to wit so obstinately as in defence of them one denyes the Catholike Church Errours fundamentall of the first kind Protestants haue diuers particularly these Nine First their doctrine agaynst Tradition vnwritten wherby the (y) By Tradition is vnderstood Doctrine known precedently independently of Scripture though perchāce the same be written This doctrine precedētly knowne vnto Scripture the Minister professeth that Protestants deny pag. 105. lin 24. consequently they erre fundamētally For here by they be forced to make the resolution of their fayth by the euidence of the thing and light of the matter agaynst the first ground of Christiā Religiō that in this life we walk by faith not by euidēce as hath been shewed Foundation is ouerthrowne on which we belieue all other substantiall and fundamentall points as hath been shewed Secondly their denying the (z) The Minister
it is to be held as a knowne perpetuall Christian Tradition deliuered by full practise independently of the definition of any Councell neuer permitting the same to examination as one of those articles wherof Luther sayth comment in Psalm 82. fol. 546. Generales articuli recepti in tota Ecclesia satis auditi excussi approbati sunt c. ferendus non est qui vâ—lit eos in dubium reuocare sed velut blasphemus indicta causa inaudita damnandus Generall Councels therby casting downe the foundation of vnity in the Church Fourthly their denying the foundation of true (b) This is the most essentiall point of Protestancy which they tearme the foundation of foundations the pith marrow of the Gospell See the booke de Essentia Protestantism lib. 1. c. 6 This their doctrin coÌ„sists in foure points First that euery man is iustifyed by the iustice of Christ by being as it were vested therewith Secondly this Iustice of Christ is formally imputed vnto euery man not throgh repentance and mortification but through Fayth only Thirdly that this fayth is not the dogmaticall or historicall fayth whereby we belieue in generall the wordes of Christ and reuealed misteryes of the Scripture but a speciall fayth wherby a man doth firmely and infallibly perswade himselfe that to him in particular the Iustice of Christ is imputed for the full remission of his sinnes Fourthly that he that hath not firme fayth that his sinnes are remitted vnto him by the imputation of Christs merits hath not Iustifying fayth nor is iust in the sight of God but as good as an Infidell though he haue historicall fayth that all the doctrins of Christian Religion are true Hence you may perceyue that our Minister is a man of no fayth who not only denyes this article of Protestancy not only sayes that they neyther now hold or euer held it but also reuileth the Iesuite charging him with Lying with Calumniation with Deprauing and falsifying their Protestant doctrine and that he wanted matter to fraught his papers when he charged their Church with teaching Iustification by this speciall Fayth pag. 163. yea on the contrary side he sayth that Protestants hold these foure points First that a Christian of a contrite spirit belieuing that his sinnes are remissible receaueth forgiuenes though he want fayth and perswasion in himselfe that his sinnes are remitted to him in particular by the imputation of Christs merit pag. 166. lin 6. seq Secondly that Protestants hold no man is iustifyed by only fayth or by only belieuing himselfe to be iust and his sinnes forgiuen by the imputation of the Iustice of Christ but he must be iust before he can or ought to belieue himselfe to be so pag. 62. lin 8. Thirdly that the promise of remission of sinnes is conditionall requiring of sinners not fayth only but also the forsaking of sinne and doing good works Esa. 1.16.17.18 and that this promise becomes not absolute till the conditions be fulfilled pag. 166. lin 12. Fourthly that Iustifying fayth is the Christian Catholike Dogmaticall fayth wherby we belieue the hystories of Scripture and mysteries of our Religion ibid. pag. 161. lin 5. Wherfore he sayth that the difference betwixt Protestants and vs Catholikes is only in two points First that they require not only dogmaticall fayth but also that this be a Fiduciall assent that is ioyned with Hope pag. 163. lin 1. But we forsooth hold Iustification by dogmaticall fayth only and by such fayth as is in Diuells and do not require that the dogmatical or intellectual assent be also fiducial that is ioined with Hope pag. 168. lin 2. Secondly that we hold that a man cannot be certayne by fayth that he is iust but Protestants hold the contrary yet he sayth pag. 167. lin 20. that there is very small difference if any at all betwixt them vs herein because they do not hold this their assurance that they are iust to be equall in the firmity of assent to the assurance of Dogmaticall fayth which they haue about the common obiect of fayth Thus the Minister whome I leaue to the censure of Protestants with no little wonder they can indure him to write in this sort and thus openly to disclaime shew himselfe ashamed of the very Essence of their ReligioÌ„ What is certayne amongst Protestants if this may be denyed Howsoeuer I conclude this point with this syllogisme against them Protestants euen by the tacite concession of this their Aduocate hold fundamentall and damnable heresy as certainly as it is certaine that they hold Iustification not by common Dogmaticall fayth but by speciall fayth only whereby one apprehends the Iustice of Christ and vesteth himselfe therewith belieuing in particular his sinnes to be forgiuen and himselfe to be iust in Gods sight by the imputation thereof vnto him through this his fayth But that Protestants hold this as a most fundamentall article of their Religion is as certaine as it is certayne that there is or euer was Protestant in the world Wherin I appeale to the Iudgement of all learned Protestants and to these their bookes Luther Epist. ad Galat. Caluin lib. 3. Institut lib. 11. Melancthon in coll comm Kemnit Exam. Trid. 1. p. Iohn White our Ministers Brother Desence pa. 188.189 seq and to the conscience of euery Protestant yea this is the eleauenth article of the English Church That a man is accounted righteous before God only for the merit of Christ Iesus by faith And it is wholsome doctrine say they that we are iustifyed by this fayth Iustification which is the one Catholike Christian fayth about reuealed misteryes bringing in a phantastical fayth pretending that euery man is Iustifyed by belieuing himselfe in particular to be iust or one of Gods elect Fiftly their extenuating the value of the price of our Redemption not making it sufficient to giue (c) The Minister being ashamed of his Religion doth here also contest that ProtestaÌ„ts teach the merit of workes He sayth indeed in words they teach only the merit of Congruity but in sense he makes them to teach merit of condignity as much as any Catholike doth as is after proued in the 8. point inward sanctity purity to mens soules nor to rayse the workes of Gods children to a due perfection with their reward Sixtly their Errours agaynst Baptisme the gate and entrance into Christian life whereof they deny the vertue to sanctify men the (d) To discouer the vanity of the Minister who sayth that the Protestant doctrine about Baptisme is held by our Schoolemen Note that concerning the necessity of Baptisme there be three errours the one greater then the other The first that though Baptisme be the only ordinary meanes of saluation yet some children dying without Baptisme are saued by extraordinary fauour as S. Iohn was sanctifyed in the wombe Luc. 1.2.53 This is held by some Catholikes but no fundamentall errour because it affirmes not any extraordinary fauour but such
allow theÌ„ce drawing an argument to prooue the Galathians were senselesse and sottish that keeping in their sight the picture of Christ Crucifyed they would thinke to be saued by the Law and not by the merits of his Crosse. For it was madnes and folly to paynt Christ honour him as Crucifyed not to thinke that by his death vpon the Crosse he redeemed the world I know that some Catholikes expound this place that Christ was paynted and pictured out vnto the GalathiaÌ„s metaphorically by preaching Which I do not deny but this doth not repugne with the other sense that he was also materially paynted as Crucifyed nor must we exclude it this sense being imported by the natiue and proper signification of the words and hauing more connexion with the drift of the Apostles discourse which is to prooue the Galathians senselesse in their forsaking Christ whome they had pictured Crucifyed before their eyes For to forsake Christ crucifyed pictured by preaching as the Sauiour of the world though it be impious yet not senseles yea rather saluation by the crosse of Christ did seeme folly vnto the Gentils But for men to haue Christ painted as crucifyed before their eyes honouring him by Christian deuotion in regard of his crucifixion and death and not to expect saluation by his Crosse and death is sottish and (s) The Minister is much vexed with the euidence of this Text not finding which way to euade as you may see pag. 280. First he sayth lin 21. If this were true it proues only that Images may be made but not that they may be adored Answer First the Answerer in this place intends only to proue that the Apostles did allow the making of Crucifixes to represent our Sauiours Crucified person vnto ChristiaÌ„ deuotion Secondly this making doth inferre worship for the proper Image of an adored person if it be made it may be adored agaynst which principle euideÌ„t in reason you cannot bring one word of Scripture Secondly you say Ibid lin 3. That according to learned Bannes The worship of Images is neyther expressely nor infoldedly taught in Scripture Answere BaÌ„nes meaneth that Image-worship is not formally inuolued in Scripture nor matter of fayth by vertue of sole Scripture But he doth not deny but it is virtually contained in Scripture so that it may Theologically be coÌ„cluded by texts of Scripture Thirdly you cry pag. 282. lin 24. One Father that expounds this place literally according to your sense I answere first no Father nor Catholicke denyes this litterall sense and Athanasius is brought by Turrianus l. 4. de Dogmat. Charact. thus expounding Secondly Protestants who appeale vnto the Scripture as vnto the last iudge to giue definitiue sentence are bound to take the words of Scripture in the litterall sense except they can cleerly demonstrate by Scripture the litterall sense to be absurd Otherwise if without euident proofe by Scripture they metaphorize the Scripture they appeale not vnto Scripture but vnto their owne fancies But by Scripture you cannot proue that the litterall painting of our Sauiours Image as Crucifyed is absurd more then the painting of Luther and Caluin and such other of your pretended Prophets is absurd Therfore you must stand to this litterall sense or els confesse that you will not be ruled by the word of God but depart from the litterall sense thereof when you please without shewing warrant so to doe Finally the Minister sayth ibid. lin 27. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyeth to be written before not to be painted before This is his last yet a desperate shift First all LexicoÌ„s eueÌ„ those of ProtestaÌ„ts say that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyes before so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyes to paint or make figures because writing is a kind of painting or making of Characters hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifyes writing For is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a painter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a peÌ„sill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 painting to the quicke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 painting in waxe innumerable other words aswell single as compound that testify how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to paint Secondly not only Beza and Erasmus so translate and the French Geneuian Pourtrayé deuant les yeux Christ Iesus pictured before the eyes but also Caluin in his comment vpon this place sayth expressely depictus meo iudicio optimè quadrat the best translation in my Iudgenent is depainted adding the Apostle doth heere signify that there was amongst the Galathians non nuda doctrina sed viua expressa Christi crucifixi Imago nor the meere preaching but also liuely and expresse picturing of Christ crucifyed Finally the Minister who heere sayth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify is depainted elswhere pag. 213. lin 26. sayth the contrary to wit that S. Paul doth testify Galat 3.1 That by the Ghospell Christ Iesus IS DEPAINTED before the eyes of the soule Now how can this be true except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signify is depainted and be thence transferred by metaphore vnto preaching senselesse And of this materiall picturing of Christ crucifyed Athanasius expoundeth this place whome Turrianus citeth De Dogmat. charact l. 4. Wherefore I may iustly say that we haue more cleere expresse Scripture for the vse of images then haue protestaÌ„ts for their Translations And therefore the danger of ignorant people erring by images is without reason so much insisted vpon by Protestants their English translations being as I haue shewed a more dangerous blocke for fooles to stumble at and so fall into damnable errours If they presume that by diligent instruction they may and would haue vs thinke that they doe preserue their people from that errour why should they not thinke that the Roman Church being so potent with her children can keep them from the foolish errour of attributing life and diuinity vnto dead dumbe images and that she will so do being so strictly coÌ„manded by the (t) Sess. 2. Diligenter doceant Episcopi Councell of Trent to vse her greatest diligence in this point that ignorant people fall not into errour by any image which otherwise haue many profits and vtilities About which I will not enlarge my selfe but only mention some of them The first is an easy and compendions way of instruction in which respect they are tearmed by S. Gregory (u) Lib. 7. Ep. 109. the books of the vnlearned and as another Gregory (x) Nissen â—rat in Theodorum sayth the silent picture speakes on the wall and profiteth very much The second is to increase in men that keep honour them the loue of God and of his Saints which effect S (y) Orat. Quod veteris noui Testamenti vnius sit mediator Chrysostome experienced as he testifieth saying I loued a picture of melted wax full of piety And S. (z) Lib. 7. epist. 53. Gregory the Great sayth they inflame men that behold them in the loue
Theodos. Nor as the sanctifyer of our soule dwelling in the same by grace Hierom in Prouerb c. 2. Nullum inuocare idâ—â— intus orando vocare nisi Deum debemus Thirdly that the Preist doth not inuocate Saints by direct prayer in the Lyturgy of the Masse which being a sacrifice the deuotion therof is to be directed to God onely Augustine lib. 22. de ciuit c. 10. Carthag 4. c. 23. Fourthly that our friends that are deceased do not now heare vs in the familiar manner they were wont conuersing with vs. Hierom. ad Heliodor de obitu Nepotiam whatsoeuer I write seemeth to be dead 〈◊〉 because Nepotian doth not heare it to wit iâ— visible manner delighting therein and applauding the same as he was accustomed to doe in his life-time (c) HeÌ„ce appeareth the impertineÌ„cy of the Minister that so often vrgeth this place of S. Hierome pag. 29.2 lin 22. Orthodoxe pa. 54. li. 6. Fiftly that they do not know what is done in this world by their natural forces Augustine de cura pro mortuis c. 16. Per diuinam potentiam Martyres viuorum rebus intersunt quoniam defuncti per naturam propriam viuorum rebus interesse non possunt Sixthly speaking vnto some deceased persons they make an If whether they heare them or not because they speake vnto such as they knew not certainly to be Saints Nazianzen orat 3. in Iulian. (d) The Minister here sayth Did not the Fathers reckon Constantine to be in ioy and glory and yet Gregory Nazianzen vsing an Apostrophe to him sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heare o thou Spirit of Great Constantine if thou hast any notion of these thinges I Answere you falsify the text of Nazianzen both in the Greeke in your English translatioÌ„ For his words are Heare o thou Spirit of Great Constantius if thou haue any notion of these thinges Yea that we might see you corrupt the text wilâ—â—lly against your conscience euen in this very Reply in this poynt â—f controuersy you cite the same pag. 359. lit a. in this manner Audi etiam 〈◊〉 Constantij magni anima siquis mortuus sensus est Heare o thou Spirit of â—reat Constantius c. Now Constantius was an Arian and a persecutour of Catholickes vnto his dying day though on his death bed it was sayd â—e made some kind of repentance Hence S. Gregory NazianzeÌ„ might doubt â—f his being in Glory and say Heare if thou haue any notion of these â—â—inges The same Father in his funerall Oration for his sister Gorgonia where he sayth Sister admit of this oration in lieu of many funerall offeâ—â—ngs If this reward be giuen to holy soules to feele these things he doth not doubt of her hearing his prayers but only whether she receaued an humane naturall content in that his affectuous Panigyricall made in her prayse THIS truth supposed I cannot but coÌ„ceaue that your Maiesty professing so much loue to the first primitiue ages may â—eceaue satisfaction about this point the causes of Protestants dislikes being weake and not to be opposed against the strength of so long continued authority as I shall endeauour to demonstrate in their eight usuall Exceptions Inuocation of Saints not to be disliked because not expressed in Scripture §. 2. AND first I must satisfy the transcendeÌ„tall cause of their dislike (a) Confess August art 12. Fulke against Rhem. which is that worship and Inuocation of Saints deceased is no where expressely set downe in Scripture without expresse warrant wherof nothing may lawfully be done that belongs to Religion But this though carrying a shew of deuotion in the conceit of common people is altogether vnworthy of the erudition of any learned Protestant For howsoeuer in the beginning of their separation they did (b) Luther l de seruo arb serm de Cruce siue expresso Dei mandato cry for expresse Scripture expresse Commands oâ— the Written Word yet now they are 〈◊〉 gone (c) Wotton in his Tryall pag. 89. from that principle as they are exceeding angry (d) Iohn White in his defence pag. 228. with vs that wâ— should thinke that any of theirs were 〈◊〉 any time broachers of such an absurdity Wherfore in their written bookes whâ—â— they teach in Pulpits I know not they (e) D. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 20. Whitaker de sacra Scrip. cont 1. q. 6. disclaime from expresse Scripture and thinke it a sufficient warrant of a Christâ—â—â— custome that the same be (f) Note that it is one thing to be expressed in Scripture and another to be grouÌ„ded on Scripture All Christian doctrine is not expressed in Scripture yet euery Christian doctrin is so grouÌ„ded on Scripture that it may in some sort or other be proued from Scripture grounded â—â— Scripture that is may be deduced by good discourse from truthes reuealed therin 〈◊〉 be proued consonant to the rules principles therof according to which ample extent of Scriptures vnto things deducible from them or consonant vnto them there is no Catholike custome that hath not warrant in Gods word as we are able to shew This onely we require that ignorant people be not Iudges of such inferences an office so farre aboue their capacity as I am perswaded no vnlearned man that hath in him any sparke of humility or any mediocrity of Iudgement will vndertake it For no man is competent to iudge assuredly of argumeÌ„ts by deduction froÌ„ Scripture that hath not exact skill of Scripture to know the false sense from the true as of Logicke to distinguish Syllogismes from Paralogismes being able to giue sentence of the truth of principles by the one and of the inferences by the other A thing so hard as euen learned Deuines do much suspect their owne sufficiency to iudge of deductions dare not absolutely pronounce their sentence but referre the same to definitions of authority which besides skill of Scripture Logicke hath the promise of Gods perpetuall assistance in teaching the Christian Church Wherfore if Protestants will bind vs to bring expresse Scripture for the worship of Imags Adoration of the Sacrament Inuocation of Saintes they must themselues likewise be bound to bring expresse Scripture against Anabaptists for (g) D. Field l. 4. of the Church c. 20. saith It is no where expressely deliuered in Scripture christening of Infants and for the keeping of the Sunday in lieu of the ancient Sabboath Day for their dedicating of (h) CoÌ„cerning the Protestants keeping festiuall daies of Saints with religious solemnity the Minister saith not a word which is tacitely to grant that this duty of ReligioÌ„ is vsed piously by the English Church although the same waÌ„t the warrant of Scripture why then may not Catholicks pray vnto Saintes though there were no warrant in Scripture for such practise Dayes in memory of the Apostles with religious solemnity for the (i) Concerning the Crosse in baptisme the Minister saith pag. 302. that it is
because it doth still proceed and must needes flow froÌ„ inward reuerence towards God For how can one worship Saints purely and only as they are the friends seruants and temples of God but out of the instinct of Religion vnto God Hence S. Augustine tearmes the honor of Saints Religious solemnity And S. Chrysostome sayth Serm. de Martyr 69. That we admire their merits with Religious charity Lesse then diuine as proceeding from persuasion of excellency though super-human yet infinitly inferiour vnto the increate immense excellency of God yea depending essentially therof So that honour that is giuen to theÌ„ dependeth of God as being superexcellent participants of his perfection his singular friends Now that men may worship Angells and Saints in this sort with true affection of spirit euen to the prostration of their bodyes may be proued out of holy Scriptures supposing what is already shewed that they see our actions For if Saints see our actions we may as lawfully and as profitably bow kneele and prostrate our bodyes vnto them as vnto Saints liuing on earth But it is lawfull to honour liuing Saints with bowing kneeling and prostration of body as may be proued by many examples 3. Reg. 18. Abdias an holy man (i) Timebat Dominum valde adored Elias (k) Cecidit super faciem suam prostrate on the ground not for any humane excellency or respect but because he was a Prophet a singular Saint of God The Children of the Prophets (l) 4. Reg 2.15 Adorauerunt proni in terraÌ„ seeing signes of supernaturall and diuine power in Elizaeus coÌ„ming vnto him adored him prostrate on the ground The Sunamite woman her Sonne being dead went presently vnto Elizaeus fell downe at his feete suing not so much with words as with teares and mournefull complaints for the resuscitatioÌ„ of her dead sonne (m) 4. Reg. 4. Corâ—uit ad pedes eius adorauit super terram We read also that holy men haue adored with kneeling and prostration of their bodyes holy Angels appearing vnto them as Abraham (n) Gen. 18.3 Adorauit in terram Loth (o) Gen. 19.19 4. Adorauit pronus in terram Balaam (p) Num. 22. Iosue (q) Iosue 5.15 Cecidit pronus in terram adorans so that this Adoration of Saints and Angells (r) The Minister saith pag. 325. That Elias Elizaeus and the Angels were present visibly and sensibly but the Saints are not sensibly present so we must not bow vnto Saints deceased as Children kneele not to their parents when they are absent Answer We haue proued by the word of God that to be true which the Fathers teach with full consent namely S. Basill de Virgin c. 16. Euery Angell holy Spirit of Saints see what is done euery where And if this be true that they are present vnto vs and we a spectacle vnto them why should we not worship theÌ„ as much as if they were sensibly present Not sense but faith is the ground of our deuotion towards Saints May we worship Saints that are present to vs according to the iudgemeÌ„t of flesh and not worship them that are present according to the Iudgement of fayth and the truth of Gods word with more then human naturall respect and with acknowledgement of more then humane and naturall perfections in them is cleerly deduceable from holy Scripture Neither haue Protestants reason to stand agaynst so many pregnant examples of Scriptures vpon the one example in the Apocalyps of the Angell refusing to be adored of S. Iohn saying See thou do it not I am one of thy fellow seruants adore God specially this place being explicated long agoe by the Fathers as not against the custome of ChristiaÌ„ Saint-worship for eyther the Angell so appeared as Saint Iohn tooke him to be God would haue adored him as God whereof the adorer was to be warned as S. Augustine (s) S. August q. 61. in Genes Corrigendus erat adorator expoundeth or rather the Angell for bad that worship not as iniurious vnto God but only as coumbersome to himselfe being loath as S. Gregory noteth after the incarnation of the Sonne of God to see a man lye prostrate vnto him specially so holy a man and so speciall a friend of Iesus And the words Do it not adore God import no more which I declare Suppose that one prayse a Preacher to his face for an excellent sermon he hath made the Preacher out of modesty say Prayse not me I am an vnworthy instrument of diuine wisdome prayse the authour of all This his speach doth not import that he thinkes to commend a Preachers sermon to be Idolatry giuing away the glory of God to a creature but only that modesty makes him wish that men would not prayse him but rather turne all the prayse glory of that sermon vpon God In this sort the Angell seing the great and glorious friend of Iesus prostrated at his feeâ—e requested him to rise vp not condemning that adoration as Idolatrous but refusing it as an actioÌ„ though in regard of the offerer pious godly yet to him the receauer cuÌ„bersome which he could not without some vnwillingnes behold in regard of the dignity of the person he saw prostrated before him (t) The Minister in this place is large in bitternes against vs because he knowes not what to say or how to frame an argument against vs out of this text of the Apocalips For if S. Iohn did giue diuine and religious worship to the Angel due to God onely the example is not to the purpose For we say Saints are not to be honoured as Gods If he did onely offer honour more then ciuill vnto the Angell in respect of his supernaturall dignity with prostration of body then the same was not vnlawfull For the Minister pag. 336. lin 30. forced by the Iesuits arguments doth acknowledge such obeâ—sances and reuerent comportments may and must be done to Saints and Angels when they are corporally visibly present as his Angell was visibly and corporally present to S. Iohn Now that this great Apostle of Christ was more ignorant then any Triuiall Minister that he knew not what was due vnto Angels better then they who will belieue It is euident that he offered no more then he might without iniury vnto God else being warned he would not haue offered it the second tyme. Therfore it was honour that might piously be giuen vnto an Angell though that Angel did in modesty forbid him to shew the respect he bare to that great Apostle and friend of Iesus as the Iesuit argueth to which the Minister replyes not a word but only rayleth This is euidently gathered out of the sacred text seing S. Iohn after this prohibition did the second tyme offer the like honour to the same Angell which he would neuer haue done had he not knowne adoration of Angells by mortall men to be pious religious on their
so many Fathers affirme is impudent so his arguing is friuolous as euery man may see For Catholicks praise God in all languages and meet to pray with Preists as much as Protestants yet our publike seruice is not said in all vulgar tongues More impertinent are his allegatiōs of Fathers speaking against distraction of mind mēs not hearing thēselues in prayer As though men could not be recollected in prayer by attentiō vnto God vnto their owne needes and the substance of their prayers though they do not vnderstād thē distinctly word by word vulgar multitude only knew their owne mother tongue as may be cleerly gathered out of the same Saint Augustin who writes that he pleading in Latine agaynst Crispinus a Bishop of the Donatists for possession of a village in Africa wherunto the consent of the Villagers was required they did not vnderstand his speach till the same was interpreted vnto them in their vulgar African lāguage So that the Christian Church did neuer iudge it requisite that the publike Liturgy should be commonly turned into the mother language of euery nation nor necessary that the same should presently be vnderstood word by word by euery one of the vulgar assistants neyther doth the end of the publike Seruice require it As for the cōfort that some few want in that they do not so perfectly vnderstād the particulars of diuine Seruice it may by other means aboūdātly be supplied without turning the publik Liturgyes into innumerable vulgar lāguages which would bring a great cōfusion into the Christiā Church First The Church should not be able to iudge of the Liturgy of euery country whē differences arise about the Trāslation therof So diuers errors heresies might creep into particular countreyes and the whole Church neuer able to take notice of them Secondly particular countreyes could not be certayne that they haue the Scripture truly translated for therof they can haue no other assured proofe but only the Churches approbation nor can she approoue what she doth not vnderstand Thirdly were vulgar Translations so many as there be lāguages in the world it could not be otherwayes but some would be in many places ridiculous incōgruous full of mistaking to the great preiudice of soules specially in languages that haue no great extents nor many learned men that naturally speake them Fourthly the liturgy would be often changed togeather with the language which doth much alter in euery age Fiftly in the same Countrey 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 Rustikes another for men another for women Into what language shold then the Iaponian Liturgy be turned Finally by this vulgar vse of the Liturgy the study of the learned languages would be giuen ouer in short tyme come to be extinct as we see that no ancient language now remaynes in humane knowledge but such as haue been as it were incorporated in the Liturgyes of the Church the common vse of learned tongues being extinct there would follow want of meanes for Christians to meete in Generall Councells to communicate one with another in matters of fayth In a word extreme Barbarisme would be brought vpō the world Priuate prayers (n) The Minister hauing nothing to say rayleth boasteth that the opposition of Protestants forsooth hath brought vs to allow priuate vulgar prayers by force as we translate Scripture that were our kingdome as absolute as euer we would returne to our Center Thus he Prophesieth but so as he may easily be proued a false Prophet For to omit that diuers Councels many ages before Luther was borne command the knowing of the Pater Aue and Creed in the vulgar tongue where is the Popes kingdome more absolute or Protestācy lesse knowne then in Italy and in Spaine And yet no where are prayers in the vulgar tongue more vsed then in Italy and Spaine You shall hardly there find one woman one Layman which sayeth not their priuate deuotiōs in the vulgar Wheras thousands in Germany Low countryes Polony England both men and womē loue to say their prayers rather in Latine to shew their oppositiō against Protestants that fondly cōdemne such prayers be so void of iudgemēt as to thinke that pious thoughts and affections vpon the Pater noster please not God except we vnderstād the wordes and measure our pious thoughs and affections Geometrically vnto the same so that a woman saying with much deuotion Pater noster if perchāce she thinke that Pater signifyes our and Noster Father her prayer is marred Wherfore your Protestant imprudent opposition is the cause that many pray in Latin which otherwise perchance would not 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 contayne the whole substance of prayer For the end of Prayer being threefold To prayse God for his infinite perfectiōs To giue him thanks for his benefits bestowed vpon vs To demand of him such necessaryes as we want aswell for the maintayning of this present as for the attayning vnto eternall life the Creed being a Summe of the perfections of God his benefits towardes man affoards sufficient knowledge to comply with the two former ends of prayer The Pater Noster being an abridgemēt of al those things which we need cōteines a full instruction for the third Other prayers doe but more plainly expresse thinges contayned in the Pater Noster the Creed and our many bookes do shew that these kind of prayers in vulgar languages are by vs writtē esteemed practised We add that ordinarily speaking common people doe more profit by saying prayers in their mother tongue then in the Latine because not only their affections are mooued to piety but also their vnderstanding edifyed with knowledge Notwithstanding some prayers though translated into English be so difficill to be vnderstood as they will rather distract ignorant especially curious people then instruct them of which kind are many Psalmes of Dauid these prayers as we thinke may more profitably be sayd in Latine So that I see no great difference eyther in practise or in doctrine betweene Protestants the Roman Church concering priuate Prayers in a language vnknowne THE FIFTH POINT Repetitions of Pater Nosters Aues and Creeds especially affixing a kind of merit to the number of them I AM perswaded that your Maiesty doth not intend to dislike Repetition of Prayers so the same be done with reuerent Deuotion and Affection For this repetition is iustifyed not only by the example of the blind man who still cryed vpon our Sauiour with repetition of the same prayer (p) Math. 20. Marc. 10. Luc. 18. Iesu Fili Dauid miserere mei by which repetition he obtayned his sight nor only of the princely Prophet who in his 135. Psalme repeates 27.
11.1 ad Cor. I heare saith he what the words of the supper import For Christ doth giue vs not only the benefit of his death and resurrection but also the very body wherin he died and arose againe from death Yea libro de Coena inter eius opuscula pag. 133. he saith that Negare veram corporis sanguinis substantiam to deny the true substance of the body and blood of Christ to be giuen in the supper is execrabilis blasphemia auditu indigna an execrable blasphemy against which we ought to stoppe our eares The Caluinian Doctrine that Christs body being only in heauen is Spiritually present not only by fayth not only according to the effects of his grace but also in his bodily substance yet only vnto the faythfull receauer not vnto the Sacramentall signe is both against Gods word and implicatory in reason First it is no lesse then the Zuinglian against the plaine expresse words of our Sauiour For our Sauiour by saying Take eate this is my body drinke yee all of this for this is my blood Matth. 26. doth auerre the Sacrament to be his body and blood in respect of that taking and eating vnto which by these words he doth inuite and exhorte But by this speach he doth inuite and exhorte vnto Sacramentall and corporall taking and eating This appeareth by the immediat practise of the Apostles who vpon these words of our Lord tooke the Sacrament with their corporall mouth This also our aduersaryes cannot deny seing they vrge by vertue of these wordes corporall receauing in both kinds Therfore the words of our Sauiour auerre the reall presence of his body in substance in respect of corporall taking and eating with the mouth of flesh which Doctrin Caluinists stiffely deny only holding the substantiall communication of Christs body in respect of spirituall receauing by the facultyes of the soule Secondly their Reall Presence is a fiction to no purpose For there is no reason to put the Reall Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament but only in respect of verifying the word of our Sauiour This is my body in a true and reall sense so making the thinge Christ had in his hand and which was demonstrated by the Pronowne This to be truly really his body But Caluinists put not a Presence which maketh the thinge Christ had in hand and demonstrated by the Pronowne This to be truly and really his body but only by figure This I proue That which is the body of Christ in figure and shew and not in substance is not truly really Christ his body Euen as what is a man in shew and figure not in essence and substance is not truly and really a man But Caluinists say that This or the thinge which Christ hath in his hands was Christs body in shew figure and not in substance Ergo they put not a Reall presence which makes that which Christ had in his hand did demonstrate by the particle This to be truly his body It is therefore a fiction deuised to satisfy the Caluinian fancy not the Christian fayth or the rigurous truth of Gods word Thirdly by this Doctrine they bind themselues and others to belieue an high and incomprehensible Mystery without any necessity or compulsion from Gods word For what can be more vnintelligible then that there should be true and reall vnion according to substance betwixt two distinct indiuiduall substances that be distant the one from the other as farre as heauen is from earth Hence Caluin saith libro de Coena that this is sublime arduum quod neque quidem cogitatione complecti possimus in Cap. 11.1 ad Cor. arcanum mirificum Spiritus sancti opus quod intelligentiae nostrae modulo metiri nefas sit But the word of God doth not inforce this Caluinian Mystery nor is there sufficient ground to affirme it This is proued because the mystery of their Reall Presence either hath no ground in Scripture or is grounded on these words of the Institution Take eate this is my body But Caluinists on these words cannot ground the incomprehensible mystery of their reall presence For they vnderstand these words of our Sauiour in a Figuratiue sense and say that they are not true properly and literally Now a mystery of Fayth cannot be grounded vpon the Figuratiue sense of a place of Scripture yea vpon meere Figuratiue construction of Scripture to obtrude vnto others an article of necessary beliefe is impudency as saith S. Augustine Epist. 68. Non nisi impudentiss mè nititur quis aliquid in Allegoria positum pro se interpretari nisi habeat manifesta testimonia quorum lumine illustrentur obscura Therfore the Caluinian Reall Presence is a mystery incomprehensible grounded on meere figuratiue construction of Gods word not backed by any literall text and consequently it is belieued without necessity or any Diuine and supernaturall warrant Hence I Inferre two things first that the belieuers of the Caluinian Reall Presence are vnwise For what greater folly then for men to deny their wits and breake their heads to belieue an hard and difficill matter in belieuing wherof ther is no merit of fayth In belieuing the Caluinian Reall Presence there is no merit of Fayth For the merit of Fayth is to captiuate our Vnderstanding vnto mysteryes cleerly deliuered by the word of God not vnto mans figuratiue expositions therof yea no figuratiue exposition aboue reason is to be belieued except it be proued by some literall text or be deliuered by the full Tradition as Gods word vnwritten Secondly I inferre that Caluinists beare more reuerence vnto Iohn Caluin then vnto Iesus Christ for Caluins mystery is belieued by Caluinists being confessedly a Doctrine most hard difficill incomprehensible and yet not the literall sense of Gods word but Caluins figuratiue comment ther-vpon On the other side Transubstantiation being acknowledged by them to be the litterall and proper sense of the word of Christ Iesus so that without Transubstantiation his word this is my body cannot be literally true as our Minister doth confesse pag. 397. yet because it is hard difficill incomprehensible Caluinists cannot be brought to belieue it What is this but to be more ready to belieue Caluin then Christ Specially seing the mystery of Christs literall sense is not so hard and vn-intelligible as Caluins figuratiue construction For one may more easily conceaue a body to be in two places at once which the litteral sense of Christs word doth inforce then a body to be truly and substantially giuen where truly and substantially it is not which is the article of fayth by Caluins figuratiue construction obtruded The Arguments agaynst the litterall sense of Christs Word vayne and idle §. 3. THE Minister to prooue that the words of the institution are to be figuratiuely vnderstood bringeth seauen Arguments pag. 391. one pag. 401. and three other pag. 418. but the first and third of these three are the same with the second
Wisdome and grace see in that modest looke Trueth 's triumph errors downfall in this booke Maerebunt piscatores Isa. 19.8 Tocksonus sculpâ—â—â— THE ANSWERE VNTO The Nine Points of Controuersy Proposed by our late Soueraygne of Famous Memory vnto M. Fisher of the Society of IESVS AND THE REIOYNDER Vnto the Reply of D. Francis VVhite Minister With the Picture of the sayd Minister or Censure of his Writings prefixed Be ready alwayes to giue an ANSWERE to euery one that asketh you a reason of the Hope that is in you 1 Petr. 3. Vers. 15. Permissu Superiorum M.DC.XXVI TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE CHARLES KING OF Great Brittayne France and Ireland c. MOST GRACIOVS SOVERAIGNE These Theologicall Labours which we now publish were vndertaken by Order of our late Soueraygne of Famous Memory for his desired Satisfaction about some of the principall Points which with-held his Royall ioyning vnto the Church of Rome The Authour when he penned them did expect they should haue been kept within the priuate Library of his Princely Reading and not made publike to the World as afterward they were by a Doctour Minister togeather with a Voluminous Reply wherin he seekes to disgrace them by much bitternes of speach vttered in the violence of his Zeale This imposed an Obligation vpon the Authour to reuiew them agayne and to set them forth whole and entiere purged from the faults of hand-writing misprision cleered from the cloudes cast vpon them by ignorant Cauill strenghthened with some new Collaterall Additions of more euident Explication and Proofe Which Labours renewned published we humbly offer vnto your most Excellent Maiesty as vnto the Heyre not only of your Renowned Fathers Dignity and State but also of his Wisdome and Vertue in whome is perpetuated as the Nobility of his Bloud so the Excellency of his Mind And though it be their hard fortune to appeare in your Presence at the time wheÌ„ the light of your Royall Clemency is towardes your Catholicke Subiects eclypsed yet for themselues they confide to find some speciall Fauour not to be forbidden or banished your Maiestyes Dominions in that they be Natiffe of your Royall Fathers Command by the WarraÌ„t of his Authority borne into the World whose Sacred Pleasure through pious Excesse of Filiall Affection You still reuerence after his Discease Neyther can it be for the credit of our Aduersaryes or of their Cause that free Accesse should be denyed vnto these Writings which as themselues testify were by the sound of Authority summoned vnto the Combat vpon supposition that thereby Our weakenes and want of strength would manifestly appeare For thus they write The better to discouer their weaknes D. Whites Preface to plucke them out of their Fox-hole of Personall Succession and visibility the King imposed the Taske of writing vpon the Nine Questions knowing our Aduersaryes to be cunning and subtill in eluding our Arguments but of no strength especially in particular Questions to proue their owne Tenet or to confirme their Fayth by sacred Scripture or Auncient Tradition If after so solemne Inuitation vnto the Combat if after so bold Promises that in these Writings our weakenes would be discouered if after so great assurance giuen to their Credents that we cannot confirme our Religion by Scripture these challenged Writings be stayed by Authority not to enter into the Field this may yield vnto Iudicious Protestants iust reason to suspect that weaknes and want of strength rather lyeth on their side and that the Patrons of their Reformed Religion place their confidence of Victory rather in the Partiality of the State then in the Euidence of the Scripture in the behalfe of their Doctrines And as these Tytles euen the Credit of the Protestant Cause pleade for the free permission of this Booke so the Booke it selfe contaynes nothing that may cause the hinderance of so due a fauour Therin no person in Authority is censured no matter of State touched nothing vttered that may iustly offeÌ„d only the euideÌ„ce of Gods Holy Word is vrged in defence of that Religion which euen in your Royall Iudgment is so farre from being impious in it selfe or an Enemy of your State as You haue by most happy choyce selected the same to be the Consort of your Crowne to be the Parent of those glorious Starres which according to the hope of all Loyall Subiects shal froÌ„ your Maiesties Throne by long continued Succession shine vnto these fortunate Kingdomes who by her euer-honoured Name of MARY but much more by the rare Excellency of her Vertues liuely represents the sweet Memory of your Right Glorious Grand-mother whiles she liued for Princely qualityes the Paragon of Europe and now a singular Ornament of the Heauens in regard of her coÌ„stancy in the Catholike Roman Religion vnto death that her enraged Enemyes not being able to conquer her Immortall Affection vnto the same feared not to shed her no lesse Innocent then Noble Bloud the Fountaine of Your Maiestyes Royall Rights vnto the Kingdoms of Great Brittayne to strike of that Thrice-Venerable Head more Glorious for the lustre of the One Catholike Fayth She maintayned then for the shining gemnes of Three Christian Crownes of which two She wore and the third was vndoubtedly her Due Your Royall Magnanimity timely tokens whereof appeared in your tender Yeares hath engaged the Harts of your Loyall Subiects in a secret Ioy of Hope that God by meanes of your Maiesty will illustrate this Kingdome by many rich Blessings of Temporall Glory In which Hope we are strengthned by the fortunate Name of Charles the First fortunate I say to bring Felicities vpon Kingdomes vnder by which Name France vnder Charles the Great Spayne vnder Charles the fifth Emperour but the first of that Name Kinge of Spayne surnamed Maximus the two mightiest Kingdoms of Europe aduanced to Imperial Dignity grew vnto the highest of worldly Greatnes In which respect it is not any disloyall Affection that we wish in our Harts and pray vnto the Soueraygne MoModeratour in whose hands are the Harts of Princes that he wil incline your Princely Hart to be fauourable vnto that Religion which only hath been Conquerant in former ages that hardly can any Christian King be named Renownedly Victorious that was not a Professour or a Fauourer therof Yea if we call to mind the most famous wonderfull victoryes that haue ennobled the ChristiaÌ„ Name we may find that they were fruits and effects of some Deuotions of the Catholike Roman Fayth questioned proued in this Treatise Constantine the first Christian Emperour surnamed the Great who doth not know that his Conquests were obtayned by his worshipping Euseb. in vita Constantini lib. 3. c. 2. Zozom l. 1. cap. 8. the signe of the Holy Crosse being doubtlesse of a contrary Religion vnto the Prime Religion-deuiser of this age Martin Luther who sayth of himselfe Luther Tom. 1. Wittemberg fol. 539. If I were a Souldier and should see in the field the
the choyce of Printers that Protestants inioy Of thee Gentle Reader in requitall of my Labours I require no more then that to the perusing of them thou wilt bring an vnpartiall minde free from preiudicate opinion raysed by Pulpit-inuectiues and Popular Reports free I say from human regards affected vnto the Truth of Saluation resolued when the same appeares not to be kept from the imbracing therof through the feare of teÌ„porall dangers If thy mind be thus indiffereÌ„tly piously disposed I do not doubt but after atteÌ„tiue reading thou wilt giue the same Censure of the Conferences and Disputations bâ—twixt vs and our Aduersary which Marcellinus pronounced of the CoÌ„ferences betwixt the Catholicks and Donatists Augustin in Breuiculo Collat. Omnium ArgumentoruÌ„ manifestatione à Catholicis Aduersarios confutatos esse That the Catholickes are proued superiour vnto their Aduersaryes by the manifest truth of all kind of Arguments A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS AND PRINCIPALL Matters handled aswell in the Answere as in the Reioynder THE Preface to the Reader An Introduction to the Censure shewing the vanity of the Pictures and Pageants displayed in the first two pages of the Ministers Booke CONTENTS OF THE CENSVRE Sect. I. Doctour White his Ignorance of Latin and Grammer or els wilfull going agaynst the knowne Truth pag. 9. § 1. S. Epiphanius words about Images interpreted agaynst Grammer pag. 10.11 c. § 2. His Grammaticall Ignorance about the wordes Accipite Manducate Bibite pag. 12.13 c. § 3. His grosse misprision in translating of Latin pag. 15.16 c. § 4. About S. Cyprians teaching Transubstantiation and the word Species pag. 19.20 c. § 5. His abusing the Iesuits words agaynst English Construction to an impious sense pag. 23.24 c. Sect. II. D. White his grosse and incredible Ignorance in Logicke pag. 30. § 1. His fond accusation of the Iesuit as peccant agaynst the forme of syllogisme pag. 31. § 2. Foure Arguments by him brought all foolish peccant in forme pag 37.38 c. § 3. His ridiculous Arguments to proue a diuine Ordinance for Lay-men to read the Scripture pag. 43.44 c. Sect. III. D. White his grosse Ignorance of Theology pag. 51. §· 1. His teaching that vnto Ministers Religious Adoration is duâ— pag. 52.53 c. § 2. That that cannot be the true Church which hath wicked Pastours pag. â—6 57 c. § 3. He professeth Infidelity about the Blessed Sacracrament pag. 64.65 c. § 4. His grosse Ignorance further discouered about the same pag. 68 69· c. § 5. His extreme Ignorance about Satisfaction pag. 72.73 c. § 6. His Ignorance about the Holy Crosse Water of Iordan pag. 77.78 c. § 7. His Ignorance About Traditions pag 83.84 c. Sect. IIII. D. White his Ignorance in holy Scripture pag. 86. § 1. He denyeth the Text context of Scripture pag. 87.88 c. § 2. He is forced to go agaynst Christs expresse words pag. 89.90 c. § 3. He is forced to deny the Creed pag. 92.93 c. § 4. In answering Scriptures he contradicteth himselfe grants the Iesuit the Question pag. 95.96 c. § 5. In lieu of answering he confirmes the Iesuits Arguments pag. 98.99 c. § 6. He sends the Iesuite to God for an Answere pag. 101.102 c. § 7. His innumerable grosse Impertinencies in cyphering scoring of Scriptures pag. 104.105 c. § 8. He citeth Scriptures that make agaynst him pag. 108.109 c. § 9. Scriptures abused falsifyed pag. 112.113 c. The Text of Matth. 24.24 That euen the Elect shall be deceaued were it possible by him most grossely applyed pag. 116. c. The Text Act. 17.11 About the Beroeans abused pag. 118.119 c. The Text 1. Ioan. 18. If we say we haue no sinne c. falsifyed pag. 120.121 c. Sect. V. His Ignorance Fraude Falshood in alleaging Fathers and all manner of Authours pag. 125. § 1. Seauen Testimonyes of S. Augustine about Scripture Tradition falsifyed 127.128 c. § 2. Seauen Testimonyes of other Fathers falsifyed pag. 134.135 c. § 3. Foule Calumniation Falsification of Hosius Bellarmine Petrus à Soto Bosius p. 143.144 c. § 4. Other Fathers impudently falsifyed as if they did auerre what they do most constantly maintayne proue pag. 150.151 c. § 5. Grosse Imputations with manifest falshood imputed vnto Cardinall Baronius pag. 153.154 c. CONTENTS OF THE ANSVVERE AND REIOYNDER THE Preface to King Iames. pag. 3. That the Roman Church is the only true Church p. 3. A short Treatise concerning the Resolution of Fayth for the more full cleering of the ensuing Controuersies about Tradition Scripture the Church pag. 15. § 1. The Protestant Resolution of Fayth declared pag. 15.16 c. § 2. The former Resolution confuted by six Arguments pag. 16.17.18 c. § 3. Concerning the light of Scripture pag. 21.22 c. ¶ The second Part of this Treatise About the Catholicke Resolution of Fayth pag. 30. § 1. The first Principle proued pag. 30.31 c. § 2. The seeond Principle demonstrated pag. 32.33 c. § 3. The third Principle proued pag. 36.37 c. § 4. How the Churches Tradition is proued infallible independently of Scripture pag. 38.39 c. § 5. The difference betweene Propheticall and ordinary diuine Illumination by which Protestants Cauills are answered pag. 41.42 c. § 6. The fourth Principle proued pag. 44.45 c. THE FIRST GROVND § 1. That a Christian Resolution of Fayth is built vpon perpetuall Tradition deriued by succession from the Apostles pag. 50.51 c. § 2. Concerning the Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture pag. 61.62 c. ¶ How Catholikes grant the same sufficiency to be in Scripture as Protestants do and the true state of the Question about the sufficiency of Scripture and of Tradition pag. 63.64 c. THE SECOND GROVND § 3. That there is a Visible Church always in the world to whose Traditions men are to cleaue That this Church is One Vniuersall Apostolicall Holy pag. 70.71 c. § 4. The Properties of the Church proued by Matth. 28.20 pag. 82.83 c. § 5. That the Roman is the One Holy Catholike Apostolicall Church from by which we are to receaue the Tradition of Christian Doctrine pag. 85.86 c. ¶ That the Protestant Church was not before Luther pag. 85.86 c. ¶ That the Grecians were not Protestants in Essence pag. 87. ¶ That the Waldenses were not Protestants for Essence and kind pag. 88. ¶ That Protestants not being able to cleere themselues to be the Visible Church by Tradition do vaynely appeale vnto Scripture for their Doctrine pag. 89.90 c. § 6. The Conclusion of this Matter shewing that Protestants erre fundamentally pag. 108.109 c. THE NINE POINTS I. Point About vvorship of Images pag. 123. § 1. Worship of Images consequent out of the Principles of Nature and Christianity pag. 125.126 c. §
2. That this Worshippe was euer since the Apostles in the Church without beginning pag. 142.143 c. § 3. The places of Exodus Deut. with no probability vrged agaynst the Worship of Images by Protestants that make them pag. 154.155 c. § 4. Inconueniences which may come by occasion of Images easily preuented and their vtilities very great pag. 158.159 THE SECOND AND THIRD POINT II. Praying offering Oblations to the B. Virgin Mary III. VVorshipping Inuocation of Saints Angells pag. 172. § 1. An Eleauen Demonstrations that the Ancient Christian Church did euer hould Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Fayth Religion pag. 173.174 c. § 2. Inuocation of Saints not to be disliked because not expressed in Scripture pag. 194. § 3. Knowledge of Prayers made to them communicable communicated vnto Saints pag. 196.197 c. § 4. The Worship in spirit Truth with outward prostration of body due vnto Saints pag. 206.207 c. § 5. Praying to Saints not iniurious to Gods mercy but rather a commendation thereof pag. 211.212 c. § 6. Inuocation of Saints not an iniury but an honor to Christ the only Mediatour pag. 215.216 c. § 7. How it is lawfull to appropriate the obtayning of Graces and Cures vnto Saints pag. 219.220 c. § 8. Cōcerning Oblatiōs made to Saints p. 223.224 c. § 9. The Roman Churches set-formes of Prayer without cause misliked pag. 226.227 THE FOVRTH POINT IIII. The Liturgy priuate Prayers for the Ignorant in an vnknovvne Tongue pag. 130.131 THE FIFTH POINT V. Repetitions of Pater Nosters Aues Creeds especially affixing a kind of merit to the nūber of thē p. 241.242 c. THE SIXT POINT VI. The doctrine of Transubstantiatiō ¶ An Addition prouing the Catholike Reall Presence according to the litterall Truth of Gods word agaynst Ministeriall Metaphors Figures shifts pag. 248. ¶ § 1. The Zwinglian and Caluinian Religion about the Sacrament pag. 248. ¶ § 2. The Zwinglian Caluinian Presence confuted pag. 250. ¶ § 3. The Ministers Arguments agaynst the litterall sense of Christs word vayne idle pag. 253.254 c. § 1. That the Reall Presence of the whole body of Christ vnder the formes of bread belongs to the substance of the Mystery pag. 260.261 c. § 2. Transubstantiation belonges to the substance of Reall Presence pag. 266.267 c. § 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers pag. 271.272 c. ¶ A Refutation of the Ministers shifts to elude the former Testimonyes of the Fathers pag. 276.277 c. § 4. The seeming repugnances this Mystery hath with Sense should inclyne Christians the sooner to belieue it pag. 290.291 THE SEAVENTH POINT VII Communion vnder one kind abetting of it by Cōcomitancy pag. 305. § 1. The Doctrine of Concomitancy proued pag. 306.307 c. § 2. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Institution of Christ. pag. 311.312 c. § 3. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Sacrament pag. 315.316 c. § 4. Communion vnder one kinde not agaynst Christ his Precept pag. 319.320 c. ¶ The place of S. Iohn Qui manducat hunc panem c. explicated with an Answere to the Testimonies of the Fathers pag. 330.331 § 5. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the practice of the Primitiue Church pag. 332.333 c. THE EIGHT POINT VIII VVorkes of Supererogation specially vvith reference to the treasure of the Church pag. 334. § 1. The Doctrine of Merit declared pag. ibid. 335.336 c. ¶ The Ministers Arguments or rather Inuectiues against this Doctrine of Merit answered pa. 347.348 c. § 2. Merit of works of Supererogation p. 348.349 c. § 3. The Fathers taught works of Supererogation and proued them by Scripture pag. 352.353 c. § 4. The Doctrine of Satisfaction pag. 358.359 c. § 5. Workes with reference vnto the Treasure of the Church pag. 362.363 c. ¶ The Ministers rayling Argumēts agaynst the former doctrine censured pag. 372.373 c. THE NINTH POINT IX The opiniō of deposing Kings giuing avvay their Kingdoms by Papall povver vvhether directly or indirectly pag. 382. ¶ The Ministers fond Cauill That Iesuits honour not the King as Soueraygne pag. 383.384 c. ¶ His fond proofs of his Slaunder that Iesuits hold singular Opinions to the preiudice of Kings pa. 385.386 c. ¶ His Fondnes in Cauilling at the Iesuits words about the Temporall Soueraignity of Popes pag. 389.390 c. ¶ His miserable Apology for Protestāts p. 391.392 c. ¶ His Cauill agaynst the Iesuits speciall Vow of Obedience to the Pope pag. 393. c. THE CONCLVSION Faultes escaped in the printing In the Picture and Censure Pag. 10. lin 14. Christ read Christs Pag. 12. lin 17. in marg Ministery read Minister Pag. 13. l. 2. in marg conferunt read conferant Pag. 16. l. 20. place translated read place truly translated Pag. 25. l. 19. pleasore read pleasure Pag. 37. l. 7. are read were Pag. 86. l. 19. now read new Pag. 44. l. 3. this read his Pag. 104. l. 16. of read in Pag. 121. lin 32. an read be Pag. 132. l. vlt. diriue read driue In the Answere and Reioynder Pag. 4. l. 10. in marg if read it Pag. 19. line penult in marg seipsum read sensum Pag. 24. l. 1. God Though read God though Ibid. l. 16. could not read could not Pag. 56. lin 30. in marg this read thus Pag. 71. lin 32. in marg but must read but they must Pag· 74. l. 16. in marg do to proue read do proue Pag. 80. l. 30. in marg Votaies read Votaries Pag. 81. lin 32. Philip in dele Ibid. l. 34. in innumerable dele in Pag. 100. l. 1. 3. suppositious read supposititious Pag. 115. l. 16. in coll read in loc Pag. 119. l. 12. opinions read opinion Pag. 129. lin 1. Axione read Axiome Pag. 32. l. 34. in marg a positiue read a positiue precept Pag. 141. l. 11. in marg Sect. 3. read Sect. 1. Pag. 142. l. 26. in marg the argues read he argues Pag. 144. lin 21. viz. read verò Pag. 145. l. 10. reliueth read relieueth Pag. 152. l. 33. in marg Anthropomorphilae read Anthropomorphitae 177. l. 9. in marg praebitur read praebebitur Pag. 180. l. 22. wash awayt read washt away Pag. 227. l. 5. if they dele if Pag. 229. lin 23. in marg him that dele him Pag. 141. lin 9. reuerent read renewed Pag. 378. l. 22. satisfaction read satisfaction Pag. 396. l. 4. Roall read Royall Pag. 399. l. 2. fallable read fallible THE TRVE PICTVRE OF D· VVHITE MINISTER Or the Censure of his Reply vnto M. Fisher. The Reason of this Title THIS Short Censure is prefixed vnder the Name of your Picture that the Reioynder may correspōd in proportion vnto your Reply the beginning whereof is consecrated by an Image of your (a) For he teacheth
â—each that Blessed Mary was an entyre Virgin only vntill â—er Childbirth But according to the CATHOLICKE FAYTH he came forth of the Virgins woÌ„be the same still resting entyre and as a Bride-grome out of his Bride-Chamber Now you may crow and crake crowne your Booke as you do in your Picture when you are so pressed by your Aduersary that you are forced to defend your Errour by holding ancient Heresyes and by laying the tearme of Sophisticall Inference vpon the Catholicke Fayth of the Creed and of the whole Christian Church In answering Scriptures you contradict your selfe and grant the Iesuit the Question §. 4. THE vanity of your former brag that the Iesuit hath proued nothing by Scripture is further made apparent in that he doth so vrge you with Scripture as you are sometimes forced to contradict your selfe sometimes to grant as much as he doth require against your selfe The Iesuit pag. 98. proueth that the Church of Christian pastours succeeding the Apostles is infallible in her Tradition because our Sauiour saith Matth. 28. Behold I am with you all dayes vntill the consummation of the world You answere pag. 100. That which is promised vpon condition is not absolute vntill the condition be fulfilled The presence of Christ is promised to the Apostles successours conditionally and as they were one with the Apostles by imitation subordinatioÌ„ that is so farre as they walked in their stepps conformed their doctrine and ministery to the patterne receiued from them Thus you in this place But pag. 174. lin 21. speaking of the absolute perpetuity and duration of the Church you say that the place Matth. 28.20 Behold I am with you all daies vntill the end of the world proueth that the Church is vniuersall in respect of time and that it continueth successiuely in all ages This your saying ouerthrowes what you said that the presence of Christ is promised vpon condition wherin the successors of the Apostles might faile For this place Behold I am with you all dayes vntill the worlds end doth shew the Church to be alwaies in the world no other wayes then because Christ according to his promise is alwaies and all dayes to the worlds end with his Church he caÌ„ not be still in the world with his Church except his Church haue still a being in the world So that according to the truth of this place we may aswell or better say the Church shall not be alwaies in the world then that it shall be in the world without Christ or his Diuine assistance to teach men infallibly the truth Wherfore if by this place we cannot as you say we cannot proue that the Church shall be euer absolutely assisted of Christ much lesse doth this place conuince that the Church shall be alwaies in the world or further then conditionally if it walke in â—he Apostles doctrine Contrariwise if this place â—roue that the Church is absolutely alwaies in the world vntill the consummation therof then à forâ—iori more strongely and more directly doth it proue â—hat Christ is absolutely not onely conditionally â—reseÌ„t with his Church all dayes to the worlds end â—o that to answere the Iesuits proofes of his Religion â—y Scripture you coÌ„tradict your selfe yea somtimes â—rant agaynst your selfe as much as he would proue For to proue the same infallibility of the Church â—e bringeth pag. 3. the place of S. Paul (g) 1. Tim. 3.15 that the â—hurch is the grouÌ„d pillar of truth but the ground of â—ertaine infallible Truth such as the Christian is â—ust be certaine infallible You answere pag. 4. lin â— If by the Church wee vnderstand the Church of Christ â—â—uing afâ—er the Apostles the same is by office and calling â—he pillar and ground of truth in all ages This your anâ—were alloweth vnto the Iesuit asmuch as he desires 〈◊〉 can desire to shew the Church to be alwaies infalâ—â—ble For that which is by office and diuine vocation the â—â—llar and ground of infallible truth hath by diuine â—rdination and assistance sufficiency for the perforâ—ance of that office as is most euident The Church â—hich is fallible may erre is not a sufficient pillar 〈◊〉 ground that is hath not sufficieÌ„cy to be the grouÌ„d 〈◊〉 Christian truth which is infallible For how can 〈◊〉 building sure immoueable stand founded vpon 〈◊〉 vncertaine ruinous and tottering foundation â—herfore seing you grant the church succeeding the â—postles to be in all ages the ground of truth by diuine vocation vnto that office you do consequently allow vnto the Iesuit as much as he would proue to wit that the Church succeeding the Apostles is iâ— all ages vntill the worlds end certaine and infallible in her teaching In lieu of answering you confirme the Iesuits Arguments §. 5. THE Iesuit pag. 38. accuseth Ministers of abusing the word of God who to proue the sole sufficiency of Scripture in respect of all men cite the text of S. Paul 2. Tim. 3.15 The Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto saluation For the words of the Apostle are directed particulerly to Timothy saying they are able to make THEE wise vnto saluation whence it is consequent that the Scriptures were sufficient for Timothy and are sufficient for such men as Tymothy was to wit for men learned and aforehand instructed by word of mouth and therupon firmely beleeuing all the most maine and necessary points of Christian doctrine and discipline That the Scriptures for men in this manner taught and grounded in fayth are aboundantly sufficient who will deny Thus the Iesuit Vnto whom you shape this answere pag. 39. Although sentences of holy Scripture are sometimes restrayned to the personall and particular subiect of which they are first spoken yet this is not generall and when the same hapneth it must be proued by better arguments then by the bare Emphasis of a word For God said 〈◊〉 Iosuah a man qualifyed aboue the ordinary ranke I will not leaue nor forsake thee Iosuah 1.5 Yet the promise implyed in this text is generall and common to all 〈◊〉 persons Hebr. 13.5 Thus you confirming the Iesuitâ— â—olution in lieu of confuting therof For as the proâ—ise I will not leaue thee made particularly vnto Ioâ—ue in regard he was a iust man doth not agree vnto â—ll men but onely vnto such as Iosue was to wit â—nto iust men and such as seeke God as he did So the â—ext of S. Paul they are able to make THEE wise vnto â—aluation spoken particulerly vnto Timothy in reâ—ard he was learned iudicious aforehand instruâ—ted grounded in Christian tradition doth agree â—nely to Timothy and such men as Timothy was to wit men aforehand taught and grounded in the â—ayth of tradition On the other side as the promise â—ade to Iosue in regard he was a Iust man cannot â—e challenged of other men that be not iust as he was if they rely theron they deceaue themselues â—o the promise the Scriptures are able to make
thou shalt not adore them were â—he text and very letter of Gods word you might â—ith lesse shame haue confessed your ignorance that â—ou can say nothing in defence of the text In which â—ase the Iesuit I presume would willingly haue â—ad recourse vnto God by prayer entreating him â—o enlighten his vnderstanding with some sufficient â—eason would haue hoped to haue obtained his â—uite If not yet would he haue belieued Gods word â—o haue had some congruous sense though he saw â—ot the same this being reuerence due to the word â—f Supreme Verity But now this saying Thou shalt not make any Imaâ—es with purpose to adore them is not the text of Gods word but a Ministers addition vnto his word preâ—ended by way of exposition Hence the Iesuits arâ—uments for which you send him vnto God to haue â—hem answered tend not agaynst the text of Gods word but agaynst a Ministers explication thereof This being so why should the Iesuit finding your inâ—erpretation to be sottish and senselesse to his seeâ—ing goe vnto God and not vnto you for a solutiâ—n of his questions agaynst it What Law bindeth â—im to adore your additions to Gods word as diuine Oracles such as he must belieue though he cannot â—omprehend Why should he goe vnto God pray â—im to vnfold the high misteryes of your Ministeriâ—ll wisdome which you confesse you do not vnderâ—tand your selfe Why may he not without more aâ—oe thinke your doctrine to be incomprehensible â—hrough want of reason as are the fooleryes of fanâ—y not through height of wisdome as the misteryes of fayth Shew I say some reason that obligeth Iesuits to accept of your interpretations of Scripture which they can proue to be sottish and senselesse so cleerly as you cannot answere or else confesse that the Iesuit by conference of texts by consideration of Antecedents Consequents by the drift of the place hath so conuinced your expositioÌ„ of falshood as you haue not a word to reply in good sense but to be rid of his vrging you send him vnto God for an Answere Your innumerable grosse Impertinencyes in cyphering and scoring of Scriptures §. 7. YOV haue a manner of arguing proper to your selfe at least which I find by none of your ranke more frequently vsed then by your selfe This is to set downe a conceit of your owne wordes suting with your owne humour and then to score Bookes chapters and verses of Scripture on heapes without relating the words as if your conceit were in those places recorded in so many syllables And because in this kind of cyphering consists the strength of your whole booke I will by some store of examples decypher the grosse vanity thereof and consequently of your whole Booke First you often cite texts and chapters of Scripture that are not so making your selfe like vnto God qui vocat ea quae non sunt Pag. 10. lin 24. to prooue that Protestants acknowledge the lawfull authority of the Church you cite 2. Thessal cap. 5. Wheras the second to the Thessalonians hath only three chapters Pag. 106. lin 17. to prooue that Christians may depart from the Christian Church wherof they are â—embers without ioyning vnto any other Christiâ—n Church you cite Hos. 10.17 wheras that chapter â—â—th only 15. verses not one to the purpose you â—â—eage it Pag. 45. lin 17. for this your saying the Scripâ—â—re is the seed of faith you cite Iohn 20.41 wheras that â—wentith chapter hath verses only thirty one not â—ne of them hath this sentence The Scripture is the â—sed of Fayth Had you cited the wordes though you â—ad erred in the booke chapter or verse we might â—aue holpen your mistaking now God only knowâ—th the texts you intended Secondly the places you cypher not only do â—ot contayne the sayings for which you cypher â—hem expressely and in so many words but also â—hey are commonly so infinitly impertinent and so â—arre from the matter you intend to proue as being â—ited and applyed to your purpose they are most riâ—iculous Pag. 224. lin 26. to proue that you Ministers â—aue such Vnion with God as Religious Adoration â—s due vnto you you cypher Act. 10.34 which â—ayth Then Peter opened his mouth and sayd of a truth I perceiue that God hath no respect of persons Pag. 30. lin â—5 to proue Scripture is the voyce of God you cypher Luc. 1.7 which sayth Saluation from our enemyes and from the hands of all them that hate vs. Pag. 105. lin 13. to proue that right Fayth may be preserued in persons liuing in a corrupt visible Church as Wheate among Tares you cypher 1. King 19.11 And he sayd go forth and stand vpon the mountayne before the Lord and behold the Lord passed by Pag. 106. lin 16. to proue that Christians may separate from all Christian Churches and beginne a new Christian Church of themselues you cypher 2. Cor. 6.14 which saith Be not yoked togeather in marriage with Infidells Pag. 223. lin 4. to proue that in adoration Christ his Image haue no agreement you cypher 2. Cor. 6.16 which sayth What agreement betweene the Temple of God and Idolls Pag. 30. lin 23. to proue that the Scripture is a diuine light shewing it selfe to be heauenly you cypher 2. Cor 4.6 God hath shined in our harts to giue the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ Iesus Pag. 558. lin 3. to proue that liuing Saints haue not Communion with the Saints defunct by partaking their superabundant satisfactions you cypher Ephes. 4.15 But speaking the truth in loue you may grow vp to him in all thinges who is the head euen Christ. To the same intent in the same place you cypher 1. Iohn 1.3 That which we haue seene and heard we declare vnto you that you may haue fellowship with vs and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Sonne Christ Iesus Pag. 546. lin 1. to proue that the reward of works may be giuen of free bounty and not of debt you cite Psalm 127. v. 2. It is vayne for you to rise vp early or to sit vp late to eate the bread of sorrow for so he giueth his beloued sleep Also to the same purpose you cypher Ezech. 29. v. 18. Euery head was bald and euery shoulder was pealed yet had he no wages nor his army for Tyrus Pag. 551. lin vlt. to proue that the B. Virgin said the Lords Prayer or Pater Noster whereof one petition is Forgiue vs our trespasses you cite Act. 1.14 They continued in prayer and supplication togeather with the women and Mary the Mother of Iesus Which text proueth the Virgin prayed but that her prayer was vocall and not pure mentall and if vocall that she sayd Pater Noster rather then Magnificat or Benedictus or some of the psalmes of Dauid who that is sober would vndertake by this text to conclude Pag. 43. lin 2. to proue that the Scripture is sufficient in genere regulae for
Ministers you cypher 1. Tim. 6.12 Fight the good fight of fayth lay hold on eterâ—all life whereunto thou art called Ibid. lin 3. to proue â—he Scripture to be sufficient for spirituall men you â—ypher 1. Cor. 2.15 But he that is spirituall iudgeth all â—hinges and is iudged of none which proueth the conâ—rary if it proue any thing to wit that the spirituâ—ll Man is not iudged and ruled by Scripture but raâ—her the Scripture is iudged and ruled by him Pag. â—0 lin 21. to proue that we wrong you in saying â—ou derogate from the Church you cite Matth. 18. â—7 He that heareth not the Church let him be as a Heathen publican Ibid. to the same purpose you cypher Heb. â—â— 17 Obey your Prelates and submit your selfe vnto them â—ag 169. lin 22. to proue that no Church euer priâ—â—d the oblation meritts of Christs passion more â—â—ghly and religiously then you do you cypher Heb. â— 14 With one oblation he did consummate for euer the â—â—nctifyed and Ephes. 5.2 He gaue himselfe a sacrifice 〈◊〉 vs to a sweet smelling sauour Iohn 1.29 Behold the â—ambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world â—ct 4.12 There is not Saluation in any other Name Pag. â—1 lin 1. to proue we wrong you by saying you aâ—â—int that (m) The words of Iohn White way pag. 126. EVERY particuler MAN examine â—â—dge of the Church her teaching you cite 1. Cor. â— 19 Are all Apostles Are all Prophets Are all teachers â—re all workers of miracles If one would study to apâ—â—y Scriptures impertineÌ„tly I am persuaded he could â—â—rdly deuise greater impertinencyes then these â—hich are so riâ—e in euery page of your booke so that it was intolerable folly for your Poet and Paynter to represent this your Voluminous cyphering of Scripture with a crowne vpon it bidding men to Behâ—â—â— grace and wisdome in your looke and Truthes Triumphâ—â—â— your booke For if this kind of cyphering of Scripture be Wisdome what I pray you is the last Extreme anâ— Non-plus of (*) I wonder you would not be warned to be more wise by the Booke of Quaeres or Prurit-anus For you cite the Scripturs as impertinently in good earnest as he did in iest to shew your Ministeriall Folly Folly You cite cypher Scriptures that make agaynst you §. 8. HEREVNTO I adde that the texts you cypheâ— many tymes make agaynst you Pag. 548. lin 19. to proue that reward is giuen vnto workes of Graâ—â— and bounty aswell as of Desert you cypher Rom. 4 4. which sayth to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of grace but of debt Could any text be deuise more directly agaynst the purpose you cite it For by this place ioyned with a sentence of yours I conclude vnanswerably our Catholike doctrine of Merit The reward which is giuen to him that worketh in regard of the Goodnes and Righteousnes of his worke is giuen not of grace but of debt But Eternâ—â— life is tearmed a Crowne of glory because it is bestowed 〈◊〉 them which exercise Righteousnes and in regard of thâ— righteousnes the true inherent dignity sanctity and purity of their workes Ergo Eternall life is a reward oâ— good workes giuen to Gods children of debt not 〈◊〉 meere grace and bounty The Maior is S. Paules by you cyphered in this place the Minor your ownâ— in so many words pag. 174. in fine and 1â—9 so thâ—â— the text of Scripture by you cited proueth inuinciâ—bly the doctrine of Merit against which you cite iâ— Pag. 558. lin 4. to proue that liuing Saints haue no communion with Saints defunct by partaking the â—â—perabundant satisfaction you cyte Rom. 12. v. 4. We haue many members in one body and euery member hath â—ot the same office This text proueth the contrary to â—hat you intend to wit that Satisfactions are communicable betwixt Saints for from this text I arâ—ue thus If Saints liuing Saints deceased be memâ—ers of the same body hauing different offices then â—here must be betwixt them coÌ„munion in all things which superabound in some members and are neeâ—ed of other for this we see to be that fellowship which by the institution of nature the members of â—he same body ought to enioy the one with the oâ—her But the Myrrh of mortifications and satisfactions superabound in many most rare innocent and penitent Saints in heauen and is no lesse needed of diuers other Saints vpon the earth that haue done many sinnes and cannot do such great pennance Therfore the Myrrh of superabounding Pennance and Satisfaction ought to flow downe from deceased Saints in heauen vnto their fellow-members the needy Saints that liue on earth The Iesuite (n) See the Reply pag. 523. sayth that the first Precept Thou shalt loue thy Lord God with all thy hart c. bindeth not man to loue God in this life with Beatificall loue nor to be alwayes in actuall imployment of his loue on him but only to loue sincerely and inwardly to the keeping of all commandements without any mortall offence which breaketh friendship with God desiring though not inioying the happynes of beatificall loue This he sayth is the meaning of S. Bernard and S. Augustine when they say the perfection of the next life is contayned in this precept to wit in voto not in re This doctrine you impugne pag. 525. lin 26. saying That the Saints of God hauing obserued other commandements brake the first commandement and did vndergo corporall payne after the breach thereof How proue you this marry you cypher Heb. 11.31 They were stoned they were sawen a sunder they were slayne with the sword Doth this text proue the Saints transgressed the first Commandment That they were corporally afflicted for their not louing God with all their hart Doth it not rather shew the contrary that they loued God perfectly and were temporally tormented because they so loued him with al their hart that they would rather vndergo most cruell and barbarous deaths then offend him or abandon the truth of his word which is as our Sauiour saith the highest degree of Charity Pag. 10. lin 20. You deny the Church to be infallible in her Traditions and Definitions yet say you we acknowledge her lawfull authority for expounding Scripture and maintayning vnity in right fayth In proofe hereof you cite Matth. 18.17 Who so heareth not the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and Publican You could not haue inuented a text that doth more inuincibly shew the coÌ„trary of what you intend Let vs make this text of Scripture the Maior and your Protestant doctrine the Minor and put your Argument in forme then will you see how handsomely you proue that you acknowledge all the lawfull authority of the Church The Scripture saith The Church is of so great absolute infallible authority that whosoeuer doth not heare her is to be held as an Heathen and a Publican Protestants say the Church is so subiect to
with Scripture in so many mayne articles of Controuersy about Fayth whereof some as you (a) pag. 106. confesse are only implicately contayned in the Scripture and must by the rules of Logicke and Deduction be thence wrunge out Finally the Beroeās read the Scriptures only for their greater cofirmatiō in Fayth in case they should find by their priuate reading the doctrine of S. Paul to agree with the Scripture They read not by way of doubtfull examination that is with purpose not to belieue S. Paul if so they should not find the Scriptures to yield playne testimony vnto his doctrine That they read not in this manner is cleere For the Scripture sayth that before they searched the Scripture they receaued the word with all alacrity and readines of mind But if they had been doubtfull of S. Pauls doctrine had to cleere that doubt gone to search the Scriptures it could not haue been truly sayd of them that they receaued the word with alacrity and all readines of mind and afterward searched the Scriptures Therefore they did not search Scriptures by way of doubtfull examination but with full resolution to belieue S. Pauls doctrine euen in case they should not find by their priuate industry the same cleerly deliuered in the Scripture How then may you by this example make good your Protestant doctrine that Vnlearned People may compare the doctrine of the Church with the Scripture in doubting manner that is with intention not to belieue the Church in case they should not be able to discouer her doctrine by priuate reading in their vulgar Bible Or in case that in the seeming of their priuate iudgment the Scripture should appeare as opposite vnto the Church The Text 1. Iohn 1.8 If wee say wee haue no sinne c. falsifyed WHEREAS the Iesuit pag 550. sayth out of S. Ambrose and S. Augustine that the Blessed Virgin neuer committed actuall sinne you pag. 551. reply It is a manifest vntruth For S. Iohn speaking in the person of all the Elect sayth 1. Iohn 1.8 If wee say we haue no sinne we deceaue our selues and there is no truth in vs. And vers 10. If we say we haue not sinned we make him a lyar and his word is not in vs. And pag. 517. much more bitterly thus you write to this purpose If our aduersaries wil be so gracelesse as to make any man in this life except the Holyest of the Holyes 1. Petr. 2.22 free from sinne the Apostle enrolleth him in the blacke booke of damnable lyars 1. Iohn 1.10 And they may with Acesius the Nouatian borrow a ladder and so climbe vp alone to heauen yea rather fall to Hell for who are more desperatly sicke quà m qui mentem febribus perdiderunt then they which by the feauer of pride haue lost the vnderstanding of their sinfull condition Thus you which you cannot deny to be bitter in excesse What is the Iesuits fault No other but this he sayth that not only Christ Iesus the holyest of the holyes was by nature Hypostaticall Vnion impeccable but also (*) Cōcil Trident sess 6. can 23. Sicut de Maria Virgine tenet Ecclesia that his Holy Mother was pure from all actuall sinne by speciall grace And why is this so great and damnable an offence Marry because S. Iohn sayth If wee say wee haue not sinned wee make God a lyar and this he spake not in the person of only ordinary Saynts but in the person of all the Elect euen of Saynts as singularly chosen as the Blessed Virgin This is the ground of your bitternes But first though the Scripture had sayd that all the elect commit actuall sinne yet perchance not without warrant we might except the mother of God but I will not stand herein agaynst you Shew in Gods word this text all the elect haue sinned or this S. Iohn sayd in the person of al the elect If we say we haue no sinne we deceaue our selues the Iesuit presently yieldes What can you wish more But if in the persō of all the Elect be as in truth it is your addition vnto the text ioyned therwith so cunningly as it may seeme the very letter of Gods word what may we thinke of you but only that your rayling agaynst vs is not so bitter but your iniury vnto Gods word is greater I adde that to say S. Iohn spake the aforesayd wordes in the person of all the Elect not only is not the text but also agaynst the text except wee will make S. Iohn excessiue in the conceyte of himselfe For thus I argue It is manifest S. Iohn spake the words aforesayd in the person of such Saynts in the number of which he ranketh himselfe If WEE say that WEE haue no sinne But S. Iohn could not without pride ranke himselfe in the number of Saynts as singularly chosen as was the glorious Virgin so that if the sense of his saying be If we that is Saynts as singularly priuiledged as Gods Blessed mother say wee haue not sinned we deceaue our selues what can be more arrogant Luther (a) Luther Serm. de Natiuit Mariae Sumus pares Matri Dei ac aequè Sancti sicut illa indeed hath left behind him written We are all as holy as the Virgin Mary but that S. Iohn euer sayd it or thought it the Minister will neuer an able to proue So that without any question as also the (b) S. Augustin de nat grat c. 42. 60. Epist. 95. Fathers note S. Iohn spake in the persō only of al cōmon holy Christians among whō he might without pride nūber himself As for your reproaches so many so bitter for two reasons you are to be pityed first for that your passion against the Iesuit is either so blind as you see not what lyeth before you or so fierce as not to spare him you let contumelious tearmes fly that must light on the head of the holy Fathers For this is your cēsure They that hold any except the Holyest of the Holyes to haue been free from actuall sinne are gracelesse are by S. Iohn enrolled in the blacke booke of damnable lyars mentem febribus perdiderunt they haue lost their witts by the phrensy of pride Now vnder this your Censure I subsume a knowne and vndeniable truth But holy Fathers exempt the Blessed Virgen frō actuall sinne not only S. (c) Serm. 2. de Assumpt Bernard S. (d) De excell B. Virg. c. 3. Anselme but also S. (e) Epist. ad Epict. Athanasius S. (f) In cap. 1. Reg. Gregory S. (g) Ser. 22. in Psal. 118. Ambrose yea S. Augustine (h) de Nat. Grat. c. 36. who thus speaketh for them all In matter of sinne no mention is to be made of the mother of our Lord she is not included in the generall sentences of that kind Scimus enim c. For wee KNOVV WEE ARE CERTAINE that vnto her singular Grace was giuē to conquer
likenes and similitude confoundeth â—he sight not to discerne the one from the other In scriptuâ—es it is not so the doctrine proposed therein being not gold mingled with earth but pure Gold the word of God is pure syluer refined wilth fire so that the Scriptures be not mettals that require workemeÌ„ to seuer in their doctrine Drosse from Gold they offer a ready and refined treasure to them that seeke the riches hidden in them Thus S. Chrysostome and he doth there largely discourse how euery thinge in Scriptures euen the Chronologies and proper Names of men do affoard wholesome and profitable doctrine to the Reader but to find this treasure we must not as he there sayth nudam tantùm scripturam aspicere sed insistere cum studio repositas scrutari opes not only looke vpon the Scripture but insist with study search out the riches hoarded vp therein Haue you not theÌ„ notoriously falsifyed the sense of his discourse by the insertion of words of your owne In the behalfe of your Protestant sole-sufficiency of Scripture you cite (d) Pag. 50. in Marg. lit E. pag. 3. lin 6. in marg lit E. alibi saepe this sentence of Durand tearming him A famous Scholeman Ecclesia licèt Dei Dominationem habeat in terris illa tamen non excedit limitationem Scripturae Although the Church haue the power authority of God vpon earth yet that authority doth not exceed the limitation of the Scripture This place is by you alleadged many tymes in this your Reply but most impertinently For his meaning is that the Church though it haue the authority of God vpon earth (e) Matth. 16. v 20. Quicquid solueris quicquid ligaueris super terram erit solutum ligatum in caelis yet the same power is in some cases restrayned and limited by the Scripture In which respect the Church cannot dispense in many thinges wherein God might dispense In (f) Ecclesia licèt habeat authoritateÌ„ Dei in tertio illa tamen non excedit limitationeÌ„ Scripturae Scriptura autem docet expresse seruos conuersos ad fidem adhuc manere Dominis suis prioribus licet illi maneant infideles particuler she cannot saith he exempt slaues that be made Christians from their subiection vnto their old Maâ—sters because that the Scripture doth expressely teach that Slaues conuerted vnto the Fayth are to be still subiect to their former Maisters though their Maisters be Infidels Thus Durand Now what is this to the purpose of prouing that men are bound to belieue nothing but what is cleerly contayned in Scripture Except according to your skill in Logicke you will argue in this sort The Church cannot do the thinges forbidden her in Scripture because her power is not beyond the restraynt thereof giuen in the Scripture Ergo she cannot belieue teach doctrines proposed vnto her by the rule of Tradition without Scripture which is a thinge commended vnto her in Scripture Hold the Traditions you haue whether by speach or by Epistle 2. Thessal 2.15 How many tymes in this your Reply haue you cited this testimony of the Maister of the Sentences (g) Lombard l. 4. sent d. 18. lit f. God doth not still follow the iudgment of the Church which sometimes through ignorance and surreption iudgeth not according to truth This I say you cite (h) See pag. 89. in lit â— p. 93. lit d alibi to proue that the Church may erre in fayth at the least about secondary articles And yet it is most certayne and euident that he speakerh of iudgment in criminall causes For hence he inferretth (i) Soluere noxios vel damnare se putant innoxios cùm apud Deum non sententia Sacerdotum sed reorum vita queratur Et ita apertè ostenditur quòd non semper sequitur Deus iudicium Ecclesiae quae per ignorantiam surreptionem interdum iudicat the Church-meÌ„ must not thinke because Christ said vnto them whatsoeuer you bind or loose vpon earth shall be bound loosed in Heauen that therefore they may condemne the Innocent and absolue the Nocent For God in such case doth not follow their sentence but iudgeth according to the life of the accused To prooue that the Roman Bishop was not anciently acknowledged the supreme Pastour of the Catholike Church you say pag. 161. lin 15. Pope Stephen was sleighted by S. Cyprian and other Bishops of Africa In proofe whereof you cite in your margent (g) Ibid. lit D. these wordes of Firmilian (h) Firmil apud Cyprian epist. 75. Atque ego in â—ac parte iuste indignor in tam manifestam apertam Steâ—hani stultitiam quòd qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloriaâ—ur se successionem Petri tenere contendit And indeed I am iustly grieued against the open manifest folâ—y of Stephen that he so much glorieth of the dignity of his Bishopricke and standeth vpon his hauing the succession of Peter Thus you Now behold your falshood for I omit your ignoraÌ„ce in naming Firmiâ—ian as a Bishop of Africa whereas he was a Bishop â—f the East to wit of (i) Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. Caesareae Capadocensis Episcopus Caesarea in Cappadocia Your Legier-de-maine I say and falshood is twofold First you omit to let your Reader know that this Firmilian when he wrote this Epistle was a Quartaâ—eciman and also addicted to the Errour of Rebaptiâ—ing theÌ„ that had been baptized by Heretiks And because S. Stephen a most (k) Vincent Lyrinensis aduersus Haeres cap. 9. Holy Pope Martyr had made a decree against their Nouelty (l) Cyprian epist. 74. Nihil innouaÌ„dum praeâ—erquam quod traditum Let no nouelty be admitted â—ut let the ancient Tradition be kept this Firmilian wrote against him an Epistle full of sharpe contumelious speach Had you mentioned this quality of Firmilian which I do not doubt but you knew your impertinency would haue been apparent For this supposed your Argument goeth thus Some Bishops specially Firmilian erring against Fayth and blasted for the tyme with the spirit of Heresy wrote a coÌ„temptuous Epistle against the Sea of Peter Ergo the Sea of Peter is not by diuine Institution the Rocke of the Church agaynst which the gates of hell all Heresyes should rage but neuer preuayle Secondly you notoriously falsify the sentence of Firmilian in making him to rayle against the Roman Bishops being the successour of Peter For this euen in that his Hereticall passion wherof he afterward was (m) This is testifyed by Dionysius Alexandrinus who then liued in his Epistle to Xistus the Successour of S. Stephen apud Euseb. l. 7. Histor. c. 3. Niceph l. 6. c 7. penitent he neuer did yea he doth rather acknowledge the Roman Bishops succession froÌ„ Peter and thence argueth that seeing to Peter only Christ said To thee I will giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen c.
that Pope Stephen should least of all meÌ„ admit that Heretikes who cleaue not to Peters Sea can validely baptize For his true words by you falsifyed and curtalled are these And (n) Quòd vna Ecclesia semel à Christo supra Petram solidata est hinc intelligi potest quòd SOLI PETRO Christus dixerit Quaecumque ligaueris super terram c. Atque adeo in hac parte iustè indignor quod qui successionem Petri se habere coÌ„tendit supra quem Ecclesiae fundameÌ„ta posita sunt alias Petras inducit c. Firmil epist. citata herein I do iustly fret against the open and manifest folly of Stephen that seeing he doth so glory of the dignity of his Bishopricke and standeth so much vpon his being the successour of Peter on whome the foundations of the Church were layd that he will bring in two rockes and the buildings of many Churches whiles by his authority he doth mantaine that in them Churches alien from Peters Sea or rocke true baptisme is giuen Thus Firmilian whence it is cleere that he did not reuile S. Stephen in respect of his clayming Primacy and authority by succession from Peter as you make him to your purpose to do but that being the successour of Peter he vrged this his Primacy against Anabaptisme whereas he should rather in Firmilian his opinion haue been (o) Stephanus qui per successionem Petri Cathedram habere praedicat nullo aduersus Haereticoâ— Zelo excitatur Ibid. Firmilian zealous in denying the validity of Baptisme giueÌ„ by Heretiks who euer impugne the vnity of Peters Chaire Whereas your Aduersary saith that the Scripture to them that know Tradition is abundantly sufficient but without Tradition not Against this (p) Pag. 37. lin 5. pag. 42. lin 16. you vrge this saying of Vincentius Lyrinensis (*) Vincent Lyr. adu Hâ—r c. 2. The Canon of the Scripture is perfect and sufficient in it selfe for all matters yea more then sufficient Verily this is sufficient more then sufficient to shew the beggary of your Religion otherwise this testimony so impertinent would not be by you and your fellowes so perpetually (q) Iohn VVhite Defence pag. â—70 VVotton Field VVhitaker and who not alleadged For Lyrinensis doth not say that the Canon of the Scripture is abundantly sufficient but only the same is supposed in an obiection or question mooued vnto him In answere whereto Lyrinensis doth shew that this supposed sufficiency is not such but of necessity the rule of Tradition must be ioyned therewith I know you are not ignorant of the Text you haue read it but read it I pray you once againe therin read the conuiction of your falshood Some (s) Forsitan requirat aliquis câ—m sit perfectus c. may ASKE seeing the Canon of the scripture is perfect and sufficient vnto it selfe in all thinges what need is there that the authority of Ecclesiasticall interpretation be ioyned therewith Because all do not vnderstand the holy Scripture in the same sense this in respect of the depth or difficulty thereof that the same passage is taken this way by one and that way by another so that as many dissonant interpretatioÌ„s may seemingly be brought therof as there be interpreters c. Hence in regard of the manifold windings and turnings of Errour it is (t) MVLTVM Necesse est VERY NECESSARY that the line of Propheticall and Apostolicall doctrine be squared according to the (u) Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus norma RVLE of the ECCLESIASTICALL sense In this Testimony two things are affirmed contrary to the purpose you bring it First that the sufficiency of Scripture is not so full nor so perfect as is supposed in the question the Scripture being deepe dark difficile that setting TraditioÌ„ aside in lieu of one certayne assured Truth one may find therein manifold windings and turnings of Errour Secondly that in this respect the Scripture caÌ„not be the only rule of Fayth but it is NECESSARY and VERY NECESSARY that besides Scripture we allow the RVLE of Church-Tradition or Exposition You knowing this as you did with what conscience could you cite this place for the sole-sufficiency of Scripture so many tymes cite it taking a thing falsely supposed in the Question for the doctrine of the Authour Pag 44. lin 24. to proue the Perspicuity of the Scripture in it selfe without the light of Tradition for all necessary points you cite the wordes of Irenaeus All the (x) Irenaeus l. 2. cap. 46. Scriptures both Propheticall Euangelicall are cleere without ambiguity and may indifferently be heard of all men Is it possible you durst in defence of your fancy cite this place in this manner according to which it is false euen in your owne fancy For do not you yourselfe write pag. 35. lin 18. We acknowledge that MANY particuler Texts and passages of holy Scripture are obscure and hard to be vnderstood How then are all Scriptures both Propheticall and Euangelicall cleere without any ambiguity indifferently vnto all men Are you also so dull of hearing as not to perceaue the iarre betwixt this sentence of S. Irenaeus and the sentences of the Fathers which after him presently you produce S. Hierome It is the manner of Scripture to ioyne that which is manifest after that which is obscure S. Augustine Playne places are found in Scriptures to expound and open the darke hard If this be true how are all the Scriptures cleere without ambiguity yea S. Irenaeus in the very next chapter (y) Iren. l. 2. c. 47. Vt in rebuâ— creatiâ— quaedam Deo subiacent quaedam in nostram venerunt scientiaÌ„ sic in 〈◊〉 Scripturis sayth That some things in Scripture are cleere and manifest which we must learne and belieue other are darke and obscure the interpretation of which we must remit vnto God Verily these Arguments conuince you to haue falsifyed Irenaeus as you haue indeed very grossely For he doth not say All Scriptures are cleere without ambiguity as you cite him but this (z) Cum itaque vniuersae Scripturae Propheticae Euangelicae in aperto sine ambiguitate similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt etsi non omnes credunt vnum solum Deum ad excludendos alios praedicent omnia fecisse per verbum sicut demonstrauimus ipsis Scripturarum dictionibus valde hebetes apparebunt qui ad tam lucidam adapertionem caecutiunâ— oculis nolunt videre lumen praedicationis Seing all Scriptures both Propheticall and Apostolicall openly and without ambiguity and in manner as they may be heard of all though all belieue not preach that one only God made all things by his word as we haue proued by Scriptures so affirming in the same words how dull sighted may they appeare whose eyes agaynst such manifest euidence are blinded and will not see the light of this preaching Thus S. Irenaeus affirming no more then that all
Controuersy in which all other are inuolued and by the decision therof resolued the Church (b) 2. Tim. 3.15 Math. 16. Isa. c. 2. v. 3. Dan. c. 2. v. 35. being the Pillar and Foundation of truth the eminent Rocke and Mountaine filling the whole world on the toppe wherof standeth the Tradition of sauing doctrine conspicuous and immoueable If this Church be ouerthrowne the totall certainty of Christianity cannot but with it togeather fall to the ground if it be hidden made inuisible men must needes wander in the search of the first deliuered Christian doctrine without end or hope of euer arriuing at any certayne issue And if this CoÌ„trouersy be not examined and determined in the first place disputatioÌ„ by (c) Non ad Scripturas prouocandum nec in ijs constituendum certamen in quibus aut nulla aut parùm certa victoria Tertull. in praescrip c. 19. Scripture will proue fruitlesse by the sole euidency wherof no victory can be gotten against proteruious errour or at least no victory that is very (d) The Minister pag. 8. sayth that by the Church appareÌ„t victory caÌ„not begotten more then by the Scripture which is false For apparent victory is that wherby men are forced to yield or els to disclame from the authority of the Iudge If the true Church be found out and made Iudge men may be forced by her sentence to yield vnto truth or els to disclame from the Iudge which yet we see is not done by the Scripture For men that allowe the same Scripture to be Iudge neyther are forced to yield vnto truth nor to appeale from the Scripture yea sayth Luther Tom. 2. Witt. in Concion Domin octauae post Trinit fol. 118. Neuer any Heresy was so pestilent or foolish that did not couer it selfe with the veyle of Scripture apparent neither will answeres about particular Doctrines easily satisfy a mind preoccupyed with a long continued dislike of them BECAVSE the Minister hath repeated sundry false Principles and moued many doubts about the Resolution of Fayth declared in the two ensuing Grounds of the Iesuits Answere Because also this CoÌ„trouersy is the grouÌ„d of the rest by which they are finally resolued and except it be cleered in the first place Heresy will be still hyding it selfe in the obscurity thereof Hence I haue thought necessary in this very Entry to superadde and prefixe this ensuing Treatise A SHORT TREATISE CONCERNING THE RESOLVTION OF FAITH For the more full cleering of the ensuing Controuersies about Tradition Scripture the Church THIS Treatise is deuided into two Partes In the first I will set downe and refute the Protestant forme of Resolution In the second declare and proue the Catholicke The Protestant Resolution of Fayth declared §. 1. PROTESTANTS perceaue that if they pretend to belieue Christian Religion without seing the truth thereof vpon the sole authority of God reuealing they must consequently belieue that God reuealed it vpon the word and authority of the Apostles who preached the same to the world as doctrine vnto them reuealed of God then agayne that the Apostles did thus preach publish it by (d) Quid Apostoli praedicauerint praescribam non aliter probari debere quà m per easdem Ecclesias quas ipsi condiderunt Tertull. de praescrip c. 19. the light of the Church succeeding theÌ„ deliuering it haÌ„d to hand as froÌ„ them which TraditioÌ„ if they admit as a certayne infallible rule they are (e) To this purpose they say So long as we stay vpon the Fathers we shall still continue in our old Popish errors Peter Martyr de votis pag. 476. Luther de serâ—uo Arbitrio Tom. 2. Wittemberg pag. 434. Pomeran in Ionam Napier vpon the reuelations Calius Curio alij brought into streights and mightily pressed to receaue many doctrines of Tradition which they are now resolute neuer to belieue Therefore to lay the axe to the roote they would fayne build their fayth on an higher ground then the authority of God darkely reuealing to wit (f) Iohn White defence pag. 309. None can belieue except God illuminate their hartes but such as haue this illumination do SEE MANIFESTLY the truth of thinges belieued on Diuine illumination whereby they see manifestly the truth of thinges belieued whereby they are (g) Francis White Orthodoxe pag. 108. adding that Protestants herein are like to a man that sees a farre off an obscure glimmering but coÌ„ming to the place beholds the light it selfe And the same is taught by Caluin Institut l. 1. c. 7. n. 2. and the rest conuicted in conscieÌ„ce by the euidence of the thing it selfe that their Religion is Diuine by the lustre and resplendent verity of the matter of Scripture and maiesty of the doctrine thereof sensed according vnto their manner The former Resolution confuted by six Arguments §. 2. THis pretence of Resolution so much (h) Pag. 19. lin 4. pag. 28. lin 3. ibid. lin 28. pag. 68. lin 20. The Maiesty and lustre of Heauenly doctrine is such as it appeares illustrious though propounded by meane and obscure persons as a rich Iewell doth manifest his owne worth repeated by our Minister in this Reply is refelled by 6. arguments as being extremely arrogant ignorant disorderly fond desperate the deuise of Sathan The first Argument First what more Arrogant then to challenge ordinary illuminations more high rare and excellent then the Apostles had The Apostles though they had this priuiledge that Christian Religion was to them immediatly reuealed of God yet did they not see the resplendent verity shiâ—ing truth of the Doctrine therof but saw darkely belieuing what they did not see as S. Paul doth (i) 1. Cor. 13.12 Videmus nunc in speculo in aenigmate we se through a glasse darkely that is we be sure by belieuing Gods word of what we do not see testify Therefore illuminatioÌ„ shewing manifestly the truth of things belieued challendged by Protestants is more high rare and excellent light then that the Apostles had what greater (k) Innumerabiles sunt qui se Videntes non solùm iactant sed à Christo illuminatos videri volunt Sunt autem haeretici Augustin tract 43. in Ioan. arrogancy Swenkfeldians equall themselues vnto the Apostles pretending immediate reuelation and teaching from God such as the Apostles had but Protestants pretending to see manifestly the truth of things belieued equall themselues vnto the Blessed whose happines is to see (l) Fides est credere quod nondum vides cuius Fidei merces est videre quod credis Augustin de verb. Apostol Serm. 29. what we belieue specially seing one point of the doctrine Protestants pretend to see is the blessed Trinity the true light and resplendent verity whereof a man caÌ„not see manifestly without being blessed The second Argument Secondly what greater Ignorance against the Rudiments of Christian Religion then to resolue Christian fayth by the euidence and resplendent verity of the
resplendant verity of the thing With these promises sayth S. Augustine (c) Quâ promissâ animâ— naturaliter gaudet humana sanorum escas appetendo irruit in vâ—nena fallentium Augustin Ibid. the soules of men are naturally ouerioyed whilest they gape after the promised sight of diuine truth whereof as yet they be not capable the cosening promisers cast into their mouth make them deuoure the poysoned morsells of their falshood Concerning the light of Scripture §. 3. CONCERNING the light of Scripture two thinges are euident First some arguments of probability may be drawne from the Scriptures to proue they are of God which serue for the comfort of Belieuers and may somewhat incline Infidels to belieue vpoÌ„ other greater motiues to wit the authority of God his Church This probable euidence euident probability is al which the testimonies of Scholemen brought by the Minister affirme Secondly the Scripture hath not light to shew it selfe with euident certainty to be the word of God but is belieued to be such without being seene as much as any other point and mystery of fayth to wit vpon the word of God so reuealing deliuered by tradition This is demonstrated because to be the word of God and the rule of fayth is to be true and certayne not only in some partâ— but also in al euery part particle therof so that as sayth our (e) Pag. 16. lin 2. Minister no lyer can speake therein and if (f) Augustin epist. 9. Si ad scripturas admittatur meÌ„dacium quid eis authoritatis remanebit one sentence of Scripture be prooued false the credit of the whole is lost But it is impossible that any man should know by the light euidence of the sense and doctrine of Scripture that the Scripture according to euery booke chapter leafe and line is certayne and assured truth and that no lye or falshood is contayned therein as these seauen Arguments euince The first Argument First because the (g) Hieron epist. ad Aug. 19. inter epist. Aug. Scripturae obscurissimae sunt Iren. l. 2. c. 47. Origen lib. 7. contra Celsum Reuerà multis locis obscurae Vide Bellarm. de Script l. 3. c. 1. Fathers teach and (h) Field Church l. 4. c. 15. No question but there be manifold obscurityes in Scripture Protestants euen our (i) Reply pag. 35. Minister acknowledge that there be many darke and obscure passages of Scripture that the Scripture is full of innumerable difficultyes that sometimes one (k) Quid vel falsò suspicentur non inueniunt Aug. l. 2. de doctr Christ. c. â— Whitaker de Eccles. pag. 220. Quaedam loca de quibus nihil certo statui potest can hardly so much as giue a probable guesse at their meaning but these texts and places cannot be knowne to containe diuine truth no falshood by the euideÌ„ce of the doctrine Therefore we cannot know the Scripture to be the word of God that is nothing but truth by the euidence of the doctrine HeÌ„ce appeareth that Protestants teaching that â—he Scripture is known to be the word of God and that no lye is contayned therein by the euidence and light of the doctrine coÌ„tradict themselues in saying that in many places it is difficill and darke as they cannot assuredly vnderstand it For how can they know by the light of the sense or doctrine that the texts not vnderstood containe nothing but truth The second Argument Secondly the Scriptures are pretended to be known by the maiesty (l) Reply pag. 16. Internall matter maiesty of the bookes Item pag. 30. 68. Field appendix 34. Caluin Instit. l. 1. c. 7. purity of the doctrine but though some mysteries of the Scriptures carry a maiesty in respect of naturall reason and a shew of sublimity aboue it as the Blessed Trinity yet (m) Sunt quaedaÌ„ in sacris litteris quae quia suboffendunt animos ignaros negligentes sui quae maxima turba populariter accusari defendi autem populariter propter mysteria quae in illis coÌ„tinentur non à multis admodum possunt Aug. de vtil cred c. 1. other points of Scripture seeme vnto reason ridiculous and childish As that the serpent did speake to the woman that Adam and Eue were naked without perceiuing themselues to be so that there was day and night before the sunne was created the like Therfore we must haue some other surer ground then this maiesty of the doctrine to be certayne that the Scripture is nothing but truth Gods infallible word The third Argument Thirdly wheras the (n) Reply pag. 19. Minister much vrgeth the harmony of Scripture to proue the same to be of God Though this harmony appeare in diuers thinges yet who doth not know that innumerable seeming contradictions are obiected against Scripture (o) This is euident vnto al that haue read the coÌ„meÌ„taryes of the Fathers many of which are only probably answered by the Fathers many answered by thinges assumed without proofe only because otherwise we must admit contradiction in Scripture (p) This appeareth particularly in the foure first chapters of Genesis and in the Genealogy of our Sauiour And in concording the Chronologyes of the Booke of Kings some places not fully answered but the Fathers were forced to fly from literall vnto allegoricall senses how then could the ancient Fathers know the harmony of Scripture by the euidence of the thing thereon ground their faith that the Scripture is of God Or if they could not how can we For what the Minister boastingly affirmeth (q) Reply pag. 24. lin 15. of himselfe and his fellowes we find at this day a perfect harmony of all the parts of the Gospell among themselues and a perfect agreement of the same with the Scriptures of the old Testament This Ministeriall bragge I say of their finding the harmony of all Scriptures at this day aboue all the Ancients by the euidence of the thing is incredible for men cannot be more sure of the perfect harmony of Scriptures then they are sure that all contradictions laid to the charge of Scripture haue true solutions But no man liuing euer was or is sure by euidence that all the solutions and answeres vsed to reconcile Scriptures be the truth no not Protestants For did they vnderstand assuredly euery text of Scripture and euery seeming contradiction is reconciled could there be amoÌ„gst theÌ„ such different and aduerse exposition of Scripture Therefore no man euer did or doth know the perfect harmony of all Scriptures by the euidence of the thing nor consequently the Scripture to be of God by the euidence of this harmony The fourth Argument Fourthly wheras the Minister pretends the Scripture to be known by the style affirming that seeing God hath bestowed tongues and voyces on men by which they may be known the Iesuite cannot persuade any reasonable man that God so speaketh in Scripture as men eleuated
reuealed all these verityes to Christs Iesus and he (f) Omnia quae audiui à Patre nota feci vobis Ioan. 15. v. 15. agayne to his Apostles partly by word of mouth but principally by the immediate teaching of his holy spirit to the end that they should deliuer (g) Docete omnes gentes Math. 28.20 them vnto mankind to be receiued and belieued euery where ouer the world euen to the consummation thereof Fourthly that the (h) Illi profecti praedicauerunt vbique Marc. vlt. 20. Apostles did accordingly preach to all nations deliuer vnto them partly by wryting partly by word of mouth the (i) O Timothee depositum custodi 1. Tim. 6.20 whole entyre doctrine of saluation planting an vniuersall Christian company charging them to keep inuiolably and to deliuer (k) Haec commenda fidelibus hominibus qui possunt alios instruere 2. Tim. 1.2 vnto their posterityes what they had of them the first messengers of the Ghospell Fiftly though the Apostles be departed their primitiue Hearers deceased yet there still remaynes a meanes in the world by which all men may assuredly know what the Apostles preached and the primitiue Church receyued of them seing the Church euen to the worlds end must be (l) Ephes. 2.20 c. 4.5.11 founded on the Apostles and belieue nothing as matter of Fayth besides that which was deliuered of them These things being supposed the question is What this meanes is and how men may now adayes so many ages after their death know certainly what the Apostles taught originally preached To which question I answere that the last and finall resolution (m) Note that the Minister many tymes doth falsify the Iesuits Tenet specially pag. 34. saying That the last and finall resolution is into vnwritten Tradition not into Scripture This he doth not say but that the persuasion that our Fayth is true is finally resolued into the authority of God reuealing and that it is Diuine into the Apostles miraculous preaching But what doctrine was taught by the Apostles we know only by Tradition therof is not into Scripture but into the perpetuall tradition of the Church succeeding (n) All from this place vnto the first argument the Minister leaueth out being the substance of the whole discourse yet he sayth he hath set down the booke verbatim See his Preface the Apostles according to the principle set downe by Tertullian in the beginning of his golden by Protestants commended Booke (o) Tertull. de praescript 1.61.21 Quid Apostoli pâ—â—dicauerint praescribam non aliter probari debere quà m per easdem Ecclesias quas ipsi condiderunt that is I set down this principle what the Apostles taught is to be proued NO OTHERVVISE then by the TRADITION of the Churches which they planted By which Prescription ioyned with the other fiue suppositions is raysed the Ladder for true Catholike resolution about Faith set down by the sayd Tertullian on which a Christian by degrees mounts vnto God or as S. Augustine (p) August de vtilitate credendi cap. 10. sayth ducitur pedetentim quibusdam gradibus ad summâ penetralia veritatis the Ladder is this the ascending by it in this sort What (q) Tertull. de praescrip c. 21. 37. Nos ab Ecclesijs Ecclesiae ab Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus à Deo I belieue I receaued from the present Church the present from the primitiue Church the primitiue Church from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God God the prime verity from no other fountayne different from his owne infallible knowledge So that who so cleaueth not to the present Church firmely belieuing the tradition thereof as being come downe by succession is not so much as on the lowest step of the Ladder that leads vnto God the reuealer of sauing truth successiue tradition vnwritten being the last and finall ground whereon we belieue that the substantiall points of our beliefe (r) Note the Iesuit doth not say Tradition is the last ground on which we belieue our Fayth to be sauing truth or the word of God but only that it came froÌ„ the Apostles so mounting vp by the Church vnto the Apostles by the Apostles vnto God and by him vnto all necessary truth came from the Apostles This I proue by these foure (*) These arguments as they coÌ„uince there is no meanes to know what the Apostles taught but Christian Tradition so they consequently conuince that if the Christian Religion be sauing truth God must assist this perpetual Catholike Tradition therof that no Errors creep into it arguments The first Argument IF the mayne and substantiall points of our fayth be belieued to be Apostolicall because writteÌ„ in the Scripture of the new Testament and the Scriptures of the new Testament are belieued to come from the Apostles vpon the voyce of perpetuall tradition vnwritten then our ResolutioÌ„ that our fayth is Apostolicall stayeth lastly and finally vpon Tradition vnwritten But so it is that the Scriptures of the new TestameÌ„t cannot be prooued to haue been deliuered vnto the Church by the Apostles but by the perpetual Tradition vnwritten conserued in the Church succeeding the Apostles For what other proofe can be imagined except one would prooue it by the (a) The Minister pag. 19. to Titles addeth inscription of some Epistles subscription insertion of names in the body of the bookes but neither is this true of all books nor of all Epistles nor it is inough to satisfy a man For may not a counterfayte write a Gospell for example in the name of Peter repeating the name of Peter the Apostle in the booke twenty tymes So it is childish to meÌ„tion this as the last stay of persuasion For what more childish then to prooue a thinge vnknowne by another as much vnknowne Titles of the bookes which were absurd seing doubt may be made whether those Titles were set on the Books by the Apostles themselues of which doubt only Tradition can resolue vs. Besides the Ghospell of S. Marke S. Luke as also the Acts of the Apostles were not written by any Apostles but were by their liuely voyce and suffrages recommended vnto Christians as Sacred Diuine otherwise as also (b) Bilson de perpetua gubernatione Ecclesiae pag. 85. Historiae illae à Marco Luca exaratae Canonicam authoritatem ex Apostolorum suffragiâ—s nactae sunt qui eas lectas approbârunt M. Bilson noteth they should neuer haue obtayned such eminent authority in the Church neyther should they be now so esteemed but vpon the supposall of Apostolicall approbation But how shall we know that the Apostles saw these writings and recommended the same vnto Christian Churches but by Tradition Ergo the last and highest ground on which we belieue what doctrine was deliuered by the Apostles is the tradition of the Church suceceding them For we may distinguish three properties of doctrine of faith
sent vnto Protestants and by them printed Respons 2. De Inuocatione Sanctorum They defend Transubstantiation ibid. resp 1. c. 13. Communion in one kind for the sicke Gilbert Genebrard de ritibus Graecorum Secondly concerning primacy of Iurisdiction they hold that Christ did institute Monarchicall primacy in Peter Theophilact in cap. 21. Ioan. That the Romā Bistop for many ages lawfully succeeded Peter in this Primacy Ignatius Constantinopolitan Epist. ad Nicolaum primum That the Roman Bishop lost this primacy for holding the Procession of the Holy Ghost from God the Sonne that therefore this primacy is now in the Patriarke of Constantinople Michael Constant. apud Sigeb in Chron. an 1064. Is this Protestancy in substance Thirdly it is great indiscretion I speake with the least to affirme as our Minister doth that the Graeciās deny sacrifice for the dead with which doctrine no authour Catholike or Protestant euer charged them And they in their foresayd censure resp 1. c. 12. professe the contrary saying We hold that by the sacrifice of the Masse and Almesdeedes the dead are relieued yea Doctour Field Appendix part 1. pag. 30. accuseth some of them for holding Sacrifice not only for them that dyed in pennāce with sinnes of infirmity but also for them that dyed in damnable state Finally concerning marriages of Priests they hold that such as are marryed before Holy Orders may still keep cōpany with their wiues which the Church of Rome alloweth in them But the Protestant liberty of marrying after Holy Orders that not only once but if their wiues dye twise thrise yea as often as they please This the Graecians detest in the foresayd Censure Resp. 1. c. 21. So that the Minister was in great penury of Professours before Luther that is forced to name Graecians as Protestants according to kind For he might aswell haue named the Pope himselfe Waldenses not Protestants for Essence and Kind Concerning the Waldenses they were not Protestants according to kind but rather Anabaptists vnto whome Protestants are so vnkind as they burne them as Heretikes They were not Protestants For as all report as may be seene in Illyricus Catal. Test. pag. 1498. the most essentiall doctrine of the Waldenses was their extolling the merit of voluntary pouerty preaching the same so rigorously as they held all Ministers to be damned that haue rents and possessions and that the Church perished vnder Syluester and Constantine through the poyson of temporall goods which Cleargy-men then began to enioy as they sayd agaynst the Law of God I am sure none that know Protestants will thinke this doctrine of pouerty and giuing away all to the poore to be the Essence or so much as an Accidence of their Religion In respect of this their head-heresy about Pouerty the Waldenses are named the Poore-men of Lyons and were sayd by Reynerius cited by the Minister pag. 130. to haue beene euer since Siluester or the Apostles and that they were much applauded in the world to wit as I sayd only in regard of this Heresy about pouerty held anciently by the Heretikes tearmed Apostolici not in respect of other errours or doctrines wherein they agree with Protestants And so Protestants labour in vayne by Waldensians and the Apostolici to bring their pedegree from the Apostles Besides the Waldensians held these Anabaptisticall errours which are set downe by Illyricus in Catalogo Testium pag. 1502. seq out of Reynerius an authour of those tymes whome he tearmes candidum sincerum sincere and vnpartiall That children are not to be baptized baptisme being of no vse for them seing they do not belieue That there is no difference betwixt Bishopps and Priests nor betwixt Laymen and priests That the Apostles were meere Laymen That euery Layman that is vertuous is priest may consecrate preach administer Sacramēts That a woman pronouncing the words in the vulgar tongue doth consecrate yea transubstantiate bread into the body of Christ That it is mortall sinne to sweare in any case That the Magistrates secular and Ecclesiasticall being in mortall sinne loose their office and that no man is to obey them Indeed Illyricus pag. 1514. 1525. in fine sayth that this last errour is falsly layd to the charge of the Waldēsiās by Reynerius which he proues because AEneas Syluius in his Catalogue of their doctrine makes no mentiō of this But he is grossely deceaued two wayes First because Reynerius liuing in that tyme and being Inquisitour could know their errors better then Syluius Nor can we suspect his fidelity being as Illyricus doth acknowledge sincerus candidus sincere and vnpartiall towardes Waldensians Secondly AEneas Syluius in his Catalogue set downe by Illyricus euen in that very pag. 1525. a little before the middle chargeth the Waldēsiās expressely with this doctrine agaynst Magistracy Qui mortalis culpae reus sit eū neque Saeculari neque Ecclesiastica dignitate potiri nec parendū ei esse Finally the Waldensians held it not necessary to professe their fayth yea that they might deny it go to Masse celebrate and do outward acts of Idolatry This euen Illyricus pag. 1508. doth acknowledge to haue beene a fault in them but he sayth they may haue beene saued by repentance This is an idle shift for how could they repent themselues of that which they held not to be sinne How could they be the true Church wherein saluation is found who held such damnable doctrine as if they did not repent themselues thereof they are certainly damned so that it is extreme beggary in Protestants to begge of these Beggars of Lyons to be their Professours for the tyme before Luther who were euen by Protestant acknowledgement much more poore and voyd of true religion then of temporall wealth That Protestants not being able to cleere themselues to be the visible Church do vainely appeale vnto Scripture for their doctrine The Minister not trusting to the former answere and feeling in conscience that it is impossible that Protestants should shew their Church to haue beene visible before Luther sayth pag. 105. That this notwithstanding if Protestants be able to demonstrate by Scripture that they maintayne the same fayth and Religion which the Apostles taught this alone is sufficient to prooue them to be the true Church I answere they that cānot by marks of the Church set downe in Scripture cleere themselues to be the visible Church do idly appeale to Scripture in respect of doctrine their promises to shew the particular points of their Religion by Scripture are idle This I demōstrate by 3. Arguments First eyther Scriptures can cleere end all cōtrouersies of Religiō or they cannot If they cannot appealing vnto them hath no other end but that contention may be without end If they can cleere all controuersies then they can cleere the controuersy which is the true Church shewing markes and signes whereby the same may be cleerly knowne And if they can cleere this cōtrouersy thē it is reason this be cleared in
impudency is it for Protestants to affirme that Rome was pure Protestant for the first fiue or six hundred yeares and that afterward the Pope changed ProtestaÌ„cy into Papacy brought in Images InuocatioÌ„ of Saints Auricular Confession Adoration of the Sacrament and the like horrible noueltyes and changes of the whole world which could not but haue been noted if they had beene nouelties wheras all histories be silent herein yea they mention the contrary to wit how Popes euer resisted them that would haue innouated about these points monumeÌ„ts of history and antiquity who were (y) What the Minister here sayth pag. 116. that the Pharisees did say as we doe that they had their Traditions by succession from Moyses vrging our Sauiour that he could not proue by history that they had changed their fayth and our Sauiour leauing History refuted them by Scripture this is a figment of his owne head out of meere desire to make the Pharisees seeme like to vs and himselfe to our Sauiour for where doth he read that Pharisees so pleaded agaynst our Sauiour and what blasphemy to thinke that our Sauiour could not haue refuted them by History had they so pleaded shewing where when and by whome they beganne The truth is the Pharisees pretended not their obseruations as successions hand to hand from Moyses but as Traditions of their owne Some they vrged as deductions froÌ„ the Scripture which they Protestant-like did pretend to vnderstand better more rigorously then any before them such was their doctrine agaynst healing diseased persons doing small labors as gathering eares of corne on the Sabboth day much like our Protestant Sabbaâ—arians other they taught as singular inuentions of Piety and Religion found out by themselues for the more exact obseruance of the Law some of which Inuentions were impious some friuolous some pious and therfore allowed by our Sauiour as that of paying tythes vnto God out of euery little hearbe a tradition of their owne not commanded in the Law and yet approued by our Sauiour as binding This you ought to haue done and not to haue omitted that other Luc. 11.42 they are rebuked for obseruing their otherwise pious inuentions for vayne glory couetousnes for preferring small matters because they were their owne aboue the precepts of Gods Law All this is euident vnto them that are conuersant in the Ghospell neuer noted as deliuering contrary doctrines the one to the other Apparantly Vniuersall (z) The Christians called the Chaldaean AssyriaÌ„s the Iacobites or Cophti the Georgians the AEthiopians or Abissines the Thomaeans in India the ArmeniaÌ„s specially those tearmed Franc-Armenians Maronits are vnited with the RomaÌ„ Church haue often lately made their obedience vnto the Pope professing to hold in all points the Catholike Roman faith as you may see in Notitia Episcopatuum 〈◊〉 Miraei lib. 1. c. 16.17.18 spread ouer the world with credit and authority that whole mankind may take notice of her doctrine for the imbracing thereof Conspicuously (a) The Minister pag. 107. saith that it is not inough to proue we haue vnity but we must proue we haue vnity in verity for the Turkes haue vnity and yet haue not verity I answere That the vnity and consent of a grand diffused multitude spread ouer the world in the Tradition of Ancestors about Religion doth euidently reduce Religion to the first external authour publisher the credit of his word The vnity consent of Mahometans in their Tradition from Mahomet proues their Religion to be Mahomets and consequently in the Iudgement of Christians the Religion of a false Prophet Our vnity and consent in the Christian Tradition of our Auncestours from Christ proues euidently our Religion to be of Christ and consequently diuine and true as certainly as it is certaine that Christ Iesus was the Messenger of God and God the Author of truth So that the vnity of the Romane Church proues directly her Religion to be Christs and then by consequence to be diuine verity One the Professours therof agreing in all points of fayth howsoeuer they differ about small vndefined questions Most manifestly Holy in all kind of high and admirable sanctity giuing notorious signes and tokens thereof striking (b) What the Minister here brings out of some zealously complaining agaynst vice is already by vs answered was long agoe by S. Aug. de vtilit cred c. 5. where he nameth these sanctityes as signes of the Church CoÌ„tineÌ„tia vsque ad tenuissimum victum panis aquae non solùm quotidiana sed per contextos plures dies coÌ„tinuata ieiunia Castitas vsque ad coniugij prolisue contemptum Patientia vsque ad cruces flammasue neglectas Liberalitas vsque ad patrimonia distributa pauperibus Thus S. Augustine adding Few I graunt in the Church doe these thinges in respect of the other multitude and fewer do them well prudently yet the people approue applaud loue admire them and accuse themselues they cannot do the like so rising vp towardes God by these examples admiration into carnall men that are not altogeather prophane and diffusing abroad the sweet odour of Christ and the Christian Name In which proofe that these propertyes agree to the Romane and be wanting in the ProtestaÌ„t Church I will not inlarge my selfe as I otherwise might aswell not to weary your Maiesty as also not to seeme to diffide the matter being most cleere of your Maiesties Iudgment Wherfore it is more then cleere that the Roman is the One Holy Catholike Apostolicall Church by whose Tradition Christian Religion hath beene is and shall be euer continued from the Apostles to the worlds end The third Argument PROTESTANTS haue the Holy Scriptures deliuered vnto them by and from the one holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church But they receiued them from no other Church then the Roman Ergo the Roman is the one holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church The Maior I proue If Protestants haue not the Text of Scripture by and from the one holy Catholike Apostolical Church they cannot be certaine they haue the true incorrupt text the Apostles deliuered and recommended as diuine to the first Christians seeing the Tradition of any other Church is fallible (c) The Minister pag. 119. obiecteth agaynst this that if we cannot be sure of the Scripture except the immediat deliuerer therof be infallible then we cannot be sure except we haue the Scripture immediately from the hand of the Pope or generall CouÌ„cell who only are infallible Answere We must as Theology teacheth distinguish immediationem suppositi immediationeÌ„ virtutis that is the immediate person which deliuers Scripture and the immediate authority vpon the credit wherof Scripture is deliuered The person immediatly deliuering may be a single Minister fallible taken solely by himselfe but the immediate authority that deliuers Scripture is euer and must still be infallible to wit the authority of the Churches Tradition For we neither must nor can belieue
firmely any Minister of the Catholicke CHVRCH affirming a booke to be Scripture vntill we see cleerly that he deliuers therein the consent of the Catholike Church which then is euident vnto vs when we see him preach it freely and openly and no Pastour to contradict him therein may deceyue And if it may deceiue how can they be certaine that they are not deceiued seeing they thēselues liued not in the Apostles dayes nor saw with their owne eyes what coppyes the Apostles deliuered But Protestants as they pretend be certaine that they haue the true incorrupt Apostolicall text of Scripture Ergo they haue it vpon the authority of the holy Catholike Apostolicall Church Now the Minor that they haue the Scripture from the Romane is apparant for what other Church did deliuer vnto Luther the text of the Bible assuring him that they had it by Tradition from Auncestors tyme out of mind as giuen originally by the Apostles Which is accordingly acknowledged by (*) Whitaker l. 3. de Ecclesia p. 369. M. Whitaker (d) M. Doue in his persuasion others but particularly by (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word Luther himselfe Ergo the Roman Church is the one holy Catholik Apostolical Church whose Tradition doth deliuer infallibly vnto vs the text of Scripture And if the true Apostolicall Text then also (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word the true Apostolicell sense This I prooue if the Apostles did not deliuer the bare Text but togeather with the Text the true (f) We doe not say that the Apostles did deliuer the true sense of all their Scriptures making a large and entire commentary of all difficil texts as the Minister cauilleth pa. 121. but only that togeather with the text they deliuered the sense about the mayne and most principall points this sense thus deliuered by Traditiō with the text is to be admitted as religiously and reuerently as the text sense of Scripture to be deliuered perpetually vnto posterity then they who by Tradition rereiue from the Apostles the true Text must togeather receiue the true sense But as (g) Chemnit in exam Cōcil Trid. part 1. fol. 74. D. Bancroft in the Suruay pag. 379. principall Protestants affirme No mā doubteth but the Primitiue Church receyued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not only the text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sēse Which is agreable to the doctrin of (h) Vincentius Lyrinen cap 2. the Fathers that from the Apostles togeather with the text descends the line of Apostolicall interpretation squared according to the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense Whereupō S (i) Aug. de vtilit Creden c. 14. Augustine argueth that they that deliuer the text of Christs Ghospell must also deliuer the exposition affirming that he would sooner refuse to belieue Christ then admit any interpretation contrary to them by whome he was brought to belieue in Christ. For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense why may they not also deliuer a false text as receyued frō the Apostles An argument conuincing and (k) Though the Minister pag. 123. storme at this confidence of his Aduersary in tearming it vnanswerable yet by deeds he confirmes the saying to be true in not answering but chāging the force thereof quite another way saying It is this The text of the Scripture may be as easily corrupted as the sense Ergo All they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense may also deliuer a false text In this argument he denyeth the antecedent or assumption I answere First as I sayd the argument is peruerted and the medium or meanes of proofe changed for there is great difference betwixt Being as easy Being as possible seing a thing may be as possible as another and yet not so easy That ten men should conspire to deceaue me is not so easy as that three should so conspire as is euident Yet it is as possible as the other because no reason can be brought to proue that three may so conspire that proues not that also ten may do the like In the same manner though we should grant the sense may be more easily mistaken by the Church then the text yet it is as possible that the Church be mistaken in the sense Because no reason proues that vniforme Tradition can be mistaken in the sense that proues not that it is possible that the Church may be mistaken in the text though perchance not so easily Now if the Church in her vniforme Tradition may be mistaken about the text then is not Traditiō a sufficient ground of infallible perswasion that the text is the Apostles and so fayth is ouerthrowne which hath no other ground to know assuredly the incorrupt Scriptures deliuered by the Apostles but Traditiō as hath been prooued Secondly it is false that the sense and doctrine of Scripture concerning mayne and substantiall articles of fayth may be sooner corrupted and a false sense persuaded to the Church then a false text The reason is manifest because millions of Christians know by Tradition the doctrine of Scripture about mayne points that know not all the texts by which the same is proued yea perchance truly certainly not so much as one For example the doctrine that there are Three Diuine Persons and One God is so ingrauen in the harts of all euen simple Christians as you may sooner pull out their harts then make them belieue that this is not the Christian fayth whence no man can deny the Trinity but he is presently noted by al. On the other side this text 1. Ioan. 5.7 wherby the Trinity is proued There be three that giue testimony in heauen the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one millions do not know and so it is more easy to take from Christians this text then the doctrine therof And the same reason is of any other text the texts being stil commonly farre more vnknowne then the doctrine of the Creed such substantiall points vnanswerable The fourth Argument MY fourth proofe I grōnd vpō a Principle most certayne and set downe by (*) In the summe of the Conference before his Maiesty p. 75. your Gracious Maiesty That the Romane Church was once the mother Church and consequently the one holy Catholike Apostolicall Church all other Churches being her daughters and that she is not to be forsaken further then it can
as by the word of God we know may be graunted only it doth rashly apply Gods extraordinary fauours to persons without sufficient warrant The second errour is that though Baptisme be the ordinary meanes of saluation for Infants yet in defect therof there is also another ordinary meanes for their saluation to wit the fayth of their Parents This errour is grosse because it presumes without the word of God written or vnwritten to appoint an ordinary meanes of saluation for Infants This doctrine is taught by Protestants but no Catholike holds it Caietan once held it with submission vnto the Church which hath razed it out of his bookes The third errour is that the children of faythfull Parents are iustifyed by the promise made to their seed and are Gods adopted children before they be borne so that Baptisme doth not truly regenerate them make them Gods children but is sayd to regenerate and adopt because it is a seale and signe of this grace of adoption which children had before Baptisme yea brought with them into the world This errour is fundamentall and damnable which Protestants hold and will hold in despite of their Church and yet dares she not say they are not her children Caluin de vera Eccles. reform inter eius opuscula fol. 759. writeth The Issue of the faythfull is borne into the world holy and sanctifyed because their children being yet in the wōbe before they draw breath be adopted into the couenant of eternall life For it is necessary that the grace of adoption go before baptisme which grace is not the cause of halfe-saluation but bringeth perfect and full saluation which is afterward signed by Baptisme Thus Caluin What the Minister brings out of the sayd Caluin to proue he held that Baptisme doth truly sanctify to wit that children are regenerated by Baptisme is idle For vnto it Caluin himselfe hath made answere l. 4. Institut c. 15. §. 2. When sayth he Baptisme is sayd to regenerate to renew to sanctify to saue men the meaning is not that our purgation saluation is made by water or that water hath vertue to purify to regenerate to renew but only because by that signe we conceyue knowledge and certitude of such gifts for what is giuen by the message of the Ghospell is signed and sealed by Baptisme Heere also I conclude that eyther the Minister and his Church erres fundamentally or at least they must grant foure thinges First that Caluin and his part erre fundamentally Secondly that Culuinists cannot be saued except they repent themselues of their Religion Thirdly that amongst Protestants there is dissention about fundamentall matters Fourthly that the Protestants do not exclude from their communion such as hold substantiall Heresy necessity thereof for Infants to whom they grant saluation without Baptisme Seauenthly their Errour agaynst the (*) The Minister sayth that Protestants only deny the manner of the Reall Presence to wit Trāsubstantiation not the substance thereof because they hold that the body of Christ is truly really and effectually present to the worthy Receauer but present by the apprehension of the soule and by operatiue fayth pag. 178.179 seq pag. 390. 395. I answere that as the Answerer sayd this Presence by fayth is not Reall nor true but only pious Imagination at the most as is proued in the sixt Poynt Reall presence which they deny or else the mayne article of the Creed that Christ is still in heauen at the right hand of his Father For they will not allow a body in two places at once Eightly their denying the Sacrament of (e) The Minister pag. 189. sayth that Protestants allow auricular Confession and Priestly Absolution but deny it to be a Sacrament or of necessity in proofe whereof he citeth the Augustane Confession Answer If the Minister approue the Augustan confession he must approue priestly absolution to be truly a Sacrament and of necessity being commanded of God euen as Baptisme is For thus they write Cap. de numero vsu Sacramentorum The true Sacraments are Baptisme the supper of the Lord Absolution which is the Sacrament of Pennance For these rytes haue the same commandement of God and promise of grace proper to the new Testament Thus they so euen by the Iudgement of this Confession which they esteeme as containing the fundamētall doctrine of their Religion our Minister and his Church erre fundamentally Pennance and Priestly Absolution the necessary meanes for remission of sin committed after (f) Agaynst this Sacrament the Minister disputeth largely but his arguments are triuiall which he takes out of Bellarmine concealing the Solutions which who will may there read in his first booke of the Sacrament of Pennance What he brings out of some Catholike Authors affirming that it is hard to prooue cleerly this Sacrament the Answer is That to proue the Sacrament of Pennance and the necessity thereof for sinnes after Baptisme by the perpetuall Tradition and practise of the Church is not hard but easy which you may see fully performed by Bellarmine but to prooue the same by some text of Scripture so cleerly as some cauill may not be taken at the argument this is difficill And no wonder seing our Minister pag. 541. lin 9. doth graunt that euen the Principall articles of Religion cannot be so prooued by Scripture but seeming Solutions may be giuen Baptisme Ninthly their denying the Catholike Church expresly set downe in the Creed which of all other Articles is with (g) Other articles are more necessary thē this as sole obiects of necessary diuine affection in this respect are more dangerously denyed But as the meanes of knowing necessary obiects nothing more necessary then this true Church nor any thing more euident therefore the deniall thereof is most dangerous in respect of heresy yea the Article without resistance whereof no man can be Heretike greatest danger denyed For the standing out agaynst this makes men heretikes without erring agaynst this no man is guilty of heresy whatsoeuer Doctour Field to the contrary sayth that an Errant agaynst a fundamentall point is an Heretike though he erre without (h) What the Minister sayth that a man may be pertinacious obstinate against Scripture not against the Church is impossible For eyther he seeth his doctrine to be agaynst Scripture or not if he see his doctrine to be contrary to the Scripture yet holds it he doth Iudge the Scripture not to be Christs nor of God consequently he is pertinacious agaynst the Churches Tradition which as hath been sayd is the stay of our Fayth in this point If he see not his exposition to be agaynst Scripture but is deceyued by conference of places he is not Heretike vntil knowing his exposition to be condemned by the Church he persist therein For what is pertinacious wilfulnes but to resist lawfull authority which we know to be agaynst vs pertinacity wherof he brings not any sillable of proofe
the Creed and prime Principles of Christianity in plaine and Catechisticall manner Besides it is easy for the RomaÌ„ Church to keepe her children from belieuing that Images be Gods or true liuing things or that any diuinity or diuine vertue resides in them as may be proued conuincingly in my Iudgement by experience had of her power in this kind about a point more difficill For what may seeme more euident then that a consecrated Hoast is bread of which foure senses sight feeling smel tast giue in euidence as of bread no lesse verily theÌ„ any other so farre as they can discerne And yet so potent is the word doctrine of the Church grounded on General CouÌ„cells declaring the word of God for TransubstaÌ„tiation as Catholikes denying their senses belieue assuredly that what seemeth bread is not bread but the true body of our Sauiour vnder the formes of accidents of bread Now caÌ„ any man with any shew of the least probability in the world thinke that it is difficill for this Church to perswade her childreÌ„ that the image of Christ is not a liuing thing nor hath any godhead or liuing diuine power lodged in it as plaine Scriptures shew and Generall Catholicke Councells particularly the Tridentine sess 25. and the Nicene act 7. define which doctrine neyther reason nor sense can mislike Or shall the sole similitude of members correspondent vnto humane liuing meÌ„bers which images haue so much preuayle in catholike minds so to bow down their thought to base Idolatry as to thinke a stocke or a stone to be a God and that the Church shall not be able by her teaching to direct them to a more high diuine apprehension being able to make them firmly belieue a consecrated hoast is not bread agaynst the Iudgement that they would otherwise frame vpon most notorious euidency of sense The ProtestaÌ„ts Church on the other side may seeme to haue no great vigour by preaching to perswade commoÌ„ people agaynst the Errour of the Anthropomorphits seing their Principle is that a world of preachers is not to be belieued agaynst the euident Scripture yea (r) Heere the Minister is bitter saying p. 277. lin 30. That it is impossible for Papists to deale sincerely That his Brother M. Iohn doth not speake of euery priuate man nor any company of people but that one Michaia one Stephen one Athanasius with the word of truth in mouth is to be preferred agaynst 4. hundred Baalites I answere The Minister denying his Brother spake of euery particular man shall receaue his doome by the breath of his Brothers owne mouth telling him the coÌ„trary who thus writeth in the place cited by the Iesuite to wit Way pag. 126. lin 12. It is lawfull and necessary for EVERY PARTICVLAR MAN to try all thinges and by the SCRIPTVRE to EXAMINE and to IVDGE of the things the CHVRCH teacheth him And when A MAN in this manner reiects the teaching of a Church as great and good as the Roman Catholike his iudgement therin is not PRIVATE as Priuate is opposed to SPIRITVAL Nor sayth he pag. 128. lin 2. is it impossible for a PRIVATE MAN to espy an errour in the best Church that is And pa. 150. lin 18. Whereas the Catholiks answer That the text of Scripture try the Spirits doth not allow EVERY MAN to doe this but only Pastours The Minister replyeth this is all false for the Epistle of S. Iohn speakes indiffereÌ„tly of ALL MEN Euery man by the Rule of Scripture is to try spirits that Epistle being directed not to the CLEARGY but to the PEOPLE And the reason added shewes that the PEOPLE are they that must try spirits for they must try the spirits that are in danger to be seduced by false Prophets and such are the PEOPLE and therefore they must examine theÌ„ All these are his brother Iohns words Now let the Reader iudge whether Iohn White doth not hold that not only extraordinary Prophets as Michaeas Stephen not only chiefe Patriarkes as Athanasius but that euery particular man of the people may iudge of the teaching of the whole Church and condemne as great a Church as the Protestants if by his spirituall exposition or by the spirit he be moued so to do What reason then had our Minister in respect of this allegation to be so bitter as to say it is impossible â—or Papists to deale sincerely Verily M. Francis had you as much natural vnderstanding togeather with knowledge of the Protestant Religion as had your Brother Iohn you wold see this doctrine that euery Priuate man is by diuine Order and InstitutioÌ„ to iudge of the Church how absurd soeuer to be necessarily consequent of the Protestant Principle That euery man must finally resolue his fayth into the light of the Scripture yea I could shew how your selfe euen in this reply haue giueÌ„ this authority of iudging the Church vnto euery priuate MaÌ„ as may partly appeare by the Censure sect 4. that a common ordinary man by Scripture may oppose as great and greater Church then is the whole Protestant Doctour White in his way pag. 59. Which principle being layd how will they conuince people that God is a pure spirit whome the Scripture doth so perpetually set forth as hauing humane members I may conclude therefore that their translating Scriptures into their vulgar languages breeds more danger vnto common people then our making of images But they will say the Translation of Scriptures into vulgar languages is commanded in Scripture and the Apostolicall Church practised it whereas we cannot proue by Scripture that the Apostles did warraÌ„t or practise the setting vp of images This they say with great confidence but any substantial proofe of this their saying I could neuer read or heare The testimonyes they bring in this behalfe Search the Scriptures Let his word dwell plentifully among you c. are insufficient to proue a direct and expresse precept or practise of traÌ„slating Scriptures into the vulgar tongue Catholikes on the coÌ„trary side though they boast not of Scriptures as knowing that nothing is so cleerly set downe in it but malapert errour may contend agaynst it with some shew of probability yet haue Scriptures much more cleere and expresse then any that ProtestaÌ„ts can bring for themselues euen about the vse of the image of Christ crucifyed in the first Apostolicall Church S. Paul to the Galatians c. 3. v. 1. sayth O yee foolish Galathians who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth before whose eyes Christ Iesus is liuely set forth Crucifyed among you The greeke word correspoÌ„ding to the English liuely set forth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to paint forth a thing In so much as eueÌ„ Beza traÌ„slates Iesus Christus depictus Câ—ucifixus Iesus Christ painted or pictured crucifyed before your eyes So that we haue in plaine and expresse tearmes that christ was pictured as Crucified in the Apostolical churches which the Apostle doth
could not haue more fondly sensed them For his Maiesty speaking of prayers and denying merit vnto the repeating of prayers what according to sense could he meane but the merit proper of prayers which is to impetrate or obtayne And so the Iesuit prouing the speciall merit of Impetration hath proued what his Maiesty questioned As for your selfe seeing you deny not that vnto repetition of prayers speciall merit of Impetration is affixed I do not doubt but you yield the very Doctrine his Maiesty disliked to wit that repetition of prayers in a fixed number hath speciall force and efficacy to impetrate certayne number for the causes before mētioned destitute of the example of Saints that liued in the best ages of the Church Palladius in his history cap. 14. 25. setteth downe some examples of Saints praying in this kind Yea the Century-writers Cent. 4. col 1329. and Osiander acknowledge the example of Saint Paul a most holy Monke liuing in the fourth age after Christ that In dies singulos trecentas orationes Deo velut tributum reddidit ac ne per imprudentiam in numero erraret trecentis lapillis in sinum coniectis ad singulas preces singulos eiecit lapillos consumptis igitur lapillis constabat sibi orationes lapillis numero pares abs se expletas esse Which example of so great a Saint so knowne and notorious (u) The Minister answereth that singular exāples are no rule for Ammonius being sollicited to be a Bishop cut of his owne eare yet he is not imitable herein so neyther is S. Paules exāple in saying prayers vpon Beades to be followed I Answere Some thinges are such of their owne nature as they cannot be done lawfully and with out sinne but by special reuelation as the killing mayming himselfe in which kind examples in Scripture or else where related are admirable not imitable But when the thinge vsed by some singular Saint is not agaynst any law of God or man but a thinge that may be done without speciall reuelation the same is imitable by all others in due circumstances Now what law diuine or human forbids a man to say three hundred prayers a day one hundred to ech of the three Diuine Persons Or what law doth prohibit him to vse 300. little stones or beades in numbring them for help of Memory Or why may we not help our memory in numbring our deuotions by calculation of Beades if S. Paules example be pious and laudable If to say Prayers in a certayne number vpon beades be intrinsecally euill it cannot be done piously by the singular instinct of Gods Spirit seing God can neuer inspire men to doe any thinge that is essentially euill If it be not of it selfe essentially euill why should Protestants forbid men to vse such helpes of our deuotion except they can shew an expresse positiue Diuine law in Scripture agaynst it and neuer censured by any Father may more then abundantly suffice for satisfaction in a matter of no more moment then this For we are not curious in this Point nor doe require of any man that he say his prayers in a certaine number so that he may not say more or lesse as his deuotion serues him THE SIXTH POINT The doctrine of Transubstantiation YOVR Excellent Maiesty submitting your Iudgement to Gods expresse word doth firmely belieue the body of Christ to be truly present in the most venerable Sacrament of the Altar which doctrine doth naturally and necessarily inferre whatsoeuer the Church of Rome holds as matter of Fayth concerning the manner of this Presence To declare this and togeather answere an Obiection much vrged by some Protestants that they belieue the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament but are not boūd by this to belieue the Manner that not being expressed in Scripture We must note that men are bound firmely to belieue the manner of a mystery reuealed when the same belongs to the substance therof so that reiecting the manner we reiect the beliefe of the substance of the mystery This is euident and may be declared by the example of the mystery of the Incarnation the substance wherof is that in Christ Iesus the nature of God and the nature of man are so vnited that God is truly Man man verily God The manner of this mystery is ineffable and incomprehensible yet we are bound to belieue three thinges concerning it which if we deny we deny the mystery in substāce howsoeuer we may retayne the same in words First that this vnion is not only Metaphoricall (a) Non affectualis vnitas sed secundū subsistentiam Synodus 5. Generalis quae est Constantinop 2. Can. 4. by Affection as two persons that are great friends may truly be sayd to be all one but also true and Reall Secondly reall Vnion of natures is (b) Qui nō confitetur Dei verbū substantialiter VNIRI carni Anathema sit Synod Chal. act 5. Synod quinta General can 5. substantiall and not accidentall so that therby the nature is not only accidentally perfected by receauing excellent participations of the diuine nature power wisdome and Maiesty but also substantially the very fulnes of the God-head dwelling corporally and substantially in him Thirdly that this substantiall Vnion is not according to the Natures so that the nature of God the nature of man became one and the same nature as Eutiches taught but (c) Ex duabus naturis secundū substātiā vnitis vnum eumdem Christū qui non confitetur condēnatus est Concil Lateran sub Martin 1. Can. 6. Hypostaticall whereby God and Man became one and the same person These particulars about the manner of the Incarnation though high subtill and incomprehensible to reason Christians may and must belieue because they belong to the substāce of the Mystery and are declared by the Church in generall Councels though the vulgar be not bound explicitely to know them In this sort we say that the manner how our Sauiours Body is in the Sacrament of his last Supper must be belieued may not be denyed as farre as it concernes the very life being and substance of the Mystery reuealed Which mystery in substance is that the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament in such sort that the Priest minister therof demonstrating what seemeth bread may truly say thereof in the person of Christ This is my body This supposed as the substāce of the mystery I inferre that two Catholike doctrines concerning the manner of this mystery belong to the substance of this mystery cannot be called in question without danger of misbeliefe First the Real Presence of the whole body of Christ vnder the formes of bread Secondly that this is done by Transubstantiation An Addition prouing the Catholicke Reall Presence according to the litterall Truth of Gods Word agaynst Ministeriall Metaphores Figures and Shifts HIS Maiesty in questioning onely Transubstantiation seemeth to suppose the Reall Presence of the Body and Blood of our
last of the seauen so that his arguments are Nine in all These being the summe and substance of all his disputation I will heere set them downe answere them one by one that the Reader may see vpon what friuolous reasons these men are mooued to reiect the literall sense of Gods word concerning the highest mysteryes of Fayth His first Argument pag. 397. If the substance of bread and wine do remayne Christs speach This is my body This is my bloud cannot be properly true because one indiuiduall substance cannot be predicated of another properly But it shall be afterward by Fathers and Scriptures proued that the substance of bread and wine remaynes ANSWERE You will prooue the substance of bread to remayne in the holy Eucharist ad Kalendas Graecas the meane while out of what you heere confesse I argue agaynst you You grant that except Transubstantiation be maintayned the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the literall sense But they must be vnderstood in the literall sense for on these words the Church of God doth ground a chiefe mystery or Sacrament of Fayth But as hath beene prooued no figuratiue text can be the ground of our beliefe concerning any Sacrament or mystery of Fayth The second Argument pag. 397. The words wherby the wine is consecrated Luc. 22.20 are Tropicall by the confession of our Aduersaryes ANSWERE First it is not absurd that our Sauiour deliuering some precept article or Sacrament should vse words that are figuratiue and exorbitant according to the rules of Grammer if they be not figuratiue nor vnusuall but ordinary playne manyfest perspicuous according to the common phrase and vulgar manner of speach This speach This is the cuppe of my bloud which is shed for you if it be figuratiue according to Grammer yet is it playne easy cleere according to common speach for no man hearing these words This is the cup of my bloud shed for you can thinke that the cuppe and not the bloud contayned therein was shed for vs. Secondly I deny that any word of this speach This is the cuppe of the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you is figuratiue This is the cup of my bloud is not figuratiue seing Christ had in his hand a true cup not the figure of a cup and the thing contayned therein was truly and properly bloud The bloud of Christ is also truly and properly sayd to be the new Testament for it is the thing required by the new Testament Couenant for the remission of sinnes but commonly and vulgarly men say of the thing required by Couenant this is our Couenant Finally the cup in his bloud is properly sayd to be shed seing the bloud was truly and properly shed so the cup properly shed in that respect as to say of a cup of wine this cup is spilt in the wine therof is not figuratiue but rather a speach vnnecessarily playne The third Argument pag. 397. If the words be taken properly then the body and bloud of Christ is deliuered and receaued without the soule and Deity of Christ for in propriety of speach the Body is a distinct and diuerse thing from the soule and likewise from Bloud ANSWERE Thousand instances might be brought that shew your grosse Ignorance in Theology who thus argue For example the Ghospell Iohn 1.10 sayth the Word was made flesh Is this Argument good Flesh in the propriety of speach is a distinct and diuerse thing from bloud and from soule Ergo eyther these words be figuratiue and do not prooue that the word tooke substantially Flesh or els we must say that he tooke dead flesh without bloud soule S. Peter sayth that Christ did beare our sinnes in his body vpon the wood were he not simple that would argue as you do Body in propriety of speach is a thing distinct from the soule and from the God-head Therefore eyther the wordes are figuratiue and do not proue that Christ did truly suffer in body or els we must say that his body without soule and without his Deity suffered on the Crosse. Not so For though the body be a thing distinct and diuerse from the soule yet it is a thing vnited and ioyned with the soule when the person liueth and so the body of a liuing person cānot be giuen except the soule be giuen consequently or by concomitancy therewith Ordinary Philosophy might haue taught you this where it is cōmonly sayd that though the Body be distinct from the Soule yet cānot the body be mooued or remooued deliuered and receaued without the soule the same going from place to place per accidens cum corpore by concomitancy togeather with the body The fourth Argument pag. 397. Seing Christ as Saint Hierome Saint Chrysostome and Euthimius affirme did himselfe Sacramentally eate and drinke what he gaue to his disciples if the words be literally vnderstood then he did eate his owne body and drinke his owne bloud ANSWERE You would haue vs belieue that it is ridiculous and foolish to say that Christ did eate his owne body which yet you durst not vtter in playne words For if Christ as you affirme did eate what he gaue to his disciples eyther he did eate his owne body or else his word in rigour is false wherby he sayd of what he gaue to his disciples Take eate This is my body Hence the Fathers who affirme that Christ did eate what he gaue affirme that Christ did eate what he gaue his Apostles consequently inforced by the euidence of Gods word expressely auerre that he did eate his owne body as Saint Hierome ad Hedib q. 2. Christ in his supper was the eater the meate that was eaten Saint Chrysostome homil 83. in Matth. That the Apostles might not feare to do the same Christ himselfe first dranke his own bloud Yea S. Augustine Concion 1. in Psalm 33. sayth that Christ in his last supper carryed himselfe in his owne hands secundum literam according to the letter which Dauid neyther did nor possibly could doe The fifth Argument pag. 398. If the wordes be vnderstood literally then Christ gaue his Disciples his passible and mortall body But I trow no Iesuit will maintayne that a body mortall and passible can be in many hoasts or mouths at once nor can the same be corporally eaten without sensible touching ANSWERE You might truly haue sayd I trow no Caluinist will belieue that a mortall and passible body can be in two hoasts or mouths at once let the word of God say it neuer so expressely and euen as expressely as these words import Take eate this is my Body which shall be deliuered for many vnto death which shall be broken for you on the Crosse. If Christ gaue his body that was to suffer and dye he gaue his body that was then passible mortal in many hoasts at once vnto the mouths of the twelue Now this being the playne expresse and litterall truth of the word of
though the substance of bread remayne I answer that when substances are apt of their nature and ordayned by vse to contayne other substances then shewing the substance which containes we may signify the substance contained as in the former examples The reason is because their naturall aptitude to contayne other things being vulgarly knowne mans vnderstanding straight passeth from the consideration of the substances contayning to thinke of the thing contayned therein But when substances are not by nature and custome ordayned to contayne others we cannot by shewing them demonstrate another because their outward forme signifyes immediatly the substance contained in them For exāple one puts a piece of Gold in an apple shewing it cryes this is Gold in rigour of speach he sayth not true because the sense of his words is that the thing demonstrated immediatly by the formes and accidēts of that apple is Gold yea put case that one should say this is gold shewing a peece of paper vnfolded in a manner not apt to contayne any thing in it he should not say true though by some deuise he had put secretly into it a peece of gold Because when the paper is shewed displayed and not as contayning something in it and yet is tearmed Gold the proper sense of that speach is that the substance immediatly contayned vnder the accidents of paper is gold although it be couered with other accidents then those that vsually accompany the nature of gold Wherefore the proposition of Christ This is my body being spoken of a thing that naturally is not apt nor by custome ordained to contayne an humane body it cannot be vnderstood literally but of the subiect immediatly contayned vnder and demonstrated by the accidents and outward semblance of bread Now the thing that lyes hidden immediatly vnder the accidents of bread which was once substantially bread cannot become substantially the body of Christ except it be substātially cōuerted into his body or personally assumed by the same body And seeing this second manner of vnion between bread Christs body is impossible and reiected by Protestants aswell as by Catholiks we may conclude that the mystery of Christs Real presence cannot be belieued in truth by them that deny Transubstantiation Specially seing our Sauiour did not say Heere is my body which speach may be verifyed by the Presence of his body locally within the bread but This is my body which imports that not only his body is truly and substantially present but also that it is the substance contayned immediatly vnder the accidents of bread If any man say that by this argument it appeares that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture but from the wordes of the Institution subtilly deduced and so may perchance be numbred inter scita Scholae not inter dogmata Fidei I answere that the cōsequēce of this argument is not good as is euident in the example of the Incarnation The doctrine that the vnion of natures in Christ is proper not metaphoricall substantiall not accidentall personall not essentiall is no where expressely set downe in the Scripture but by subtill deduction inferred from the mystery which Scripture and Tradition deliuer Notwithstanding because these subtill deductions are proposed by the Church as pertinent vnto the substance of the aforesayd mystery they cannot be denyed without preiudice of fayth In this sort the doctrine of Transubstantiation though not in tearmes deliuered by the Scripture but deduced by subtile and speculatiue inference may not be denyed by them that wil be perfect Belieuers because the Church hath declared the same to pertayne to the proper sense of Christ his wordes and substance of the mystery Concil Romanum sub Nicolao 1. Lateranense sub Innocentio 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers §. 3. IT is certayne the Fathers acknowledge a transmutation of bread into the body of Christ that they meant Transubstantiation that is not only a mysticall significatiue but also a Reall and substantiall change appeares by these 5. circumstances of their doctrine in this point First [I.] ¶ The Marginall Annotations corresponding to these ensuing Numbers follow afterwards togeather by the expressenesse of their words for there can be no words more significant and expressiue of a substantiall change betweene bread our Sauiours body then those the Fathers vse Saint (s) Orat. Cathechis c. 34. Nissen That the word made flesh is inserted within euery faythful mā by his flesh taking his consistance of bread and wine Consecration II. transelementing the nature of things appearing into the same flesh S. Cyrill (t) Cyrill Ep. ad Calosyrium Influit oblatis vim vitae conuertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis sayth That we might not feele horrour seing flesh and bloud on the sacred Altars the Sonne of God condescending to our infirmityes doth penetrate with the power of life into the things offered to wit bread and wine III. Conuerting them into the verity of his owne flesh that the body of life as it were a certaine seede of viuification might be found in vs. Saint (u) Chrysost. hom de Euchar in Encoen Nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit Chrysostome When wax is put into the fire nothing of the substance therof is left nothing remaynes vnconsumed IIII. so likewise do thou thinke that the mysteryes are consumed by the substance of the body of Christ (x) Ambros. de initian myster c. 9. Non hoc quod natura formauit sed quod benedictio cōsecrauit Benedictione enim ipsa natura mutatur S. Ambrose What arguments shall we bring to prooue that in the Sacrament is not the thing which nature hath framed but that thing which benediction hath consecrated and that greater is the force of benediction then of nature seing by the benediction euen Nature is changed V. Secondly they require that the Authour that changeth bread into Christ his body be VI. Omnipotent consequently the change not meerely significatiue but substantiall VII Saint Cyprian (z) Cyprian de coena Domini Panis non effigie non natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro This bread changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh S. Cyrill (f) Cyrill orat 4. mystagog He that in the marriage of Cana changed water into wine by his only will is not he worthy that we belieue him that he hath changed wine into his bloud S. (g) Gaudent tract 2. in Exod. Gaudent The Lord Creatour of natures that of earth made bread agayne because he can do it and hath promised to do it makes of bread his owne body and he that of water made wine now of wine hath made his bloud Thirdly the instrument by which God workes this Transubstantiatiō is by them acknowledged the most efficacious that may be to wit the word not of man but of God S. Ambrose (h) Ambros. de ijs qui
the vnitie of the Church may ioyne togeather with your Excellent Wisdome and Learninge to pronounce the sentence Although I be confident that examining Religion by the meere rigour of onely Scripture the Catholicke Doctrines would get the victorie more cleere and expresse testimonies standing on our side then any that ProtestaÌ„ts can bring for theÌ„selues (*) This is further made cleere by the Reioynder so that it is but the face of a Minister to say in this place That our relying on Scripture is Vanitas vanitatuÌ„ as by the former discourse may appeare Although also I be much more confident in the tradition and perpetual practise of the Church interpreting Scripture which by so full coÌ„sent deliuers the Roman Doctrine that partialitie it selfe duely pondering the weight of thinges can hardly in hart and inwardly iudge against them yet my chiefest hope is in these Charitable thoughtes and desires of peace and vnitie in the whole Christian world which the holy Ghost hath inspired into your Brest For suppose that Preconceipts instilled into tender myndes agaynst the faith of Auncestours might so farre preuaile as to make them thinke comparing Catholikes with ProtestaÌ„ts that Scriptures stand equally on both sides yea sifting the matter by Scripture only that Protestants may seeme to haue the vpper hand yet Charitie will moue this question Whether the testimonies and arguments they bring from Scripture are so vndeniably cleere and so vnauoydably strong that no answere or euasion may be found but the Roman (*) The Minister sayth we giue seeming and appering solutioÌ„s but this is done by Sophistry I aske who shall be Iudge Or how can this by tryed by Scripture Church must be refused notwithstandinge so much discord and dissention so much inconstancy incertainty about religion which as reason proueth must and as experience sheweth doth thereupon ensue For if you cast away the Roman Church and her authority noe Church is left in the world that can with reason or dares for shame challenge to be infallible in her definitions if such a Church be wanting what meanes is left either to keepe the learned certainly in peace or to giue vnto the ignorant assurance what is the Doctrine of Saluation the Apostles first preached A Church fallible in her teaching is by the learned to be trusted noe further then they do see her Doctrines consonant vnto Scripture and so they may neglect her Iudgment when they seeme to haue euidences of Scripture against her And if this libertie of contradiction be granted what hope of Vnity remaines when a priuate man may wrangle eternally with the whole Church neuer be conuinced apparantly of teaching against the Scriptures Whereof we haue to many dayly examples If we take out of the world a Church infallible whence shall ignorant men learne which is the Doctrine of saluation that the Apostles deliuered It is as euident as the Sunne shyning at noone Day and the euidence of the thing hath forced some Protestants to acknowledge That the Controuersies of Religion in our time are grown in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue time and leasure Field of the Church Prefat in l. 1. fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them so that nothing remaines for men desiâ—ous of satisfaction in things of such consequeÌ„ce but diligently to search out which amongest all the Societyes of men in the world is the Church of the liuing God the pillar ground of truth that so they may imbrace her communion follow her directions rest in her Iudgement If there be no Church in the world besides the the Roman that can with any colour pretend Infallibity of Iudgement If the most part of men cannot by their examining of Controuersies be resolued in faith and therfore must perish eternally except they finde a Church that is an infallible mistresse of truth in whose Iudgment they may securely rest Certainly those that haue bowells of Charity will accept of any probable answere vnto Protestants obiections and accusations rather then discredit the authority of so necessary a Church which being discredited no Church remaines in the world of credit sufficient to sustaine the waight of Christian that is infallible Beliefe What a misery will it be if it fall out as it is most likely it will fall out that at the Day of Iudgement the most part of English Protestants be found to haue belieued points of Doctrine necessary to saluation not out of their owne certaine skill in Scripture as they should by the principles of their religioÌ„ but (*) The Minister here rayleth but dares not directly answere the Question What shall become of ignorant meÌ„ who belieued the truth vpoÌ„ the credit of their Church not vpoÌ„ their owne infallible knowledge vpoÌ„ the credit of the Church that teacheth them which doth acknowledge her selfe no sufficient stay of assured beliefe For without question men cannot be saued who although they belieued the truth yet belieued it vpon a deceauable ground and consequently by humaine and fallable perswasion and not as need is by a diuine most certaine beliefe grounded vppon an infallible foundation which cannot be had without an infallible Church How dreadfull then must the danger be of liuing out of the lappe of the Roman Church that is of a Church of infallible Authority This Church hauing a most glorious succession of Bishops from the Apostles deserues aboue all other the protection of your Maiesty who by a long line of religious Catholike Ancestors succeed in the right of two Illustrious Kingdomes and being so beneficiall vnto mankind so efficacious to mayntayne Vnity (*) Our Hopes did not dye with our late Soueraigne but still liue in his Royall Issue and of the most Sacred Queene Martyr his Mother we cannot giue ouer hope of your Fauour whom singular preseruation in the wombe of your glorious mother agaynst the barbarous attempts of Hereticall diuision that would haue brought you to an immature end shewes to be by Gods infinite wisdome perordained for some singular good of mankind specially by your meanes to quench wars and dissentions and to bestow the blessings of peace vnion on this land Your Title to the Crowne of England springes from the peacefull coniunction of the two renowned Roses which before were mortall enemies and fought so many cruell feilds that if we consider the great effusion of bloud wherein ech of them were bathed we shall hardly discerne the one from the other by the diuersity of colour Your Maiesties Person is the roote of a more happy vnion of two most glorious Kingdomes by your Sacred Person combined in assured peace which in the hystoryes of former times are by no other markes more famously knowne then by their mutuall warres Nothing remaines to be added for the full consummation of this Ilands happines and your Maiesties immortal Glory but the quenching of discord about religion by bringing them back againe to the roote matrice of the Catholique Church Cyp. lib. 1. epist. 3. ad Cornel. to the Chayre of Peter the principall Sea from which Sacerdotall and Sacred Vnity springs and to which perfidious Errour hath no accesse Wherby your Maiesty shall extend the blessings of peace from this Iland to the rest of Europe from the the body vnto the soule and crowne your temporall peace and felicity with eternall For both which not only I but all of my profession yea all Catholikes wil offer vnto Almighty God our daily praiers FINIS