haue vs reade touching his owne sayings and workes this hee commanded the Euangelists as it were his owne hands to write And in another place Although Christ spake and wrought some things which are not written yet those things which seemed vnto him sufficient to the saluation of beleeuers were selected to be written Saint Cyrill also affirmeth that all things which Christ did are not written but so much as holy writers iudged sufficient both for good manners and godly faith to the end that we shining in right faith good workes and vertue may attaine the heauenly Kingdome By the iudgement of these Fathers the holy Euangelists committed to writing so much of our Sauiours Doctrine and deeds as is sufficient for people to know that they may bee illustrious in faith and vertue and by the light whereof they may come to saluation In these things therefore the Euangelists did not cursorily touch matters but largely and fully deliuer them Secondly if the Scriptures containe all things sufficient to saluation yea more than is sufficient then the Apostles in their Scriptures did not cursorily or by the way onely touch matters But the first is affirmed both by the Fathers and confessed by some learned Papists Vincent 〈◊〉 The Canon of the Scripture is perfit and in it selfe sufficient for all matters yea more than sufficient Antonius Perez Pentateuch fidei vol. 4. c. 21. If the Scripture be compared and applied with things which faith teacheth as necessarie to saluation the same is apparently redundant and superfluous according to the nature of a rule because there be many things yea most things in the same the knowledge whereof is vnnecessarie But if the Scripture containe many 〈◊〉 superfluous and more than is needfull it is improbable 〈◊〉 thinke that it is imperfect in Principals or deliuereth them 〈◊〉 onely or by the way Thirdly the variety and multitude of points and doctrines of faith and good manners and the often repeating and declaring of them in the holy Scriptures prooueth that the Apostles 〈◊〉 fully and perfectly deliuer in their writings the whole 〈◊〉 of Christian faith and not onely cursorily touch them For all supernaturall veritie concerning the sacred Deitie Trinitie diuine Attributes and Operations Creation of the world c. is taught in holy Scripture In like manner the whole doctrine of faith concerning the Incarnation Person and Office of Christ is reuealed vnto vs by holy Scripture And for this cause Saint Cyrill calleth the Scriptures Solos fontes veritatis The sole fountaines of veritie All things concerning Iustification Charitie and good workes being meerely supernaturall are taught in Scripture The doctrine of the Law Gospell Sacraments resurrection of the dead finall iudgement c. is intirely and fully reuealed in the holy Scriptures and the Church according to Saint Augustine hath onely two brests wherewith shee feedeth her children to wit the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament And that he alwayes vnderstandeth by the Old and New Testament the Scriptures of both appeareth by his words vpon Psal. 22. Aperi legamus c. Let vs open our Fathers last Testament and reade it And 〈◊〉 the great 〈◊〉 Apostolice 〈◊〉 nec non antiquorum Prophetarum 〈◊〉 plane 〈◊〉 de sensu Numinis The Euangelicall and Apostolicall bookes together with the Oracles of the antient Prophets doe plainely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euidently instruct vs concerning the minde of God And from all the former it is manifest that the Apostles writings are not patches and shreds onely of Apostolicall Doctrine as our 〈◊〉 against all antiquitie presumeth to affirme but the very substance and marrow of their whole Preaching containing the summe of the Gospell by faith and obedience whereof wee receiue euerlasting life And thus much touching the Antecedent of the Iesuits Argument The sequel of the former Argument which is Because without precedent instruction by vnwritten Tradition wee cannot be firmely assured that wee haue the right sence of the Scripture therefore the last and finall resolution is made vnto vnwritten Tradition and not into Scripture is inconsequent and the Antecedent proueth not the Consequent for precedent Tradition may bee necessarie to deliuer vnto vs the text of holy Scripture and Precpts how to expound and vse the same and by Tradition wee may receiue a Commentarie of some texts of holy Scripture yet euen as a Schollar although hee receiue the bookes of Euclid and Aristotle from a Master and precepts in what sort hee shall proceed in his studie and withall a Commentary declaring the meaning of these Authours yet hee doth not finally being made learned himselfe resolue his knowledge into the former but into the principles of these Arts themselues so likewise a nouice in faith receiueth the holy Scripture by Ministerie and Tradition of the Church and Precepts and Commentaries whereby hee is first inabled and afterwards holpen in the right exposition thereof yet after this Introduction by further studie and diligence hee collecteth Arguments from the Scripture it selfe and being instructed in the sence thereof he doth not finally resolue his beleefe into the Commentarie and Introduction but into the text or Doctrine of holy Scripture it selfe IESVIT Hence I may further inferre that Protestants haue not throughly pondered the place of the Apostle vnto Timothie which they 〈◊〉 vehemently vrge to prooue the sufficiencie of sole Scripture for euery man as though he had said absolutely that the Scriptures are able to instruct or make men wise vnto Saluation which he saith not but speaking particularly vnto Timothie saith They are able to instruct or make thee wise vnto saluation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hast been aforehand instructed by word of mouth and doost thereupon firmely beleeue all substantiall Doctrines and knowest all the necessarie practise of Christian Discipline ANSWER The Aduersarie in this passage vseth certaine Arguments to prooue that Protestants misunderstand the Text of S. Paul 2. Timoth. 3.15 16. when they vrge the same to maintaine the sufficiencie of sole Scripture to be a ground for all Christians finally to rest their faith vpon His first Argument is The Apostle saith not absolutely that the Scriptures are able to make all men wise vnto Saluation but particularly to Timothie a man instructed aforehand and formerly 〈◊〉 all substantiall grounds of Doctrine and Discipline they are able 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make thee being such a one and so prepared wise c. To this I answere 1. That although sentences of holy Scripture are sometimes restrained to the personall or particular subiect of which they are first spoken yet this is not generall and when the same happeneth it must be prooued by better Arguments than by the bare Emphasis of a word For God said to Ioshua a man qualified aboue the ordinarie ranke I will not leaue thee nor forsake thee Ioshua 1. 5. yet the promise implied in this Text is generall and common to all iust
erred in exposition nor differed one for the other Thirdly the Fathers affirme that the Scripture expounds it selfe Aug. d. verb. 〈◊〉 Serm. 2. d. vnit Eccles. c. 5. p. 427. Chrys. sup Gen. Hom. 13. And they doe not alwayes referre men to Tradition concerning exposition of Scripture but prescribe other rules and meanes also Aug. d Doctr. Christ. l. 4. c. 30. c. Chrys. sup Gen. Hom. 21. sup Rom. Hom. 13. sup Iohn Hom. 39. Tertul. c. prax Hilar d. Trinit l. 5. Ambros. 〈◊〉 Psal. 118. Serm. 8. Origen Mat. Hom. 25. Fourthly that which the Aduersarie affirmeth touching the Fathers to wit that they held the Scriptures to be cleare in all substantiall points onely to men beforehand instructed by the light of Tradition is vntrue neither doe the Fathers speake of Tradition according to the Romish acceptation First sometimes the Fathers exhort heathen men which were not instructed by Tradition to reade the Scriptures Theophilus Antiochenus saith to Autolicus being as then a Pagan Verum tu ipse si placet consule liter as sacras But doe thou thy selfe if it seeme good vnto thee consult with the holy Scriptures Also they prouoke Heretikes which denied the Tradition of the Church to examine truth by Scriptures August d. vnit Eccles c. 2.3.16 contra Maxim Arrian l. 3. c. 14. Socrates Hist. lib. 1. cap. 6. Secondly by Tradition they vnderstand not the fabulous dreames and inuentions of Papals who like the Pharisees corrupt the right sence of Scripture by their vnwritten Traditions and affirme those things to bee Apostolicall which agree with the confessed Doctrine of the Apostles like darkenesse with light But the Fathers by Tradition vnderstand such exposition of Scripture as was vniformely receiued and commended for Apostolicall by the Primatiue Church and which besides antiquitie or the report of men appeared to bee Apostolicall by an exact harmonie and consent with the Text of the holy Scripture to which it was applied St. August d. Bapt. c. Donatist l. 5 c. 26 St. Cyprian Epist. 74. Tertul. d. praescript c. 21 Ruffin Hist. Ecclesiast l. 2 c. 9 IESVIT I hope I haue in the opinion of your most learned Maiestie sufficiently demonstrated the first ground of Catholicke faith to wit that a Christian is originally and fundamentally built vpon the word of God not as written 〈◊〉 Scriptures but as deliuered by the Tradition of the Church successiuely from the Primatiue vpon the authority whereof we beleeue that both Scriptures and all other substantiall Articles of Faith were deliuered by the Apostles thence further ascending and inferring they came from Christ and so from God the prime veritie and Authour of truth ANSVVER You haue played the Paralogist and weaued a spiders web which is fitter to catch flyes than to persuade so religious learned iudicious and resolute a king who is like an Angell of God knowing good and euill Your obiections being weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuarie are found light they are Funiculus vanitatis a coard and bundle of vanitie a potsheard couered ouer with the drosse of siluer His most learned Maiestie as you truly stile him honoureth genuine and Orthodox all Tradition as no religious king or good Christian can doe more and hereupon to wit vpon the testimony of Tradition besides other Arguments he beleeueth that you and your consorts are deceiued when you hold that a Christian is originally and fundamentally built vpon the word of God not as written in Scripture but as deliuered by Tradition c. For if the Scripture according to the doctrine and Tradition of the Primatiue Church is eminentissimae authoritatis of most eminent authoritie If it be the seed of which faith is first of all conceiued if it is the Rocke whereupon the Church is built if the authoritie of vnwritten Tradition dependeth vpon it and must bee examined by it If the Churches authoritie is 〈◊〉 from it then a Christian is originally and fundamentally built vpon it First That which is most excellent in euery kind is the modell and paterne of all the rest but I trow you will grant the Scripture to be the most excellent part of Gods word 2. Pet. 1. 〈◊〉 S. 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 Manich. li. 11 cap. 5. d. Ciuit. Dei lib. 11. cap. 3. Ibid. 〈◊〉 14. cap. 7. d. Vnit. Eccles. 16. Chris. d. 〈◊〉 Hom. 4. Oecumen sup 2. Tim. 3. Ansel. sup 2. Tim. 3. Secondly A Christian is fundamentally built vpon the rock but the Scripture is a rocke Cardinalis Camaracensis 〈◊〉 vespert 〈◊〉 sacrae Scripturae In euery building orderly framed the foundation hath precedence then followeth superedification and lastly consummation According to this order Christ the most exact Architect did build his Church vpon the rocke of holy Scripture Thirdly The seed of Faith is the root and foundation of 〈◊〉 Christian the Scripture is the seed of Faith Iohn 20. 41. for it is the word of God Luc. 8.11 Iam. 1.18 1. Cor. 4 15. And were the Popish Tenet true that the Scripture is not the whole word of God but only a part thereof yet a Christian must be originally and fundamentally built vpon it together with Tradition And Tradition according to the Tenet of our Aduersarie in this place cannot be the sole foundation of Christianitie but only a part of the foundation Fourthly All Scripture giuen by diuine Inspiration is simply and without exception to be receiued and all Tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be refused From hence it followeth that Scripture is a rule of Tradition and not Tradition of Scripture and Scripture is the highest rule as both the Fathers and many Papists themselues affirme and thus it is certaine that a Christian is orignally and fundamentally built vpon the holy Scripture IESVITS 2d Ground That there is a visible Church alwaies in the world to whose Traditions men are to cleaue and the Church is one Vniuersall Apostolicall Holy ANSWER The subiect of this Proposition to wit Ecclesia the Church is a word or terme of diuers significations and therefore the Iesuit should haue declared in what notion he taketh the same when he saieth There is a visible Church c. First Cardinall Bellarmine with other Pontificians saith that the Church whereof he disputes is a companie of people linked together by the same profession of Faith and Communion of Sacraments vnder lawfull pastros 〈◊〉 vnder the Roman Bishop who is Christs Vicar Secondly The terme Church is taken in the holy Scripture for the vniuersall number of holy beleeuers in all ages and more strictly for the whole number of holy beleeuers vnder the New Testament Heb. 12.23 Apoc. 5.9 Ephes. 5.25.27 and thus it comprehendeth both the Church Militant and Triumphant Thirdly the Church is taken for the common and vniuersall multitude of Christian people of any one or more ages which
inconsequent to conclude That because the Protestants receiued the Scriptures from the Roman Church therefore they receiued them to wit immediatly from the vniuersall Church The Minor proposition to wit the Protestants receiued the Scriptures from no other Church than from the Romane may be taken in a double sence For either it may be vnderstood originally and by way of authoritie that is The Protestants receiued the Scriptures both originally and deriuatiuely from and by the authoritie of the Romane Church onely or else it may bee vnderstood indicatiuely The Protestants receiued the Scriptures by the hand of the Romane Church and were first of all instructed and told by that Church that the same were diuine Bookes yet they receiued them not onely or principally from that church but also from the Primitiue Church which led them originally to the Apostles themselues And besides the former Tradition by reading and studying the holy Scriptures they learned sufficient matter out of those heauenly bookes to confirme them that they were diuine and of God Philemon receiued S. Pauls Epistle by the hand of Onesimus he did not esteeme Onesimus a seruant who had beene a fugitiue an infallible witnesse in himselfe but the argument and contents of S. Pauls Epistle persuaded him that S. Paul was the Author A man may receiue the Kings Proclamation from off a pillar or his great Seale by the hand of a meane clarke So likewise the bookes of holy Scriptures are first conueyed vnto vs by Ecclesiasticall testimonie and Tradition but they containe heauenly veritie and doctrine within themselues which persuade the diligent readers and learners of them that they are diuine IESVIT The Maior I prooue If Protestants haue not the Text of Scripture by and from the one holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church they cannot be certaine they haue the true incorrupt Text the Apostles deliuered and recommended as Diuine to the first 〈◊〉 seeing the Tradition of any other Church is fallible and may deceiue And if it may deceiue how can they be certaine that they are not deceiued seeing they themselues liued not in the Apostles dayes to see with their owne eyes what Copies 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 Authoritie of the holy Catholike Apostolike Church ANSWER The Argument whereby the Aduersarie confirmeth his Maior is this If the Protestants receiue the Scriptures from any other but the Holy Catholique Church they cannot be certaine that the same are incorrupt because a fallible Witnesse may deceiue Answ. They which receiue the Scriptures from the hands of a corrupt Church may be deceiued if there be not some other infallible meanes besides the Testimonie of that Church to assure them But if that Church be onely a Messenger to deliuer and there be found in the thing deliuered that which is certaine and infallible in it selfe to wit the Testimonie of the Apostles and of the Spirit of God speaking in and by those Scriptures Acts 24. 25. then they which immediately receiue the Text of the Scripture from a fallible Church may be certaine that they are not deceiued It is not necessarie that the Messenger by and from whose hands wee receiue immediately the Text of the Scriptures should be infallible in all things for then wee must receiue them from the hands of no particular Church or particular Councell vnconfirmed by the Pope or from any particular Pastour of the Church because these are fallible And according to our Aduersaries Tenet infallibilitie of Iudgement is found onely in the Pope and Councell confirmed by him And from hence it will in like sort follow that for the first two or three hundred yeeres beginning from the death of the Apostles in which time there was no generall Councell yea for certaine Ages after generall Councels began vntill the Canon of the Scripture was expressely assigned by some generall or particular Councell confirmed by the Pope Christians should haue remained vncertaine touching the sacred Authoritie of Diuine Scripture because the meanes by which they receiued them immediately were fallible The Authoritie of the holy Scripture dependeth vpon the immediate Messenger which deliuereth the Bookes vnto vs no more than the Authoritie of the Kings Proclamation dependeth vpon the Sergeant who proclaymes it or sets it vpon a Pillar to be read of all men but vpon the first Diuine Witnesses which wee know to be the Authors of the Scripture not because Pope Paul the fifth or Clement the eight say so but because the Witnesses themselues affirme it in their Scripture or deliuer that in their Scripture by which it is prooued to such as are eleuated by Grace and taught of God IESVIT Now the Minor That they haue the Scripture from the Romane is apparent For what other Church did deliuer vnto Luther the Text of the Bible assuring him that they had it by Tradition of Ancestors time out of mind as giuen originally by the Apostles which is accordingly acknowledged by M. Whitaker and others but particularly by Luther himselfe Ergo the Romane Church is the one holy Catholike Apostolike Church whose Tradition doth deliuer infallibly vnto vs the Text of Scripture ANSVVER The Protestants receiuing the Bookes of holy Scripture by the hand of the Roman Church proueth not the said Church to be the onely holy Catholike and Apostolike Church any more than the receiuing of Baptisme by Heretikes or the Old Testament by the Synagogue of which the Pharisees were a part proue the same to be the true infallible Church IESVIT And if the true Apostolicall Text then also the true Apostolicall Sense ANSWER The sequele is denyed For it is not necessarie that they which truly deliuer the Text shall also truly deliuer the Apostolicall sense and on the contrarie a lying sence may be deliuered by them which retaine the true and incorrupt Letter of the Text as appeareth by the Pharisees Arrians Donatists and many other Heretikes IESVIT This I proue If the Apostles did not deliuer the bare Text but together with the Text the true sense of Scripture to be deliuered perpetually vnto posteritie then they who by Tradition receiue from the Apostles the true Text must together receiue the true sense But all principall Protestants affirme No man doubteth but the Primitiue Church receiued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not onely the Text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sense which is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Fathers that from the Apostles together with the Text descends the Line of Apostolicall interpretation squared according to the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense ANSVVER The Assumption of the former Argument to wit The Apostles together with the Text deliuered the true sense of all their Scriptures to those people to whom they wrote is vncertaine They deliuered no doubt the sense of the Scriptures
where they preached so 〈◊〉 was necessarie but that they made a large and entire Commentarie vpon all their Scriptures and deliuered the same to posteritie to continue perpetually is not prooued by the confession of Chemnitius and the discord which is in the Commentaries of the Fathers yea of Romists themselues vpon the Scriptures argueth the contrarie IESVIT Whereupon S. Augustine argueth That they that deliuer the Text of Christs Gospell must also deliuer the Exposition affirming That he would sooner refuse to beleeue Christ than admit any interpretation contrarie to them by whom he was brought to beleeue in Christ. For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense why may they not also deliuer a false Text as receiued from the Apostles An argument conuincing and vnanswerable ANSVVER Saint Augustine in the place obiected Lib. d. vtil Cred. cap. 14. confuteth the Manichees who condemned Faith and affirmed That people ought to credit nothing but that which is demonstrated by reason And hee argueth against these Heretikes first out of some of their owne grounds for they were compelled to beleeue something in their Religion vpon report of others and they required people to giue credit to certaine Narrations which could not be demonstrated by reason onely Secondly This Father prooueth the necessitie of Faith because without giuing credit to some report it was impossible to receiue the knowledge of Christ. Thirdly Whereas the Manichees required that men should learne to know Christs word from them Saint Augustine saith That if he had no better Guides to follow than such new and turbulent Companions as those Heretikes were he should sooner persuade himselfe not to beleeue in Christ than to beleeue vpon their bare report or to receiue this Faith from any other than from those by which he first beleeued But Saint Augustine in this place treateth not of the sense of the Scripture neither doth he say absolutely that he would sooner refuse to beleeue Christ than to admit any interpretation contrarie to them by whom he was brought to beleeue in Christ but he speaketh comparatiuely and according to humane reason hee should more easily be persuaded to beleeue nothing than forsaking the authoritie and testimonie of his first Teachers yeeld credit to these men vpon their Hereticall grounds It is cleare that Saint Augustine did not alwayes tye himselfe to the same exposition of Scripture which those that were before him had deliuered For in the questions of Grace and Free-will he found out many expositions by searching the Scriptures which both himselfe and other men before him were ignorant of vntill the heresie of Pelagius arose and in his worke De Doctrina Christiana he makes twofold charitie the modell of expounding Scripture and not the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall Teachers whom hee oftentimes expoundeth with mitigation or reiecteth with modestie and hee is most constant in aduancing the authoritie of Scripture before any Ecclesiasticall authoritie whatsoeuer IESVIT For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sence Why may they not also deliuer a false Text as receiued from the Apostles An argument conuincing and vnanswerable ANSWER The Iesuit imagineth that this Argument is inuincible But let not him that girdeth on his harnesse boast himselfe as hee that putteth it off 1. Kings 20. 11. And Sauls brags That God had deliuered Dauid into his hand prooued vaine 1. Sam. 23. 14. and 24. 5. The Argument reduced to forme will discouer its owne weakenesse If the Text of the Scripture may 〈◊〉 easily bee corrupted as the sence then all they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sence may also deliuer a false Text. But the Text of the Scripture may as easily bee corrupted as the sence Ergo All they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sence may also deliuer a false Text. The assumption of this Syllogisme which although it were concealed by the Paralogist yet it must bee added to make the Argument perfect is apparantly false and the contrary is true The Text of the Scripture cannot so easily bee corrupted as the sence and therefore it is not necessarie that they which following humane Tradition or their owne inuention may deliuer a false sence shall likewise deliuer a false Text. First the Text of the Scripture is contained in Records and Bookes which are dispersed throughout the whole Christian world and preserued in all Churches and the Coppies and Transcripts of them are innumerable Tradition is in the brest of a few and authentically as Papals affirme in the brest of the Pope and his Church onely Secondly when God Almightie would haue the knowledge and memorie of things to bee perpetuall he commanded that they should bee committed to writing Exod. 17. 14. and 34. 27. Deut. 31. 19. And although the law of nature was ingrauen in mans heart and might haue beene preserued for euer by vniforme succession yet God himselfe wrote the same in Tables Deut. 10.4 and inspired Moses to write it in Bookes Exod 20. Deut. 5. And although the Precepts of the Law of Nature were more firmely fixed in mans heart and the Tradition thereof was more generally diffused than any positiue Tradition can bee yet in processe of time many parts thereof were corrupted both in regard of knowledge and practise Thirdly experience of all ages testifieth that the Text of the Scripture hath beene preserued inuiolable euen among Iewes and Heretickes whereas the sence of the Scripture made knowne by Tradition onely is forgotten in part and they which disagree about the sence and some parcels of the Canon of the Scripture are at one concerning the verie letter of the Text. For although there were some which in antient time reiected the Epistle of St. Iames and the latter of St. Peters c. yet the literall Text of these Scriptures was faithfully preserued alwayes in the Church Fourthly whereas the Iesuite compareth vnanimous Tradition of the sence of Scripture with the written letter and Text of the Scripture vnlesse he equiuocate in the name terming that Tradition which is collected from the Scripture such vniforme Tradition as he boasteth of is verie rare for it must be such as in all ages and in all Orthodoxall Churches hath beene the same Now the most vndoubted and vniforme Tradition of all other is concerning the number and integritie of the Bookes of holy Scripture and yet in this difference hath beene betweene one Church and another and the later Romane Church disagreeth with the antient the one denying and the other affirming d the bookes of Macchabees to be Canonicall The Articles also of the late Popish Creed compiled by Pope Pius the fourth are not agreeable to the antient Tradition of the Catholike Church or to the Tradition of the elder Romane Church it selfe and among sundrie other matters in question betwixt vs this Iesuit is not able to shew by
an vniforme Tradition of all ages that the place of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 3. 12. is vnderstood of Popish Purgatorie or Math. 16. 19. Iohn 20.23 of Iubilees and Indulgences or the place of Acts 10. 13. Rise Peter and kill of murthering Princes or of the temporall dominion of the Pope If the Papists would impose no other sence vpon the Scripture than such as is confirmed by vniforme Tradition the difference betweene them and vs would easily bee composed but these men euerie day hatch nouell expositions and when they are hunted out of one they flie to another They glorie of antiquitie succession vniforme Tradition and cry Victoria Inuincible Vnanswerable before the combate is finished but they are compelled to forge Authours to impose false expositions vpon the Texts of Fathers sometimes to abridge sometimes to inlarge the Tomes of Councells and to purge and corrade Ecclesiasticall writers old and new and yet being vnable to preuaile by all the former they are forced in many cases to presse the bare authoritie of the Pope and his adheres to warrant their Tradition IESVITS 3d. Argument My third proofe I ground vpon a principle most certaine and set downe by your most gratious Maiestie That the Roman Church was once the Mother Church and consequently the One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church all other Churches being her daughters and that she is not to be forsaken further than it can be prooued that she departed from her selfe that is from the Mother and originall Doctrine deliuered by the Apostles ANSWER This principle whereupon you ground your third Argument is neither true in it selfe nor yet confessed by his excellent Maiestie in the place whereunto you referre vs His Maiestie affirmeth That wee ought not to depart from the Church of Rome in Doctrine or Ceremonie further than she had departed from her selfe in her best estate and from Christ her head This sentence of our most religious King is consequent vpon S. Pauls doctrine Rom. 12. 18. Rom. 14. 13. and the same is consonant to Charitie and Reason and argueth a mind desirous of Concord and Peace and averse from vnnecessarie Innouations And as this moderation is commendable in all men so it is most agreeable to him that is a Father of peace whose word is Beati Pacifici But whereas you incroach vpon his Maiesties speech adding a glosse which is not warranted by the Text and infer a conclusion which the premises affoord not you are herein iniurious both to the Author you alleage and to the Truth The Roman was neuer by diuine institution the Mother Church in regard of all Christians neither Vniuersall in respect of an absolute command and iurisdiction ouer all particular Churches as is challenged by the Canon Dist. 12. c. 1. Non decet c. But it was once a Mother Church as the Seas of Patriarches are stiled Mother-Churches or a Mother-Church respectiuely to such people and nations as were conuerted by her preaching and other Churches were stiled with that title as well as the Roman Theoderet speaking of the Church of Hierusalem saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We make knowne vnto you that the most reuerend and godly Cyrill is made Bishop of Hierusalem which is the Mother of all Churches The Roman Church once a Metropolitan or patriarchall Mother Church since the daies of Hildebrand is suspected to be the Mother spoken of Apoc. 17. 5. and some of your owne part haue said that in these latter times Nontam se matrem exhibet quam Noueream she behaueth her selfe more like a stepdame than a naturall mother her brests haue beene verie drie for sundrie ages past and she depriued her children of a principall portion of the food of life and in steed of milke deliuered them water mixt with chaulke Her publicke readings and seruice were in an vnknowne tongue the holy Scriptures were closed vp that people might not cast their eies vpon them fabulous legends were read and preached in steed of Gods word and hereby it came to passe as some of their owne Authors say That the greater number of people vnderstood no more concerning God and things diuine than Infidels or Heathen people IESVIT But she cannot be prooued to haue changed her Doctrine since the Apostles by any monuments of Historie or Antiquitie yea the contrarie in my iudgement may be most euidently prooued in this sort ANSVVER If by monuments of Historie and Antiquitie be vnderstood Human or Ecclesiasticall Monuments it is inconsequent to inferre that the present Roman Church hath not changed her doctrine since the Apostles although this could not be demonstrated by monuments of Historie c. for there remaineth a more firme and demonstratiue Argument to prooue this to wit the holy Scripture and if the present doctrine of the Roman Church disagree with the Scripture then it is changed from that which it was antiently The rule by which we must trie doctrines is the word of God and not humane Historie and the word of God is true and abideth for euer whereas humane Historie is fallible contingent and corruptible 1. It is not absolutely necessarie that humane Histories of all matters should be composed and the world continued many ages without any written Historie Secondly When the same are written they cause onely humane Faith Thirdly they may totally perish and be suppressed or corrupted by the enemies of Truth Fourthly Historie may be repugnant to Historie and that which is affirmed by some may be contradicted or contrauerted by others and the largenesse and difficultie of the Monuments of Antiquitie may be such as that few people can be able to read and examine them and if they which read and compare them be opposite in iudgement each to other the greater part of people shall be perplexed and cannot know how to resolue themselues Our Aduersaries teach vs That the principall Monuments of Antiquitie to wit the ancient Councels haue not beene faithfully preserued Many things supposititious haue beene added to the workes of the Antient and bastardly Bookes and Sentences passe vnder the titles of Fathers Our Aduersaries being a party whose doctrine is to be examined according to their owne challenge by Monuments of Antiquitie haue presumed to correct purge and alter such Records Lastly when the testimonie of Historians repugnant to their present Tenet is produced against Papals they despise and reiect them to wit Eusebius Socrates Sozomene c. Baronius a new vpstart censureth all Historians Pighius after one thousand yeares controls the testimonie of generall Councels and it is a rule among them that the antient Fathers then much lesse Histories are not to be 〈◊〉 any 〈◊〉 than they 〈◊〉 the keyes and 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 Church IESVIT The Doctrines that were for diuers ages vniuersally receiued in the Christian Church and no time of their beginning is assigneable
by the Fathers but diuers obscure and difficill places out of their workes may be brought against them with such a shew that common people shall not know what to say For what Tradition more constantly deliuered by the Christian Doctours than our Sauiours consubstantialitie with his Father according to his diuine nature And yet the new reformed Arrians bring very many testimonies of antient Fathers to prooue that in this point they did contradict themselues and were contrarie one to another which places whosoeuer shall read will cleerely see that to common people they are vnanswerable yea that common people are not capable of the answeres that learned men yeeld vnto such obscure passages What then shall they doe They must answere that Antiquitie did neuer acknowledge such dissention among the Fathers in the point of our Sauiours consubstantiality which they would not haue omitted to doe had there beene any such reall dissention seeing they noted the Fathers opposition in lesser matters ANSWER That which was brought in after the daies of the Fathers could not be confuted by them particularly and in expresse tearmes neither could Antiquitie or fame of Tradition make report to Posteritie of those things which happened afterwards But yet many things vttered vpon other occasion are found in the writings of the Fathers which prooue that our present Romists are degenerated and entertaine a beleefe repugnant to the Primitiue Church But it is obiected that common people cannot know certainely the perpetuall Tradition of Gods Church by such places of the Fathers partly because the exact examining of the workes and sayings of the Fathers requires great labour and skill and so it exceedeth the abilitie of these people partly because many obscure and difficile passages are found in the writings of the Fathers which will rather perplex common people than resolue them whereunto I answere That the rule whereby common people must examine Doctrine is the plaine sentence of holy Scripture and further triall and examination of Controuersies by the Fathers and Ecclesiasticall Writers belongeth to the learned and principally to the Pastors and Doctors of the Church who are to vse their gifts to the instructing of the common people If the Aduersarie shall obiect that Heretickes and deceiuers may impose a false sence vpon the Scripture I answere That notwithstanding this sufficient matter is found in the Scripture to confute hereticall exposition and God alwayes stirreth vp some Pastours or other learned persons to assist common people which haue receiued the loue of truth in true vnderstanding of diuine veritie necessarie to their saluation Secondly If the Scripture may bee abused and prophaned by heretickes Tradition may with greater colour be pretended or abused by them as appeareth by the Pharisees Thirdly Tradition is founded vpon the authoritie of a present Hierarchicall Church which may erre by the confession of many learned Papists But the Scripture is founded onely vpon the authoritie of Christ and his Apostles and is acknowledged to bee sacred and diuine by all Christian Churches IESVIT In the same manner Catholickes doe sufficiently answere Protestants that bring places of Fathers against the receiued Traditions of the Church as the reall Presence Inuocation of Saints and other the like to wit that Tradition deliuered these Doctrines as the vniforme consent of the Fathers and neuer noted such oppositions as Protestants frame out of their writings which is a cleare signe that Protestants either mis-alleadge their words or mistake their meaning For were that contradiction reall Why did not Antiquitie famously note it as it noted and conueyed by fame to posteritie their differences about disputable matters This Answere is full and a certaine ground of persuasion else as I said common people could neuer know the assured Tradition of their Ancestours vpon which they as I prooued build their Christian beleefe seeing as Doctour Field also noteth there bee few and verie few that haue leasure and strength of iudgement to examine particular controuersies by Scriptures or Fathers but needs must rest in that doctrine which the Church deliuers as a Tradition neuer contradicted To discredit therefore a constant receiued Tradition it is necessarie to bring an Orthodox contradiction thereof not newly found out by reading the Fathers but a contradiction by the fame of Antiquitie deliuered vnto Posteritie which kind of contradiction they cannot find against any point of Catholike Doctrine For let them name but one Father whom Antiquitie doth acknowledge as a contradictor of Inuocation of Saints Adoration of the Sacrament Reall presence Prayer for the Dead they cannot certainely though they bring diuerse places to prooue a thing which Antiquitie neuer noted or knew of before that the Fathers be various and wauering about these Points ANSWER The Doctrine of Reall Presence by way of Transubstantiation and the Doctrine of Inuocation of Saints imposed as an Article of the Creed c. were neuer deliuered by any vniforme consent of the antient Fathers neither hath antient Tradition affirmed That the Fathers vniformely taught and beleeued these points And as for later Tradition the authoritie thereof is doubtfull deseruing no credit further than it confirmeth that which it deliuereth by the testimonie of Witnesses more infallible than it selfe They which haue liued in succeeding Ages haue no certaine meanes to assure them what the antient Fathers taught but either their owne Bookes and Monuments or the testimonie of their Coaeualls And later Traditioners may both corrupt the Writings of the Fathers and also by report impose a false Tenet vpon them Our Aduersarie therefore beats the ayre when he laboureth to gayne the Fathers vnto his part vpon the sole Testimonie of latter Tradition and vpon a Negatiue Argument taken from the silence of the Romane Church omitting in partialitie towards it selfe the Narration of such Collections and Oppositions as were made against the Doctrine thereof out of the Fathers But when wee charge the Papalls with Noueltie wee proceed vpon more euident grounds First wee prooue that the Romish Faith opposed by vs hath no foundation or warrant in sacred Scripture Secondly the same is an addition to the antient Rule of Faith Thirdly the said Doctrine is not deriued by perpetuall and vniforme Tradition from the Apostles Fourthly the primitiue Fathers vertually opposed this Doctrine For although these Popish Articles as they are now explicitely maintained were not in perfect being in the dayes of the antient Fathers and therefore they could not so punctually or literally oppose them as wee doe yet in their Disputations Tractats and exposition of Scripture they vtter many things from which wee may collect that they beleeued not these Articles and that the same were no part of the Catholike Faith in their dayes and that if such Opinions had beene thrust vpon the Church for Articles of Faith in their dayes as now they are they would haue opposed them But our Aduersarie pleaseth himselfe immoderately with his Negatiue
prime foundation of Christianitie is Christ himselfe 1. Cor. 3. 11. 1. Pet. 2.6 The Church is the seruant and Spouse of Christ the House of God whereof Christ himselfe is the grand Lord and Builder But wee haue learned in the Gospell That the seruant is not greater than his Lord Ioh. 13. 16. Hereupon S. Augustine Enchyrid cap. 56. Good order requireth that the Church be placed after the Trinitie as an House after the Inhabiter his Temple after God and the Citie after the Founder And if the Aduersarie replie That although it be a lesse Article in regard of the Obiect yet the denyall thereof is of greater consequence because it maketh men guiltie of Heresie c. I answere Granting that the denyall of the whole Article being rightly expounded maketh men Heretickes but I denie that a Christian which beleeueth this Article is no Hereticke if hee beleeue and maintaine any Errour against the plaine Doctrine of the holy Scripture which hee knoweth or which hee is bound Necessitate 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 to know beleeue and maintaine Saint Hierom vpon the Galathians saith Whosocuer to wit in waightie points vnderstandeth the Scriptures otherwise than the sence of the holy Ghost whereby they were written requireth may bee called an Hereticke although hee depart not out of the Church Tertullian saith Whatsoeuer in points Diuine and Sacred is repugnant to Veritie is Heresie Albertus saith Hee is an Hereticke which followeth his owne opinion and not the iudgement of the Scripture Occham Hee is an Hereticke which with a pertinacious minde imbraceth any Errour the contradictorie doctrine whereof is contained in holy Scripture Two things constitute an Hereticke First Errour and false Doctrine as the materiall Secondly Malicious and pertinacious adhearing to the same or defending the same as the formall A man may haue both these without any explicite denying the Article of the Catholicke Church For the Trueth which hee gainesayeth may be plainely deliuered in the holy Scripture and hee may reade the same and haue sufficient meanes to know it in the Scripture and maliciously or inordinately resist the holy Ghost speaking by the Scriptures Act. 7.51 Our Sauiour condemneth some for Heretickes calling them false Prophets Murtherers and Theeues Mat. 7.15 Ioh. 10.5 Not because they opposed the present Church for some of these were principall Rulers of the Iewish Church Mat. 23.1 but because they taught and beleeued contrarie to the Scriptures Mat. 22.29 Saint Augustine d. Bapt. c. Don. li. 4. c. 16. speaketh not altogether as the Iesuit 〈◊〉 him but saith onely That hee would not affirme of such a person who being baptised in the 〈◊〉 Church beleeued as Photinus the hereticke did supposing the same to be Catholicke Faith that he was an hereticke he absolutely affirmeth not that such a person was no Hereticke but that hee would not pronounce him an Hereticke before hee was conuicted And hee speaketh of Heretickes not as they were in foro coeli according to the iudgement of God but in foro Ecclesiae according to Ecclesiasticall Censure Neither doth hee speake of persons sufficiently conuicted by plaine euidence of holy Scripture and maliciously and inordinately resisting the Truth but of simple Errants misled and seduced through ignorance or infirmitie Doctor Field whose learned Treatise of the Church is nibbled at by Papists but yet remaines vnanswered by them is censured by this Obiectour for saying without any Proofe that an Errant against a fundamentall point is an Hereticke though he erre without pertinacie But the Iesuit reporteth amisse when hee saith Doctor Field deliuered this Assertion without Proofe for in the Margine of his Booke he confirmeth the same by the testimonies of Gerson and Occham two famous Doctors of the Roman Church And it is remarkeable that the Iesuit censuring the Doctour himselfe produceth no Argument out of diuine Authoritie to confirme his owne Position but resteth onely vpon the single testimonie of one Father which as I haue alreadie shewed speaketh not to his purpose IESVIT Hence Jinferre that Protestants erre fundamentally according to the second kind of erring to wit in the manner in all points they hold against the Romane Church which I haue prooued to be the true Catholicke Church For he that holds any priuate opinion so stiffely as rather than forsake them he denyes and abandons the Catholike Church a mayne Article of his Creed erreth fundamentally as is cleare But Protestants hold their priuate opinions so stifly as thereupon they haue denied and abandoned the Catholicke Church to wit the Romane ANSWER The mayne Proposition of this Section to wit Protestants 〈◊〉 fundamentally according to the second kinde of erring c. is denied and the Assumption of the Syllogisme whereby the Obiectour laboureth to prooue the same is palpably vntrue For Protestants maintaine no priuate opinion either stiffely or remissely whereby they haue denied and abandoned the true Catholicke Church First They maintaine no doctrine as matter of Faith but that which is deliuered in holy Scripture and which consenteth with the Primitiue Church either expresly or virtually But such doctrine is not priuate opinion because the holy Ghost which is the supreame gouernour and directour of the Church and the Prophets and Apostles which were inspired from heauen are the Authours thereof Secondly The Romane Church is not the Catholicke Church but an vnsound part of the generall visible Church as it is prooued by the Learned of our part whereunto the Aduersaries haue as yet made no replie IESVIT Neither doth it import that they retaine the word hauing reiected the sence seeing not the letter of the Creed pronounced but the matter beleeued makes men Christians Neither is it enough to say that they beleeue the Church of the Elect seeing the Church of the Creed is not the Church of the onely Elect a meere fancie but the visible and conspicuous Church continuing from the Apostles by sucsion of Bishops which thus I prooue ANSWER We retaine both the words and the sence of the Article and the Catholicke Church in the Apostles Creed in respect of the militant part thereof is a Church of right beleeuers and especially of iust and holie persons and principally and intentionally and as it comprehendeth both the militant and triumphant the congregation of all the elect for this Church is the mysticall and liuing bodie which Christ saueth Ephes. 5. 23. It is the Church of the first borne which are written in Heauen Heb. 12.23 It is the Church builded vpon the Rocke against which the gates of Hell shall not preuaile either by Haeresie Temptation or mortall Sinne Math. 16. 18. Math. 7.24 And if it be a meere fancie to hold this then Gregorie the Great with many other of the antiēt Fathers were fantasticks for teaching in this manner But the Church of the Creed is not alwaies the Church Hierarchicall for the Church in the
is bread of which foure sences sight feeling smell tast giue in euidence as of bread no lesse verily than any other so farre as they can discerne and yet so potent is the Word and doctrine of the Church grounded on generall Councells declaring the word of God for Transubstantiation as Catholikes denying their sences beleeue assuredly that what seemeth bread is not bread but the true body of our Sauiour vnder the formes and accidents of bread Now can any man with any shew of the least probabilitie in the world thinke that it is difficile for this Church to persuade her children that the Image of Christ is not a liuing thing or bath any Godhead or liuing diuine power lodged in it as plaine Scriptures shew and generall Catholike Councells particularly the Tridentine and Nicene define which doctrine neither reason nor sence can dislike or shall the sole similitude of members correspondent vnto humane liuing members which Images haue so much preuaile in Catholike minds so to bow downe their thoughts to base Idolatrie as to thinke a stocke or stone to be God and that the Church shall not be able by teaching to erect them to a more high and diuine apprehension being able to make them firmely beleeue a consecrated Hoast is not really bread against the Iudgement that they would otherwise frame vpon most notorious euidencie of sence ANSVVER This passage is wasted in magnifying the power which the Roman Church hath in preseruing her adheres from the infection of superstition in worshipping Images The argument vsed by the Idolist to this purpose is The Roman Church performeth that which is more difficile to wit it persuadeth people contrarie to the experience of all their senses to beleeue that consecrate bread is not bread but the true body of Christ vnder the formes and accidents of bread Therefore it is able to persuade people that the Images which they adore are not very God or that any diuinitie or diuine vertue resides in them I answer that it is not more difficile to persuade some people to beleeue transubstantiation than to rectifie their iudgement in adoration of Images for mans nature being of it selfe through inbred corruption prone to beleeue lies and the members of Antichrist hauing a speciall curse of God vpon them 2. Thes. 2. 10 11. no maruell if they credit false doctrine although it be most absurd But they which beleeue and obey their Masters when they teach lyes doe not alwayes follow their directions if they instruct them in truth Neither are such people free from scandall iustly taken if they conceiue not images to be Gods or indued with diuine vertue residing in them for without such imagination they performe an vnlawfull worship neuer instituted but alwayes condemned by the Holy Ghost And this alone without further abuses is sufficient to condeme the doctrine and practise of the Romane Church IESVIT The Protestant Church on the other side may seeme to haue no great vigor by preachings to persuade common people against the errour of the Anthropomorphits seeing their principle is That a world of Preachers is not to bee beleeued against the euident Scripture Yea that a common ordinarie man by Scripture may oppose as great and a greater Church than is the whole Protestant Which principle being laid how will they conuince people that that God is a pure Spirit whom the Scripture doth so perpetually set forth as hauing humane members I may conclude therefore that their translating of Scripture into the vulgar languages breedes more danger vnto common people than our making of Images ANSWER The Iesuit is fallen vpon a Paradoxe affirming that there is more danger for Protestants to be mislead by reading Scriptures translated into the errour of the Humaniformians than the Papists to be seduced by images And his reason is because Protestant Ministers cannot by preaching the contrarie doctrine persuade people to desist from any errour which seemes to them agreeable to any literall text of holy Scripture for one of their owne principles is That a world of Preachers is not to be beleeued against euident Scripture c. and he citeth Mr. Iohn White in his Way pag. 59. I perceiue it is impossible for Papists to deale sincerely Mr. Iohn White affirmeth not that euery priuate person or that any companie of people whatsoeuer are to be credited vpon the sole allegation of a text of Scripture expounded as the outward letter soundeth for we know that sometimes the letter killeth and Saint Augustines rule concerning Scriptures exposition is neither strange nor vnpractised by vs but Mr. Iohn Whites doctrine is That if foure hundred Baalites or a whole Councell of Pharisees or Errants deliuer vntruths one Micajah one Stephen one Athanasius in whose mouth is fouud the word of Truth although the persons seeme neuer so priuate must be preferred before them which teach lyes or doctrine repugnant to holy Scripture truely expounded IESVIT But they will say the translation of Scripture into vulgar languages is commanded in the Scripture and the Apostles and Apostolicall Church practised it Whereas wee cannot prooue by Scripture that the Apostles did warrant or practise the setting vp of Images This they say with great confidence But what substantiall proofe is of this their saying I could neuer reade or heare The testimonies they bring in this behalfe Search the Scriptures Let his word dwell plentifully among you c. are insufficient to prooue a direct and expresse precept or practise of translating Scriptures into the vulgar tongue ANSWER Wee affirme with great confidence both that the reading of holy Scripture by Lay people which must needes imply Translation of them is a Diuine Ordinance and that Image worship was neither warranted by the Apostles nor practised by the Primatiue Church succeeding the Apostles Neither doe wee alledge onely those Sentences of holy Scripture Iohn 5. 39. Collos. 3. 16. which the Iesuit thinkes himselfe able to elude by subtile distinctions as the Arrians in times past eluded the Text of Saint Iohn Cap. 10.30 But we cite also the Precept of God giuen to the Church before Christ his comming and the perpetuall practise of the godly in the Old and New Testament and the vehement exhortations of the Primatiue Fathers exhorting Lay people to the reading and meditation of holy Scripture and magnifying the fruit and benefit arising from thence The Eunuch is commended for reading holy Scripture Acts 8. 28. The Baereans are called Noble by the holy Ghost for searching the holy Scriptures Acts 17. 11. Hee is called Blessed which readeth and heareth Apoc. 1. 3. The Galathians read the Scripture Gal. 4.21 The Ephesians Cap. 3.4 The Collossians Cap. 4. 16. The Thessalonians 1. Thes. 5.27 The Fathers are so plentifull in this Argument as I haue elsewhere shewed that it would astonish any man who hath read them to behold such impudencie in Papists as to denie this Practise to haue beene Primatiue and
of Bread which was once substantially Bread cannot become substantially the bodie of Christ except it bee substantially conuerted into his bodie or personally assumed by the same bodie And seeing this second manner of vnion betweene Bread and Christs Bodie is impossible and reiected by Protestants as well as by Catholickes Wee may conclude that the mysterie of Christs reall presence cannot be beleeued in truth by them that deny Transubstantiation specially seeing our Sauiour did not say here is my Bodie which speech may be verefyed by the presence of his Bodie locally within the Bread but This is my Bodie which imports that not onely his Bodie is truely and substantially present but also that it is the substance contained immediately vnder the accidents of Bread ANSWER First if a substance be either by nature humane Custome or diuine Ordination appointed to containe another substance then demonstrating the externall substance which containes we may signifie the hidden substance contained But according to that Tenet which maintaineth Consubstantiation the substance of bread is by diuine Ordination appointed to containe the substance of Christs bodie therefore demonstrating by words the substance of bread one may signifie the hidden substance which is Christs bodie Secondly Scotus Durand and Paludanus affirme that although the substance of Bread remaine yet because the substance of Christs bodie is also present it might truely and properly be said by our Sauiour This is my Bodie Now if such profound Scholemen haue weighed the Iesuits obiection do find the same light the propugnors of Consubstantiation haue smal reason to regard it Thirdly the former obiection is nothing to vs which maintaine a true mysticall presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist and refuse both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation for we beleeue and are able to demonstrate that our Sauiours words are figuratiue in part and yet the true Bodie and Bloud of Christ are really and verely communicated according to the manner formerly declared pag. 405. IESVIT Jf any man say that by this Argument it appeares that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture but from the words of the Jnstitution subtilly deduced and so may perchance bee numbred inter scita Scholae not inter dogmata Fidei I answer That the consequence 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 by Scripture but by subtile deduction inferred from the mysterie which Scripture and Tradition deliuers Notwithstanding because these subtile deductions are proposed by the Church as pertinent vnto the substance of the foresaid mysterie they cannot be denied without preiudice of Faith 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 denied by them that will be perfect beleeuers because the Church hath declared the same to pertaine to the proper sence of Christ his words and substance of the mysterie ANSVVER I know at whom you glance when you say inter scita Scholae but your solution from the Doctrine of Incarnation is not leuell to the scope for illations are of two sorts some are immediate formall necessarie euident and illustrious to wit Christ Iesus is a true and perfect man therefore he hath an humane will some are obscure contingent remote and sophisticall to wit Christ said This is my bodie Ergo the consecrate host is Christs substantiall bodie by Transubstantiation Christ said Do this in remembrance of me Ergo he made his Disciples sacrificing Priests That which is deriued from Scripture the first way is Doctrine of Faith that which is inferred the other way may be loose vncertaine infirme and many times ridiculous and apparantly false Now let me intreate you vntill you prooue your deduction necessarie to ranke your Popish Masse and Transubstantiation among this latter kind of deriuatiue Articles Neither can the swelling vsurpation of Romish Prelates which you stile the Church make euery subtile speculation of Schoolemen and nice figment of humane wisedome an Article of Christian Faith any more than a bragging 〈◊〉 can by outfacing conuert copper into gold for Articles of Faith come downe from heauen by the holy Ghost and are such onely from their forme and originall causes As for your Romane Synode of Pope Nicholas and your Laterane vnder Innocent the third These were your owne Idols the definitions that passed in them were the breath of the Popes nostrils and therefore why are you so fantasticall as to enammell them with the title and authoritie of the Catholicke Church And in one of these conuenticles your Pope hath so rudely and grossely determined the Question of Reall presence that Romists themselues are now ashamed and forced to Glosses and strained Expositions to metamorphise and new mould those vndigested crudities IESVIT §. 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers IT is certaine the Fathers acknowledge a Transmutation of bread into the Bodie of Christ and that they meant Transubstantiation that is not onely a mysticall and significatiue but also a reall and substantiall change appeares by these fiue Circumstances of their Doctrine in this point ANSWER THat we may rightly vnderstand the testimonies of Fathers alleadged in this question wee are in the first place to examine what transubstantiation is according to Papalls The Trident Councell saith It is a conuersion of the whole substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of Christs body and bloud wrought by the words of consecration First by the whole substance they vnderstand the whole substantiall matter and forme Secondly they affirme that the whole substance of Bread and Wine is destroyed or ceaseth to be Thirdly the substance of Christs body and bloud are placed vnder the accidentall shapes of Bread and Wine Fourthly by the force of the words of consecration the substance of Bread and Wine ceasing the body and blood of Christ acquire a new manner of being vnder the externall formes differing from his being in heauen Fiftly the shapes and accidents of Bread and Wine subsist without any materiall subiect of inherencie and affect the senses and nourish in like manner as formerly they did This doctrine of Popish Transubstantiation is new according to the iudgement of many learned Schoolemen and the Primitiue Fathers neuer taught the same for many of them maintaine expresly That the substance of Bread and Wine remaine and none of them affirme either that the substance of Christs body and bloud are placed vnder the naked formes and shapes of Bread and Wine or that the Accidents haue no materiall subiect of inherencie or that the body and bloud of Christ acquire a new being in the Sacrament differing from that which they had
our most gracious King should speake or doe any thing for Antichrist against Christ whose Hope and Vertue and Honour is all in Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A TABLE OF THE PRINCIPALL MATTERS CONTAINED in this Booke A ACcidents of Bread and Wine without substance Fol. 430 439 Acts of the Apost chap. 2. v. 42. 507 Adoration and Veneration 208 S. Ambrose receiuing the Sacrament in one kind 503 Angells reioycing at a sinners repentance 515 Angells whether adored 327. 525 527 Antecedent will of God 78 Apostolicall Church 64 98 Assurance of faith 165 S. Augustine 21 68 122 132 200 219 273 296 323 443 Authoritie of the Church 10 133 300 B Baptisme 175 177 Beginning of errour not alwayes assigneable out of historie 131 A Body in many places 180 182 183 The Brasen Serpent 209 Bread called Christs body 397. a figure 401. This is my body 398 416. Christs body no fancie 410 448. not in many places at once 450. Truely receiued in the Sacrament by faith 184 C Caietan and others of Transubstantiation 414 182 A Cammell through the eye of a needle 411. Canonising of Saints 297 The Canopie in the Greeke Church 378 Chastitie of votaries 83 Certainetie of faith not from the Rom. Ch. onely or principally 5 Catholike Church 194 Church taken in diuers notions 49 It consisteth principally of iust persons 51. 53. Obseruations concerning the acceptation of the name Church 51. the authoritie thereof in things adiaphorous 133 300. How the ground and pillar of truth 3.53 The true Church perpetuall 58. It may erre in deliuerie of Tradition 88. it may be in few 59 67 76 104 A corrupt Church may teach some veritie and preserue the text of Scripture 59 117 The present Church not equall to the Apostolicall 118 Councells and Praecepts 527.531 Coloss. cha 1. v. 24. 559 Communion of Saints 557 Communion in one kind 459.470 Concomitance 460 The Councell of Constance 474.501 The Councell of Elliberis 251 No generall Councell for the first 300 yeares 119 Councells of the late Rom. Ch. neither generall nor lawfull 159. Papall Vsurpation and Tyrannie in them 153 A lawfull generall Councell desired by Protestants 157. Acts of Councels not preserued faithfully 128 Corruptions in the Hierarch Rom. Ch. 55.57.97 Conuersion of bread into Christ Bodie 399.400.421 The new Creed of Rome 125 Curiositie to be auoided 582 D Daniel chap. 2. vers 35. 4 Daniel chap. 4. vers 24. Redeeme thy sinnes 546 Discord among Teachers 71.73 Discord of Romists 108.583.585 E Epiphanius of Images 252 Errours in the Church 135. fundamentall and preterfundamentall 147.197 Esay chap. 2. vers 1. 4 Esay chap. 63. 16. 320 The Eucharist receiued by the hand 491. sent to priuate houses in both kinds 504. no reall Sacrifice 464 Exposition of Scripture by Fathers 45 F Faciall vision 35 Diuine Faith not grounded vpon Eccles Historie 128. Historie not alwayes assigneable for change of Faith 131 Fasting not satisfactorie to God for sinne 549 Fathers authoritie 68.87.129 their consent 121 Doctour Field 73.140.196.586 A Figure in the words This is my bodie 396.397 G Galath chap. 3. 〈◊〉 maketh not for Images 281 Gelasius against Transubst 436. and against Communion in one kinde 499 Glasse of the Trinitie 308 Generall Councels 152 156 Good Workes strengthen Faith 519 The Greeke Church 115 H Halfe Communion no Sacrament 484 An Hereticke defined 195 Hierarchiall Church 55.57 Honorius Angustudonensis of the iniquitie of Romists 112 Humane Historie no rule of Faith 128 131 I Idololatrie 269 Indulgences and Popes Pardons a late deuise 562. granted for many thousand yeeres 564 Images and their Worship 206.212 Images of the Trinitie 265 Images a snare to the simple 267 Influence of Christ into Workes maketh them not meritorious 515.516 Inuocation of Saints 288 S. Iohn chap. 20. vers 23. Whose sinnes you remit c. 191 Iustifying Faith 162 K The Kingdome of Christ deuided with the Virgin Marie 362 Kings may bee deposed by Popes and Bishops is the Doctrine of many Pontificians 575 L Latria or diuine Worship 241 Liturgie in a strange tongue 365 Liuing Saints Prayers to them 333 M Manner of Presence in the Eucharist 391.406 Math. 16.18 Vpon this Rocke c. 3 Math. 22.37 Loue the Lord with all thy heart 523 Math. 26. Drinke ye all of this 488.492 Math. 28.20 I will be with you alwayes c. 94.99 Merit of Workes 172.511 Merits of Saints deceased 240 Mediator supreame and subordinate 336 Miracles 85.102 Mother Church 126 Mother of mercie 361 N Nicene second Councell 247 O Omnipotencie 181.446 Oblations to Saints 348 Opposition to the Rom. Ch. 136 Ordination and Vocation of Pastors 98 P Penance no Sacrament stricter in the Primitiue Church 192. 539. 543 Penitentiarie taxe 113 Popes no Lords of Purgatorie 567 Popish Faith nouell 129 Polidor Virgil of Images 249 Prayer to Saints in set formes c. 352 Prayers in a knowne tongue 366.373 on beades 388. not meritorious 548 Priuate Prayer in a knowne tongue 383 Primacie of Peter 157.570 Promise maketh not Workes meritorious 518 Punishment of chastisement 540 Purging Authors 125 Q The Queene of Heauen 363 R Reading Scripture 35.271.272.277.279 Reall presence 178.395 Reason when to be beleeued 438 Receiuing Scripture from the Church 118 Religious honouring of Saints 322 Repetitions of Creeds and Auees 784 Reseruation of the Eucharist 432. in both kinds 505 Resolution of Faith 13 15 20 25 31 38 47 Romane Church 1 2 103 145. a particular Church 109. not vniuersall 111. not Catholicke 201. a stepmother 126. equall to other Churches 109.145 Romists want Apost Traditions 125 586 Romists causers of discord 109 Rule of Faith 〈◊〉 S Sacramentall vnion 405 Saints not omniscient 304. no Prophets 312. in what manner like Angels 317. no Patrons 344 Sanctitie of the Church 81 101 102. and want heereof in the Rom. Ch. 5 57 Satisfaction 534 541 544 555 575 Separation from the Rom. Ch. 106 Serapions Historie about one kind 503 Schisme 107 Silence of Historie no proofe of Faith vnchanged 116 131 143 144 255 Spirituall presence 396 Spirituall eating and drinking 184 Scripture how proued Diuine 24 30 the Mouth and Hand of God 91. Sufficiencie thereof 37 43 147. preserued incorrupt in all ages 23 117 124. wherein obscure 35 45. the translation thereof 29. the exposition and sense 45 121 123. more fundamentall than Tradition vnwritten 49 90. Papists depresse Scripture 92 Succession of Pastors 65. of Romists 115 Successor of Peter 160 Supererogation 522 528 Supremacie Papall hath no ground in Scripture 570 T Tertullian of the Scripture 9. of Indulgences 2. Timoth. 3. 15. c. 39 Theoderit of Transubstantiation 436 Titles of Canonicall Bookes 19 Tradition 45 91 93 150 151 580 Transubstantiation 390. not grounded on Scripture 182 447. the same defined 419. Caietan Scotus c. touching it 182 414 Transelementation 421 Transmutation 420 The Treasure of the Church 552 V Vasques about Adoration 232 Vertues of iust persons 170 The B. Virgin
rewarder of them that seeke him F. I asked How then it happened as Mr Rogers saith that the English Church is not yet resolued what is the right sense of the Article of Christ's descending into Hell B. The English Church neuer made doubt that I know what was the sense of that Article The words are so plaine they beare their meaning before them Shee was content to put that Article among those to which she requires subscription not as doubting of the sense but to preuent the Cauills of some who had beene too busie in crucifying that Article and in making it all one with the Article of the Crosse or but an Exposition of it And sure the B. thinkes and so doe I That the Church of England is better resolued of the right sense of this Article than the Church of Rome especially if she must be tryed by her Writers as you trie the Church of England by Mr Rogers For you cannot agree whether this Article be a meere Tradition or whether it hath any place of Scripture to warrant it Scotus and Stapleton allow it no footing in Scripture but Bellarmine is resolute that this Article is euerie where in Scripture and Thomas grants as much for the whole Creed The Church of England neuer doubted it and S. Augustine prooues it And yet againe you are different for the sense For you agree not whether the Soule of Christ in triduo mortis in the time of his death did goe downe into Hell really and was present there or virtually and by effects onely For Thomas holds the first and Durand holds the latter Then you agree not whether the Soule of Christ did descend really and in essence into the lowest Pit of Hell and place of the Damned as Bellarmine once held probable and prooued it or really only into that place or Region of Hell which you call Limbum Patrum and then but virtually from thence into the Lower Hell to which Bellarmine reduces himselfe and giues his reason because it is the common opinion of the Schoole Now the Church of England takes the words as they are in the Creed and beleeues them without further dispute and in that sense which the antient Primitiue Fathers of the Church agreed in And yet if any in the Church of England should not be throughly resolued in the sense of this Article Is it not as lawfull for them to say I conceiue thus or thus of it yet if any other way of his Descent be found truer than this I denie it not but as yet I know no other as it was for Durand to say it and yet not impeach the Foundation of the Faith F. The B. said That Mr Rogers was but a priuate man But said I if Mr Rogers writing as he did by publike Authoritie be accounted onely a priuate man c. B. The B. said truth when he said Mr Rogers was a priuate man And I take it you will not allow euerie speech of euerie man though allowed by Authoritie to be printed to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome This hath beene oft complained of on both sides The imposing particular mens Assertions vpon the Church yet I see you meane not to leaue it And surely as Controuersies are now handled by some of your partie at this day I may not say it is the sense of the Article in hand but I haue long thought it a kind of descent into Hell to be conuersant in them I would the Authors would take heed in time and not seeke to blind the people or cast a mist before euident Truth least it cause a finall descent to that place of Torment But since you hold this course Stapleton was of greater note with you than Rogers is with vs and as he so his Relection And is it the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which he affirmes The Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell and that there is a Catholike and an Apostolike Church If it be then what will become of the Pope's Supremacie ouer the whole Church Shall hee haue his power ouer the Catholike Church giuen him expressely in Scripture in the Keyes to enter and in Pasce to feed when he is in and when he hath fed to confirme and in all these not to erre and faile in his ministration And is the Catholike Church in and ouer which he is to doe all these great things quite left out Belike the Holy Ghost was carefull to giue him his power Yes in any case but left the assigning of his great Cure the Catholike Church to Tradition And it were well for him if hee could so prescribe for what he now claymes But what if after all this Mr Rogers there sayes no such thing as in truth he doth not His words are All Christians acknowledge he descended but in the interpretation of the Article there is not that consent that were to be wished What is this to the Church of England more than others And againe Till wee know the natiue and vndoubted sense of this Article is Mr Rogers Wee the Church of England or rather his and some others Iudgement of the Church of England F. But if Mr Rogers be onely a priuate man In what Booke may wee find the Protestants publike Doctrine The B. answered That to the Booke of Articles they were all sworne B. What was the B. so ignorant to say The Articles of the Church of England were the publike Doctrine of all the Protestants or That all Protestants were sworne to the Articles of England as this speech seemes to implie Sure he was not Was not the immediate speech before of the Church of England And how comes the subiect of the speech to be varyed in the next Lines Nor yet speake I this as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest Doctrines against which they ioyntly take exceptions against the Romane Church as appeares by their seuerall Confessions Nor did the B. say That the Booke of Articles onely was the Continent of the Church of Englands publike Doctrine Shee is not so narrow nor hath shee purpose to exclude any thing which shee acknowledges hers nor doth shee wittingly permit any crossing of her publike declarations Yet shee is not such a Shrew to her Children as to denie her Blessing or denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some particulars remoter from the Foundation as your owne Schoolemen differ And if the Church of Rome since shee grew to her greatnesse had not beene so fierce in this course Christendome I persuade my selfe had beene in happier peace at this day F. And that the Scriptures onely not any vnwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith B. The Church of England grounded her Positiue Articles vpon Scripture and her Negatiue Refute where the thing affirmed by you is not affirmed in Scripture nor directly
must be Doctrines vnchanged comming from the Apostles ANSVVER This Proposition may hold in prime and essentiall Articles of Doctrine but not generally in all Doctrines and some learned Papists hold that it is possible for the visible Church of one age to erre or be deceiued by a blamelesse and inuincible ignorance in points of Doctrine the expresse knowledge whereof is not necessarie to Saluation IESVIT But it is most cleere and confessed by the Protestants whose testimonie plentifull in this behalfe if need require shall be brought First that the Doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestants refuse haue beene vniuersally receiued for many ages a thousand yeares agoe at least euer since Boniface the third ANSWER It is neither cleere in it selfe nor yet confessed by Protestants that the Doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestants refuse haue been vniuersally receiued for 1000 yeres at least c. The article of the Popes Supremacie and of Purgatorie Adoration of Images forbidding married Priests to liue with their wiues were euer opposed and reiected by the Greek Church The Doctrine of the Trident Councell concerning the Canon of the holy Scriptures and the preheminence of the vulgar Translation before the Hebrew and Greeke Text was not vniuersally 〈◊〉 for a thousand yeeres The temporal authoritie of the Pope the merit of Condignitie publicke seruice in an vnknowne language Iubilees and Popes pardons Communion in one kind Transubstantiation Blessing or baptising of Bells c. were not generally receiued in the Church vniuersall for a thousand yeeres at least And a great number of Beleeuers which in this West part of the world haue alwayes denied and resisted these Articles and among other opponents there were a people called Waldenses Leonistae pauperes de Lugduno c. many in number and largely diffused through diuers Countries who denied the foresaid Popish Articles and whose Doctrine in the most points was consonant to that which reformed Churches doe now professe Reinerius an Inquisitour of the Church of Rome liuing about the yeere one thousand two hundred fiftie foure in a Booke Printed at Ingolstade writeth in this manner of the Waldenses which hee calleth Leonists Among all Sects which are or haue formerly beene none is more pernicious to the Church than that of the Leonists First because it continued longer than any other for some say it hath lasted euer since Pope Siluester others say euer since the Apostles Secondly because no Sect is more generall than this for there is scarce any countrey in which it is not found Thirdly whereas other Sects deterre men with their horrible blasphemies this Sect of the Leonists maketh a great shew of godlinesse because they liue righteously before men and beleeue all things rightly touching God and concerning all other Articles of the Ceed onely they blaspheme the Romane Church and Clergie in which thing the Laitie is forward to giue credit vnto them IESVIT Secondly That Protestants cannot tell the time when the Church of Rome began to change and deuiate from the Apostolicall Doctrine deliuered by succession Ergo the Roman Church neuer changed her Faith ANSWER If the Antecedent were true yet it followeth not Ergo the same Roman Church neuer changed her Faith For although we cannot tell the time when the progenitors of Abraham first began to change and deuiate from the Doctrine of Noah and Sem yet it is certaine that they had changed their Religion Iosh. 24. 2. And were not the Sodomites transgressors of the Law of Nature because the first beginning of their transgression cannot be knowne How many wicked Customes haue beene common in the World whose authors and first beginners were vnknowne to Posteritie The time is not knowne when the late Iewish Church did first change and corrupt the sense of the Morall Law and brought in the Traditions condemned by our Sauiour and yet they had corrupted and changed the same Matth. 5. 6. 7. 15. 19. 23. If a Tenant haue by himselfe and his predecessors long held an House which is now in decay and readie to drop downe the Landlord by this Law of the Iesuits Ergo shall neuer compell the Tenant to make reparation vnlesse he be able to demonstrate to the Tenant in what yeere and moneth euerie Wall and Rafter began to decay A Physician shall not purge a malignant humor out of a diseased bodie vnlesse hee or his Patient be able to name the time and manner of that misdiet which bred the first seed of this distemper IESVIT So that her Doctrines are to be receiued as Apostolicall supposing the Maior of this Argument be true That Doctrines vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne are to be beleeued as Apostolicall which is a Principle set downe by Saint Augustine allowed by Doctor Whitgift late Archbishop of Canturburie who in his Bookes written by publike authoritie against Puritans citing diuerse Protestants as concurring in opinion with him saith Whatsoeuer Opinions are not knowne to haue begun since the Apostles times the same are not new or secundarie but receiued their originall from the Apostles But because this Principle of Christian Diuinitie brings in as M. Cartwright speaketh all Poperie in the iudgement of all men I will further demonstrate the same though of it selfe cleare enough ANSWER If the Maior of this Argument were graunted to wit Doctrines vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne are to be 〈◊〉 as Apostolicall yet the inference is false because the Romane Doctrines opposed by vs were neuer vniuersally receiued but by many eyther not heard of or reiected and contradicted Neyther is the former Principle sufficiently prooued out of S. Augustine First because hee speaketh in all the places obiected of Customes and matters of Fact and Practise the right and Doctrine whereof is found in holy Scripture Secondly the Iesuit conueyeth into his Proposition certaine words to wit Doctrines vniuersally receiued c. which are not found in S. Augustine And this Father did neuer allow that the vniuersall Church should beleeue any thing as Doctrine of Faith which was not contained expressely or deriuatiuely in holy Scripture And in the same bookes out of which these Obiections are collected he confuteth rebaptising by Scripture and confirmeth the lawfulnesse of Infants Baptisme by Scripture So that his meaning is when matters being in common vse and practise are questioned the right and lawfulnesse hath warrant from the Scripture although no especiall example be found in the written Bookes of the Apostles of such practise yet the generall custome and vse of the vniuersall Church in all Ages argueth that such practise receiued it beginning from the Apostles For example That the Apostles baptised Infants is not particularly reported in their Writings but sufficient grounds are found in them to prooue the necessitie and to warrant the practise thereof In this and in all other the like cases Quod vniuersa tenet Ecclesia nec
ought to know them and thud God himselfe forgiuing sinnes knoweth them Psal. 69.6 But they which forgiue sinnes declaratiuely and by publishing Gods iudiciall Act like as a Cryer pronounceth the sentence of a Iudge and by applying the Word and Sacraments to penitent persons vpon the holy and worthie receiuing whereof the holy Ghost himselfe conferreth the grace of Remission may performe that which belongeth to their office without distinct knowledge of all the particular sinnes whereof the penitent person hath repented himselfe in the sight of God as appeareth in Baptisme and generall Confession ioyned with Contrition And when a Priest applyeth the word of Absolution hee knoweth not whether the person confessing his sinnes performeth the same truely and with contrition of heart or not Iohn Medina Cardinall Caietan and Iansenius acknowledge the weakenesse of this Argument to prooue Auricular Confession And Vasques saith That a man can hardly find among those which maintaine Auricular Confession out of the place of Ioh. 20. 23. which doe effectually conclude the same from thence Ioh. Medina treating of Auricular Confession saith The Romane Catholike Doctors haue laboured till they sweat againe to find proofe for this veritie He might well haue said They laboured to as good purpose as the man who sought to finde Nodum in Scirpo or A Needle in a Bottle of Hay Mich. Palacius saith Diuines are perplexed in finding places of Scripture or other conuincing arguments to prooue Auricular Confession to be of Diuine Institution and it is worthie admiration what contention is about this matter and how badly Authors agree concerning the same Our Aduersaries labour tooth and nayle to prooue from the former Text in S. Iohn That Priests exercise a Iudiciall Power when they absolue sinners But if this were graunted they gaine nothing for this Iudiciall power is exercised according to the word of Christ And if that word absolue contrite and penitent persons vpon internall Confession to God himselfe and vpon their generall Confession before men without secret Confession then it followeth not That because a Priest exerciseth a Iudiciall power when hee absolueth Ergo Penitents must confesse all their knowne sinnes A penitent person may haue mortall sinnes which he remembreth not Psal. 19.13 and when vpon profession of his repentance he is absolued those sinnes are pardoned Psal. 103.3 and the Priest in giuing Absolution exerciseth a Iudiciall Act according to the Popish Tenet and yet those finnes are not disclosed or manifested vnto him Secondly The present Romish Doctrine concerning the absolute necessitie of Auricular Confession is not Catholique The Greeke Church both of antient and later times reiected the same as appeared by Nectarius S. Chrysostome and by the testimonie of learned Papists which affirme the same concerning that Church The Glosse vpon Gratian saith Auricular Confession is not necessarie among the Grecians Greg. Val. Lib. 2. d. Miss cap. 4. saith That Panormitan and Gerson maintained that secret Confession was not necessarie Andreas Vega Very many learned Catholikes haue doubted of this necessitie of Confession by Diuine Law Maldenat sum q. 18. ar 4. There be also among Catholikes which thinke there is no Diuine Precept touching Auricular Confession to wit all the Interpreters of the Decrees and also Scotus B. Rhenanus and Petrus Oxomensis denyed the said Confession to be of Diuine Institution And Gratian himselfe hauing disputed the Question pro con concludeth in this manner I leaue it to the Readers choyse which opinion to follow because each opinion to wit the one holding Confession to be of Diuine Institution and the other Ecclesiasticall hath fautors both wise and religious Now if Auricular Confession is not certainely and infallibly of Diuine Institution then it is impossible for the same conioyned with Absolution to be a Sacrament because Sacraments of the New Testament were immediately instituted by Christ and haue their institution matter forme visible signes and promises expressely and manifestly deliuered and appointed in the Scripture of the New Testament From hence I argue If that which Romists tearme Sacramentall Penance haue no word of Institution no visible and corporeall Element no expresse forme or word of Consecration neither any Sacramentall effect appropriated vnto it by Christ and his Apostles then the same is no Sacrament of the New Testament But all and euerie of these Conditions are wanting in Popish Penance Ergo The same is no Sacrament of the New Testament If Penitencie be not affirmed by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church to be a Sacrament properly taken then that the same is such in our dayes is not Catholique Doctrine But learned Pontificians haue narrowly searched euerie Sentence of Antiquitie concerning Penitencie and cannot yet produce one place where the same is plainely and expressely affirmed to be one of the Sacraments of the New Testament properly taken to wit such as is Baptisme and the holy Eucharist Therefore the present Doctrine of Romists concerning Penitencie That the same is a Sacrament is neither grounded vpon the Scripture nor the perpetuall Tradition of the Church And our Romish Aduersarie is the eight time guided by a lying Spirit when he accuseth vs of fundamentall Error because wee denie Popish Penance to be a Sacrament IESVIT NInthly Their denying the Catholique Church expressely set downe in the Creed which of all the other Articles is with greatest danger denyed For the standing out against this makes men Heretikes and without erring against this no man is guiltie of Heresie whatsoeuer Doctor Field to the contrarie saith That an errant against a fundamentall point is an Heretike though hee erre without pertinacie whereof he brings not any syllable of proofe And yet his Doctrine is against the whole consent of Diuines and expressely against S. Augustine who saith That a man holding with Photinus whose errors were most fundamentall against the Trinitie and the Godhead of Christ thinking hee holds Catholique Doctrine is not yet an Heretike till warned that hee holds against the Catholique Church hee chuseth to perseuere in his error ANSWER WEe beleeue stedfastly the Article of the Apostles Creed concerning the Catholique Church and denie onely the false sense which Romists impose and the absurd inferences which they draw from this Article And whereas the Iesuit affirmeth That this Article is with greatest danger denyed because the standing out against it makes men Heretikes c. Both the Proposition it selfe thus rawly and confusedly deliuered and the Confirmation are false The Article of the Catholique Church is not the most fundamentall and prime Article of the Creed for many other Articles are about a more principall and excellent Obiect to wit immediately concerning God the Creator and Christ Iesus the Sauiour and Redeemer and God the Holy Ghost c. whereas the Obiect of the Article in question is concerning the Creature The
the roome or seate of another is not substantiall conuersion but alteration of place IESVIT Saint Chrysostome When waxe is put into fire nothing of the substance thereof is left nothing remaines vnconsumed so likewise doe thou thinke that the Mysteries are consumed by the substance of the bodie of Christ. ANSWER This Father saith not That nothing of the substance of bread and wine is left but cleane contrarie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing of the substance goeth away And the words which follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are falsly translated for they are not Is consumed by the substance but Is coabsumed with the substance Also the substance of bread is not consumed by the bodie of Christ according to the Tenet of many Schoolemen The substance of the externall elements passeth into the bodie of the Receiuer and is consumed or vnited to the flesh of the Receiuer The bodie and blood of Christ represented by the same and receiued by Faith nourish the soule to life eternall Iohn 6. 54. And if our Aduersaries following their owne translation will expound Saint Chrysostome literally then Communicants receiue Christs bodie by the hands of the Seraphim and not by the Priests hands IESVIT 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 than of nature seeing by the benediction euen nature is changed ANSVVER The quantitie and accidents of the outward signes are framed by nature as well as the substance and the force of consecration and benediction passeth vpon the one as well as vpon the other and therefore the change of nature which Saint Ambrose intendeth is not the destruction of the elements and the conuersion thereof into another substance but the eleuating of these earthly creatures to be mysteries of grace and holy instruments to apply and communicate that which is represented by them It is inconsequent to argue They are changed in their nature Ergo Their naturall substance is destroyed for nature implieth qualities and properties as well as substance and it is taken Theologicè as well as Physicè for S. Peter speaking of regenerate persons 2. Pet. 1. v. 4. saith They are made partakers of the Diuine nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet his meaning is not that their former substance is abolished The nature of glorified bodies is changed and they are made spirituall 1. Cor. 15. 44. and yet they retaine the same substance Mans nature was changed after his fall Ephes. 2. 3. yet the substance of his nature remained Saint Ambrose himselfe saith That in Baptisme man is changed and made a new creature and treating farther of the Sacrament of Baptisme he saith Learne how the word of Christ is accustomed to change euery creature and when he will he altereth the course of nature IESVIT Secondly They require that the Authour that changeth bread into Christ his Bodie be omnipotent and consequently the change not meerely significatiue but substantiall S. Cyprian This Bread changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the word is made flesh S. Cyrill Hee that in the marriage of Cana changed Water into Wine by his onely will is not hee worthie that we beleeue him that he hath changed Wine into his Bloud S. Gaudentius The Lord and Creator of Natures that of Earth made Bread againe because he can doe it and hath promised to doe it makes of Bread his owne Bodie and he that of Water made Wine now of Wine hath made his Bloud ANSWER S. Cyprian was not the author of the Booke de Coena Domini so Bellarmine confesseth and before him Iohannes Hessels but in some copies it passeth vnder the name of Arnoldus who liued manie ages after Cyprian And yet in one part of that worke d. vnctione Chrysmatis there is a manifest place against Transubstantiation Our Lord saith he in the table wherein he banqueted with his Disciples with his owne hands deliuered Bread and Wine c. declaring also how the thing signifying and the thing signified are called by the same name Secondly to a mysticall change the omnipotent power of God is necessarie as appeareth in the water of Baptisme and earthly creatures cannot be instruments of grace or meanes to communicate spirituall or miraculous benefits without the same as appeareth in the waters of Iordan 2. Reg. 5. and in the poole of Bethesda Ioh. 5. Therefore although some do require an omnipotent power to eleuate and change the creatures of Bread and Wine yet it followeth not that they maintained Transubstantiation Thirdly the author by the words Natura mutatus changed in nature vnderstood not a corporall change for in the same sentence he declareth himselfe by the example of Christs humanitie which being personally vnited to the deitie is changed but not so as that it looseth his naturall forme and substance And in the same Booke this Father faith That although the immortall food deliuered in the Eucharist differ from common meat yet it retaineth in the kind of corporal substance He saith not Species in the plurall number meaning according to the new Popish sence the externall shapes and accidents for let the Aduersarie prooue out of antiquitie that S. Cyprian or the Primatiue Church maintained the late Romish Doctrine concerning shapes of Bread and Wine without the materiall substance and we will freely grant that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is antient but he saith Speciem the kind in the singular number that is the corporall substance and forme in the same sence in which S. Ambrose vseth the word saying Ante benedictionem verborum Coelestium alia species nominatur Before the benediction of wordes applied it is called another kind of thing S. Cyrills place maintaineth not Popish Transubstantiation for in this the shapes and accidents remaine and the materiall substance is corrupted but in our Sauiours miracle Ioh. 2. the shapes accidents and forme were changed and the materiall substance remained Gaudentius saith Satis declarat Sanguinem suum esse omne Vinum quod in figura passionis sua offertur Bonauent d. 11. q. 6. in 4. sent Omnia verba significantia innouationē circà corp ' Christi sunt falsè dicta Haec est simplicitèr impropria Corpus Christi fit Ne 〈◊〉 putes quod Coeleste effectum est per eū qui transit in 〈◊〉 Nam cum panem consecratum vinum Discipulis suis porrigerat c. The Lord makes Bread of his owne Bodie and he makes Wine of his Bloud and then he saith further of Bread he makes his owne Bodie and of Wine his owne Bloud but he saith not that this is done by Transubstantiation for Christs Bodie and Bloud are not transubstantiate but calling the same coelestiall food he declareth his meaning
none of the antient Fathers maintained Romish Transubstantiation and I haue not obserued one expresse Testimonie produced by Romists wherein the Primatiue Fathers nay where Damascene or Theophilact affirme That the whole materiall substance and forme essentiall of bread and wine being destroyed the bare accidents and quantitie of bread and wine remaine or that the abstracted figures and qualities of those creatures are receiued into the mouth and stomacke and are tasted felt and conferre nourishment without any earthly matter conioyned to them But on the contrarie many Fathers affirme That after consecration bread and wine remaine Theoderet saith That they lose not their proper nature but remaine after they are sanctified in their former essence figure and kinde Gelasius saith Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to bee Bertram saith Secundam creaturarum substantiam quod fuerunt ante consecrationem hoc postea consistunt According to the substance of creatures they persist the same before and after consecration Ireneus teacheth That bread which is from the earth receiuing diuine calling or sanctification is not common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two seuerall things or matters one earthly and the other coelestiall Saint Chrysostome Before Sanctification wee call it bread onely but when diuine Grace hath sanctified it it is deliuered from the name of bread and is counted worthie of the Appellation of the Lords bodie although the nature of bread remaine in it still Damascene saith As a fierie coale is wood and fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not onely bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but bread vnited to the Diuinitie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is apparent that when fire is vnited to a coale that the materiall substance of wood remaineth at least in part The Aduersarie in answere to Theoderit and Gelasius pretendeth that these Fathers by the words Substance Nature and Kind vnderstand onely the naturall qualities and accidents which flow from the Nature and Essence of Bread and Wine and he yeeldeth a reason saying That in ordinarie speech the naturall properties and qualities of things are tearmed the nature of the thing c. But this Answere is insufficient because it might perhaps salue the Obiection grounded vpon the word Nature but the Fathers affirme also that the Sacramentall signes remaine in their essence substance and kinde and they adde farther that they may bee sensibly tasted and felt and haue force of nourishing the bodie and that they are compounded of many cornes and of many grapes which make one substantiall bodie of bread and wine Now these things cannot truely bee said of the naked shapes and accidents of bread and wine suspended and diuided from their materiall substance Besides the Fathers deliuer the foresaid Doctrine to prooue the veritie and distinction of the two substantiall natures in Christ by making a comparison betweene the holy Eucharist and the two natures in Christs Person but if the substance of bread and wine cease and are changed into the very bodie and blood of Christ then the former comparison would rather confirme the false beleefe of the Hereticke than maintaine the Orthodoxall Faith of Christs humanitie remaining euen after his Ascension for the Hereticke might inferre vpon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation two errours about the humane nature of Christ. First That as in the Eucharist there is onely the outward shape and forme of bread and not the reall substance euen so in Christ there was the shape and forme of flesh but not the verie nature Secondly Euen as in the Eucharist the essentiall forme and materiall substance of bread and wine are swallowed vp and conuerted into the bodie and blood of Christ so likewise after Christs Ascension the humane nature is absorpt and conuerted into the Deitie IESVIT § 4. The seeming repugnancies this Mysterie hath with sence should incline Christians the sooner to beleeue it THe former proofe of Transubstantiation might satisfie were this Mysterie easie and not accompanied with many seeming absurdities and repugnances against sense 〈◊〉 these foure First That a bodie as big as our Sauiours remayning still truely corpulent in it selfe should be contained within the compasse of a round Hoast scarce an inch long and broad Secondly That a bodie so glorious should be combined vnto corruptible elements and so made subiect vnto the indignities and obscenities that may befall vnto them Thirdly That the same bodie may be in heauen and on earth in innumerable places at once Fourthly That the substance of bread being conuerted into Christs bodie the sole accidents remaine by themselues performing the whole office of substance no lesse than if it were present euen to the nutrition of mans bodie These difficulties so scandalize Protestants that some condemne Transubstantiation as impossible yea as absurd ridiculous barbarous others professe they cannot subdue their vnderstandings to beleeue it as a 〈◊〉 of Faith To giue full satisfaction in this point I set downe this Proposition That these seeming absurdities should not auert but rather incline a true Christian minde to beleeue this Mysterie In proofe whereof I present vnto your Maiestie these three Considerations ANSVVER WEe measure not supernaturall Doctrine by humane sence or reason neither can any seeming repugnances of reputed Philosophie to Diuine Reuelation hinder our Faith where the holy Ghost commaunds vs to beleeue as appeareth in the articles of the sacred Trinitie Incarnation Resurrection c. Est quidem de communibus sensibus sapere in Dei rebus sed in testimonium veri non in adiutorium falsi quod sit secundum diuinam non contrà diuinam dispositionem saith Tertullian We must haue vnderstanding in the things of God out of common sence but this must serue to testifie truth and not to patronise errour according to diuine disposition Reuelation not against it So farre as sence and reason are not repugnant to diuine veritie but subseruient we may giue credit to them and euerie good Christian saith S. Augustine Vbicunque inuenerit veritatem Domini sui intelligat esse Wheresoeuer he findeth veritie taught either by nature or grace must vnderstand that it is his masters The question betweene the Romists and vs is not Whether if Transubstantiatiō be reuealed by God we may notwithstanding therefore refuse to beleeue it because the matter is difficill to be conceiued or because it hath manie seeming repugnances to sence for if they be able to demonstrate the first we must renounce the latter But the question is Whether Transubstantiation hauing no certaine and manifest ground in diuine Reuelation and many repugnances to common sence and reason and besides being expressely repugnant to the letter of the Scripture we are to beleeue the same First the holy Scripture calleth consecrated Wine the fruit of the Vine and consecrated Bread by the name of verie Bread
Luc. 22.18.1 Cor. 10.16 11.26.27.28 Secondly the same affirmeth not that the substance of Bread and Wine is abolished Thirdly naturall reason sheweth that accidents must haue a subiect of inhaerencie and that bare formes and shadowes of things cannot nourish without corporall substance Fourthly the sences of Tast and Feeling discerne apparantly a corporietie in the elements receiued In this case there is no reason to imagine that our sences are deluded or that God almightie by miracle worketh in a contrarie manner to the course of nature and to that which he hath otherwise reuealed in his word It is not sufficient for Romists to affirme That God vseth a miraculous course in these things and to palliate absurdities repugnant to sence reason and scripture vnder pretext of Gods omnipotencie but they must prooue by diuine Reuelation that he will doe this for God effecteth not all things by his omnipotencie which men may imagine to be possible In the wordes of our Sauiour This is my Bodie This cuppe is the new Testament in my Bloud c. there is not a sillable concerning accidents without a subiect or concerning any miracle wrought in the Sacrament by omnipotencie neither is there any such doctrine elsewhere reuealed And if Christs words be expounded figuratiuely according to S. Augustine Tertullian Theoderit Origen Bertram c. they make nothing for corporall presence by indistance of place and if they be vnderstood literally they prooue not Transubstantiation for Bread may be called the bodie of Christ by an inusitate forme of speaking which according to the Tenet of some learned Diuines is no trope or figure And if neither of these expositions content our Aduersaries they might haue beleeued the words of the holy Text as they sound literally and a reall presence of Christs Bodie and Bloud wrought by the power of the holy Ghost without defining and determining the expresse manner how For if they beleeue that accidents subsist without a substance and nourish and are tasted and felt and passe into the stomach and yet are not able to expresse the distinct manner how and if they beleeue a substantiall presence of Christs indiuiduall humane bodie in many hosts and yet are vnable to declare the maner how Why might they not haue suspended other questions concerning the distinct manner of presence and maintained onely a true and mysticall presence the distinct manner whereof is incomprehensible in this life and not haue disturbed the peace of the Church by defining as an article of Faith such a doctrine as hath no foundation in diuine Reuelation to make it appeare certaine and infallible IESVITS 1. Consideration The first is grounded vpon the supposall of two things most certaine First that the Primitiue Church preaching vnto Pagans Iewes and other Infidels the rest of Christian mysteries as the Trinitie the Incarnation the Resurrection of the bodie did most carefully keepe as much as might be from their knowledge the mysteries of the Eucharist yea Catechumens and Nouices were not before Baptisme fully taught or instructed therein Secondly the reason moouing the Primitiue Church to be carefull in this point was least Catechumens and Infidels being fully acquainted with the whole mysterie the one should be scandalized and the other mocke thereat Hence it was accounted such a haynous offence that Christians should discouer this secret vnto Infidels or dispute about the difficulties thereof in their presence The Councell of Alexandria relating the crimes of Arians number this as one of the greatest They were not ashamed in publique and as it were vpon a scaffold to treat of the mysteries before Catechumens and which is worse before Pagans And a little after Jt is not lawfull to publish the Mysteries before them that are not initiated for feare least Pagans out of ignorance mocke and Catechumens entring into curiosities be scandalized And againe Before Catechumens and which is more before Iewes and Pagans blaspheming Christianitie they handled a question about the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour S. Ambrose saith To declare the mysteries vnto them that be Catechumens is not Tradition but Prodition seeing by such declarations danger is incurred least they be diuulged vnto Jnfidels that will scoffe at them This supposed I infer that the seeming absur dities of the Catholique reall presence should incourage a true Christian mind to beleeue it for a true Christian desires to beleeue and firmely cleaue vnto the reall presence that was beleeued by the Primitiue Church But this was a reall presence accompanied with many so seemingly grosse absurdities that the Church had no hope to satisfie Infidels therein or to keepe them from blaspheming but by concealing the mysterie from them and consequently they held the Catholique not the Protestant Doctrine in this point The Protestant Doctrine that makes Christs bodie present spiritually by Faith vnto the deuout Receiuer that communicating thinks sweetly of Christs passion and death containes no mysterie to be concealed in respect of the seeming absurdities ANSWER In the daies of the Fathers Heathens Iewes and Heretickes might enter into the Church and heare the publicke Sermons and preaching as appeareth by the fourth councell of Carthage and Infidels might read the bookes and tractates of the Fathers But the Fathers in their sermons to the people and also in their written bookes deliuered the Doctrine of the holy mysteries as appeareth by Ireneus Iustin Martyr S. Cyprian Gregorie Nissen Cyrill of Hierusalem S. Chrysostome S. Augustine S. Ambrose c. Neither is it apparant that the said Fathers taught any other secret Doctrine touching the holy mysteries than such as they preached in their Homilies and penned in their Bookes and therefore these Homilies and Bookes being publique it appeareth not that the Primitiue Church was more carefull to conceale the Doctrine of the Eucharist than of Baptisme or of the Trinitie The Obiections out of Athanasius and S. Ambrose shew that it was held vnlawfull in those ages to treat or dispute of the holy Eucharist intempestiuè that is before Heathens which were not at all instructed in the first Principles of Religion or to treat of this Doctrine in prophane places or auditories But what is this to Transubstantiation For it was held vnlawfull in the Primitiue Church in maner aforesaid that is in an vndue time order place to treat or dispute of the mysteries of Baptisme or of other profound mysteries belonging to Christian faith Also if it were granted that some antient Fathers beleeuing a reall Presence did therefore conceale the doctrine of the holy Eucharist Ratione scandali because of offence of Infidels arising vpon many difficulties and seeming contradictions to sence and common reason it followeth not from hence that those Fathers beleeued Popish Transubstantiation for many difficulties and repugnances to sence and common reason are found in Consubstantiation as well as in Transubstantiation and sundrie places of the Fathers may with more
in it selfe Js it iniury to his charitie to thinke that loue vnto men makes him vnite himselfe really and substantially with them and to be as it were incarnate anew in euery particular faithfull man entering really into their bodies to signifie efficatiously his inward coniunction by spirit vnto their soules Finally is it an iniury to his Wisedome to beleeue that to satisfie on the one side the will of his Father that would haue him euer in heauen sitting at his right hand on the other side the Ardencie of his owne affection vnto men desiring to be perpetually with them he inuented a manner how still remaining glorious in heauen he might also be continually on earth with his Church secretly not to take from them the merit of faith yet to afford full satisfaction to his owne loue really by continuing personall presence and most intime coniunction with them On the other side it imports them that thinke Transubstantiation impossible or that God cannot put the same body in different places at once to consider if they erre easie it is for men to erre that with the compasse of their vnderstandings measure the power of God how dangerous and vnexcusable their errour will prooue when they shall be called to giue vnto their omnipotent Maker a finall account particularly of this Doctrine so much derogating from him Let them thinke how they will answer if God lay to their charge the neglect of the most prudent and reasonable aduise which S. Chrys. giues Let vs beleeue God saith he let vs not reiect his Word though the same seeme secret and absurd vnto our cogitation and sense for his speech doth surpasse our reason and sense his words cannot deceiue vs but our senses be deceiued easily and often How will they reply if they be pressed with the Intergatory which S. Cyril makes vnto such misbeleeuers If thou couldst not comprehend the diuine operation of God Why didst thou not accuse the imbecility of mans wit rather than the omnipotencie of God Or how disputing or proposing so many arguments against Gods power reiecting or questioning the same because they could not vnderstand it they neuer called to mind the saying of S. Augustine Ecce quibus argumentis diuinae omnipotentiae humana contradicit infirmitas ANSWER This third and last consideration is a meere declamation grounded vpon a vaine supposition for it presumeth as granted the opinion of Transubstantiation to be most probable and reasonable as being declared by many antient Fathers defined by generall Councells c. But this supposition is a begging of the question for not so much as one antient Father or generall Councell did euer declare or define the same as it will plainely appeare to all iudicious Persons which shall compare and apply the sentences of Fathers and antient Councells to the Popish definition of Transubstantiation And the said Doctrine is not grounded vpon our Sauiours words and the miracles which Romists venditate to authorise the same are eyther Fryars fables or reports misapplyed and wrested to a contrary end And that there should be merit or at leastwise lesse perill in adhering to this doctrine rather than to any other may bee proclaimed ouer and ouer againe by Romists but it deserueth credit when they demonstrate That an opinion which is not grounded vpon diuine Reuelation and which containeth so many difficulties as cannot be solued and the beleefe whereof is vnnecessarie can be imbraced with safetie and expectation of reward To the words following in the Iesuit That he might also bee continually with his Church secretly it is answered That excluding Transubstantiation Christ Iesus is continually with his Church secretly by his grace spirit and mysticall vnion and he dwelleth in the hearts of iustified persons by faith Epkes 3. v. 17. S. Chrysostome S. Cyril and S. Augustine in the places obiected affirme that we are not to beleeue our dull and carnall sence when it suggesteth vnto vs that which is repugnant to faith and when it acknowledgeth no other force and operation in the holy Sacraments but that which is sensible and naturall But embracing this doctrine of the holy Fathers we cannot from thence extract the fancie of Transubstantiation Learned Papists themselues acknowledge the intricacies and difficulties of this Article many of them affirme that secluding the authoritie of the Romish Church there is nothing in diuine Reuelation compelling to beleeue it The doctrine is not Catholike or Antient The Propugners of it vntill the late Trident Councell disagree in that which is maine and substantiall in it and for auoiding one figure they make many Therefore it standeth not with Christian Wisedome to imbrace or maintaine this doctrine and Romists are more confident than prudent in imposing the same as an Article of the Creed censuring the Noncredents as hainous Heretikes My finall conclusion about this Article is That doctrine which is not expresly taught or formally deduced from holy Soripture which no antient Councell or Church for the first 600 yeares plainely taught and vnto which many aduerse passages are extant in the monuments of antiquitie also which is repugnant to sence and common reason and hath no apparent vtilitie ought not to be imposed as an article of diuine faith But such is the doctrine of Romish Transubstantiation Therefore it ought not to be imposed as an article of diuine faith and the Roman Church should either cancell this part of their new Creed or be lesse censorious in obtruding of it THE SEVENTH POINT COMMVNION VNDER ONE KIND AND THE ABBETTING OF IT BY CONCOMITANCIE IESVIT YOur most Excellent Maiestie in the Proposition of this Controuersie shewes your deepe insight into Theologicall difficulties perceiuing a maine ground whereon the Catholicke opinion of the lawfulnesse of Communion vnder one kinde standeth to wit Concomitancie which being granted Communion vnder one kind is iustified ANSVVER IF his Sacred MAIESTIE should yeeld you Concomitancie yet vpon that ground Communion in one kinde could not be iustified Neuerthelesse we denie both 〈◊〉 and Communion vnder one kinde IESVIT § 1. The Doctrine of Concomitancie prooued THe Doctrine of Concomitancie is that vnder the forme of bread not onely the bodie of Christ but also his precious blood and blessed soule are truely and really contained the bodie directly and by vertue of the words of Consecration the blood and the soule consequently for being contained within the bodie of Christ they must needs Concomitate that is follow the bodie in what place soeuer the same bee neither can any that acknowledges the reall Presence denie this Concomitancie without falling into many absurdities as I prooue by three Arguments ANSWER THe bodie of Christ is considered two wayes First According to the nature of a perfect liuing bodie secondly As it is represented and exhibited in the Sacrament If we consider it the first way the blood of Christ cannot properly be said to be
Church of which a Councell be it neuer so generall is a verie little part Yea and this verie Assistance is not so absolute nor in that manner to the whole Church as it was to the Apostles neyther doth Christ in that place speake directly of a Councell but of his Apostles Preaching and Doctrine 2. As for Christs being with them vnto the end of the World the Fathers are so various that in the sense of the antient Church wee may vnderstand him present in Maiestie in Power in Aid and Assistance against the difficulties they should find for preaching Christ which is the natiue sense as I take it And this promise was made to support their weakenesse As for his presence in teaching by the Holy Ghost few mention it and no one of them which doth speakes of any infallible Assistance further than the succeeding Church keepes to the Word of the Apostles as the Apostles kept to the guidance of the Spirit Besides the Fathers referre their speech to the Church vniuersall not to anie Councell or Representatiue Bodie And Maldonate addes That this his presence by teaching is or may be a Collection from the place but is not the intention of Christ. 3. For the Rocke vpon which the Church is founded which is the next place wee dare not lay any other Foundation than Christ Christ layd his Apostles no question but vpon himselfe With these S. Peter was layd no man questions And in prime place of Order would his clayming Successors be content with that as appeares and diuerse Fathers witnesse by his particular designement Tu es Petrus But yet the Rocke euen there spoken of is not S. Peters person eyther onely or properly but the Faith which hee professed And to this beside the Euidence which is in Text and Truth the Fathers come in with very full consent And this That the Gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it is not spoken of the not 〈◊〉 of the Church principally but of the not falling away of it from the Foundation Now a Church may erre and daungerously too and yet not fall from the Foundation especially if that of Bellarmine be true That there are many things euen de Fide of the Faith which yet are not necessarie to saluation Besides euen here againe the promise of this stable edification is to the whole Church not to a Councell at the least no further than a Councell builds as a Church is built that is vpon Christ. 4. The last place is Christs Prayer for S. Peters Faith The 〈◊〉 sense of which place is That Christ prayed and obtained for S. Peter perseuerance in the grace of God against the strong temptation which was to winnow him aboue the rest But to conclude an infallibilitie from hence in the Pope or in his Chaire or in the Romane See or in a Generall Councell though the Pope be President I find no antient Fathers that dare aduenture it And Bellarmine himselfe besides some Popes in their owne Cause and that in Epistles counterfeit or falsely alledged hath not a Father to name for this sense of the place till he come downeto Chrysologus Theophylact and S. Bernard of which Chrysologus his speech is but a flash of Rhetorike and the other two are men of Yesterday compared with Antiquitie and liued when it was Gods great grace and our wonder the corruption of the time had not made them corrupter than they are And Thomas is resolute that what is meant here beyond S. Peters person is referred to the whole Church And the Glasse vpon the Canon Law is more peremptorie than he euen to the denyall that it is meant of the Pope And if this place warrant not the Popes Faith Where is the infallibilitie of the Councell that depends vpon it And for all the places together weigh them with indifferencie and either they speake of the Church including the Apostles as all of them doe and then all graunt the voyce of the Church is Gods voyce Diuine and Infallible or else they are generall vnlimitted and applyable to priuate Assemblies as well as Generall Councels which none graunt to be infallible but some mad Enthusiasts or else they are limitted not simply into All Truth but All necessarie to Saluation in which I shall easily graunt a Generall Councell cannot erre if it suffer it selfe to be led by this 〈◊〉 of Truth in the Scripture and take not vpon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit For suppose these places or any other did promise Assistance euen to Infallibilitie yet they graunted it not to euerie Generall Councell but to the Catholike Bodie of the Church it selfe And if it be in the whole Church principally then is it in a Generall Councell but by Consequent as the Councell represents the whole And that which belongs to a thing by consequent doth not otherwise nor longer belong vnto it than it consents and cleaues to that vpon which it is a Consequent And therefore a Generall Councell hath not this Assistance but as it keepes to the whole Church and Spouse of Christ whose it is to heare his Word and determine by it And therefore if a Generall Councell will goe out of the Churches Way it may easily goe without the Churches Truth 4. Fourthly I consider That All agree That the Church in generall can neuer erre from the Faith necessarie to saluation No Persecution no Temptation and no Gates of Hell whatsoeuer is meant by them can euer so preuaile against it For all the members of the Militant Church cannot erre either in the whole Faith or in any Article of it it is impossible For if all might so erre there could be no vnion betweene them as members and Christ the Head And no vnion betweene Head and members no Bodie and so no Church which cannot be But there is not the like consent That Generall Councels cannot erre And it seemes strange to me that the Fathers hauing to doe with so many Heretikes and so many of them opposing Church Authoritie in their condemnation this Proposition euen in tearmes A Generall Councell cannot erre should be found in none of them that I can yet see Suppose it were true That no Generall Councell had erred in any matter of moment to this day which will not be found true yet this would not haue followed that it is therefore infallible and cannot erre I haue not time to descend into particulars therefore to the Generall still S. Augustine puts a difference betweene the Rules of Scripture and the definitions of men This difference is Praeponitur Scriptura That the Scripture hath the Prerogatiue That Prerogatiue is That whatsoeuer is found written in Scripture may neither be doubted nor disputed whether it be true or right But the Letters of Bishops may not onely be disputed but corrected by Bishops that are more learned and wise than they or by