is granted on both sides The only question is by what rule these Doctrines inuolued are vnfolded and made knowne vnto vs as articles of fayth ProtestaÌ„ts say by Scripture and the rules of Logicke and Reason Wotton Triall of the Romish c. pag 88. lin 29. and by other things besides Scripture euident in the light of nature Feild pag 281. lin 20. Catholikes hold that the rule to expound Scripture binding all men to belieue deductions as matters of fayth is not Logicke but the Tradition and definition of the Church And this Catholicke doctrin is proued First because the rule of faith must be for the capacity of vnlearned men aswell as of learned But men vnlearned cannot be sure of the virtualityes of Scripture by the rules of Logicke or Logicall deduction for they cannot vnderstand when an argument is good by the rules of Logicke Secondly the Scripture it selfe to supply her wants sendeth vs not to the rules of Logicke but vnto traditions saying 2. Thessal 2.15 Hold fast the Traditions ye haue receaued by word or our epistle They send men to the Church as to the pillar and ground of truth 1. Tim. 3.15 which whosoeuer doth not heare is as a heaâ—hen and a publican Matth. 13.5.7 Therfore by the rule of Church-Tradition not by the rules of Logicke do we learne autheÌ„tically the confessed virtualities obscurities and inuolutions of Scripture about matters of fayth Thirdly the Fathers about matters inuolued in Scripture send men not vnto Logicke but vnto Tradition auouching the same to be a rule as certaine no lesse estimable then Scripture S. Chrysostome homil 4 in 2. ad Thessal The Apostles did not deliuer all things in Scripture but some things without writing and these are as much to be credited as the written It is a Tradition this is inough seeke no more The same is taught by S. Dionysius Eccles. Hierar c. 1. Iren. l. 2. c. 2.3 4. Eusebius lib. 1. de demonst Euang. c. 8. by S. Basill de Spirit sanct c. 27. Epiphan haeres 55. 61. Aug. de Baptis li. 2. c. 7. lib. 5. c. 23. and the rest Finally we dislike the Protestant manner of controlling the Church by Scripture For on the one side they contradict the vniuersall custome and Tradition of the Church at the least and as they grant of many ages saying The Popish doctrine during the space of nine hundred yeares hath spread it selfe ouer the whole world so that an vniuersall Apostacy was ouer the whole face of the earth for many hundred yeares Perkins Exposit. of the Creed pag. 307. 400. On the other side their Arguments out of Scripture are at the most but probable and they sometimes challenge no more homini non prorsus alienato probabilior apparet Whitak contr 1. q. 5. c 8. circa finem Others alledge Scripture not with as probable colour as we doe Iohn White defence pag. 321. Yea this Minister in his Reply doth acknowledge pag. 581. That by Sophistry we giue vnto their Scripturall arguments seeming and appearing solutions Now we Catholikes thinke it to be Hereticall as S. Augustine sayth insolent madnes vpon probabilities vpon Arguments froÌ„ Scripture that receaue seeming solutions to contradict the Christian vniuersall Tradition of many hundred yeares For what the Minister saith this to be done by Sophistry is ridiculous For if to giue seeming plausible and probable solutions vnto Scripturall arguments against the full Tradition of Christianity be Sophistry what is true Theology On the other side if for men to stand against the Tradition of so many whole Christian ages vpon arguments they confesse to be probably and seemingly answered be Christianity what is hereticall Obstinacy Fifthly whereas you obiect that pag. 199. lin 6. the Fathers disputed from Scripture negatiuely agaynst Heretikes in this sort Doctrine is not cleerly deliuered in Scripture therefore it is not to be receaued as Fayth You must know that the Fathers proceed vpon a supposition that was knowne vnto all and granted by the Heretickes themselues to wit that the doctrins they disputed agaynst were not the full and publicke Tradition of the Catholike Church For seing Scripture as we haue shewed doth necessarily suppose Tradition that we may know the true text and sense thereof so likewise the Fathers when they vrge that all doctrine is to be reiected which is not in Scripture still suppose that that doctrine is not the publicke Tradition of the Church Where we must also note that the Fathers did not only require of Heretikes proofe from Scripture by way of deduction Logicall inference for such all heretiks did pretend and herewith deluded seely sots as now Protestants doe but they required of Heretikes to shew their doctrine in Scripture ipsis dictionibus sayth Irenaeus l. 2. c. 36. expressely and in tearmes and proue it not by texts sayth S. Augustine de vnitat Eccles. c. 3. which require sharpenes of wit in the auditors to iudge who doth more probably interprete them not by places quae vel interpretem quaerunt which require an interpreter and an arguer making Logicall inferences vpon the text so concluding for his purpose but by places playne manifest cleere which leaue no place to contrary exposition and that no Sophystry can wrest them to other sense to the end that Controuersyes which concerne the Saluation of soules be defined by Gods formall word and not by deductions from it according to Logicall forme For sayth S. Augustine what more vniust then Ingeniorum contentionibus causam populorum committere Hence the Fathers negatiue argument from Scripture ouerthroweth Protestant Religion for thus I argue Nothing is matter of Fayth and of necessity which is not formally and expressely reuealed by the word of God eyther written or vnwritten deliuered by full Ecclesiasticall Tradition But no Heretikes euer did nor our Protestants now do or can pretend perpetuall publicke Tradition vnwritten for their doctrins agaynst the Catholicke and Roman Church nor can they proue their Tenets ipsis dictionibus ex scriptura by Scripture auerring them in expresse tearmes Only they clayme texts which as themselues confesse receaue seeming appearing solutioÌ„s agaynst which they haue nothing to say but that this is done by Sophistry so bringing the busines of the Saluation of the world to be decided by contentioÌ„ of wit Therefore their doctrins are to be reiected as vnchristiaÌ„ Finally it is great vanity in you to thinke that the Traditions vnwritten mentioned by Fathers are conforme to your Doctrine writing as you doe pag. 46. By Tradition the Fathers vnderstand not the Fabulous dreames and inuentions of Papals who like Pharisees corrupt the right sense of Scripture by their vnwritten Tradition and affirme those thinges to be Apostolicall which agree with the confessed doctrine of the Apostles like darkenesse with light Thus you with much bitternesse and no lesse falshood For what Gerson de signis ruinae Eccles. sig 5. sayth of the heresyes of his age to wit
firmely any Minister of the Catholicke CHVRCH affirming a booke to be Scripture vntill we see cleerly that he deliuers therein the consent of the Catholike Church which then is euident vnto vs when we see him preach it freely and openly and no Pastour to contradict him therein may deceyue And if it may deceiue how can they be certaine that they are not deceiued seeing they thēselues liued not in the Apostles dayes nor saw with their owne eyes what coppyes the Apostles deliuered But Protestants as they pretend be certaine that they haue the true incorrupt Apostolicall text of Scripture Ergo they haue it vpon the authority of the holy Catholike Apostolicall Church Now the Minor that they haue the Scripture from the Romane is apparant for what other Church did deliuer vnto Luther the text of the Bible assuring him that they had it by Tradition from Auncestors tyme out of mind as giuen originally by the Apostles Which is accordingly acknowledged by (*) Whitaker l. 3. de Ecclesia p. 369. M. Whitaker (d) M. Doue in his persuasion others but particularly by (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word Luther himselfe Ergo the Roman Church is the one holy Catholik Apostolical Church whose Tradition doth deliuer infallibly vnto vs the text of Scripture And if the true Apostolicall Text then also (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word the true Apostolicell sense This I prooue if the Apostles did not deliuer the bare Text but togeather with the Text the true (f) We doe not say that the Apostles did deliuer the true sense of all their Scriptures making a large and entire commentary of all difficil texts as the Minister cauilleth pa. 121. but only that togeather with the text they deliuered the sense about the mayne and most principall points this sense thus deliuered by Traditiō with the text is to be admitted as religiously and reuerently as the text sense of Scripture to be deliuered perpetually vnto posterity then they who by Tradition rereiue from the Apostles the true Text must togeather receiue the true sense But as (g) Chemnit in exam Cōcil Trid. part 1. fol. 74. D. Bancroft in the Suruay pag. 379. principall Protestants affirme No mā doubteth but the Primitiue Church receyued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not only the text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sēse Which is agreable to the doctrin of (h) Vincentius Lyrinen cap 2. the Fathers that from the Apostles togeather with the text descends the line of Apostolicall interpretation squared according to the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense Whereupō S (i) Aug. de vtilit Creden c. 14. Augustine argueth that they that deliuer the text of Christs Ghospell must also deliuer the exposition affirming that he would sooner refuse to belieue Christ then admit any interpretation contrary to them by whome he was brought to belieue in Christ. For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense why may they not also deliuer a false text as receyued frō the Apostles An argument conuincing and (k) Though the Minister pag. 123. storme at this confidence of his Aduersary in tearming it vnanswerable yet by deeds he confirmes the saying to be true in not answering but chāging the force thereof quite another way saying It is this The text of the Scripture may be as easily corrupted as the sense Ergo All they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense may also deliuer a false text In this argument he denyeth the antecedent or assumption I answere First as I sayd the argument is peruerted and the medium or meanes of proofe changed for there is great difference betwixt Being as easy Being as possible seing a thing may be as possible as another and yet not so easy That ten men should conspire to deceaue me is not so easy as that three should so conspire as is euident Yet it is as possible as the other because no reason can be brought to proue that three may so conspire that proues not that also ten may do the like In the same manner though we should grant the sense may be more easily mistaken by the Church then the text yet it is as possible that the Church be mistaken in the sense Because no reason proues that vniforme Tradition can be mistaken in the sense that proues not that it is possible that the Church may be mistaken in the text though perchance not so easily Now if the Church in her vniforme Tradition may be mistaken about the text then is not Traditiō a sufficient ground of infallible perswasion that the text is the Apostles and so fayth is ouerthrowne which hath no other ground to know assuredly the incorrupt Scriptures deliuered by the Apostles but Traditiō as hath been prooued Secondly it is false that the sense and doctrine of Scripture concerning mayne and substantiall articles of fayth may be sooner corrupted and a false sense persuaded to the Church then a false text The reason is manifest because millions of Christians know by Tradition the doctrine of Scripture about mayne points that know not all the texts by which the same is proued yea perchance truly certainly not so much as one For example the doctrine that there are Three Diuine Persons and One God is so ingrauen in the harts of all euen simple Christians as you may sooner pull out their harts then make them belieue that this is not the Christian fayth whence no man can deny the Trinity but he is presently noted by al. On the other side this text 1. Ioan. 5.7 wherby the Trinity is proued There be three that giue testimony in heauen the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one millions do not know and so it is more easy to take from Christians this text then the doctrine therof And the same reason is of any other text the texts being stil commonly farre more vnknowne then the doctrine of the Creed such substantiall points vnanswerable The fourth Argument MY fourth proofe I grōnd vpō a Principle most certayne and set downe by (*) In the summe of the Conference before his Maiesty p. 75. your Gracious Maiesty That the Romane Church was once the mother Church and consequently the one holy Catholike Apostolicall Church all other Churches being her daughters and that she is not to be forsaken further then it can
he is so silent in print about the particulars of the ConfereÌ„ces only doing his endeauour to disgrace the Iesuit in generall tearmes saying That he vanished away from before his Maiesty with foyle and disgrace his Maiesty telling him he neuer heard a Verier Meaning a Foole or Asse c. A report so false as the Minister contradicts the same himselfe elsewhere writing to the contrary In his Preface towards the end and Reply to the Iesuits Preface initio That by the second Conference his Maiesty obserued that the Aduersary was cunning and subtill in eluding Arguments For what more opposite to the Veriest Asse or Foole then one cunning and subtill If his Maiesty obserued by that Conference that the Iesuit was cunning subtill acute in answering how could he say of him I neuer heard a Verier Asse Thus men implicate themselues that speake what they would haue belieued without care of Truth But in defence of the Relation I need say no more there being extant an Apology for the same in print Now concerning the Answere it selfe to the Nine Poynts M. Fisher hauing receaued the note presently addressed himselfe to comply with his Maiestyes CoÌ„mand being encouraged thereunto by the Title shewing his Maiestyes desire of ioyning vnto the Church of Rome could he be satisfyed about some Poynts And as he imployed therein his greatest strength so likewise he was carefull to vse the expeditioÌ„ that was required atchieuing the Worke in lesse then a moneth though the same was not so soone deliuered into his Maiestyes hands This expedition was likewise the cause that he did omit the discussion of the Ninth Poynt About the Popes Authority to depose Kings For being bound by the CoÌ„mand of his Generall giuen to the whole Order not to publish any thing of that Argument without sending the same first to Rome to be reuiewed and approued his Answere to that Poynt could not haue been performed without very longe expectation delay And he was the more bold to pretermit that Controuersy in regard that sundry whole Treatises about the same written by Iesuits and others both Secular Religions had been lately printed These Authours so fresh and new he was sure were not vnknowne to his Maiesty nor was it needfull that any thinge should be added Also knowing that commonly Kings be not so willing to heare the proofes of Coerciue Authority ouer them be the same neuer so certayne he iudged by this omission the rest of his Treatise might be more gratefull and find in his Maiestyes breast lesse disaffection resistance agaynst the Doctrine thereof Nor could he thinke that his Iudicious Maiesty being persuaded of the other eight Points would haue been stayd from ioyning vnto the Church of Rome only in regard of the Nynth Of the Popes Authority ouer Kings the Doctrine of the Protestant Church about the Authority of the people and of the CoÌ„mon wealth in such cases being farre more disgracefull dangerous And this forbearance is not Reply pag. 571. as the Minister obiects against the resolution of a constant Deuine or S. Bernards rule Melius est vt scandalum oriatur quà m vt veritas relinquatur It is indeed better that scandall arise then Diuine Verity be forsaken by the deniall thereof or by not professing our Conscience therein Reply vnto the Iesuits Preface initio when we are iuridically examined by the Magistrate wherein euen the Minister giueth testimony that the Iesuit was not defectiue but did fully and cleerely declare his Fayth about the Popes Authority his Maiesty telling him he liked him the better in respect of his playnesse This notwithstanding there is no man of Learning Discretion but will acknowledge that a Constant Deuine may put off the Scholasticke TractatioÌ„ of some Poynt of Fayth that is lesse pleasing vntill the Auditours by being perswaded of Articles that do lesse distast be made more capable of the truth towardes which by disaffection they are not so prone The other articles are largely discussed and as exactly as shortnes of tyme ioyned with penury of Bookes would permit They be according to the Note but Eight yet some of them contayne diuers branches and so all togeather they amount to the number of fourteene to wit 1. The worship of Images 2. The worship of the holy Crosse Reliques 3. That Saynts Angells heare our prayers 4. That they are to be worshipped with honour super-humane or more then Ciuill 5. That we may ought to inuocate theÌ„ 6. That Repetitions of Prayers in a fixed number is pious 7. The Liturgy lawful in a language not vulgarly knowne 8. The Reall Presence of Christs body vnto the corporall mouth 9. Transubstantiation 10. Merit 11. Workes of Supererogation 12. The remaynder of temporall payne after the guilt of Sinne. 13. That holy men by Diuine grace may for the same make compensant yea superabundant Satisfaction 14. That superabundant Satiâ—factions may be applyed vnto others by the Communion of Saynts Before these is prefixed the fundamentall Controuersy of the Church That men cannot be resolued what doctrines are the Apostles but by the Tradition and Authority of the Church About the sufficiency perspicuity of the Scripture About the Churches â—isible Vnity Vniuersality Holynes Succession from the Apostles That the Roman is the visible Catholicke Church whose Tradition is to be followed So that in this Treatise a Summe of all the chiefest CoÌ„trouersies of this Age is contayned Concerning the manner of haÌ„dling these Points the Minister graunting the Iesuite sheweth himselfe well verst in Controuersy addeth In his Preface he is deficient of diuine proofe in euery Article and farre more specious including our Arguments then happy in confirming his owne What reason he may haue to giue this ceÌ„sure of the Treatise I do not see but only that he would say something agaynst it and no better exception occurred otherwise it is cleere that in euery Article the Answerer vrgeth not only the Tradition of the Church not only the consent of Fathers but also sundry Texts and Testimonyes of Scripture And he doth not only which is the Ministers tricke score Bookes Chapters Verses without so much as citing the wordes nor only doth he produce the wordes of the Text but also refuteth the Protestant Answeres by the rules of interpretation themselues commend by recourse vnto the Originalls by the consideration of the Texts Antecedent and Consequent by the drift and scope of the discourse by Conference of other places specially by the expresse Letter and proper sense of Gods word He sheweth that Protestants pretending to appeale vnto Scripture interpreted from within it selfe as vnto the supreme Iudge in very truth appeale from the expresse sentence of diuine Scripture vnto the figuratiue construction of their humane conceyte For in euery Point of these Controuersyes they are proued to leaue the litterall sense of some Text of Scripture without euident warrant from the sayd Scripture so to doe vpon Arguments at the most probable
errour and so fallible that euery particuler man of the people for feare of being deceaued (o) Iohn white way pag. 116. must examine her teaching yea your selfe affirme (p) Reply pag. 136. lin 20. c. that not whosoeuer contradicteth the whole Church is to be held as an Heathen and Publican but only such as oppose the whole Church rashly without cause or inordinatly Ergo Protestants acknowledge the authority giuen to the Church by the word of God and consequently her lawfull authority Pag. 169. The Iesuit doth charge you to extenuate the value of our Lords passion in saying that the same doth not purchase and merit true inward purity and sanctity to mens soules and actions Against this you say (q) Reply pag. 169. lin 20. No Christian Church euer prized the oblation and merits more highly and religiously then we Great prayse or rather pride euen the Church of the Apostles were not more religiously deuout vnto nor more highly conceyted of Christ Iesus his passion then you are Well how proue you it Heb. 10.14 it is written with one oblation he did consummate his sanctifyed for euer Iohn 1.29 Behold the Lambe that taketh away the sinns of the world This is euen iust as if an Arian should argue in this sort It is written Iohn 10.30 I and and my Father are one Ergo Neuer Christian Church prized the diuinity of Christ nor thought more highly or religiously of his Equality with his Father then we Would not this argument should an Arian vse it proue him to be more ridiculous then religious And the same force hath this your argument as will appeare if we put togeather into forme the propositions thereof the one Scriptures the other your Assertion It is written that Christ is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world who by his one oblation on the Crosse did consummate the sanctifyed for euer Protestants (r) Caluin Antidot Trident in sess 5 Permaneâ— verè peccatuÌ„ in nobis neque per BaptismuÌ„ vno die extinguitur lib. 3. Institut c. 14. §. 9. NulluÌ„ à sanctis exire potest opus quod non mereatur iustaÌ„ opprobrij mercedem say that Christ taketh not away the sinnes of the world but that the same doth truly and properly remayne in iustifyed persons and is only hidden and not imputed yea your selfe affirme pag. 170. and 171. That sinne is still adiacent vnto all the vertuous actions of iust men and that this imperfection sinfulnes is only couered by Christ his merits and purity that it be not imputed Ergo Protestants prize the value of Christs passion for the effectuall and perfect sanctification cleansing and consummation of saints and their actions as highly and religiously as euer did any Christian Church Scriptures abused and falsifyed §. 9. I Will conclude this section with some few Examples of fraud and falshood in your citing of Scriptures where you help the dice by addition or subtraction of some particle or word to make the Scripture found on your side Although I do not doubt but your scoring vp in cyphers of so many impertinent Texts though being discouered it be ridiculous was also not without fraud by you vsed that you might make shew of Scriptures for such articles of your doctrine for which you know in coÌ„science that no true proofe from Scripture can be produced The text Iohn 5.39 abused Search the Scriptures To begin with the Scriptures themselues with a falshood more then once repeated in your Booke you would shew that the sacred Scripture is so easy as Vnlearned people may vnderstand the sense thereof without relying on the Churches Tradition Exposition To this purpose you say Pag. 9. lin 9. Our Sauiour commanded euen simple people to vse the Scripture Ioan. 5.39 One would according to this your citation thinke that the sacred Text did expresly say that Search the Scriptures was spoken vnto simple people And yet this is a fancy by you cunningly foysted into the text against the playne euidence therof which sheweth that Search the Scriptures was sayd not to the simple people but to the Church-magistracy of the Iewes as these three arguments euince First the word Iewes in the Ghospel of S. Iohn doth signify the Magistracy of the Iewes excluding the simple people This might be proued by forty exaÌ„ples but this may suffice Iohn 7.13 Ioan. 1.9 2.18.20 5.15.16.18 7.1.11.35 8.22.48 9.18.22 There was much muttering about him our Sauiour amongst the coÌ„mon people yet none durst speake openly of him for feare of the Iewes Behold the Iewes opposed coÌ„distinguished against coÌ„mon people feared of them wherby it is manifest that by the Iewes the Gospel of S. Iohn doth vnderstand the Magistracy of the Iewes But certayne it is that our Sauiour sayd search the Scriptures to the Iewes according to the signification of that word in the Gospell of S. Iohn Dixit Iesus Iudaeis Scrutamini Scripturas c. Iohn 5.32 Therefore the wordes were sayd to the Magistracy of the Iewes the common people being excluded Secondly our Sauiour doth testify that he sayd search the Scriptures vnto them that sent the Embassage vnto Iohn to know what he was Iohn 5.34 vos misistis ad Ioannem But cleere it is that the authours of this Embassage were not the simple people but the Church-magistracy of the Iewes Ergo Not vnto simple people but vnto Church-men and Church-magistrates did our Sauiour say search the Scriptures Thirdly our Sauiour sayd search the Scriptures vnto men highly persuaded of the sole-sufficieÌ„cy of the Scripture thinking in them to haue eternall life This appeareth by the text Ibid. vers 33. TestimoniuÌ„ perâ—ibuit veritati Ibid. vers 36. opera quae facio testimonium perhibent Ibid vers 37. Pater qui misit me testimonium perhibuit mihi search the Scriptures because in them you thinke to haue eternall life Hence they would not belieue in our Sauiour neyther vpon the testimony of Iohn nor vpon the testimony of his workes and miracles nor vpon the testimony of his Fathers voyce from heauen Now that the simple people were thus conceyted of Scriptures agaynst the miracles of our Sauiour we haue no grouÌ„d to think whereas that the Church-magistracy of the Iewes was thus conceyted the Gospell doth expressely declare There we reade how they appealed from his miracles to Moyses his bookes bidding such as were lead away by his workes Ioan. 7 52.5â— Scrutare Scripturas vide quia à Galilaea Propheta non surgit to search the Scriptures see that our Sauiour could not be the Prophet Therfore to these men standing vpon the testimony of Scripture sole-sufficiency therof vnto eternal life not to simple People did our Sauiour say Search the Scriptures because in them you thinke that you haue eternall life without me wheras euen these giue testimony of me Hence appeareth another falsificatioÌ„ of
that Pope Stephen should least of all meÌ„ admit that Heretikes who cleaue not to Peters Sea can validely baptize For his true words by you falsifyed and curtalled are these And (n) Quòd vna Ecclesia semel à Christo supra Petram solidata est hinc intelligi potest quòd SOLI PETRO Christus dixerit Quaecumque ligaueris super terram c. Atque adeo in hac parte iustè indignor quod qui successionem Petri se habere coÌ„tendit supra quem Ecclesiae fundameÌ„ta posita sunt alias Petras inducit c. Firmil epist. citata herein I do iustly fret against the open and manifest folly of Stephen that seeing he doth so glory of the dignity of his Bishopricke and standeth so much vpon his being the successour of Peter on whome the foundations of the Church were layd that he will bring in two rockes and the buildings of many Churches whiles by his authority he doth mantaine that in them Churches alien from Peters Sea or rocke true baptisme is giuen Thus Firmilian whence it is cleere that he did not reuile S. Stephen in respect of his clayming Primacy and authority by succession from Peter as you make him to your purpose to do but that being the successour of Peter he vrged this his Primacy against Anabaptisme whereas he should rather in Firmilian his opinion haue been (o) Stephanus qui per successionem Petri Cathedram habere praedicat nullo aduersus Haereticoâ— Zelo excitatur Ibid. Firmilian zealous in denying the validity of Baptisme giueÌ„ by Heretiks who euer impugne the vnity of Peters Chaire Whereas your Aduersary saith that the Scripture to them that know Tradition is abundantly sufficient but without Tradition not Against this (p) Pag. 37. lin 5. pag. 42. lin 16. you vrge this saying of Vincentius Lyrinensis (*) Vincent Lyr. adu Hâ—r c. 2. The Canon of the Scripture is perfect and sufficient in it selfe for all matters yea more then sufficient Verily this is sufficient more then sufficient to shew the beggary of your Religion otherwise this testimony so impertinent would not be by you and your fellowes so perpetually (q) Iohn VVhite Defence pag. â—70 VVotton Field VVhitaker and who not alleadged For Lyrinensis doth not say that the Canon of the Scripture is abundantly sufficient but only the same is supposed in an obiection or question mooued vnto him In answere whereto Lyrinensis doth shew that this supposed sufficiency is not such but of necessity the rule of Tradition must be ioyned therewith I know you are not ignorant of the Text you haue read it but read it I pray you once againe therin read the conuiction of your falshood Some (s) Forsitan requirat aliquis câ—m sit perfectus c. may ASKE seeing the Canon of the scripture is perfect and sufficient vnto it selfe in all thinges what need is there that the authority of Ecclesiasticall interpretation be ioyned therewith Because all do not vnderstand the holy Scripture in the same sense this in respect of the depth or difficulty thereof that the same passage is taken this way by one and that way by another so that as many dissonant interpretatioÌ„s may seemingly be brought therof as there be interpreters c. Hence in regard of the manifold windings and turnings of Errour it is (t) MVLTVM Necesse est VERY NECESSARY that the line of Propheticall and Apostolicall doctrine be squared according to the (u) Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus norma RVLE of the ECCLESIASTICALL sense In this Testimony two things are affirmed contrary to the purpose you bring it First that the sufficiency of Scripture is not so full nor so perfect as is supposed in the question the Scripture being deepe dark difficile that setting TraditioÌ„ aside in lieu of one certayne assured Truth one may find therein manifold windings and turnings of Errour Secondly that in this respect the Scripture caÌ„not be the only rule of Fayth but it is NECESSARY and VERY NECESSARY that besides Scripture we allow the RVLE of Church-Tradition or Exposition You knowing this as you did with what conscience could you cite this place for the sole-sufficiency of Scripture so many tymes cite it taking a thing falsely supposed in the Question for the doctrine of the Authour Pag 44. lin 24. to proue the Perspicuity of the Scripture in it selfe without the light of Tradition for all necessary points you cite the wordes of Irenaeus All the (x) Irenaeus l. 2. cap. 46. Scriptures both Propheticall Euangelicall are cleere without ambiguity and may indifferently be heard of all men Is it possible you durst in defence of your fancy cite this place in this manner according to which it is false euen in your owne fancy For do not you yourselfe write pag. 35. lin 18. We acknowledge that MANY particuler Texts and passages of holy Scripture are obscure and hard to be vnderstood How then are all Scriptures both Propheticall and Euangelicall cleere without any ambiguity indifferently vnto all men Are you also so dull of hearing as not to perceaue the iarre betwixt this sentence of S. Irenaeus and the sentences of the Fathers which after him presently you produce S. Hierome It is the manner of Scripture to ioyne that which is manifest after that which is obscure S. Augustine Playne places are found in Scriptures to expound and open the darke hard If this be true how are all the Scriptures cleere without ambiguity yea S. Irenaeus in the very next chapter (y) Iren. l. 2. c. 47. Vt in rebuâ— creatiâ— quaedam Deo subiacent quaedam in nostram venerunt scientiaÌ„ sic in 〈◊〉 Scripturis sayth That some things in Scripture are cleere and manifest which we must learne and belieue other are darke and obscure the interpretation of which we must remit vnto God Verily these Arguments conuince you to haue falsifyed Irenaeus as you haue indeed very grossely For he doth not say All Scriptures are cleere without ambiguity as you cite him but this (z) Cum itaque vniuersae Scripturae Propheticae Euangelicae in aperto sine ambiguitate similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt etsi non omnes credunt vnum solum Deum ad excludendos alios praedicent omnia fecisse per verbum sicut demonstrauimus ipsis Scripturarum dictionibus valde hebetes apparebunt qui ad tam lucidam adapertionem caecutiunâ— oculis nolunt videre lumen praedicationis Seing all Scriptures both Propheticall and Apostolicall openly and without ambiguity and in manner as they may be heard of all though all belieue not preach that one only God made all things by his word as we haue proued by Scriptures so affirming in the same words how dull sighted may they appeare whose eyes agaynst such manifest euidence are blinded and will not see the light of this preaching Thus S. Irenaeus affirming no more then that all
resplendant verity of the thing With these promises sayth S. Augustine (c) Quâ promissâ animâ— naturaliter gaudet humana sanorum escas appetendo irruit in vâ—nena fallentium Augustin Ibid. the soules of men are naturally ouerioyed whilest they gape after the promised sight of diuine truth whereof as yet they be not capable the cosening promisers cast into their mouth make them deuoure the poysoned morsells of their falshood Concerning the light of Scripture §. 3. CONCERNING the light of Scripture two thinges are euident First some arguments of probability may be drawne from the Scriptures to proue they are of God which serue for the comfort of Belieuers and may somewhat incline Infidels to belieue vpoÌ„ other greater motiues to wit the authority of God his Church This probable euidence euident probability is al which the testimonies of Scholemen brought by the Minister affirme Secondly the Scripture hath not light to shew it selfe with euident certainty to be the word of God but is belieued to be such without being seene as much as any other point and mystery of fayth to wit vpon the word of God so reuealing deliuered by tradition This is demonstrated because to be the word of God and the rule of fayth is to be true and certayne not only in some partâ— but also in al euery part particle therof so that as sayth our (e) Pag. 16. lin 2. Minister no lyer can speake therein and if (f) Augustin epist. 9. Si ad scripturas admittatur meÌ„dacium quid eis authoritatis remanebit one sentence of Scripture be prooued false the credit of the whole is lost But it is impossible that any man should know by the light euidence of the sense and doctrine of Scripture that the Scripture according to euery booke chapter leafe and line is certayne and assured truth and that no lye or falshood is contayned therein as these seauen Arguments euince The first Argument First because the (g) Hieron epist. ad Aug. 19. inter epist. Aug. Scripturae obscurissimae sunt Iren. l. 2. c. 47. Origen lib. 7. contra Celsum Reuerà multis locis obscurae Vide Bellarm. de Script l. 3. c. 1. Fathers teach and (h) Field Church l. 4. c. 15. No question but there be manifold obscurityes in Scripture Protestants euen our (i) Reply pag. 35. Minister acknowledge that there be many darke and obscure passages of Scripture that the Scripture is full of innumerable difficultyes that sometimes one (k) Quid vel falsò suspicentur non inueniunt Aug. l. 2. de doctr Christ. c. â— Whitaker de Eccles. pag. 220. Quaedam loca de quibus nihil certo statui potest can hardly so much as giue a probable guesse at their meaning but these texts and places cannot be knowne to containe diuine truth no falshood by the euideÌ„ce of the doctrine Therefore we cannot know the Scripture to be the word of God that is nothing but truth by the euidence of the doctrine HeÌ„ce appeareth that Protestants teaching that â—he Scripture is known to be the word of God and that no lye is contayned therein by the euidence and light of the doctrine coÌ„tradict themselues in saying that in many places it is difficill and darke as they cannot assuredly vnderstand it For how can they know by the light of the sense or doctrine that the texts not vnderstood containe nothing but truth The second Argument Secondly the Scriptures are pretended to be known by the maiesty (l) Reply pag. 16. Internall matter maiesty of the bookes Item pag. 30. 68. Field appendix 34. Caluin Instit. l. 1. c. 7. purity of the doctrine but though some mysteries of the Scriptures carry a maiesty in respect of naturall reason and a shew of sublimity aboue it as the Blessed Trinity yet (m) Sunt quaedaÌ„ in sacris litteris quae quia suboffendunt animos ignaros negligentes sui quae maxima turba populariter accusari defendi autem populariter propter mysteria quae in illis coÌ„tinentur non à multis admodum possunt Aug. de vtil cred c. 1. other points of Scripture seeme vnto reason ridiculous and childish As that the serpent did speake to the woman that Adam and Eue were naked without perceiuing themselues to be so that there was day and night before the sunne was created the like Therfore we must haue some other surer ground then this maiesty of the doctrine to be certayne that the Scripture is nothing but truth Gods infallible word The third Argument Thirdly wheras the (n) Reply pag. 19. Minister much vrgeth the harmony of Scripture to proue the same to be of God Though this harmony appeare in diuers thinges yet who doth not know that innumerable seeming contradictions are obiected against Scripture (o) This is euident vnto al that haue read the coÌ„meÌ„taryes of the Fathers many of which are only probably answered by the Fathers many answered by thinges assumed without proofe only because otherwise we must admit contradiction in Scripture (p) This appeareth particularly in the foure first chapters of Genesis and in the Genealogy of our Sauiour And in concording the Chronologyes of the Booke of Kings some places not fully answered but the Fathers were forced to fly from literall vnto allegoricall senses how then could the ancient Fathers know the harmony of Scripture by the euidence of the thing thereon ground their faith that the Scripture is of God Or if they could not how can we For what the Minister boastingly affirmeth (q) Reply pag. 24. lin 15. of himselfe and his fellowes we find at this day a perfect harmony of all the parts of the Gospell among themselues and a perfect agreement of the same with the Scriptures of the old Testament This Ministeriall bragge I say of their finding the harmony of all Scriptures at this day aboue all the Ancients by the euidence of the thing is incredible for men cannot be more sure of the perfect harmony of Scriptures then they are sure that all contradictions laid to the charge of Scripture haue true solutions But no man liuing euer was or is sure by euidence that all the solutions and answeres vsed to reconcile Scriptures be the truth no not Protestants For did they vnderstand assuredly euery text of Scripture and euery seeming contradiction is reconciled could there be amoÌ„gst theÌ„ such different and aduerse exposition of Scripture Therefore no man euer did or doth know the perfect harmony of all Scriptures by the euidence of the thing nor consequently the Scripture to be of God by the euidence of this harmony The fourth Argument Fourthly wheras the Minister pretends the Scripture to be known by the style affirming that seeing God hath bestowed tongues and voyces on men by which they may be known the Iesuite cannot persuade any reasonable man that God so speaketh in Scripture as men eleuated
Gods Ergo God being the prime verity cannot permit Catholicke Christian Tradition to be falsifyed How the Churches Tradition is proued infallible independently of Scripture §. 4. HENCE is answered the common Obiection which Protestants make that Tradition of doctrine from hand to hand made by men is fallible subiect to errour for they may deceaue or be deceaued If We answere that Christian Catholicke Tradition of doctrines is infallible through Gods speciall assistance They reply this infallibility of traditioÌ„ through diuine assistaÌ„ce cannot be knowne but by the Scripture and so before we can build our fayth on Tradition as infallible we must know the Scripture to be the word of God and consequently we cannot build our persuasion of the Scriptures being Apostolicall and diuine on Tradition except we comit a Circle I Answere First that Catholicke Tradition is proued to be (m) Est suÌ„mus gradus certitudinis humanae de qua SIMPLICITER dici potest noÌ„ posse illi falsum subesse Suarez de gratia l. 9. c. 11. n. 11. Et hoc ibid. probat simply infallible by the very nature thereof For TraditioÌ„ being full report about what was euident vnto sense to wit what doctrines and Scriptures the Apostles publickly deliuered vnto the world it is impossible it should be false Worlds of men cannot be vniformely mistaken and deceaued about a matter euident to sense and not being deceaued being so many in number so deuided in place of so different affectious and conditious it is impossible they (n) Neglexerit officiuÌ„ suum Villicus Christi c. Quî verisimile vt tot tantae Ecclesiae in vnam fidem errauerint variasse debuerat error EcclesiaruÌ„ Caeterùm quod apud multos vnuÌ„ inuenitur non est erratuÌ„ sed traditum Tertullian de praescript c. 28. should so haue agreed in their tale had they maliciously resolued to deceaue the world Wherefore it is impossible that what is deliuered by full Catholicke tradition from the Apostles should be a thing by the traditioners first deuised Secondly I say that how soeuer human Tradition may be by nature fallible yet the Christian Catholicke is assisted of God that no errour can creep into the same Which diuine assistance to be due vnto it is demonstrated by the perfection of Diuine verity by the nature of tradition precedently independently of Scripture and therefore without any Circle by two Arguments The first is the same we before touched God beâ—ng Prime Verity cannot conniue that the meanes of conueying the Apostles doctrine vnto posterity which bindeth Religious belieuers to receaue the same as his word should secretly be infected with damnable Errour For being Infinit Verity in his knowledg this cannot be done without his priuity Knowing thereof being infinit veracity in his teaching the truth he cannot yield that the meanes of conueying his truth obliging men to belieue should â—mperceptibly be poysoned whereby men for their deuotion vnto his Verity incurre damnation This being so I assume But the Catholicke tradition of doctrine from the Apostles bindeth Christians to whome it is deliuered to belieue the same as Gods word This I proue When doctrine is sufficiently proposed as Gods word men are bound to belieue it But that is sufficiently proposed as Gods word vnto Christians which is vnto them sufficiently proposed â—s Doctrine of the Apostles Now that Catholicke Tradition of doctrine from the Apostles is sufficient proposition and proofe that that Doctrine is the Apostles is proued first because Catholicke tradition of doctrine is by nature simply infallible as hath bin shewed but proposition knowne simply to be infallible is sufficient to bind men to belieue Secondly Catholicke tradition that is the report of a world of Ancestors coÌ„cerning sensible matters of fact is so pregnant and obligatory as it were insolent madnes to deny it In so much as euen (o) Caluin Institut l. 1. c. 8. n. 9. Quaerunt quis nos certiores fecerit à Moyse aliis Prophetis haec fuisse scripta quae sub eorum nominibus leguÌ„tur c. quis non colaphis flagellis castistandum illum insanum dicat Certô certiùs est ipso rum scripta non aliter peruenisse ad posteros quà m de manu in manuÌ„ TRADITA Caluin sayth that such as deny the tradition of Ancestors concerning the authors of the Canonicall bookes are rather to be reformed with a Cudgell then refuted by Argument Thirdly God himselfe sendeth children vnto the tradition of their Ancestors to learne of them the sensible workes of his miraculous power done in former ages (p) Deuteron 32.7 Aske thy Father and he will tell thee thyne Auncestors and they will certifye thee Fourthly the proofe of tradition is so full and sufficient as it conuinceth infidels For though they be blind not to see the doctrine of the Apostles to be Diuine yet are they not so voyd of common sense impudent and obstinate as they will deny the doctrine of Christian Catholicke tradition to be truly Christian Apostolical Whence two thinges are euident First that Catholicke tradition from the Apostles is an externall sufficient proposition and a conuincing argument that the doctrin so deliuered is Apostolicall consequently Diuine reuealed Doctrine Secondly that Heresy which stands agaynst this tradition 〈◊〉 willfull obstinacy and madnes and worse then Paganisme The second argument God being Prime verity binding all men that will be saued to know and firmely belieue the Apostles doctrine euen vntill the worlds end cannot conniue that the only Meanes to know this doctrin perpetually and euer after the â—postles decease be secretly insensibly poysoned with errours agaynst the truth of Saluation This is â—eere The only meanes whereby men succeeding â—he Apostles may know assuredly what Scriptures â—nd doctrins they deliuered to the Primitiue Cathoâ—icke Church is the Catholicke tradition by worlds â—f ChristiaÌ„ Fathers Pastors vnto worlds of Chriâ—tian children and faythfull people Ergo Catholike Tradition is by God the Prime verity so defended â—reserued assisted as no errour agaynst Saluation â—an be deliuered by the same consequently it apâ—eareth by the very notion of prime Verity indepenâ—ently of Scripture that Catholicke tradition is â—roued to be infallible through Gods speciall assiâ—tance â—he difference between Propheticall and ordinary Diuine Illumination by which Protestants Cauills are answered §. 5. AGAYNST the Minor of the former argument Protestants obiect first that though the testiâ—ony of tradition be a good (q) Reply pa. 15. lin 32. morall human and proâ—able proofe that these Scriptures were by the Apoâ—tles deliuered yet the chiefe ground of fayth in â—his poynt is inward illumination the testimony â—f the spirit speaking within our hart and assuring 〈◊〉 of the truth I answere God may assure men of â—ruth by inward inspiration two wayes first by the â—â—ght of inward teaching and inspiration without â—he mediation and concourse of any externall inâ—allible ground of assurance Secondly by the light
ad com Philip. in 1. ad Corinth This may conuince our Minister that his allegations be of no credit and that Iudgement of the Sanctity of a Church is not to be made by the report of zealous complaint but by the euidence of sight ruled by vnpartiall search By which rule one may find in the Catholike Cleargy thousands and thousands that shew admirable charity specially in conuerting Infidells yea that winne the glorious crowne of Angelicall Chastity for which they would neuer haue striuen had not the Church bound them thereunto So that if human infirmity by occasiō of this law make some men impure that otherwise perchance in marriage would haue beene chast so the Grace of God by the same occasiō worketh in innumerable Angelical Saints who had neuer beene such but for the Churches exaction And this haruest makes full recompence for that losse specially seing also many of such delinquents be not lost but saued by Pennance yea become more excellent Saints then they had beene had they neuer fallen Chastity Obedience Charity in vndergoing labours for the help of soules Fortitude in suffering of heroycall Martyrdomes Zeale and Patience in the rough and rigorous treaty of their bodyes by miraculous fasting another austerityes This sanctity shineth not in all children of the Church but in her more eminent preachers professours Which kind of sanctity togeather with miracles if the Church did want she could not be a sufficiēt witnes of the truth vnto Infidells who commonly neuer begin to affect admire Christianity but vpon the sight of such wōders of Sanctity other extraordinary works Holy for doctrine in regard her Traditions be diuine and holy without any mixture of errour For if the Church could deliuer by consent of Ancestours togeather with truth some Errours her Traditions euen about truth were questionable could not be belieued vpon the warrāt of her traditions for who can without danger and securely feed on that dish that may aswell containe poyson as wholsome sustenance And whereas some Protestants affirme that the Church cannot erre in fundamentall points but only in thinges of lesse moment the truth is that in perpetuall Traditions she cannot erre at all If the Tradition of the Church deliuering a small thing as receyued from the Apostles may be false one may call into question her Traditions of moment For like as if we admit in the Scripture errours in small matters we cannot be sure of its infallibility in substātial matters So likewise if we graunt Traditions perpetuall to be false in things of lesse importance we haue no solide ground to defend her Traditions as assured in others of moment Wherfore as he that should say Gods written word is false in some lesse matters as when it sayes S. Paul left his Cloake at Troas erreth fundamentally by reason of the consequence which giues occasion to doubt of euery thing in Scripture euen so he that graunteth that some part of Traditions or of the word of God vnwritten may be false erreth substantially because he giueth cause to doubt of any Tradition which yet as I haue shewed is the prime and originalll ground of Faith more (q) The Minister heere rayleth largely lustily tearming this assertion impudent Antichristian prophane bastardly c. yet the assertion is euident truth his reasons agaynst it are of no force For they goe not agaynst the assertion but proue another thing to wit the excellency of Scripture which none denyes For Tradition Scripture according to different cōparisons are equall superiour the one to the other Compare them in respect of certainty of truth they are equal as the Councell of Trent defineth sess 4. both being the word of God the one Written the other Vnwritten and so both infinitly certayne Compare them in respect of depth sublimity and variety of doctrine the Scripture is farre superiour vnto Tradition Tradition being playne and easy doctrine concerning the common capitall and practicall articles of Christianity wheras the Scripture is full of high hidden senses and furnisht with great variety of examples discourses and all manner of erudition Aug. Epist. 3. Compare them in respect of priority and euidence of being the Apostles the Scripture is posteriour vnto Tradition in tyme and knowledge and cannot be proued directly to be the Apostles therfore Gods but by Tradition as sometime not only Fathers but euen Protestants afffirme As Philosophy is more perfect then Logicke and Rhetoricke then Grammer in respect of high excellēt knowledge yet Logike is more prime originall fundamentall then Philosophy Grammer then Rhetoricke without the rules and principles wherof they cannot be learned Euen so Tradition is more prime and originall then Scripture though Scripture in respect of depth and sublimity of discourse be more excellent then Tradition fundamentall then the very Scripture which is not knowne to be Apostolicall but by Tradition wheras a perpetuall Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by its owne light For what more euident thē that that is from the Apostles which is deliuered as Apostolicall by perpetuall succession of Bishops consenting therein The Propertyes of the Church proued by Matth. 28.20 §. 4. ALL this may be cleerly prooued to omit other pregnant testimonyes by the words of our Sauiour in the last of S. Matthew Going into the world teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to keepe all that I haue commanded you and behold I am with you all dayes euen to the consummation of the world A (r) The Minister pag. 195. lin 4. sayth that this promise is conditionall in repect of Pastours succeeding the Apostles to wit that Christ will assist them conditionally whē they teach and baptize as he hath commanded but that they shall so still teach he doth not promise p. 24. lin 28. This exposition is false first because our Sauiour here promiseth his Presence vnto the Apostles and their successours to baptize and teach vntill the worlds end by one and the same forme of speach and indiuiduall breath so that the promise cannot be conditionall in respect of the successors except it be also conditionall in respect of the Apostles But in respect of the Apostles the promise is absolute as the Minister grants pag. 94. lin 23. Therefore it is also absolute in respect of their successors Not that this or that Pastour may not be deceaued but that they shall neuer deliuer by ioynt consent any falshood as the Apostles doctrine Secondly if the promise be conditionall then the sense is this I will alwayes assist you to teach Christen aright when you teach christen according to my commandement as the Minister expounds pag. 94. lin 22. But this sense is idle and iust nothing as if Christ had sayd Behold I will assist you to teach aright when you teach aright for what is to teach Christian Religion aright but to
discourse as impertinent This I demonstrate out of his owne wordes First pa. 242. he sayth that the question is not about Diuine and Religious worship of Images but about any kind of reall worship These be his very wordes The question whether Images be to be adored with diuine worship or not is Heterogeneous that is impertinent to this disputation It is sufficient that Papists adore and worship Images with some kind of Reall worship such as the Trident Councell expressely defineth Thus he there professing that to impugne Iconolatry or diuine worship of images is impertinent And yet in the beginning of this disputation he professeth contrarywise to impugne this only Adoration not euery kind of worship of Images Thus he writes pag. 212. The Aduocate of Images should first of all haue declared what he vnderstandeth by worship of Images whether Veneration only or Adoration properly so called Veneration signifies externall reuerence regard of pictures such as is giuen to Churches Communion-Tables and sacred vessels And according to this notion many haue approued worspippe of Images that deny adoration Adoration properly so taken is yelding of honour by Religious submission of soule body c. the worshipping of Images in this māner is superstition Thus the Minister Who to proue that Protestants allow veneration or externall worshippe of Images in his margent citeth Iunius against Bellarmine professing in the name of all Protestants None of vs say Images are not to be worshipped much lesse do we say that they are no waies to be worshipped WE ALLOW that they be worshipped in their kind as Images but not with Religious worshippe Behold how cleerly he grants the question in hand euen asmuch as the answerer intended to proue For what the Minister sayth that the Answerer doth not declare what he vnderstādeth by worshippe whether externall Veneration or internall Adoration is false For he often and cleerly affirmeth that the worship he meanes to proue to be due vnto the Image of our Sauiour is the externall regard the reuerence of bowing such as is vsed towards Aultars and Communion tables out of inward religions reuerence and deuotion vnto Christ. This the Answerer did set down presently in the beginning of his discourse about images and repeates the same almost in euery paragraffe See his text in the Ministers booke pag. 214. Outwardly to the Image inwardly to Christ. pag. 206. Externally to the Image by mentall affection vnto the person pa. 827. Outwardly to the Image by deuout and pious Imagination to the person and the like very often Nor is the Ministers insinuation true that the Councell of Trent doth define the worshippe of Images vnder the tearmes of Religious Adoration First the Councell nether vseth the tearme Religious nor Adoratiō but Veneration the tearme the very word allowed by the Minister Secondly the Councell declares that this Veneration is outward regard as kneeling bowing the body vncouering the head done before the Images of our Sauiour to the end we may adore him that is testify our inward supreme deuotion towards him Finally it is false that Adoration doth properly signify Diuine Religious worship seing properly according to the common acception of the word in Scripture it signifyes any bowing of the body in signe of reuerence as might be proued by more then an hūdred examples of Scripture where creatures are said to be adored The Fathers sometimes take the word Adore in the more principall sense and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only for diuine worshippe In which sense they say only God is adored Epiphan haeres 79. Sit in honore Maria Deus adoretur Hieronymus Ep. 53. Non Angelos vel aliquam creaturam adoramus Yet also the same Fathers take the word in the proper sense say that other things besides God are adored as Men. Augustine de ciuit l. 10. c. 4. Homines si mullum illis addatur etiam adorandi Men are to be honored when much adored S. Hierome Epist. 17. Baptistae cineres adorare to ADORE the Ashes of S. Iohn The holy Crosse. Cyrill Alexandrin homil de Deipara in Concil Ephesin Crux adoratur toto orbe terrarum Holy Images· Damascen lib. 4. Orthod fidei c. 7. Saluatoris c. Imagines adoramus we adore the images of our Lord. Hence it is euident that our Minister on the one side witnessing out of Iunius that all Protestants allow some kind of worship vnto Images to wit veneration externall worship and on the other professing to impugne the Religious adoration of images only hath yeelded the question in controuersy his disputation against Iconolatry is according to his owne doome and word Heretogeneous that is impertinent and in the ayre VVorshippe of Images I Haue more hope to giue your Maiesty satisfaction in this article because all kind of Theologicall proofes stand for the same and nothing against it as I am perswaded which I declare by this discourse If the custome of worshipping Images be grounded on the prime principles of nature christianity If the same hath bene receiued in the church Vniuersally without any knowne time of beginning If places of Scripture that Protestants vrge against vs make asmuch against their custome of making Images so that with no probability or ingenuity they therupon mislike vs If by the vse of Images there be no danger or hurt to ignorāt people which may not with very ordinary diligence of pastors teachers be preuented otherwise the vtilityes very great Then there is no reason of iust mislike of this custome But this supposition is true in the same order I will endeauour to shew in the foure Particulars Worshippe of Images consequent out of the principles of Nature and Christianity §. 1. AN Image (c) This description of an Image sheweth the differēce of proper Images of our Sauiour frō types and figures By declaration wherof the cheife part of the Ministers disputation will be answered which is grounded vpon confusion of these two different things The proper Image represents the person of our Sauiour according to the true and proper shape of his kind and some indiuiduall propertyes that agree to him only Such is the Image of a man crucified pourtrayted accordinge to speciall circumstances recorded in the gospell A figure represents his person in the shape of some creature dissonant from his forme kind whose corporall proprieties haue resemblance with our Sauiours morall and spirituall perfections Thus the Lyon and Lambe be types or metaphoricall Images of our Sauiour which resemble him not in corporall shape but in his heauenly perfections his mildnes being figured by the Lambe his fortitude by the Lyon From this fundamentall difference other three flow First the proper Image represents to mans Imagination making him to apprehend by Imagination the person or the samplar as really present before his eies The figure represents to mans vnderstanding which apprehends by reason the analogy or proportion which the corporall qualityes of the figure
allow theÌ„ce drawing an argument to prooue the Galathians were senselesse and sottish that keeping in their sight the picture of Christ Crucifyed they would thinke to be saued by the Law and not by the merits of his Crosse. For it was madnes and folly to paynt Christ honour him as Crucifyed not to thinke that by his death vpon the Crosse he redeemed the world I know that some Catholikes expound this place that Christ was paynted and pictured out vnto the GalathiaÌ„s metaphorically by preaching Which I do not deny but this doth not repugne with the other sense that he was also materially paynted as Crucifyed nor must we exclude it this sense being imported by the natiue and proper signification of the words and hauing more connexion with the drift of the Apostles discourse which is to prooue the Galathians senselesse in their forsaking Christ whome they had pictured Crucifyed before their eyes For to forsake Christ crucifyed pictured by preaching as the Sauiour of the world though it be impious yet not senseles yea rather saluation by the crosse of Christ did seeme folly vnto the Gentils But for men to haue Christ painted as crucifyed before their eyes honouring him by Christian deuotion in regard of his crucifixion and death and not to expect saluation by his Crosse and death is sottish and (s) The Minister is much vexed with the euidence of this Text not finding which way to euade as you may see pag. 280. First he sayth lin 21. If this were true it proues only that Images may be made but not that they may be adored Answer First the Answerer in this place intends only to proue that the Apostles did allow the making of Crucifixes to represent our Sauiours Crucified person vnto ChristiaÌ„ deuotion Secondly this making doth inferre worship for the proper Image of an adored person if it be made it may be adored agaynst which principle euideÌ„t in reason you cannot bring one word of Scripture Secondly you say Ibid lin 3. That according to learned Bannes The worship of Images is neyther expressely nor infoldedly taught in Scripture Answere BaÌ„nes meaneth that Image-worship is not formally inuolued in Scripture nor matter of fayth by vertue of sole Scripture But he doth not deny but it is virtually contained in Scripture so that it may Theologically be coÌ„cluded by texts of Scripture Thirdly you cry pag. 282. lin 24. One Father that expounds this place literally according to your sense I answere first no Father nor Catholicke denyes this litterall sense and Athanasius is brought by Turrianus l. 4. de Dogmat. Charact. thus expounding Secondly Protestants who appeale vnto the Scripture as vnto the last iudge to giue definitiue sentence are bound to take the words of Scripture in the litterall sense except they can cleerly demonstrate by Scripture the litterall sense to be absurd Otherwise if without euident proofe by Scripture they metaphorize the Scripture they appeale not vnto Scripture but vnto their owne fancies But by Scripture you cannot proue that the litterall painting of our Sauiours Image as Crucifyed is absurd more then the painting of Luther and Caluin and such other of your pretended Prophets is absurd Therfore you must stand to this litterall sense or els confesse that you will not be ruled by the word of God but depart from the litterall sense thereof when you please without shewing warrant so to doe Finally the Minister sayth ibid. lin 27. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyeth to be written before not to be painted before This is his last yet a desperate shift First all LexicoÌ„s eueÌ„ those of ProtestaÌ„ts say that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyes before so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyes to paint or make figures because writing is a kind of painting or making of Characters hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifyes writing For is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a painter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a peÌ„sill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 painting to the quicke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 painting in waxe innumerable other words aswell single as compound that testify how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to paint Secondly not only Beza and Erasmus so translate and the French Geneuian Pourtrayé deuant les yeux Christ Iesus pictured before the eyes but also Caluin in his comment vpon this place sayth expressely depictus meo iudicio optimè quadrat the best translation in my Iudgenent is depainted adding the Apostle doth heere signify that there was amongst the Galathians non nuda doctrina sed viua expressa Christi crucifixi Imago nor the meere preaching but also liuely and expresse picturing of Christ crucifyed Finally the Minister who heere sayth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify is depainted elswhere pag. 213. lin 26. sayth the contrary to wit that S. Paul doth testify Galat 3.1 That by the Ghospell Christ Iesus IS DEPAINTED before the eyes of the soule Now how can this be true except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signify is depainted and be thence transferred by metaphore vnto preaching senselesse And of this materiall picturing of Christ crucifyed Athanasius expoundeth this place whome Turrianus citeth De Dogmat. charact l. 4. Wherefore I may iustly say that we haue more cleere expresse Scripture for the vse of images then haue protestaÌ„ts for their Translations And therefore the danger of ignorant people erring by images is without reason so much insisted vpon by Protestants their English translations being as I haue shewed a more dangerous blocke for fooles to stumble at and so fall into damnable errours If they presume that by diligent instruction they may and would haue vs thinke that they doe preserue their people from that errour why should they not thinke that the Roman Church being so potent with her children can keep them from the foolish errour of attributing life and diuinity vnto dead dumbe images and that she will so do being so strictly coÌ„manded by the (t) Sess. 2. Diligenter doceant Episcopi Councell of Trent to vse her greatest diligence in this point that ignorant people fall not into errour by any image which otherwise haue many profits and vtilities About which I will not enlarge my selfe but only mention some of them The first is an easy and compendions way of instruction in which respect they are tearmed by S. Gregory (u) Lib. 7. Ep. 109. the books of the vnlearned and as another Gregory (x) Nissen â—rat in Theodorum sayth the silent picture speakes on the wall and profiteth very much The second is to increase in men that keep honour them the loue of God and of his Saints which effect S (y) Orat. Quod veteris noui Testamenti vnius sit mediator Chrysostome experienced as he testifieth saying I loued a picture of melted wax full of piety And S. (z) Lib. 7. epist. 53. Gregory the Great sayth they inflame men that behold them in the loue
to euade First by denying that blessed Saints haue the knowledge of prophesy in a more excellent and permanent manner then haue the Prophets in this life This is plaine against the words of the Apostle cited by the Answerer For the Apostle affirmâ— that the gift of Prophesy in this life is but ex parte imperfect in respect of thâ— Prophesy and knowledge of the next which the blessed enioy Ex parte propheâ—â—mus tunc cognoscam sicut cognitus sum Secondly he sayth though the blesed haue the gift of Prophesy eminently it doth not follow that theâ— haue the exercise thereof according to euery materiall obiect it had in thâ—â— life I Answere that the Saynts of God hauing the gift of Prophesy peâ—manently eminently as knowledge pertinent vnto their Blisseful state must thereby know any secret they desire to know which beloÌ„geth to their state such are the prayers of the liuing made vnto them The Prophet Elizaeus 4. Reg. 5.16 saw in absence what passed betwixt his seruant Giezi About the 2. Argument and Naman to whome he sayd My hart was there present with thee With farre greate reason sayth Saint (*) Videbunt sancti omnia clausis oculis etiaÌ„ vnde sunt corpore absenâ—â—â— Augustine l. 22. de ciuit c. 29. The Saints of God euen with eies of body closed vp shall see all things not onely present but also from which they are corporally absent for then shall be that perfection where the Apostle saith we now prophesy but in paâ—â— â—ut then the imperfect shall be euacuated (a) To Answere the Ministers Cauill that the place of S. Augustine is vnderstood onely of Saints after their resurrection Note that although the Father name the Saints in their glorified bodyes yet his reason conuinceth the same of soules that be blessed before the resurrection For his reason why the Saints after the resurrection shal see the secrets of harts and things froÌ„ which they are substaÌ„tially distant is because theÌ„ they shall Prophesy not in parte but fully euacuabitur quod ex parte est all imperfection of knowledge shall be euacuated but the deceased soules of Saints now before the resurrection do Prophesy not in part but know as they are kowne all imperfection of knowledge being euacuated from them Ergo they see things absent and secrets of harts now no lesse then they shall do then This is that which S. Hierome doth defend To earnestly against Vigilantius that the soules of the Martyrs are present where their shrines and reliques are neuer absent but still ready to heare the prayers of their suppliaÌ„ts not thinking that they are present in so many places substantially according to their soules but that they are preseÌ„t as Elizaeus was present vnto Giezi in Spirit beholding what passed as cleerly as if they were corporally present Thirdly it is cleerely to be proued by Scripture that holy Angels see the prayers and actions and affections of men In the Apocalip c. 8.4 An Angell offered vnto God the prayers of men which he could not haue done had he not knowne them (b) The Minister pag. 314. lin 12. saith this place is vnderstood not of an Angell by nature but of an Angell by type Answer We must vnderstand the word of God in the literall sense except we can cleerly demonstrate by Scripture the literal sense to be absurd And this obligation doth more specially lye vpon Protestants who from perpetuall Tradition appeale vnto Scripture vnderstood by exact conference of places as vnto the last and supreme Iudge But you bring not one word of Scripture to proue that in this place an Angell by nature cannot be vnderstood therfore you runne to types and tropicall senses without warrant of Scripture by which yet you pretend you will be finally tryed Are you not then a ridiculous and vaine Appellant Our Sauiour witnesseth Luc. 15.10 That the Angells reioyce at the conuersion of a sinner So they must needs know it nor can they know it without knowing the sinners harte (c) The Minister pag. 315. lin 15. obiects against this argument that holy men on earth reioyce at the conuersion of sinners yet they know not secrets of harts therfore this argumeÌ„t is not good Angells reioice in the conuersion of sinners Ergo they know the secret pious affections of meÌ„s harts Answer The ioy of iust men in this life is imperfect and mingled with feare nor do they reioyce in re in the thing but in spe in the hope that mens coÌ„uersions are sincere and in the outward signes therof But the blessed Angells ioy is perfect deuoid of feare they reioyce not in the hope but in the thing conuersion it selfe Therfore they must know the inward piety and deuotion of the soule Conuersion not being true noâ— worthy of ioy except it proceed from the hart (d) Although the places speake directly of the Blessed that they shal be like vnto Angells in incorruption of body yet it proueth the same of beatitude of soules For seeing the glory of body floweth from the glory of the soule Blessed Saints should not be like to the Angells in glory of body were they not like and their equalls in the blessed sight and vision their soules haue of God and of things contained in him S. Paul sayth we are made a spectacle vnto God and Angells he adiureth Timothy by God and his Angells which sheweth that we liue in the sight of Angels that they behold what we doe and heare what we say euen in our harts But as the same Scripture Luc. 20.36 Math. 22.30 auerreth the Saints are like vnto the Angells and equall vnto the Angells And in heaueÌ„ the same is the measure of a man of an Angell Apocal. 21.17 Aug. ep 112. Ergo knowledge of our prayers is not to be denyed to glorious Saints the fellowes of Angells Neither could Saints without knowledge of humane affaires be perfectly blessed Blessednes being a state wherin all iust and reasonable desires of nature are satisfyed with vttermost content according to that of the Psalme 16.15 Satiabor cùm apparuerit gloria tua And who can thinke that Saints full of glory and charity do not earnestly desire (e) The Minister against this replyes pag. 319. saying That the Saints desire to know no more then it is Gods will they should know But it cannot be proued by Scripture that it is Gods will they should know the things done on earth Answere We must still suppose that the courses and wills of God be sutable to the nature of things except the contrary be cleerly proued The nature of charity is to desire to know the state of our freinds and their proceedings and affections towards vs. Ergo the Saints beâ—ng full of charity are to be supposed to desire to know the state of their â—reinds they left behind them vpon earth and for whose saluation they â—e sollicitous except our Minister
can cleerly demonstrate the conâ—â—ary And if they desire to know then they know the particulars â—or what our Minister sayth pag. 319. lin 20. That a father in Lonâ—â—n may be solicitous about his sonnes safety that is at Constantinople and yet not â—â—ow the particulars is friuolous for this London Father is not blessed 〈◊〉 he may be desirous to know particulars and not know them and so be â—erplexed for want of his knowledge The Saints in heauen are blessed â—nd so desire not to know any thing but they know it Therfore seing â—ccording to the instinct and inclination of solicitous Charity they cannot â—ut desire the knowledge of their friends affaires they must if they are â—erfectly blessed be satisfied in this their charitable desire to know such things as may concerne their honour done vpon earth the state of their freinds â—ouers liuing in danger to succour them by their intercessions of whose saluation they be still sollicitous though secure of their own as S. Cyprian writes Wherefore our doctrine that Saints see our prayers being deliuered so constantly by the Ancient Fathers so conformable vnto the principles of Christian beliefe about the blessednes of Saints so consonaÌ„t vnto expresse passages of Scripture we may iustly expect that vnto Protestants it would not be displeasing did they looke on it with vnpartiall eyes Specially they hauing no Text of Scripture that may make so much as a shew of direct opposition agaynst it The place continually obiected out of the Prophet Esay 63.16 Abraham knew vs not (f) This place is impertinent also in regard that Abraham and Iacob were not theÌ„ Blessed nor saw God from which Blessed vision the knowlege of things done in this world floweth as a sequell in the triumphant Saints It is vnderstood by S. Hierome in c. 63. Isa. de scientia approbationis that Abraham Iacob did not know that is esteeme and approoue the proceeding of their children the Iewes Israel was ignorant of vs thou O Lord art our Father thou our Redeemer hath this sense Abraham and Iacob when they liued vpon earth and carnally begot children did not know particularly their posterities and so could not beare them such particular affection whereas God can doth distinctly see and know their necessityes aforehand yea before men are borne and prouides agaynst them deliuering his children out of theÌ„ And therfore he is the only Father the only Redeemer Abraham and Iacob not deseruing the name of Father in comparison with God Makes this against the Saints hearing our prayers (g) I desire the Reader to note on the one side how Protestants boast of Scriptures on the other how vnable they are to bring one probable text agaynst Inuocation of Saints Whereas contrarywise the places for the Catholicke doctrine that Saints 〈◊〉 our prayers are so cleere as ProtestaÌ„ts fly to their types and tropes leauing the literall sense without warrant from the sayd Scripture and so by casting a figure euade froÌ„ Gods cleere word Wherfore the cause they appeale vnto Scriptur is not because they thinke the Scripture is cleere for them not much cleerer for vs But because by Scripture they cannot be so cleerly confounded as by Tradition For about Scripture Heretiks euer wrangle pretending that by deductions and inferences they prooue their doctrine being destitute of formall Scripture wherof ignoraÌ„t people caÌ„not iudge For what know they when deductions are good But when they were vrged by Tradition to shew the Pedegree of their Professours they were as dumbe as ours now are that the Fathers said vnto them Confingant tale aliquod let theÌ„ if they can feigne and deuise a pedegree of professours agreeing in the same forme of Faith wherof the first was an Apostle and the last a Protestant The worship in Spirit and Truth with outward prostration of the body due vnto Saints §. 3. THE third cause of their dislike is that we giue the honour of the Creatour vnto the Creature honoring Saints with Religious worship in spirit truth euen to the prostrating of our bodyes before them whereby we giue them honour due to God only and bring in many Gods as the Heathens did To this Obiection made long agoe by Faustus the Manichee S. Augustine lib. 20. cont Faust. c. 22. answereth in these words The Christian people doth celebrate with Religious solemnity the memoryes of Martyrs to the end to stirre vp themselues to their imitatioÌ„ that they may be assisted with their prayers and associated vnto their merits c. But with the worship tearmed in Greeke Latria and which the Latine language cannot expresse in one word being a certayne subiection seruitude due properly to the Deity only we do not honour any but only God nor thinke that this honour ought to be giuen but only to him These words of S. Augustine shew that worship of Saints to be on the one side more then Ciuil and on the other side lesse then diuine more then ciuill as proceeding out of acknowledgement of the excellency Saints haue superiour vnto all naturall by which they be partakers of diuine perfection in that high degree as no substance can by nature participate thereof and therefore S. Augustine with good reason tearmes it religious (h) The Minister pag. 312. contrary to his custome proposeth this argument truly To euery kind of excelleÌ„cy there is a worship due proportionall to that excellency but the blessed Saints and Angells haue a speciall kind of excellency which is supernatural superhumane more then ciuill Therefore speciall honour proportionall to the excellency and superior vnto humane and ciuill is due vnto them To this argument he answereth That in Saints there is dignity of grace and glory and honour is due in respect of the same but not religious worship Thus he what is this but to trifle talke in the ayre who doubts M. White but there is the dignity of grace and glory in Saints and honour due vnto it Speake plainly and mutter not betwixt the teeth Is the honour due to Saints proportionall to their excellency that is more then ciuill Is it superhumane supernaturall as their excellency is Is it superiour vnto that kind of honour which is due vnto ciuill magistrates and other human honourable personages in regard of meere naturall perfectioÌ„ If you grant that worship superhumane and more then ciuill is due vnto Saints you grant as much as we desire to proue The tearme of Religious worship is ambiguous Sometimes religious worship is taken for that which is an elicitiue formall act of Religion of diuine worship due vnto the increated excellency of the Creatour In this sense the worship of Saints is not religious At other tymes it is taken for worship which is an imperatiue act of Religion that is worship done to Saints out of inward Religion and deuotion towards God whose seruants and friends they are In this sense the worship of Saints is Religious
the body and bloud were giuen in the shape of â—read and wine as Venerable Bede in c. 22. Luc. out of whome you cite â—hese words substituting his body and bloud in the FIGVRE of bread and wine What is this but that the figure and shape of bread remaynes the body of our Lord being present in lieu of the substance therof Secondly your Minor assertion that the figure of a thing is not the â—ame with the thing figured is impious and directly opposite vnto Gods word First Christ Iesus is a figure of his Fathers substance Heb. 1.3 and yet is he the same substantially with the Father Iohn 10.30 Secondly S. Peter fishing in the sea and catching a great multitude of fish is a figure of himselfe preaching in the world and conuerting soules vnto Christ Luc. â— 10 and yet Peter fishing and Peter preaching is substantially the same person Thirdly Christ as found in the temple on the third day after his â—eesing was a figure of himselfe rising after the third day of his sepulture Ambros. in cap. 2. Lucae Also Christ as making a shew to goe further in his Iourney to Emmaus represented himselfe as mounting to heauen August cont mendac c. 13. and yet Christ found after three dayes and Christ rising after three dayes Christ making a shew to passe on and ascending to his Father is substantially one and the same person False then and impious is your assertion that the figure of a thing cannot be the same with the thing figured and consequently this your Argument The Eucharist is tearmed by the Fathers the figure of Christs naturall body Ergo it is not substantially properly his body is idle Hence the finall conclusion is that you haue no ground in Scripture not to take these words of our Lord This is my Body in the litterall sense and that the true reason you do not litterally vnderstand them is the difficulty of the matter and the Infidelity of your hart Now let vs returne vnto the Iesuits discourse That the Reall Presence of the whole Body of Christ vnder the formes of bread belonges to the substance of the Mystery §. 1. TO proue this I suppose as certayne that the body of Christ is truly and really in the Sacrament of his supper This I may iustly suppose seing your Maiesty doth professe to hold a presence (d) PraesentiaÌ„ credimus non minùs quà m vos veram haec fides Regis Regia Resp. ad Card. Peron in oper Regis pag. 399. 400. of the body of Christ in the Sacrament no lesse true then we hold and consequently you will not vnderstand the words of Christ figuratiuely as SacrameÌ„taryes do For they make the body of Christ present in the Eucharisticall bread but as in a figure holding not a true nor a reall presence but only a presence by Imagination conceypt (*) This was supposed by the Iesuit as cleere and hath been proued in the former addition agaynst the Ministers Cauills as is euident wherin as your Maiesty knowes they contradict the ancient Church which teacheth expressely that Christ (e) Euthym. panop pa. 2. tit 22. Theop. in Marc. c. 14. Damascen Orthod fidei l. 4. c. 14. did not say This is a figure of my body but this is my body and exhorts vs to belieue Christ vpon his word He said This is my body (f) Gaudent tract 2. in Exod. Chrysost. in c. 26. Matth. hom 83. Ambros. de ijs qui mysterijs iuitiant c. 9. Epiph. in anchorato Hilar. l. 8. de Trinit Cyrill Hieros Cateches 4. I pray you let vs belieue him whom we haue belieued Verity cannot vtter vntruth And herein they acknowledge with your Maiesty a most high and incomprehensible mystery which were no mystery at all the words being vnderstood in a meere figuratiue sense As for some places of Fathers brought to the contrary how they are to be vnderstood your Maiesty is not ignorant S. Augustine (g) August in Psal. 3. IdeÌ„ cont Adimant c. 11. saying that Christ gaue to his disciples a figure of his body and bloud spake not of a bare empty figure but of the figure of a thinge really present As likewise in another place when he sayth Christ affirmed it was his body when he gaue a signe of his body though here he may seeme to speake in the opinion of the Manichees who held that Christ had not true flesh but a meere figure shadow and shape of flesh Against whoÌ„ in that place he vndertakes to proue that the figure of a thing may be termed the thing it selfe alledging argumento ad hominem that Christ said This is my body when he gaue but a figure of his body to wit (*) Had not S. Augustine argued in the opinion of Manichees that hold the flesh of Christ was not true but only a figure of flesh the Manichees might haue denyed this his example seing both the Gospell and the Fathers say the Eucharist to be truly Christs body and not a meere figure as you thinke Tertullian (h) Tertul. li. 4. cont Marcion hath this speach Christ taking bread into his hands and distributing it to his disciples made the same his body saying Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis mei Where figura corporis mei is referred not vnto Corpus meum as an explicatioÌ„ therof but vnto hoc in this manner hoc id est figura Corporis mei est Corpus meum This to be Tertullian his meaning appeares by the drift of his discourse in that place For Tertullian is to shew that wheras in the old Testament bread was a figure of the body of Christ as appeares by the words of the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem eius id est crucem in corpus eius Christ in the new Testament made this figure to be truly and really (i) Tertullian in saying that Christ made bread his body doth therby declare the conuersion of bread into his body euen as the Euangelist doth signify the conuersion of water into wine in saying Our Sauiour made water wine Iohn 2.9 his body taking bread into his hands saying this that is the figure of my body in the old Testament is my body truly and really in the new which is asmuch as if he had said Bread which anciently was a figure of my body I do now make to be truly and really my body And this is vsuall in Tertullian who not to interrupt the words of Scripture addeth his explication of the subiect not presently but after the Attribute (k) Tertul. contr Praxeam c. 29. as when he said Christus mortuus est id est vnctus the sense wherof is Christus vnctus mortuus est This supposed I inferre that the body of Christ is present in the mystical supper not only to the faithfull that receaue the SacrameÌ„t nor only to the place or church where the holy Synaxis is celebrated but vnder the formes
thereof is abolished into the body of Christ. Secondly the example you bring about Regenerate persons is by you vsed impertinently and truly pondered applyed serueth our purpose For in Regeneration the substance of man is not abolished because by Regeneration man is changed to be participant of the Diuine Nature not from what he is originally by the constitution of nature but from what he is by the corruption of the Diuell and sinne Hence by vertue of Regeneration a man ceaseth to be not according to the substantiall Origen of his nature but only according to the superinduced peruersion thereof by the Diuell But in the Eucharist Saint Ambrose sayth that bread by consecration passeth into the sacred body of Christ from the thing it was by the framing constitution of nature Ergo bread according to S. Ambrose ceaseth to be according to the thing it is by the framing of nature to wit the essence of bread VI The Minister Replyes That to a mysticall change the omnipotency of God is required as appeareth in Baptisme Therefore although some Fathers require an omnipotent power to eleuate and change the creatures of bread and wine yet it followeth not that they maintayned Transubstantiation Answere The Fathers indeed require the omnipotency of God in Baptisme not to change the nature of water into the nature and verity of Christs bloud but to the end that water remayning water vnchanged in nature be eleuated to produce sanctifying grace in the soules of men Thus Saint Leo by you often cited serm 4. de natiuit sayth Virtus altissimi quae fecit vt virgo pareret Saluatorem eadem facit vt regeneret vnda credentem He doth not say as you would make fooles belieue the Fathers vse to speake that the Diuine omnipotency doth change the water into the nature and verity of his bloud but That the same power of the Highest makes water being water to bring forth regenerate persons which caused a virgin remayning a virgin to bring forth the Sauiour But about the holy Eucharist the Fathers speake in another manner They require the Omnipotency of God not to eleauate bread wine that remayning still in nature bread and wine they may sanctify mens soules but to change them into Christs body and bloud by which change they become in thēselues without further eleuation proportioned meanes to sanctify soules as cōtaining within themselues the fountaine of grace Yea the Fathers speeches about the water of baptisme be so different from their speeches about the bread and wine of the Eucharist as this alone might suffice to conuert the Minister were he not obstinate What Fathers say that Christ at the Mariage of soules with him in Baptisme can doth conuert water into his blood by his omnipotency as he could and did conuert water into Wine at the carnall Mariage of Cana as S. Cyrill S. Gaudentius cited by the Iesuit say of the wine of the Eucharist What Father doth say that water changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotency of the word made his flesh as is sayd of the Eucharisticall bread by the Authour of the booke De Coena Domini VII Though some question be made whether this Authour was S. Cyprian yet learned men both Catholicks and Protestants agree he was an holy ancient Father The Authour of the booke de Coena Domini sayth M. Fulke agaynst the Rhem. Testam in 1. Cor. 11. fol. 282. was not in tyme much inferiour to Cyprian Erasmus in his Annotatiōs vpon S. Cyprian printed at Basill Anno 1558. fol. 287. sayth The Authour was some learned man of S. Cyprian his age as Pamelius doth demonstrate by many euident reasons so that we haue Transubstātiation as ancient as S. Cyprian For what the Minister sayth that this Authour meaneth only a mysticall and Sacramental change to be made is idle as I thus demonstrate The change this holy Father teacheth is made not in the shape quantity accidēts of bread but only in the inward nature and essence thereof panis non effigie sed natura mutatus But the Ministers mysticall conuersion is made vpon the shape quantity accidents of bread as he sayth pag. 425. it passeth vpon the quantity and accidents of bread as well as vpon the substance Ergo the conuersion of bread into Christs flesh taught by this holy ancient Father is an inward substantiall conuersion and not the Ministers mysticall change VIII What the Minister sayth to this Argument that the Fathers affirme the water of Baptisme to be changed into Christs blood by the vertue of his word is false nor hath he cited any Father that doth so affirme Yea such speaking of the water of Baptisme were ridiculous or rather impious as affirming thinges about the mysteryes of Religiō which may make them seeme senselesse and ridiculous without any ground so to affirme in Gods word For Christ neuer sayth of the water of Baptisme Be washed herewith for this is my blood as he sayth often in Scripture of the wine of the Eucharist drinke yee of this for this is my bloud IX To the fourth argument the Minister replyes that the Fathers exhort People to abnegate their senses in Baptisme wherein they mantayne no Transubstantiation I Answere The Minister still singes the same songe that the fathers speake in the same manner of the conuersiō of water into Christs blood in Baptisme as they speake about the conuersion of wine in the Eucharist which is most false and the Minister hath not cited the wordes any Father so affirming The Fathers about Baptisme exhort men to belieue that God can by water wash and purify the soule and this to be a supernaturall worke aboue the naturall force of water which one may belieue without contradicting the euidence of any of his senses yea without any great difficulty in reason For what great matter is it to belieue that God being omnipotent at the presence of water washing the body can inwardly by grace wash the soule But about the Eucharist they say that we must firmely and indubitately belieue that that which seemeth bread and wine is not bread wine but the body bloud of Christ so that vnder the forme of bread and wine is giuen vs the bloud of our Lord and though sense suggest the contrary that it is wine we must abnegate and not belieue our senses herein Shew one Father I say that doth thus affirme of the water of Baptisme that we must firmely and indubitately belieue the same not to be water in truth though it be water in shew and because our sight feeling and tast suggest that it is water that we must with full Fayth abnegate and deny this iudgment framed by sense X. The Minister heere pag. 429. bringeth three triuiall argumēts to prooue the Fathers held the substance of bread to remayne after consecration which are not worth the answering yet I will say a word to each of them not to omit any thing that
2. That this Worshippe was euer since the Apostles in the Church without beginning pag. 142.143 c. § 3. The places of Exodus Deut. with no probability vrged agaynst the Worship of Images by Protestants that make them pag. 154.155 c. § 4. Inconueniences which may come by occasion of Images easily preuented and their vtilities very great pag. 158.159 THE SECOND AND THIRD POINT II. Praying offering Oblations to the B. Virgin Mary III. VVorshipping Inuocation of Saints Angells pag. 172. § 1. An Eleauen Demonstrations that the Ancient Christian Church did euer hould Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Fayth Religion pag. 173.174 c. § 2. Inuocation of Saints not to be disliked because not expressed in Scripture pag. 194. § 3. Knowledge of Prayers made to them communicable communicated vnto Saints pag. 196.197 c. § 4. The Worship in spirit Truth with outward prostration of body due vnto Saints pag. 206.207 c. § 5. Praying to Saints not iniurious to Gods mercy but rather a commendation thereof pag. 211.212 c. § 6. Inuocation of Saints not an iniury but an honor to Christ the only Mediatour pag. 215.216 c. § 7. How it is lawfull to appropriate the obtayning of Graces and Cures vnto Saints pag. 219.220 c. § 8. Cōcerning Oblatiōs made to Saints p. 223.224 c. § 9. The Roman Churches set-formes of Prayer without cause misliked pag. 226.227 THE FOVRTH POINT IIII. The Liturgy priuate Prayers for the Ignorant in an vnknovvne Tongue pag. 130.131 THE FIFTH POINT V. Repetitions of Pater Nosters Aues Creeds especially affixing a kind of merit to the nūber of thē p. 241.242 c. THE SIXT POINT VI. The doctrine of Transubstantiatiō ¶ An Addition prouing the Catholike Reall Presence according to the litterall Truth of Gods word agaynst Ministeriall Metaphors Figures shifts pag. 248. ¶ § 1. The Zwinglian and Caluinian Religion about the Sacrament pag. 248. ¶ § 2. The Zwinglian Caluinian Presence confuted pag. 250. ¶ § 3. The Ministers Arguments agaynst the litterall sense of Christs word vayne idle pag. 253.254 c. § 1. That the Reall Presence of the whole body of Christ vnder the formes of bread belongs to the substance of the Mystery pag. 260.261 c. § 2. Transubstantiation belonges to the substance of Reall Presence pag. 266.267 c. § 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers pag. 271.272 c. ¶ A Refutation of the Ministers shifts to elude the former Testimonyes of the Fathers pag. 276.277 c. § 4. The seeming repugnances this Mystery hath with Sense should inclyne Christians the sooner to belieue it pag. 290.291 THE SEAVENTH POINT VII Communion vnder one kind abetting of it by Cōcomitancy pag. 305. § 1. The Doctrine of Concomitancy proued pag. 306.307 c. § 2. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Institution of Christ. pag. 311.312 c. § 3. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Sacrament pag. 315.316 c. § 4. Communion vnder one kinde not agaynst Christ his Precept pag. 319.320 c. ¶ The place of S. Iohn Qui manducat hunc panem c. explicated with an Answere to the Testimonies of the Fathers pag. 330.331 § 5. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the practice of the Primitiue Church pag. 332.333 c. THE EIGHT POINT VIII VVorkes of Supererogation specially vvith reference to the treasure of the Church pag. 334. § 1. The Doctrine of Merit declared pag. ibid. 335.336 c. ¶ The Ministers Arguments or rather Inuectiues against this Doctrine of Merit answered pa. 347.348 c. § 2. Merit of works of Supererogation p. 348.349 c. § 3. The Fathers taught works of Supererogation and proued them by Scripture pag. 352.353 c. § 4. The Doctrine of Satisfaction pag. 358.359 c. § 5. Workes with reference vnto the Treasure of the Church pag. 362.363 c. ¶ The Ministers rayling Argumēts agaynst the former doctrine censured pag. 372.373 c. THE NINTH POINT IX The opiniō of deposing Kings giuing avvay their Kingdoms by Papall povver vvhether directly or indirectly pag. 382. ¶ The Ministers fond Cauill That Iesuits honour not the King as Soueraygne pag. 383.384 c. ¶ His fond proofs of his Slaunder that Iesuits hold singular Opinions to the preiudice of Kings pa. 385.386 c. ¶ His Fondnes in Cauilling at the Iesuits words about the Temporall Soueraignity of Popes pag. 389.390 c. ¶ His miserable Apology for Protestāts p. 391.392 c. ¶ His Cauill agaynst the Iesuits speciall Vow of Obedience to the Pope pag. 393. c. THE CONCLVSION Faultes escaped in the printing In the Picture and Censure Pag. 10. lin 14. Christ read Christs Pag. 12. lin 17. in marg Ministery read Minister Pag. 13. l. 2. in marg conferunt read conferant Pag. 16. l. 20. place translated read place truly translated Pag. 25. l. 19. pleasore read pleasure Pag. 37. l. 7. are read were Pag. 86. l. 19. now read new Pag. 44. l. 3. this read his Pag. 104. l. 16. of read in Pag. 121. lin 32. an read be Pag. 132. l. vlt. diriue read driue In the Answere and Reioynder Pag. 4. l. 10. in marg if read it Pag. 19. line penult in marg seipsum read sensum Pag. 24. l. 1. God Though read God though Ibid. l. 16. could not read could not Pag. 56. lin 30. in marg this read thus Pag. 71. lin 32. in marg but must read but they must Pag· 74. l. 16. in marg do to proue read do proue Pag. 80. l. 30. in marg Votaies read Votaries Pag. 81. lin 32. Philip in dele Ibid. l. 34. in innumerable dele in Pag. 100. l. 1. 3. suppositious read supposititious Pag. 115. l. 16. in coll read in loc Pag. 119. l. 12. opinions read opinion Pag. 129. lin 1. Axione read Axiome Pag. 32. l. 34. in marg a positiue read a positiue precept Pag. 141. l. 11. in marg Sect. 3. read Sect. 1. Pag. 142. l. 26. in marg the argues read he argues Pag. 144. lin 21. viz. read verò Pag. 145. l. 10. reliueth read relieueth Pag. 152. l. 33. in marg Anthropomorphilae read Anthropomorphitae 177. l. 9. in marg praebitur read praebebitur Pag. 180. l. 22. wash awayt read washt away Pag. 227. l. 5. if they dele if Pag. 229. lin 23. in marg him that dele him Pag. 141. lin 9. reuerent read renewed Pag. 378. l. 22. satisfaction read satisfaction Pag. 396. l. 4. Roall read Royall Pag. 399. l. 2. fallable read fallible THE TRVE PICTVRE OF D· VVHITE MINISTER Or the Censure of his Reply vnto M. Fisher. The Reason of this Title THIS Short Censure is prefixed vnder the Name of your Picture that the Reioynder may correspōd in proportion vnto your Reply the beginning whereof is consecrated by an Image of your (a) For he teacheth
conceyt that Species in the singular doth signify the kind of the nature and not the shape of outward accidents yet I thinke you are not so deuoyd of all 〈◊〉 as you will affirme that effigies in the singular may signify nature and kind nor will you be so senseleâ—â—â— as to translate panis non effigie sed natura mutatus bread changed not according to the kind but according to the nature And if effigies signify shape not kind then we see this most auncient Father supposeth as a thing most certayne that the sacred Eucharist is bread in shape and shew not in the nature oâ— inuisible essence A mystery seemingly absurd to flesh bloud yet you might more wisely vpon the litterall sense of Gods word belieue it with simplicity of Fayth agaynst your carnall sense then seeke to maintayne this was not the Fayth of the auncient Church with so much Childish simplicity agaynst Grammer A fifth Example of Ignorance ioyned with extreme Insolency §. 5. HAVING made manifest your simplicity in Latin I adde another conuiction of your Grammaticall Ignorance euen about the Construction of an English senteÌ„ce whereby most calumniously you 〈◊〉 vpon your Aduersary false and impious doctrine I would not haue noted your grossenes in this point were not the same ioyned with serious disputation against the supposed errour most bitter Insultation against the Iesuit not only reuiling him but also his whole Order yea through their sides the most Holy AuncieÌ„t Fathers Thus you write pag. 236. The latter branch of the Iesuits assumption to wit The Crosse Nayles Lance were offered by Christ to his heauenly Father at his passion is impiously false For nothing was offered by Christ to his heauenly Father 〈◊〉 his passion but himselfe part of himselfe Hebr. 7.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he offered vp himselfe Hebr. 9.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through the eternal Spirit he offered vp himselfe without spot to God c. Hebr. 10.10 We are sanctifyed through the offering of the body of Iesus Christ once for all Hebr. 9.12 By his owne bloud he entred once into the holy place And if the Crosse Nayles and Lance were offered by Chrict to his Father then we were redeemed with corruptible things which is a Iesuiticall or rather Anti-Iesuiâ— doctrine that is a doctrine ascribing to dead Creatures Iron wood steele nayles c. that which is most proper to the precious bloud of Iesus This Doctrine mayntayned by Loyolists is most sacrilegious and more to be abhorreâ— then Iudas his lyps But it is fulfilled in these men which Clement Alexandrinus sayth of Heathen Idolaters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Are they not prodigious monsters that adore stocks and stones Thus seriously doe you dispute agaynst Iesuites whom you name Loyolists for holding doctrine they neuer dreamt of They (a) Crux ara fuit summi Sacrificij Bellar. de Imag c. 17. teach with the (b) Crux Christi non Templi fuit ara sed Mundi Leo serm 10. de pass Fathers that the Crosse was the Altar whereon Christ offered vp himselfe but that he offered vp to his Father the wood of the Crosse or the Steele Iron of the Lance Nayles for our Redemption certaine I am this neuer passed through their thoughts And ye◠〈◊〉 his supposed Errourâ— you are so waspish as 〈◊〉 haue (*) Not without cause she hauing giuen out disgracefull words against M. Fisher suspected that as Omphale 〈…〉 the â—lub of Hercules so your Xantippe in your 〈…〉 tooke your pen into her hand and thence powred down vpon our heads this shameful shower 〈◊〉 â—â—proach I might I say haue intertayned this suâ—â—â—tion were it not for the so frequent aspersion of so many Greeke words according to the (c) Si duo aut tria verba graeca sonuerit sapere sibi videtur fashion of â—eretikes agaynst which I may fitly in this place apply the words of the Satyre Omnia Graecè Cùm sit turpe magis nostris nescire Latinè Greeke words flow from their mouth wheras in men of 〈◊〉 it is more shamefull to be ignorant of their own language to want wit iudgment to construe the same Vpon which IgnoraÌ„ce this your imputation of 〈◊〉 vnto Iesuits is grounded except you will acknowlege that herein you slaunder them malitiously as I will now cleerly demonstrate First those wordes The Crosse Nayles and Lance were offered by Christ to his heauenly Father at his passion how are they set downe by you As the very text of the Iesuite in so many wordes Shew these formall wordes in his booke he I know will giue you leaue to rayle at him wherin you take so great pleasâ—re till you haue eased your stomacke of all your 〈◊〉 As your owne words wherein you thinke to 〈◊〉 downe not the text but the sense of the Iesuites 〈◊〉 why then are they put in a distinct letter as 〈◊〉 from yours and as the Iesuites formall 〈◊〉 If the Iesuites wordes were ambiguous 〈◊〉 to that impious sense you set vpoÌ„ them 〈◊〉 â—hey are not yet as it had been Charity to haue coâ—â—rued them to the better sense so is your falshood intollerable to substitute in lieu of his ambiguoâ—â— speach another that contaynes impiety without 〈◊〉 ambiguity and doubt Another I say of your owâ— making set in a distinct letter as if it were formallâ— and verbally his Secondly if the true wordes of the Iesuit 〈◊〉 downe it will presently appeare that his propositiâ—â— is not That the Crosse and Nayles were offered to the 〈◊〉 at Christs passion but that they were instrumenâ— of his passion not as the same proceeded from 〈◊〉 harts of the wicked but as by him intertayned in 〈◊〉 owne hart and offered to his Father this so cleâ—â—â—ly as it may seeme prodigious that you could ignoâ—rantly or that you would wittingly mistake his seâ—â—tence For the Iesuit answering a Protestant vulgâ—â— obiection the Kings maiesty vrged in the ConfereÌ„â—â— If the Crosse Nayles be worshipped because they touch the body of our Lord why not also the lypps of Iudas 〈◊〉 touched our Sauiours lypps when he gaue him that trayâ—â—â—rous kisse The Iesuit I say deliuers a threefold mâ—â—nifest disparity between the lyps of Iudas and the hâ—â—ly Crosse and about the third disparity he thus 〈◊〉 The Passion may be considered two wayes First as pâ—â—â—ceeding from the will of wicked men that tormented hiâ— in which consideration it is not gratefull vnto God 〈◊〉 detestableâ—action in the doers therof Secondly as it was â—â—â—ceaued in the body of Christ admitted into his heart 〈◊〉 OFFERED to his Father and by this consideration is sacred and venerable The lips of Iudas betraying 〈◊〉 were instruments of his Passion as it proceeded from 〈◊〉 hart and consequently as it was a detestable action but 〈◊〉 Crosse the Nayles the Lance that stayed in and was 〈…〉 to the body of Christ were instruments of his passion 〈◊〉 in his sacred person and
as offered to his heauenly Father and consequently as of a thing most highly 〈◊〉 What can be more cleere then that in this discourse not the wood of the Crosse but the payne and passion therof is sayd to haue been admitted into Christs hart and offered to his Father In proofe hereof I omit that your sense is both false and senselesse False because the wood of the Crosse did not enter into the hart of Christ nor the yron of the nayles but only the payne and passion caused by the same and the steele of the Lance though it went into his hart yet this was after his death when he could not offer it to his Father Senselesse because though the Crosse and nayles had been offered vnto God the Father yet could they not be sayd to haue been instruments of his Passion as they were offered For in that case Christs offering of them vnto his Father should haue been an action consequent vpon the Crosses instrumentall operation in payâ—â—â—g and tormenting his body whence the Crosse should not haue been the instrument to torment his body as offered to his Father but contrariwise the Crosse as the instrument tormeÌ„ting his body should haue been offered to his Father Nor will I vrge the drift of the whole discourse which doth most cleerly declare the last clause thereof For the Iesuit by the whole discourse doth intend to shew how the suffering of our Lord as it 〈◊〉 an actioÌ„ proceeding froÌ„ the hart of the wicked is distinct from the same as a passion receaued in his body and intertayned in his heart and offered to his Father for this opposition and the saying It 〈◊〉 receaued It was offered doth most euidently 〈◊〉 that offered to the Father is spoken of the Passion 〈◊〉 of the Crosse and Nayles These argumeÌ„ts I pretermâ—â— and remit vnto our Aduersary and only will stanâ— precisely vpon the Construction of this last clausâ— The Crosse Nayles and lance were instruments of Chriâ—â— Passion as lodged in his sacred Person and offered to 〈◊〉 heauenly Father and therefore as of a thing most high Venerable The wordes as lodged and as offered to 〈◊〉 heauenly Father cannot possibly be referred coâ—â—strued with the Crosse Nayles but only with 〈◊〉 Passion This I proue because to be lodged in Chriâ—â— sacred Person offered to the heaueÌ„ly Father is referreâ— in this speach to that thing which herein is conclâ—â—ded to be a thinge most higly venerable as the 〈◊〉 doth declare as lodged in his sacred Person and offeâ— to his Father and therefore as a thing most highly veâ—â—â—rable Hence lodged and offered being Participles 〈◊〉 Adiectiues must in this speach be of the same Numâ—ber and Case as is the thing thence concluded 〈◊〉 be most highly Venerable Now the thing most higâ— Venerable is in this speach put in the Genetiue 〈◊〉 singular of a thing most highly Venerable therefore lodged in his person and offered to his Father must 〈◊〉 likewyse the Genitiue Case singular How then 〈◊〉 they be construed in speach with Crosse Nayles anâ— Lance that are the Nominatiue Plurall Had the Iâ—â—suit sayd the Crosse the Nayles lance were instrumenâ—â— of Christs Passion as lodged in his person and offered 〈◊〉 his father consequently as most Venerable this speach taken precisely by it selfe had been ambiguous anâ— the former Epiphets lodged offered most Venerabâ—◠〈◊〉 haue been referred vnto the Crosse Nayles 〈◊〉 as vnto the PassioÌ„ But now saying as he doth Instruments of Christs Passion as lodged in his Person offered to his Father and therefore as of a thing most Venerable it is your grosse ignorance or vnaduised rashâ—â—â— if not willfull peruersnesse to referre lodged in his Person and offered to his Father vnto the Crosse Nayles The reproaches you loade on Loyolists so you please to nick-name Iesuits do moue them to take Compassion of you these being tokens of great passion that distempers your Iudgment which the learning of your Aduersary hath put you into For were you not blind with passion would you reuile Iesuits as you doe for Adorers of stockes and stones for prodigious Monsters most sacrilegious more to be detested then Iudas his Lips in respect of their worshipping our Sauiours Crosse Do you not marke that reuiling them in this regard you reuile togeather with them all Christians that haue worshipped that most sacred Wood to wit all the Fathers of the six Primitiue Ages For heare what a learned Father and Famous Antagonist of the Acephali then liuing doth write and witnesse of the Church in those ages (g) Rusticus Diaconus contra Acephalos Clauos quibus crucifixus est Lignum Venerabilis Crucis omnis per mundum Ecclesia sine vlla contradictione adorat The vniuersall Church of Christ spread ouer the world doth adore the Nayles wherwith he was crucifyed and the Wood of the Venerable Crosse without any contradiction because as then Mahoâ—â—t was not borne by whome (h) See Zonoras and Cedrenus in vita Leonis Isaurici and Paulus Diaconus in Miscella lib. 13. vnfortunate Christians were first taught to maligne the worship of their Sauiours Crosse and Image Another Father (i) Hormisda epist. 27. ad Euphem Augustam more auncient and of greater authority sayth Helena salutis humanae LIGNVâ— Crucem quam totus veneratur mundus inuenit Helena found out the Wood of human Saluation which the whole Christian world doth Worshipp What will you say of the Fathers who taught the Deuotes of their tyme (k) Hieron epist. 17. in Epitaph Paulae Prostrata ante crucem quasi pendentem Dominum cerneret adorabat to prostrate theÌ„selues before the Crosse adore as if they saw their Lord hanging thereon Who euen in the tyme of persecution before Constantine did plant the Image of Christ Crucifyed in the Entry of Churches informing Christians that did enter how to behaue themselues towardes it by this verse (l) Lactâ—n in Carm. de pas who liued in the tyme of persecution died in the beginning of the Empire of Constantine Flecte Genu Lignumque Crucis Venerabile adora Bow knee adore the Crosses sacred Wood. The day will come wheÌ„ (m) Matth. 24.3 the signe of the Sonne of Man shall shine in the skye and then the lips of Verity it selfe shall declare who be more to be detested then Iudas his lips Nouell-Gospellers or Auncient Fathers the Enemyes or Honourers of his Crosse when except the Fathers be Prodigious monsters you must be bound vp togeather (n) Alligate ea in fasciculos ad comburendum Matt. 13.30 with Iudas to kisse ech others lips for euer and eternally Grosse and incredible Ignorance in Logicke SECT II. AFTER Grammer and Latin Children are commonly taught Logicke or the Art of Reasoning without which no man can be grounded eyther in Philosophy or Theology Your ignorance in this kind spreads it selfe ouer euery 〈◊〉 of your booke and it is such as an Aduersary 〈◊〉
your disgrace could not haue wished you should coÌ„mit grosser faults This I shall make cleere by three Examples wherof ech inuolueth many arguments not only of your Ignorance but also of your Boldnes in talking about things of which you are totally ignorant The first Example §. 1. THE (a) Reply pag. 116. Iesuit to prooue against protestants argumento ad hominem that the Roman is the true Church argueth in this sort That Church from which Protestants receaued the Scripture is the one holy Catholik Apostolike Church The Church from which Protestants receaued is no other then the Roman Ergo The Roman is the one holy Catholike Apostolike Church To this argument you reply pag. 116. This syllogisme is peccant in forme and both the propositions are affirmatiue in the second figure which I note the rather because the Aduersary at the end of this Argument cryeth victoria saying An argument conuincing and vnanswerable I must therefore reduce the same to a lawfull forme and then answere Thus you Now vouchsafe to take a view of your manifold ignorance I pretermit your falshood in charging the Iesuit of saying that this Argument is conuictiue vnanswerable For the Iesuite doth not so affirme of this argument but of another to wit of this If it be possible that the Church can deliuer by full and vnanimous consent a false sense then it is possible that in like manner she may deliuer a false text But protestants cannot say that the Church by full and vnanimous consent of Tradition can deliuer a false text Ergo they may not say it is possible that 〈◊〉 Church should deliuer by ful vnanimous coÌ„senâ— a false sense This argument the Iesuit tearmeth 〈◊〉 answerable not the other which you challenge â— peccant in forme But this your falshood I pretermiâ— and only prosecute your faultes in Logicke Theâ—â— are foure and so grosse as they shew cleerly that yoâ— neuer learned or else haue vtterly forgot the Surâ—â—mula's or Rudiments of this Arte which childreâ— customarily are taught The first fault is not to distinguish betwixt 〈◊〉 Second Third Figure which is as childish in Lâ—â—gike as in Grammer not to know the third Decleâ—â—sion from the second You say the Iesuits argumeâ—â— is in the second figure and therefore peccant in formâ—â— both propositions being affirmatiue Whereas iâ— truth the same is in the third figure in which it lawful to argue both propositions being affirmatiâ—â— The third figure is wherein the Medium or meanâ— of proofe is subiected in both propositions that is the thing wherof another terme is predicated thâ—â— is is affirmed or denyed In the Iesuites ArgumeÌ„t 〈◊〉 medium to prooue the Roman to be the holy Cathoâ—like Church is the Church from which Protestaâ—â— receaued Scriptures This Church from which Prâ—â—testants receaue the Scripture is predicated in neâ—â—ther of his propositions but in both is subiected thâ—â— is is the terme wherof another thing is affirmed 〈◊〉 sayd In the maior proposition of the Church 〈◊〉 gaue protestants the scripture One Holy Catholiâ—â— Apostolike is affirmed The Church from whicâ— Protestants receaued the scripture is the one holy Apostolike Church In the minor likwise of the 〈◊〉 Church from which Protestants receaue Scripture the Roman is predicated The Church from which ProtestaÌ„ts receaue the Scripture is the RomaÌ„ Hence in lawfull forme in the third figure followes this conclusion Ergo the Roman is the one holy Catholike Apostolike Church Your second fault is grosser then the first For you know not the quality of Propositions nor can discerne a negatiue from an affirmatiue which is as great simplicity in Logicke yea greater then in GraÌ„mer not to know the termination of the second Declension from the first You say in the Iesuits Argument both propositions are pure affirmatiue wheras his Minor is in part negatiue to wit Protestants receaued the Scripture from no other but the Roman Who feeles not this proposition to be partly negatiue wherein is denyed that any Church besides the Roman is that Church from which Protestants can pretend the Scriptures to wit authentically or by assured perpetuall Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles For Exceptiue and Exclusiue Enuntiations be compound Enuntiations partly Affirmatiue partly Negatiue and as Logitians teach the (b) Enuntiationes exponibiles Exposition of them is to be made into two single propositions whereof the one is negatiue the other affirmatiue So the Iesuites proposition Protestants receaued Scripture by no other Church but the Roman being exceptiue is to be expounded by a Negatiue No Church not Roman is the Church from which Protestants receaued Scripture and also by an affirmatiue The Church from which Protestants receaued Scripture is the Roman Hence the Iesuit as he did conclude in a forme of the third figure called Disamis his minor being partly affirmatiue so might he haue concluded in a forme of the second termed Camestres the same minor being also negatiue in this manner The Holy Catholike Church is that from which Protestants receaued the Scripture No Church but the Roman is that Church from which ProtestaÌ„ts receaued the Scripture Ergo No Church but the Roman is the holy Catholike Apostolike Church Your third fault is not to know the forme of Expository Syllogismes from the common An Expository syllogisme is that wherein the meanes of proofe is a singular and indiuiduall thing in which kind it is good forme to argue affirmatiuely in any figure euen in the second For example this sillogisme The Minister grossely ignorant in Logicke replyed agaynst M. Fisher. The Deane of Carlile is he who replyed against M. Fisher. Ergo the Deane of Carliele is the Minister grossely ignorant of Logicke This sillogisme is in the second figure and both propositions are affirmatiue yet if you deny the forme of arguing to be good you will but confirme the truth of the conclusion Hence the Iesuit might in good forme haue argued affirmatiuely in the second figure in this manner The One Holy Catholike Apostolicall Church is that Church from which Protestants pretend to haue the Scriptures authentically The Roman is that Church from which Protestants pretend to haue the Scriptures authentically Ergo the Roman is the One Holy Catholike Apostolicall Church Your fourth fault is that yow play the Reformer of Arguments as Luther did of Churches that is you reiect lawfull and good formes and in lieu of them bring in vicious and damnable The Iesuits argument as by yow (c) Reply pag. 117. reformed is this The Church from which Protestants receaued the scriptures is the One Holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church Protestants receaued the scripture from the Roman Ergo the Roman is the One Holy Catholike Apostolicall Church In this reformed argument both propositions are particuler and consequently the forme of arguing vicious in any figure as euery Logitian knowes The Iesuit to preuent this fault made his minor an vniuersall Proposition For this proposition Protestants receaued the Scriptures
subscribed vnto as containing (m) See the Approbation I Francis White c. nothing but what is aggreable to the publike Faith and Doctrine established in the Church of England And yet heere yow say It is certaine that the Pope is the man of sinne sonne of perditioÌ„ so shewing your selfe to be of their number whome the said Authour in that very place doth rebuke as Omnium horarum homines Halters in opinions for priuate ends I omit also your folly in exclaming at the misery of English Romists for that they adhere vnto your supposed Antichrist not marking that to cleaue to the Antichrist of your forming must euen according to your owne principles be singular happines For Antichrist according to your Tenet doth sit gouerne in the House and Temple of God and so by the same breath wherwith you make men vassals of Antichrist you make them Gods Domesticks his House his Temple Will it be misery to be found such at the day of Iudgement Yea rather the Church of Christ the Temple of God being onely one out of which no saluation is had what a misery will it be at the day of Iudgement wheÌ„ by your owne mouth you shall be conuinced to haue forsaken that company which you confesse to be the Church and Temple of God through feare of your owne shaddow and fancy For what can be more foolish then to fasten the name of Antichrist vpon the Gouernour of the ChristiaÌ„ Church who doth dayly professe to belieue in Christ Iesus the sonne of God and Sauiour of the world who by his Adherents doth more then all the world besides defend and propagate amongst Pagans his most holy Name Religion But to let these things passe marke how you coÌ„tradict your selfe in saying on the one side that that caÌ„not be the House Temple of God which now hath or in former times hath had wicked Pastours On the other side that that is the House and Temple of God in which the Man of sinne that is a succession of wicked Pastours hath a long while for many ages gouerned and doth rule and gouerne So hard is it for men blinded with passion agaynst Christian Doctrine deriued by succession from the Apostles to run in their passionate conceipts without falling into the pit of open contradiction whereby their folly comes to be manifest vnto all men The third Errour You profâ—sse Infidelity about the Blessed Sacrament §. 3. THVS you write pag. 179. To that part of the Iesuits speach that we deny the Reall Presence or else the mayne Article of the Creed that Christ is still in heaâ—en because we will not allow a body in two places at â—nce I answere We cannot graunt that one indiuiduall â—ody may be in many distant places at one and the same â—nstant of time vntill the Papalls DEMONSTRATE THE POSSIBILITY THEREOF by teâ—timony of Scripture or the ancient TraditioÌ„ of the Church â—r by apparent reason Thus you This is playne deaâ—ing and open profession of Infidelity For what â—s heretical obstinacy but to reiect the word of God â—bout the mysteries of our Fayth in the playne exâ—resse and literall sense vntill the possibility of â—hat sense be first demonstrated No Heretike was eâ—er so barbarous as to prefer his reason beyond Gods word so farre as to affirme that the word of God contrary to his reason was false Their impiety was to reiect Gods word about some mistery of fayth in the literall sense flying to morall and mysticall interpretation because they could not comprehend and therefore would not belieue the possibility of the playne and litterall sense The Arrians did not deny the word of Scripture saying (n) 1. Ioan. â— 7 of the Father Word and Holy Ghost these three are one nor the Word of Christ (o) Ioan. 10.30 I and my Father are one to be true morally and mystically in respect of vnity by singular affection and consent betwixt these three persons They were Heretikes for denying the truth of these wordes in the proper and substantiall sense because the same seemed to them impossible For seing that we might not expound the Scriptures about mysteries of fayth to an easy figuratiue sense when the same according to the letter goeth beyond the capacity of our vnderstanding God doth so often in holy Writ (p) Gen. 18.17 Numquid Deo quid est difficile Hieâ—rm 32.17 Non est difficile tibi omne verbum Et v. 27. Numquid mihi difficile erit omne verbuÌ„ Luc. 1.37 Non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbuÌ„ Et Deo omnia possibilia sunt Matt. â—9 26 Luc. 18.27 Omnia possibilia sunt credenti Mar. 9.22 assure vs that nothing is impossible or difficile vnto him and (q) Iob. 9.10 That he can do things incomprehensible without number What greater obstinacy then for Christian men to professe that they will neuer belieue his word about the mysteryes of fayth in the literall sense vntill the possibility of the sense be demonstrated vnto them that is brought within the compasse and comprehension of their wit You may perchance excuse your selfe by saying the words of Christs institution This is my body takeÌ„ in the literall sense do not inforce that Christ according to his corporall substance is in two places at once I answere this you cannot say without contradicting not only the word of Scripture as is proued in the Reioynder but also your selfe For you do plainly affirme that this our doctrine yea euen Transubstantiation is contayned in the literall sense of the words of the Institution If say you the substance of bread and wine be deliuered in the Eucharist then the wordes are figuratiue and cannot be true in the proper sense because one indiuiduall substance cannot be predicated of another properly Thus you (r) Reply pag. 3â—7 whereupon I thus argue That without which the word of Christ cannot be true in the proper and literall sense is inforced and prooued by the word of Christ taken in the literall sense But except the substance of bread be absent and Christ in lieu thereof present according to his corporall substance the word of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the literall and proper sense as you affirme Ergo Transubstantiation and the presence of Christ on earth according to his bodily substance in lieu of bread is inforced proued by the literall sense of the word of Christs institution Wherfore to professe as you â—o neuer to belieue Christs body to be in two places at once vntill it be demonstrated vnto you to be possible is to professe you will not belieue the word of God in the literall sense about mysteries of fayth further then the possibility thereof can be made euident vnto you Is not this to professe Infidelity Secondly you may say that when you require that we demonstrate by testimony of Scripture that a body may be in two places at once you meane not that we bring texts of
â—f his spirit inwardly mouing the heart of man to â—dhere vnto an infallible externall ground of assurance proposed vnto him God by the helpe of his grace making him apprehend diuinely of the authority thereof This second manner of inward assurance is ordinarily giuen vnto euery ChristiaÌ„ without (r) Triden sess 6. Can. 3. Arausican 2. Can. 6. which no man is able to belieue supernaturally and as he ought vnto Saluation The first manner of assurance is extraordinary and immediate reuelation such as the Prophets had Wherfore Protestants if they callenge this first manner of inward teaching assurance they approue Enthusiasme immediat reuelatioÌ„ which in the Swenkfeldians they seeme to condemne If they challenge only the second manner of inward teaching and assurance then besides inward light they must assigne an externall sufficieÌ„t ground why they belieue these Scriptures to be the Apostles then I aske what ground this is besides Tradition Secondly they wil obiect that though they haue no infallible ground besides the teaching of the Spirit yet they are not taught immediatly in Propheticall maÌ„ner because they are also taught by an external probable motiue to wit the Churches tradition I Answere that except they assigne an externall infallible meanes besides Gods inward teaching they cannot auoyde but they challenge immediate reuelation For whosoeuer knoweth thinges assuredly by the inward teaching of the spirit without an external infallible motiue vnto which he doth adhere is assured prophetically though he haue some externall probable motiues so to thinke S. Peter had some coniecturall signes of Simon Magus his peruersity incorrigible malice yet seing (s) Act. 8.32 In felle amaritudinis obligatione peccati video te esse he knew it assuredly we belieue he knew it by the light of prophesy because besides inward assurance he had no externall infallible ground If one see a man giue publickly almes though he perceaue probable tokeÌ„s signes that he doth it out of a Vayne-glorious intention yet cannot he be sure therof but by the light of immediat reuelation because the other tokens are not grounds sufficient to make him sure For if a man be sure haue no ground of this assurance in any thinge out of his owne hart it is cleere that he is assured immediatly only by Gods inward speaking Wherfore ProtestaÌ„ts if they will disclayme in truth and not in wordes only from immediate reuelation and teaching they must eyther grant tradition to be infallible or else assigne some externall infallible ground besides Tradition whereby they are taught what Scriptures the Apostles deliuered Thirdly they will say they know the Scriptures to be from the Apostles by an externall infallible ground besides Tradition to wit by certayne lights lustres euidences of truth which they see to blaze emane from the thinges reuealed in Scripture by which they are sure that the doctrin thereof is heauenly I Answere If they did see such lustres and lights that cleerly not only probably conuince the doctrine of Scripture to be heauenly truth they be not indeed assured by immediate darke reuelation but by an higher degree of heauenly knowledge to wit by the supernaturall light and euidence of the thinge belieued which is a paradox and pretence farre more false and sensibly absurd then is the challenge of immediate reuelation or Enthusiasme as hath beene shewed Wherefore seing that God hath chosen no externall meanes besides Catholicke Tradition to make men know perpetually vntill the consummation of the world what doctrins Scriptures the Apostles published it is cleere vnto euery Christian that this is the meanes by him chosen which he doth assist that it cannot be obnoxious vnto errour so that precedently and independently of Scripture the Catholicke tradition of Christian pastors fathers is proued to be infallible through Diuine speciall assistance and therefore a sufficient ground for Fayths infallible assurance The Fourth Principle proued §. 6. IF we be resolued that sauing truth is that which God reuealed that he reuealed that which the Apostles published the doctrine published by then the Catholicke Christian Tradition our search is ended when we haue found the Christian Catholicke Church Heere the fourth Enemy of true Christian Religion offers himselfe to wit the Willfull Ignorant These kind of men not only hold agaynst Pagans the doctrine of saluation to be that only which was reuealed of God agaynst Iewes the reuealed of God to be only the Apostles but also in wordes they condemne the Heretikes professe that no doctrine is truly Apostolicall but the Catholick yet in resoluing what doctrin is the Catholicke they follow the partiality of their affections These are tearmed by (t) De vtil cred c. 1. S. Augustine Credentes haereticorum Belieuers of Heretikes building vpon the seeming learning and sanctity of some men being therein so willfull as to venture their soules that such doctrine is Catholike not caring nor knowing what they say nor what the word Catholicke put into the Creed by the Apostles doth import Some be so ignorant as to thinke that the word Catholicke doth signify the same as conforme vnto Scripture And so what doctrine is Catholicke they resolue by the light and lustre of the doctrine or by the in ward teaching of the spirit whereby they fall vpon the principle of Heresy and become not so much belieuers of Heretikes as Heretikes Some vnderstand by the word Catholicke Doctrine truly Catholicke that is deliuered froÌ„ the Apostles by Christian worlds of Fathers vnto Christian worlds of children yet are so blind as to giue this Title vnto Sects lately sprung vp which through pretended singular Illuminations gotten by perusing the Scripture haue chosen formes of fayth opposite one agaynst another reformed agaynst the forme to them deliuered by their Ancestors These Sects I say they tearme Catholicke which not to be Catholicke in this sense is as euident as that night is not day Some through willfull ignorance no lesse grossely deuide the name of Catholicke according to the diuision of Countryes naming the Catholicke doctrin of the Church of France of the Church of England c. Which speach hath no more sense then this A fashion euer since Christ vniuersally ouer the world newly begun and proper vnto England Agaynst this Enemy true Religion is resolued in this fourth principle The Catholicke Tradition of doctrine from the Apostles is the Roman By Roman we vnderstand not only the Religion professed within the Citty Diocesse of Rome but ouer the whole world by them that any where acknowledg the primacy of Peter and his successours which now is the Roman Bishop About this principle fayth is assured by a fourth perfection belonging vnto God as he is prime Verity reuealing truth which is that he cannot permit that the knowing of sauing doctrine be impossible Hence I argue God being Prime Verity reuealing cannot permit the meanes of knowing his sauing truth to be hidden nor a false meanes to
teach it as Christ commanded deliuered the same Thirdly if this Promise were conditionall not absolute then by this place the Church could not be proued to last absolutly for euer but only so long as she Christeneth aright teacheth the truth wherin according to this ProtestaÌ„t exposition she may fayle But the Fathers from this text gather agaynst the Donatists that the Church shal neuer fayle to be in all Nations of the world vntill the end therof as S. Aug. in Psalm 101. conc 2. Leo Epist. 3. ad Pulcheriam and others hence proue Therfore the sense is absolute his Church shal be still in the world he still assisting his Church by his spirit to teach and baptize aright promise of wonderfull comfort vnto them that pawne their soules saluation vpon Gods word deliuered by perpetuall Tradition for in this sentence appeares the six thinges I before set downe First that there is still A ChristiaÌ„ Church all dayes not wanting in the world so much as one day till the consummation of the world SecoÌ„dly this Church is euer visible and conspicuous For the Church that alwayes teacheth Christeneth all Nations must needs be visible But this Church alwaies teacheth and Christeneth all Nations I am alwayes with you not with you sitting in Corners or hidden vnder ground but with you exercising the office enioyned you in the words precedent Docete omnes gentes baptizantes Thirdly this Church is euer Apostolicall for to his Apostles Christ said I am alwaies with you to the coÌ„summation of the world not with you in your owne persons but with you in your successours in whome you shal continue vntill the worlds end Ergo a lawfull company of Bishops Pastours Doctors succeeding the Apostles must be perpetually in the world Forthly this Church is Vniuersal Ite in muÌ„dum vniuersum where I will be alwayes with you Fifthly this Church is One not diuided into parts because it teacheth and belieueth vniformely all that Christ deliuered and commanded without Factions Sects or Parts about matters of fayth Sixtly this Church is alwayes holy for doctrine neuer deliuering or teaching any falshood I who am the Truth am alwayes with you teaching all nations Holy also for life Christ the holy of holyes assisting and making her able to conuert Infidels which she could not well doe (s) The Minister p. 85. 86.102 alleadgeth diuers Fathers scholmeÌ„ to proue that now miracles are ceased not necessary Answere The Minister shold distinguish as the fathers doe who make two manner of beings of Miracles to wit ordinary extraordinary and affirme three things First that in the primitiue Church miracles were absolutly necessary for the plaÌ„ting of the Ghospell in the world Ioan. 5.24 Act. 4.29.30 and then the gift of miracles was ordinarily annexed vnto the Ministery of Preaching yea so that euery Christian coÌ„monly had that gift in some kind or other 1. Cor. 12.28 Act. 8.17 10. 4.6 Secondly that since the planting of the Gospell by twelue Fishermen this being the miracle of miracles no further miracle is absolutly necessary for meÌ„ vnto whoÌ„ this is known and therfore the gift of miracles is ceased to be ordinarily annexed to the office of preaching or common to al Christians as before it was Aug. de Ciuit. l. 22. c. 8. Gregor 27. moral c. 1. Thirdly notwithstaÌ„ding in all ages there were are and shal euer be some speciall places and persons extraordinarily indued with the gift of miracles for the comfort of Christians Conuersion of some remote Nations that know not the first miraculous planting of our Religion by certayne celebrious fame of miracles in this kind the writings of the Fathers all ChristiaÌ„ histories are full See S. Aug. l. 22. de Ciuit. c. 8. Gregory in his Dialogues THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH not before Luther without miracles and tokens of wonderfull sanctity at the least in her more eminent Preachers That the Romane is the One Holy Catholike Apostolical Church from by which we are to receyue the Tradition of Christian Doctrine §. 5. THIS Ground being laid it is apparent that the Romane Church that is the multitude of Christians spread ouer the world cleauing to the doctrine and Tradition of the Church of Rome is the only holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church The first Argument THERE must alwayes be in the world one holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church That is a Church deliuering doctrines vniformely thereby making them credible vniuersally thereby making them famously knowne to mankind holyly so making them certayne such as on them we may securely rely Apostolically so making theÌ„ perpetually flow without change vnto the present Christianity in the channell of a neuer-interrupted Succession of Bishopps from the Apostles And this Church (t) Vnto this Argument the Minister pag. 104. makes answere that his Protestant Church was before Luther in essence kind though it began in Luther touching the Name and some things accidental In proofe whereof he thus wryteth In all ages before Luther some persons held the substantiall articles of our Religion both in the Roman Grecian Church And by name the Grecians maintained with vs that the Roman Church hath no primacy of Iurisdiction aboue or ouer all other Churches neyther is the same infallible in fayth They deny Purgatory Priuate Masses Sacrifice for the dead and they propugne the Marriage of Priests In this Westerne part of the world the Waldenses Thaborites of Bohemia Wickliffiâ—ts maÌ„tayned the same doctrine in substance as appeareth by their confession of fayth and by the testimony of some learned Pontificians This being the substance of all the Minister hath sayd or can say for his Church before Luther the same is insufficient false more for Anabaptists then Protestants This I proue In generall this pedegree is insufficient for two reasons First because it is not for all ages The Grecians were vnited with the Romane Church vntill the yeare 1060. the Waldensians began about the yeare 1160. Now there remaynes six or seauen ages since the pretended Apostacy of the Roman Church for which the Minister doth not name any professours that were Protestants for essence and kind Secondly because Protestants teach that the most substantiall article of their Religion is Iustification by speciall fayth only and not by workes and merits of grace as all know But these pretended professours namely the Waldenses Wickliffists held rigorously the merit of works In so much as Wickliffe sayd Let euery man confide in his merits for which saying he is refuted by the Catholike authour Thomas Waldensis Tom. 3. c. 7.8.9 Graecians no Protestants in Essence In particular the Pedigree is notoriously false in respect of the Graecians who cannot without impudency be named as Protestants according to essence and kind First they hold damnable heresyes and substantiall errours in the Iudgement of Protestants so wit Inuocation of Saints Adoration of Images as they professe in their Censure
yet his doctrine is agaynst the whole Consent of Deuines expresly agaynst S. Augustine who sayth that a man holding with Photinus whose Errors were fundamentall agaynst the Trinity God head of Christ thinking he holdes Catholike doctrine is not yet an (*) The Minister sayth pa. 196. that the IESVITE cites not Augustine truly for he ōly saith I would not affirme of such a person that he is an Heretique Answere This is vntruth S. Austine saith Istum nondum haereticū dico I do affirme this mā not to be yet an Heretique though he hold fundamentall errour till he knowe he dothe it agaynst the Catholike CHVRCH What he addeth that S. Austine meanes that ignorance is not heresy in foro Ecclesiae but is heresy in foro caeli is ridiculous for the contrary is true because whosoeuer denyes though ignorātly the knowne articles of the Creed is an heretike in foro Ecclesiae because he is presumed to erre out of contempt not out of ignorance But if he be truly ignorant he is no heretike in foro caeli because verily he is not willfull Heretike till warned that he holds agaynst the Catholike Church he chooseth to perseuer in his errour Hence I inferre that Protestants erre fundamentally according to the second kind of erring to wit in the manner in all points they hold agaynst the Roman Church which I haued proued to be the true Catholike Church For he that holds any priuate opinions so stifly as rather thē forsake it he denies abandons the Catholike Church a mayne article of his Creed erreth fundamētally as is cleere But Protestants hold their priuate opinions so stiffely as therupon they haue denyed and abandoned the Catholike Church to wit the Roman Neyther doth it import that they retayne the word hauing reiected the sense seeing not the letter of the Creed pronounced but the matter belieued makes men Christians Neyther is it inough to say that they belieue the Church of the Elect seeing the Church of the Creed is not the Church of the only Elect a meere Fancy but the visible and conspicuous Church continuing from the Apostles by succession of Bishops which thus I prooue The Church whereof Christ sayd I am alwayes with you to the consummation of the world is the Church of the Creed or the Church which to forsake is damnable For the Church wherewith Christ still abideth not according to corporall visible presence but by his spirit is the body of Christ whereof he is head into which he infuseth the life of grace consequently he that forsaketh this Church forsaketh the body of Christ and the head thereof and cannot liue by his spirit but is in a dead and damnable state as a member cut off and separated from a liuing body as S. Augustine epist. 50. de vnit Eccles. c. 16. long agoe noted The Catholike Church is the body of Christ whereof he is head out of this body the Holy Ghost quickeneth no man Now the Church wherof Christ sayd I am alwayes with you to the consummation of the world is not the Church inuisible of only the Elect but a visible Church deriued by succession from the Apostles Therfore he that forsakes the Church deriued by succession from the Apostles forsakes the Church of the Creed the Catholike Church the body of Christ puts himselfe into a dead damnable state may haue all things besides saluation and eternall life as Fathers affirme whose testimonies in this behalf are notable and famously knowne whereunto D. Field yieldeth acknowleging one holy Catholike Church in which only the light of heauenly Truth is to be sought where only grace mercy remission of sinnes and hope of eternall happynes are found AN ANSVVERE TO THE Nyne Points proposed by your most Excellent Maiesty I Haue bene large in my former proofes that the Roman is the one holy true catholike church whose Traditions comming downe by perpetuall succession from Christ and his holy Apostles are so constantly and strongly to be belieued that no proofes out of Scripture by priuate interpretatiō vnderstood though seeming most euident may stand to contest (a) The Minister here spends a whole leafe of Paper in bitternes gall against vs as if we did professe to preferre Old Custome before knowne Verity It is not so but thus the case standeth between Protestants and vs. First as for Verity neither they nor we know our Religion to be verity by manifest sight nor by the light lustre euidence of the thinge or doctrine as both of vs must acknowledge if we be sober Secondly there be records which by Tradition we know to haue bene giuen by the Apostles which vpon good warrant are belieued to deliuer nothing but Gods holy word Thirdly when Controuersies arise about this word of the Apostles and there be different opinions about the sense therof seeming arguments be brought on both sides we thinke that side ought to preuaile as the truly Christian for which perpetuall Christian Tradition Custome stand Fourtly we Iudge that that side ought to be reiected as not truly Christian where Christian Tradition is so notoriosly defectiue as they cānot ascend from this age vpward towards Christ by naming professours of their Religion higher then one hundred yeares or if they presume to passe further they are presently conuinced to feigne as it happeneth vnto Protestants This is the summe of all that hath been hitherto sayd and the forme of the Catholicke proceeding about their resolution of fayth against thē And this I haue not done without purpose assuring my selfe that if your Maiestie were throughly perswaded in this point you would without any mans help most easily and fully satisfy your selfe in particular controuersyes out of your owne wisdome and learning For as some that haue bene present at your Maiesties discourses casually incident about Religion report few of our Deuines though trained vp continually in Academies and Exercises of Theology are able to say more thē your Maiesty in defence of the catholicke cause for particular controuersyes when you please to vndertake the patronage thereof which I can easily belieue out of my owne Experience who could not but admire seing your Maiesty so well acquainted with our doctrines and so ready and prompt in Scholasticall subtilities Wherfore most humbly I beseech your most Excellent Maiesty to honour these my poore labours with a gratious perusall of them accepting of mine Answers whē they may seeme reasonable being in defence of doctrines receiued from Auncestors which deserue approbation when there is no euidency against them and of your abundant clemency pardon my prolixity seeing the questions by your Maiesty proposed were so difficill and obscure as I could hardly haue made any shorter full explication of them THE FIRST POINT The (b) The Minister in this question knowes not well what to stand vnto He graunts the question and then he denyes it agayne contradicting himselfe yea censuring his owne whole
prooue that of necessity they are seen and so the Minister might haue spared the paper in citing the opinions of SchoolemeÌ„ coÌ„cerning the doctrin of the VoluÌ„tary glasse glasse of diamant so cleere and excellent that whatsoeuer is done in London in secretest corners should therein particularly and distinctly appeare surely he that hath eyes to see that glasse may likewise discerne what is done ouer the Citty Now most certayne it is that in God all creatures all actions done in the world and all the most secret thoughts of harts so perspicuously and distinctly shine as they are in themselues So that the Saints hauing light to see the diuine Essence may in him cleerly discerne whatsoeuer is done in the world beloÌ„ging to their state though neuer so secret according to the saying of S. (t) Basil. lib. de Virgin Basil There is not any Saint which doth not see all thinges that are done any where in the world And of S. (u) Greg. hom 40. Qui creatoris sui claritatem vident nihil in creatura agitur quod videre non possint Gregory Nothing is done about any creature which they cannot see who see the clarity of their Creatour And agayne (x) Lib. 12. Moral c. 13. We must belieue that they who see the clarity of the omnipotent God within themselues are not ignorant of any thing that is done without Which doctrine of the Fathers that Protestants may the lesse dislike I proue to be grounded on the Scriptures First if Saints by reason of their blissefull state do so participate of the diuine nature and wisdome About the first Argument as they communicate with him in the power of gouerning the nations of the world This argument is strong and you by strugling make the strength thereof more appeare You haue deuised 3. solutions First you say pag. 311. lin 10. That the Iesuits exposition is nouell and neuer heard of in the ancient Church Answer It is ridiculous when you are pressed with the cleere text of Scripture to call vpon the ancieÌ„t Church you I say who still specially in this question appeale from the ancient Fathers vnto the Scripture as pag. 302. and 298. you say that it is not iust to make ancient custome a law rule of right doctrine And if you will stand to the rule of antiquity I can produce more then fifty ancient Fathers that in expresse tearmes teach the doctrine the Iesuit doth establish by the literall sense of Gods word to wit that saints deceased are rulers and gouernours of mens actions liues Secondly you say pag. 309. that the text of the Apocalyps To him that shall haue conquered I will giue him power c. is not vnderstood of Saints deceased but of liuing Saints Answere This to be false is apparent by the very words which are these Apoc. 226. He that shall haue conquered kept my words VNTIL THE END to him I will giue power ouer nations c. But it is cleer that liuing Saints caÌ„not be said to haue conquered much lesse to haue kept the word of God vntil â—he end Therfore these words are violently wrested vnto liuing Saints Thirdly you say pag. 320. lin 3. That the promise I will giue them power ouer â—ations is vnderstood only of iudiciary power in the day of iudgement Answer This â—o be false is proued by the rule of interpretation of Scriptures which â—rotestants commend and praise aboue all other to wit when a text is â—oubtfull the same must be expounded by another which speakes of the â—â—me matter specially when the darke text doth expressely allude vnto â—he cleerer This place of the Apocalips about Saints I will giue them power â—uer nations and they shall rule them in a rod of iron they shall be broken in peeces â—â—ke pots of clay seemeth darke vnto Protestants and the question is wheâ—her this be spoken of Saints power in the militant Church or onely of â—he day of Iudgment To cleer this doubt there is another text of Scripture vttered in the same words to wit the second Psalme which saith of Christ That his father shall giue him nations to be his inheritance and he shall 〈◊〉 them in a rod of iron and shall breake them as pots of clay To this text of the Psalme the place of the Apocalips doth allude For our Lord in the Apocalips promiseth that he will giue to Saints power to gouerne in a rod of iron nations countryes as his father promised gaue the same power vnto him to wit in the aforesaid Psalme But that place of the Psalme is without doubt to be vnderstood of Christs power of gouernement in this world and of his ruling in the militant Church as Protestants grant it appeareth by the wordes precedent I will giue thee nations to be thine inheritance and thou shalt rule them in a rod of yron Ergo the power of gouerning iâ— a rod of yron promised to Saints must be vnderstood of gouernement in this world and in the militant Church then Saints haue knowledge of things that are done in this world else how could they be able to gouerne and rule it But Scripture in playne and expresse tearmes make Saints participate with Christ in the rule and gouernement of the world according to his promise (y) Because the Minister doth so much insult that the Iesuit hath not proued any thinge by Scripture I will that his folly may appeare examine particularly his answere vnto these texts Apocalip 2.26 To him that conquereth I will giue power ouer nations and he shall rule them with a rod of iron that is with power of inflexible equity And Apocal. 3. v. 12. I will make him a pillar in the TeÌ„ple of my God And the blessed say of themselues Apoc. 5.10 that they were chosen out of countreys and nations to be Priests of God that they should rule with him vpon the earth Therfore they know what is done vpon earth so far forth at least as the affayres of earth doe specially appertaine vnto them and such without doubt are our deuotions towardes them Secondly S. Paul Cor. 14.26 sayth Now we know but in part we prophesy but in part but when that of perfection shall come that of part shall be euacuated I know now but in part theÌ„ I shall know as I am known By which words the Apostle signifyes that all knowledge both humane diuine particularly the gift of Prophesy is contayned eminently in the beatificall â—ight so that the blessed Saints haue the gift of Prophesy in a more excellent degree theÌ„ had the Prophets in this world But by the light of Prophesy holy men vnited with God could see the secrets of harts as S. Paul sayth 1. Cor. 14.15 By the gift of Prophesy the secrets of harts are manyfested and also see things absent being present by light of vnderstaÌ„ding froÌ„ whence they were absent according to their substance (z) The Minister seketh two wayes
a body from occupying a place or from extruding another body frō the place where it is (p) Read S. Augustine de Agone Christiano c. 24. serm 160. who by these examples proueth that a body may penetrate with another where he saith Shew me the weightines of flesh in the body that walked vpon the waues and I will shew the true massines and solidity of flesh in the body that came in the doores being shut and was borne into the world without vndoing his mothers integrity in his byrth For to occupy a place or to extrude thence another body is but an effect consequent flowing from the nature of a quantitiue substance as to weigh to be seene to shine to burne be the naturall and necessary effects of heauy coloured bright fiery things Transubstantiation belonges to the substance of Reall Presence §. 2. THIS I proue That belonges to the substance of this Mystery which being denyed and taken away the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true taken in the literal sense in which sense they are to be taken as hath been shewed But without granting Transubstātiation the words of Christ cannot be true taken in the literall sense Ergo transubstantiation belongs to the substance of this mystery of the Reall presence The minor is proued because the speach This is my body doth signify that the thing the Priest holds in his hands is truly really and substantially the body of Christ. For in the proposition This is my body the verbe Est signifyes a coniunction betweene This in the Priests hands the body of Christ and being a Verbe substantiue in his proper signification signifyes a substantiall Identity betweene This in the Priests hands and the body of Christ. But This in the Priests hands being before consecration bread a thing substantially distinct from the body of Christ cannot by consecration be made substantially the body of Christ as the Fathers teach it is without some substantiall alteration or change And what other substantiall chāge can make bread to become truly the body of Christ besides substantial conuersion of the same into his body (q) The Minister flyes vnto the figuratiue sense choosing rather to deny the truth of Gods word according to the letter thē admit Transubstantiation Against which he hath three arguments scattered in his Reply which I wil here ioyne togither and answere The first is pa. 434. the consecrated bread is tearmed very bread 1. Cor. 10.16 11.26.28 Answere This is a very vntruth For it is still in those places tearmed bread cum addito with such an addition as signifies that it is not properly bread but our Sauiours body 1. Cor. 10.16 The bread we breake that is Sacrifice vnto God is the communication of the body of our Lord. And 1. Cor. 11.26 as often as you eate THIS bread 27. Whosoeuer shall eate THIS bread vnworthily 28. So let him eate of THAT bread to wit wherof he had said before that Christ by the verity of his word doth make it his body Now he that eateth bread turned into Christs body or made his body doth not truly eate bread As the Maister of the Marriage-feast in Cana who tasted water made wine Iohn 2.9 did not tast water truly For as water made wine is not water euen so bread consecrated and made our Lords body is not bread The second is pag. 447. which he setteth out magnificently in a distinct letter and ech proposition in a seuerall line The substance is this If the words of our Sauiour This is my body chāge the substance of bread into his body then also they change the quantity accidents For our Sauiour tooke the whole bread into his handes and sayd this is my body as wel vpon the accidents as vpon the substance of bread But they proue not the conuersion of accidents For Popish Trāsubstantiatiō is only a conuersion of substance not of accidents Therefore they proue not the conuersion of the substance Answere The wordes of our Sauiour this is my body change not euery thing into his body ouer which they be spoken by way of breathing for then they should chāge the ayre into his body but only that ouer which they are so spoken by way of signification that their signification can not be true in the litteral sense except that be hi◠body Now the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the litterall sense except the substance of bread be changed into his body as the Minister doth confesse pag. 397. lin 17. But they may be true according to the letter the substāce being chāged though the accidēts remayne For if the Sacrament outwardly cloathed with the formes and accidents of bread be inwardly in nature and substance Christs body then is it truly and substantially his body and may be sayd to be his body taking the word to be in the proper sense for substantiue being euen as Iacob cloathed with the garments of Esau was truly and substantially Iacob and not Esau though in outward shew and shape he seemed Esau. Therfore the litterall truth of Christs words this is my body inforceth vs to say that the substance of bread is chāged into his body but not that the quātity of bread is so changed And thus the magnificence of your argument is marred proued to be but an empty shew The third argument is pag. 422.423 In all miraculous substantiall conuersions a new substance is produced but the body of Christ doth preexist so cannot be produced Answer The maior is false as appeareth by millions of miraculous cōuersions which partly haue beene partly shall be For in the resuscitation of the dead when carcasses are conuerted into men no new thing is produced but old things and substances which formerly had been are reproduced It is true the power of nature being limited according to time place cannot reproduce but onely produce at one time and in one place But the power of God being infinite eternall immense and independent of time and place can reproduce things that preexist according to different times and places as often and in as many places as he is pleased Hence he can and doth reproduce vpon earth the body of our Sauiour preexisting in heauen as the Fathers auerre S. Ambros. l. 4. de Sacra c. 4. When consecration is done the body of Christ is MADE of bread And S. Cyprian serm de coena Vsque hodie Diuinissimum Sanctissimum corpus CREAT S. Gauden homil tract 2. in Exod. Quia potest promisit de pane corpus suum EFFICIT S. Hierom. ep ad Heliod Sacerdotes corpus Christi proprio ore CONFICIVNT But some may obiect that as a man shewing a Leather-purse full of gold may truly say this is gold or a paper wrapped vp full of siluer may say this is siluer so the body of Christ being vnder cōsecrated bread we may truly say this is the body of Christ
mysterijs initiantur cap. â— Moyses his word changed the waters of Aegypt into bloud agayne turned them from bloud into water If so great was the benediction of man what may we thinke of diuine consecration where the very words of our Sauiour worke The word of Elias had power to bring downe fire from heauen shall not the words of Christ haue force to change the kinds of the elements Againe (i) Ambros. lib. 4. de Sâ—cram cap. 4. Thou seest how working efficacious is the word of Christ. If therfore such vertue is in his word that therby things that are not receaue being how much more hath it power that the things that are still remayne in the general latitude of being according to the sensible accidents and be conuerted into another substance VIII Fourthly the effect of this transmutatioÌ„ taught by the Fathers is the presence of the substance of Christs body the absence of the substance of bread binding vs to abnegate our senses and not to belieue what we seeme to see with our eyes IX Theophilact (k) Theophilact c. 4. 26. Matth. Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable operation although to vs it seeme bread because we are weake and haue horrour to eate raw flesh especially the flesh of man for this reason bread appeareth but in essence and substance it is not bread Saint Cyrill (l) Cyrill Hieros Catech. mystagog 4. Come not therfore as vnto simple bread and wine for it is the body and bloud of Christ according to the affirmation of our Lord for although sense suggest the contrary yet let fayth confirme thee Iudge not of the thing by tast but indubitably with full fayth belieue that thou art made partaker of the body bloud of Christ. And againe Know this with full certitude belieue that the bread seene is not bread though it so seeme to the tast but the body of Christ that wine seene is not wine though tast iudge it to be wine but the bloud of Christ. X. Finally that the Fathers held Transubstantiation is prooued by the continuancy which they taught of Christs body in the Sacrament so long as the accidents of bread last as appeareth by their reseruing of the same For reseruation to haue been the custome of the primitiue Church Protestants grant That (m) Habent veteris Ecclesiae exemplum fateor Caluin Instit. l. 9. c. 17. sect 39. the Sacrament was of some reserued in the elder dayes of the Church is not sayth (n) Fulke agaynst Heskins Saunders p. 77. M. Fulke so great a questioÌ„ as whether it ought to be reserued And Chemnitius (o) Chemnit in exam Con. Trid. p. 2. p. 102. granteth that in this point on our side stands Antiquitas consuetudinis latè patentis diu propagatae And whereas he addeth haec tamen veritati praescribere non debet he accuseth the Primitiue Church opposeth no lesse agaynst them then vs. And I am sure your Maiesty knowes that the primitiue Fathers did vse to send the Sacrament vnto them that were lawfully absent from Church as doth witnesse S. Iustine (p) Iustin. Apol. 2. fine vnto the sicke as (q) Dionys. Alexand ep ad Fab. apud Euseb. l. 6. cap. 36. Chrysost. Ep. 1. ad Innocent Dionysius Alexandrinus writes of Serapion That Christians carryed the same to their priuate houses to take in the morning before other meate as testifyeth Tertullian (r) Tertul. l. 2. ad vxorem Gregor Nazian orat de Gorgon That many tymes they did weare the same about them for protection as (s) Ambros. orat in obitâ—â— fratris Satyri Satyrus brother to Saint Ambrose going to sea carryed it in a stole by vertue whereof he was saued in shipwracke That Martyrs had the same frequently for their Viaticum as (t) SimeoÌ„ Metaphrast vitae S. Stephani Papae Martyris cap. 17. Vsuard in martyrolog Guitmund de corp sanguine l. 2. Tharsilius a most glorious Martyr who being taken with the Sacrament about him permitted himselfe rather to be bruized with stones to death then disclose it vnto the Persecutours whome when they had crowned thy searching curiously for the Sacrament in his clothes and about his dead body found nothing God by miracle keeping the same out of their impious hands Saint (u) Cyprian serm de Lapsis Cyprian records diuers miracles done in the confirmation of this our Sauiours permanent presence in the SacrameÌ„t namely of a woman vnworthily approaching to the chest where the same was kept that was frighted backe with fire that thence flashed out tanta est Domini potentia sayth Saint Cyprian taÌ„ta maiestas And so fully were they perswaded in this opinion that Christs body is permanently in the Sacrament that Cyrill (x) Cyrill Alex. ep ad Calosyr dareth say Insaniunt qui dicunt benedictionem à sanctificatione cessare siquae reliquiae remanserunt eius in sequentem diem Non enim mutabitur Sacrosanctum corpus Christi sed virtus benedictionis viuificatiua gratia iugis in eo est They be mad with hereticall folly who say that the blessed Sanctification of the Sacrament ceaseth if the same be reserued vntill the next day For thereby the sacred body of Christ is not changed but the grace of benediction viuification is perpetuall in it Now what reason could the Fathers haue thus constantly to defend this continuation of our Sauiour in the SacrameÌ„t but that they belieued bread to be changed into his body remayning demonstrable by the formes accidences thereof so long as they remayned entyre and were not changed into the accidences of some other substances XI A Refutation of the Ministers Shifts to elude the former Testimonies of the Fathers according to the reference of the precedent Numbers I. NO words of Scripture or Christian Antiquity can be so cleere euident which Hereticall obstinacy will not wrest against the truth yea racke till they rent them in peeces by violent interpretations as saith S. Ambrose Ep. 17. In which kind be the Ministers Replyes vnto these expresse pregnant testimonies of the Fathers for Transubstantiation as wil appeare by the confutation which heere ensueth II. Transelementing The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TranselemeÌ„tation saith the Minister pag. 421. proueth not Transubstantiation For in Transubstantiation the matter is destroyed the quantity and accidents remayne in Transelementation the matter remayneth the essentiall accidentall formes are altered Answere The falshood and inanity of this Shift is conuinced by these foure arguments which shew Transelementation to import the same as Transubstantiation The First is drawne from the notion of the word Elements Transelementation For Transelementation of bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord signifyes that there is a change betwixt them according to their elemeÌ„ts Elements import the primordiall simples the original principles the substantiall parts of which
vnderstand the naturall qualityes that flow form the nature and essence of bread and wine (a) By substance also they vnderstand not the inward substance but outward corpulency massines of bread and wine for ordinarily and in common speach the naturall accidents and proprietyes of a thing are tearmed the nature of a thing Thus we say to be heauy and fall downeward is the nature of the stone to be hoat and to burne the nature of the fire which are but naturall qualityes of stone and fire By this or rather by a more strange manner of speach S. Theodoret Bishop of Ancyra (b) Hom. de natiuit Saluatoris in corr Epiph. p. 3. c. 9. to explicate agaynst Nestorius and Eutiches the coniunction of two Natures in one Person by the example of the water that Moyses conuerted into bloud sayth That the water was not changed in nature nor did cease to be water which in rigour of speach taking the nature of water for the inward substance thereof as cōdistinct from the naturall qualityes is not true But because water chāged into bloud remaynes according to some naturall qualityes and propertyes which it hath common with bread as moisture liquidnes the like he the better to fit accomodate the similitude sayth The water remayned according to the nature that is according to some naturall qualityes therof For these Fathers (c) These Fathers vnderstood not the inward Nature of bread and wine to remaine nor the inward substāce because they say that the mysticall signes passe by the working of the holy Ghost into another substane yet remaine in the propriety of their nature So saith Gelasius which cannot be vnderstood otherwise then that according to their outward nature and substance they remaine though in their inward nature and substance they be changed and passed into the substance of Christs body and blood bring those similitudes to declare the mystery of the Incarnatiō against the Heresy of Eutiches who denyed the naturall qualityes propertyes of the two Natures of God and Man to remayne distinct in the person of Christ. This errour they reiected by the example of the Eucharist where the naturall qualityes of bread remaine together with the body of Christ in the same Sacrament which naturall qualityes of bread they tearme the nature of bread as in some sense they may be tearmed to the end that the phrase of two distinct natures remaining might be common to the mysteries of the Incarnation and Eucharist and so the similitude seeme more fit and proper Yet the Fathers know well that the phrase did not agree to both mysteryes equally in the same sense And this obscure vttering of his mind is the lesse to be wōdered at in Theodoret because he doth professe in that place not to speake plainly as fearing that some Infidells or Gatechumens were present to whom the mistery of Transubstantiation was not to be reuealed Non oportet sayth he apertè dicere est enim verisimile adesse aliquos non initiatos Much lesse cause haue they to stand vpon the wordes of Saint Augustine (d) August serm ad Infant apud Bedam in cap. 10. Quod videtur panis est quod etiam oculi renūtiant quod autem fides postulat panis est corpus Christi For the sense is that consecrated bread is bread in outward appearance and the naturall accidences of bread truly remayne as the eye doth witnesse but in wardly and according to the substance it is not bread but the body of Christ as fayth requireth we belieue And it is to be noted that these wordes are not extant in the workes of S. Augustine but alleadged by Venerable Bede a follower of Saint Augustines doctrine and so it is not likely they are to be vnderstood but as Bede vnderstood thē who sets downe his mind in these words (e) Beda de mysterio missae apud Thom. Waldens Tom. 2. c. 8. 2. The forme of bread is seene but the substance of bread is not there nor any other bread but only that bread which came downe from heauen (*) The Minister pag. 435. to make a shew of many Fathers addeth vnto Theodoret and Gelasius the testimony of Bertram S. Chrysostome in epist. ad Caesarium Monachum S. Irenaeus S. Damascen Answere The booke of Bertram is of no credit being set forth with many Protestant additions as themselues confesse and you may see proued in a Treatise tearmed The Plea for the Reall Presence agaynst Syr Hūfrey Lynd his Bertrā The Epistle ad Caesariū Monachum is not S. Chrysostomes S. Irenaeus his testimony hath been already shewed to be impertinently alleadged S. Damascen is by you grossely abused as being brought quite contrary to his mind For when he sayth l. 4. de fide c. 14. As a fiery coale is wood and fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not only bread but bread vnited to the Diuinity he meaneth by the bread of the holy Cōmunion not bread remayning bread but bread changed into Christ his flesh To say that bread remayning bread in substance is vnited personally vnto the Deity is impious S. Damascen in that place doth most cleerly shew that he speaketh of bread changed into flesh For thus he writeth Christ did conioyne his diuinity with bread and wine that so by thinges that are common and to which we are vsed we may attayne to thinges diuine and aboue nature for verily the body borne of the Virgin is a body vnited vnto the Deity not that his body assumpted into heauen doth agayne descend in the Eucharist from heauen but that bread it selfe and wine are conuerted into the flesh and bloud of God And a little after A coale is not only wood but wood ioyned to fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not simple bread but bread vnited vnto the Deity But the body vnited to the Deity is not any single nature but the nature of flesh and the nature of the Deity be conioyned together in it Thus he most cleerly shewing not that the bread of the holy Communion remaining bread in nature is vnited to the Deity to make togither with it a personall compound of two natures it were blasphemy so to thinke but that bread chāged into Christs flesh is vnited to the Deity because the flesh into which it is changed is not meere and only flesh but also flesh vnited with the Deity How intolerably is S. Damascen falsifyed by you Being truly and fully cited how fully doth he teach Transubstantiation But such is your Religion you must make a shew of the Fathers to be on your side though you know in conscience they make agaynst you you must patch togither some of their mangled sentences to make a gay fooles-coate for your seely Credents least they seeme naked The seeming repugnances this mistery hath with sense should incline Christians the sooner to belieue it §. 4. THE former proofe of Transubstantiation might satisfy were