erred in exposition nor differed one for the other Thirdly the Fathers affirme that the Scripture expounds it selfe Aug. d. verb. 〈◊〉 Serm. 2. d. vnit Eccles. c. 5. p. 427. Chrys. sup Gen. Hom. 13. And they doe not alwayes referre men to Tradition concerning exposition of Scripture but prescribe other rules and meanes also Aug. d Doctr. Christ. l. 4. c. 30. c. Chrys. sup Gen. Hom. 21. sup Rom. Hom. 13. sup Iohn Hom. 39. Tertul. c. prax Hilar d. Trinit l. 5. Ambros. 〈◊〉 Psal. 118. Serm. 8. Origen Mat. Hom. 25. Fourthly that which the Aduersarie affirmeth touching the Fathers to wit that they held the Scriptures to be cleare in all substantiall points onely to men beforehand instructed by the light of Tradition is vntrue neither doe the Fathers speake of Tradition according to the Romish acceptation First sometimes the Fathers exhort heathen men which were not instructed by Tradition to reade the Scriptures Theophilus Antiochenus saith to Autolicus being as then a Pagan Verum tu ipse si placet consule liter as sacras But doe thou thy selfe if it seeme good vnto thee consult with the holy Scriptures Also they prouoke Heretikes which denied the Tradition of the Church to examine truth by Scriptures August d. vnit Eccles c. 2.3.16 contra Maxim Arrian l. 3. c. 14. Socrates Hist. lib. 1. cap. 6. Secondly by Tradition they vnderstand not the fabulous dreames and inuentions of Papals who like the Pharisees corrupt the right sence of Scripture by their vnwritten Traditions and affirme those things to bee Apostolicall which agree with the confessed Doctrine of the Apostles like darkenesse with light But the Fathers by Tradition vnderstand such exposition of Scripture as was vniformely receiued and commended for Apostolicall by the Primatiue Church and which besides antiquitie or the report of men appeared to bee Apostolicall by an exact harmonie and consent with the Text of the holy Scripture to which it was applied St. August d. Bapt. c. Donatist l. 5 c. 26 St. Cyprian Epist. 74. Tertul. d. praescript c. 21 Ruffin Hist. Ecclesiast l. 2 c. 9 IESVIT I hope I haue in the opinion of your most learned Maiestie sufficiently demonstrated the first ground of Catholicke faith to wit that a Christian is originally and fundamentally built vpon the word of God not as written 〈◊〉 Scriptures but as deliuered by the Tradition of the Church successiuely from the Primatiue vpon the authority whereof we beleeue that both Scriptures and all other substantiall Articles of Faith were deliuered by the Apostles thence further ascending and inferring they came from Christ and so from God the prime veritie and Authour of truth ANSVVER You haue played the Paralogist and weaued a spiders web which is fitter to catch flyes than to persuade so religious learned iudicious and resolute a king who is like an Angell of God knowing good and euill Your obiections being weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuarie are found light they are Funiculus vanitatis a coard and bundle of vanitie a potsheard couered ouer with the drosse of siluer His most learned Maiestie as you truly stile him honoureth genuine and Orthodox all Tradition as no religious king or good Christian can doe more and hereupon to wit vpon the testimony of Tradition besides other Arguments he beleeueth that you and your consorts are deceiued when you hold that a Christian is originally and fundamentally built vpon the word of God not as written in Scripture but as deliuered by Tradition c. For if the Scripture according to the doctrine and Tradition of the Primatiue Church is eminentissimae authoritatis of most eminent authoritie If it be the seed of which faith is first of all conceiued if it is the Rocke whereupon the Church is built if the authoritie of vnwritten Tradition dependeth vpon it and must bee examined by it If the Churches authoritie is 〈◊〉 from it then a Christian is originally and fundamentally built vpon it First That which is most excellent in euery kind is the modell and paterne of all the rest but I trow you will grant the Scripture to be the most excellent part of Gods word 2. Pet. 1. 〈◊〉 S. 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 Manich. li. 11 cap. 5. d. Ciuit. Dei lib. 11. cap. 3. Ibid. 〈◊〉 14. cap. 7. d. Vnit. Eccles. 16. Chris. d. 〈◊〉 Hom. 4. Oecumen sup 2. Tim. 3. Ansel. sup 2. Tim. 3. Secondly A Christian is fundamentally built vpon the rock but the Scripture is a rocke Cardinalis Camaracensis 〈◊〉 vespert 〈◊〉 sacrae Scripturae In euery building orderly framed the foundation hath precedence then followeth superedification and lastly consummation According to this order Christ the most exact Architect did build his Church vpon the rocke of holy Scripture Thirdly The seed of Faith is the root and foundation of 〈◊〉 Christian the Scripture is the seed of Faith Iohn 20. 41. for it is the word of God Luc. 8.11 Iam. 1.18 1. Cor. 4 15. And were the Popish Tenet true that the Scripture is not the whole word of God but only a part thereof yet a Christian must be originally and fundamentally built vpon it together with Tradition And Tradition according to the Tenet of our Aduersarie in this place cannot be the sole foundation of Christianitie but only a part of the foundation Fourthly All Scripture giuen by diuine Inspiration is simply and without exception to be receiued and all Tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be refused From hence it followeth that Scripture is a rule of Tradition and not Tradition of Scripture and Scripture is the highest rule as both the Fathers and many Papists themselues affirme and thus it is certaine that a Christian is orignally and fundamentally built vpon the holy Scripture IESVITS 2d Ground That there is a visible Church alwaies in the world to whose Traditions men are to cleaue and the Church is one Vniuersall Apostolicall Holy ANSWER The subiect of this Proposition to wit Ecclesia the Church is a word or terme of diuers significations and therefore the Iesuit should haue declared in what notion he taketh the same when he saieth There is a visible Church c. First Cardinall Bellarmine with other Pontificians saith that the Church whereof he disputes is a companie of people linked together by the same profession of Faith and Communion of Sacraments vnder lawfull pastros 〈◊〉 vnder the Roman Bishop who is Christs Vicar Secondly The terme Church is taken in the holy Scripture for the vniuersall number of holy beleeuers in all ages and more strictly for the whole number of holy beleeuers vnder the New Testament Heb. 12.23 Apoc. 5.9 Ephes. 5.25.27 and thus it comprehendeth both the Church Militant and Triumphant Thirdly the Church is taken for the common and vniuersall multitude of Christian people of any one or more ages which
inconsequent to conclude That because the Protestants receiued the Scriptures from the Roman Church therefore they receiued them to wit immediatly from the vniuersall Church The Minor proposition to wit the Protestants receiued the Scriptures from no other Church than from the Romane may be taken in a double sence For either it may be vnderstood originally and by way of authoritie that is The Protestants receiued the Scriptures both originally and deriuatiuely from and by the authoritie of the Romane Church onely or else it may bee vnderstood indicatiuely The Protestants receiued the Scriptures by the hand of the Romane Church and were first of all instructed and told by that Church that the same were diuine Bookes yet they receiued them not onely or principally from that church but also from the Primitiue Church which led them originally to the Apostles themselues And besides the former Tradition by reading and studying the holy Scriptures they learned sufficient matter out of those heauenly bookes to confirme them that they were diuine and of God Philemon receiued S. Pauls Epistle by the hand of Onesimus he did not esteeme Onesimus a seruant who had beene a fugitiue an infallible witnesse in himselfe but the argument and contents of S. Pauls Epistle persuaded him that S. Paul was the Author A man may receiue the Kings Proclamation from off a pillar or his great Seale by the hand of a meane clarke So likewise the bookes of holy Scriptures are first conueyed vnto vs by Ecclesiasticall testimonie and Tradition but they containe heauenly veritie and doctrine within themselues which persuade the diligent readers and learners of them that they are diuine IESVIT The Maior I prooue If Protestants haue not the Text of Scripture by and from the one holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church they cannot be certaine they haue the true incorrupt Text the Apostles deliuered and recommended as Diuine to the first 〈◊〉 seeing the Tradition of any other Church is fallible and may deceiue And if it may deceiue how can they be certaine that they are not deceiued seeing they themselues liued not in the Apostles dayes to see with their owne eyes what Copies the Apostles deliuered But Protestants as they pretend be certaine that they haue the true incorrupt Apostolicall Text of Scripture Ergo they haue it vpon the Authoritie of the holy Catholike Apostolike Church ANSWER The Argument whereby the Aduersarie confirmeth his Maior is this If the Protestants receiue the Scriptures from any other but the Holy Catholique Church they cannot be certaine that the same are incorrupt because a fallible Witnesse may deceiue Answ. They which receiue the Scriptures from the hands of a corrupt Church may be deceiued if there be not some other infallible meanes besides the Testimonie of that Church to assure them But if that Church be onely a Messenger to deliuer and there be found in the thing deliuered that which is certaine and infallible in it selfe to wit the Testimonie of the Apostles and of the Spirit of God speaking in and by those Scriptures Acts 24. 25. then they which immediately receiue the Text of the Scripture from a fallible Church may be certaine that they are not deceiued It is not necessarie that the Messenger by and from whose hands wee receiue immediately the Text of the Scriptures should be infallible in all things for then wee must receiue them from the hands of no particular Church or particular Councell vnconfirmed by the Pope or from any particular Pastour of the Church because these are fallible And according to our Aduersaries Tenet infallibilitie of Iudgement is found onely in the Pope and Councell confirmed by him And from hence it will in like sort follow that for the first two or three hundred yeeres beginning from the death of the Apostles in which time there was no generall Councell yea for certaine Ages after generall Councels began vntill the Canon of the Scripture was expressely assigned by some generall or particular Councell confirmed by the Pope Christians should haue remained vncertaine touching the sacred Authoritie of Diuine Scripture because the meanes by which they receiued them immediately were fallible The Authoritie of the holy Scripture dependeth vpon the immediate Messenger which deliuereth the Bookes vnto vs no more than the Authoritie of the Kings Proclamation dependeth vpon the Sergeant who proclaymes it or sets it vpon a Pillar to be read of all men but vpon the first Diuine Witnesses which wee know to be the Authors of the Scripture not because Pope Paul the fifth or Clement the eight say so but because the Witnesses themselues affirme it in their Scripture or deliuer that in their Scripture by which it is prooued to such as are eleuated by Grace and taught of God IESVIT Now the Minor That they haue the Scripture from the Romane is apparent For what other Church did deliuer vnto Luther the Text of the Bible assuring him that they had it by Tradition of Ancestors time out of mind as giuen originally by the Apostles which is accordingly acknowledged by M. Whitaker and others but particularly by Luther himselfe Ergo the Romane Church is the one holy Catholike Apostolike Church whose Tradition doth deliuer infallibly vnto vs the Text of Scripture ANSVVER The Protestants receiuing the Bookes of holy Scripture by the hand of the Roman Church proueth not the said Church to be the onely holy Catholike and Apostolike Church any more than the receiuing of Baptisme by Heretikes or the Old Testament by the Synagogue of which the Pharisees were a part proue the same to be the true infallible Church IESVIT And if the true Apostolicall Text then also the true Apostolicall Sense ANSWER The sequele is denyed For it is not necessarie that they which truly deliuer the Text shall also truly deliuer the Apostolicall sense and on the contrarie a lying sence may be deliuered by them which retaine the true and incorrupt Letter of the Text as appeareth by the Pharisees Arrians Donatists and many other Heretikes IESVIT This I proue If the Apostles did not deliuer the bare Text but together with the Text the true sense of Scripture to be deliuered perpetually vnto posteritie then they who by Tradition receiue from the Apostles the true Text must together receiue the true sense But all principall Protestants affirme No man doubteth but the Primitiue Church receiued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not onely the Text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sense which is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Fathers that from the Apostles together with the Text descends the Line of Apostolicall interpretation squared according to the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense ANSVVER The Assumption of the former Argument to wit The Apostles together with the Text deliuered the true sense of all their Scriptures to those people to whom they wrote is vncertaine They deliuered no doubt the sense of the Scriptures
rewarder of them that seeke him F. I asked How then it happened as Mr Rogers saith that the English Church is not yet resolued what is the right sense of the Article of Christ's descending into Hell B. The English Church neuer made doubt that I know what was the sense of that Article The words are so plaine they beare their meaning before them Shee was content to put that Article among those to which she requires subscription not as doubting of the sense but to preuent the Cauills of some who had beene too busie in crucifying that Article and in making it all one with the Article of the Crosse or but an Exposition of it And sure the B. thinkes and so doe I That the Church of England is better resolued of the right sense of this Article than the Church of Rome especially if she must be tryed by her Writers as you trie the Church of England by Mr Rogers For you cannot agree whether this Article be a meere Tradition or whether it hath any place of Scripture to warrant it Scotus and Stapleton allow it no footing in Scripture but Bellarmine is resolute that this Article is euerie where in Scripture and Thomas grants as much for the whole Creed The Church of England neuer doubted it and S. Augustine prooues it And yet againe you are different for the sense For you agree not whether the Soule of Christ in triduo mortis in the time of his death did goe downe into Hell really and was present there or virtually and by effects onely For Thomas holds the first and Durand holds the latter Then you agree not whether the Soule of Christ did descend really and in essence into the lowest Pit of Hell and place of the Damned as Bellarmine once held probable and prooued it or really only into that place or Region of Hell which you call Limbum Patrum and then but virtually from thence into the Lower Hell to which Bellarmine reduces himselfe and giues his reason because it is the common opinion of the Schoole Now the Church of England takes the words as they are in the Creed and beleeues them without further dispute and in that sense which the antient Primitiue Fathers of the Church agreed in And yet if any in the Church of England should not be throughly resolued in the sense of this Article Is it not as lawfull for them to say I conceiue thus or thus of it yet if any other way of his Descent be found truer than this I denie it not but as yet I know no other as it was for Durand to say it and yet not impeach the Foundation of the Faith F. The B. said That Mr Rogers was but a priuate man But said I if Mr Rogers writing as he did by publike Authoritie be accounted onely a priuate man c. B. The B. said truth when he said Mr Rogers was a priuate man And I take it you will not allow euerie speech of euerie man though allowed by Authoritie to be printed to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome This hath beene oft complained of on both sides The imposing particular mens Assertions vpon the Church yet I see you meane not to leaue it And surely as Controuersies are now handled by some of your partie at this day I may not say it is the sense of the Article in hand but I haue long thought it a kind of descent into Hell to be conuersant in them I would the Authors would take heed in time and not seeke to blind the people or cast a mist before euident Truth least it cause a finall descent to that place of Torment But since you hold this course Stapleton was of greater note with you than Rogers is with vs and as he so his Relection And is it the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which he affirmes The Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell and that there is a Catholike and an Apostolike Church If it be then what will become of the Pope's Supremacie ouer the whole Church Shall hee haue his power ouer the Catholike Church giuen him expressely in Scripture in the Keyes to enter and in Pasce to feed when he is in and when he hath fed to confirme and in all these not to erre and faile in his ministration And is the Catholike Church in and ouer which he is to doe all these great things quite left out Belike the Holy Ghost was carefull to giue him his power Yes in any case but left the assigning of his great Cure the Catholike Church to Tradition And it were well for him if hee could so prescribe for what he now claymes But what if after all this Mr Rogers there sayes no such thing as in truth he doth not His words are All Christians acknowledge he descended but in the interpretation of the Article there is not that consent that were to be wished What is this to the Church of England more than others And againe Till wee know the natiue and vndoubted sense of this Article is Mr Rogers Wee the Church of England or rather his and some others Iudgement of the Church of England F. But if Mr Rogers be onely a priuate man In what Booke may wee find the Protestants publike Doctrine The B. answered That to the Booke of Articles they were all sworne B. What was the B. so ignorant to say The Articles of the Church of England were the publike Doctrine of all the Protestants or That all Protestants were sworne to the Articles of England as this speech seemes to implie Sure he was not Was not the immediate speech before of the Church of England And how comes the subiect of the speech to be varyed in the next Lines Nor yet speake I this as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest Doctrines against which they ioyntly take exceptions against the Romane Church as appeares by their seuerall Confessions Nor did the B. say That the Booke of Articles onely was the Continent of the Church of Englands publike Doctrine Shee is not so narrow nor hath shee purpose to exclude any thing which shee acknowledges hers nor doth shee wittingly permit any crossing of her publike declarations Yet shee is not such a Shrew to her Children as to denie her Blessing or denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some particulars remoter from the Foundation as your owne Schoolemen differ And if the Church of Rome since shee grew to her greatnesse had not beene so fierce in this course Christendome I persuade my selfe had beene in happier peace at this day F. And that the Scriptures onely not any vnwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith B. The Church of England grounded her Positiue Articles vpon Scripture and her Negatiue Refute where the thing affirmed by you is not affirmed in Scripture nor directly
cannot vse it so the Scriptures are a meanes to conuict proteruious 〈◊〉 as they were vsed by Christ and his Apostles and by the 〈◊〉 Councels or Papall Councels and the Bishops and Doctors of the Roman Church c. Answ. First Our Sauiour and his Apostles did both vse the Scriptures themselues and commanded others euen simple men to vse them Iohn 5 39. Ephes. 6 17. and they are commended who examined Doctrine by them Acts 17 11. Secondly they which vnderstand and applie the Scriptures truely vse them as Christ and his Apostles did and so the Scripture in their vse is a word of power and not as a sword in a childs hand Thirdly Scriptures were meanes to conuict Hereticks as they were vsed by the Fathers of the Church and other holie Persons before any generall Councells were gathered to wit the first three hundred yeares and before the Papall Supremacie was aduanced in the Church Fourthly it is ridiculous to imagine that the present Roman Church and the sole Adheres thereof according to the Trident Creed are the only true expositors of holy Scriptures or that 〈◊〉 exposition of Scripture repugnant and diuers from the present Roman Creed is false or Haereticall for neither hath the holie Ghost by expresse testimonie or euident demonstration appropriated the key of knowledge to this Church and few Heretickes haue more fouly corrupted and abused the Scriptures And the pillars of this Church 〈◊〉 sundrie times been vnskilfull Ideots vnlettered Gulls Monsters of mankind with whom the holie Spirit vseth not to haue commerce Wisdom 1. 2. Cor. 6. 15. Fiftly the place of Tertul. d. Praescript c. 19. doth not 〈◊〉 the imperfection of holie Scripture to conuict proteruious error according to the latter part of my former distinction for then he could not haue said Scripturae plenitudinem adoramus We adore the plenitude of the 〈◊〉 and Let Hermogenes teach that it is written and if it be not written let him feare the Wo denounced against them which add or detract any thing from the word of God but be 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures according to the first part of my distinction to wit That Heretickes blinded with malice and either denying or corrupting the text of the Scriptures cannot be so conuicted by them but they will still vse cauils and by Sophisticall slights borrowed from Philosophers elude the euidence of the plaine Texts of Scriptures But if this argue the Scriptures of imperfection it will also prooue the Authoritie of the Church and of Tradition to be insufficient as appeares in the Arrians and Donatists And Heretickes may with no lesse pretext take exception against Tradition and Ecclesiasticall Authoritie than against the Scripture Ireneus li. 3. ca. 2. When they are confuted by Scriptures they accuse them as being not well written and destitute of Authoritie or else so ambiguous that one cannot find the Truth by them c. And in like manner when we prouoke them to stand to triall by Tradition which came from the Apostles c. they oppose the same c. And thus they will consent neither to Scripture nor Tradition And Gregorie Valence himselfe saith The infallible teaching and proposition of the Church is no lesse obscure vnto vs than any other Article which we are to beleeue Sixtly we acknowledge the lawfull Power and Authoritie of the Church about expounding holy Scriptures and for maintaining Vnitie in right Faith and appeasing contention repressing proteruious Errants Heb. 13.17 Math. 18.17.1 Timoth. 3.15 2. Thessal 5.12 And in particular first wee beleeue the authority of Councels General and Nationall lawfully assembled and accordingly proceeding to be sacred And all Councels of this nature we reuerence with the same honour the ancient Church did affirming that priuate Christians and particular Churches are to submit their iudgement to the authority of the same except it bee manifest that they depart from Truth Secondly wee highly and reuerently esteeme exposition of Scripture deliuered by the vnanimous consent of the Primatiue Fathers and although wee yeeld eminent and supreme Authoritie to the holy Scriptures because the same is absolutely diuine yet when any question ariseth concerning Expositions we allow not priuate persons vpon vncertaine or probable reasons to reiect the sence which hath bin antiently and commonly receiued and against which no strong or solid exception can be produced Now this being obserued and other helps of expounding Scripture vsed there followeth nothing from our Tenet whereby Christianitie should be made vncertaine and Disputation from sole Scripture prooue fruitles or which may hinder apparent Victorie by the same against proteruious Error IESVIT The Preface ended our Aduersarie descendeth to his disputation and herein first he setteth downe a maine proposition which hee intendeth to prooue to wit The Roman Church is the onely true Church Secondly He deliuereth fiue Principles manifest in themselues and presupposed and confessed by Papists and Protestants Principle 1. No man can be saued without firme and sure apprehension of supernaturall Truth concerning his last end and the meanes to attaine thereunto Secondly Assurance of this kind is not had by cleere sight Demonstration humane Discourse or humane Authoritie but by Faith grounded vpon Gods Word reuealing things vnknowne by other meanes Thirdly God reuealed all Supernaturall Truth to Christ and Christ reuealed the same to the holy Apostles partly by vocall Preaching but principally by the immediate teaching of his holy Spirit to this end that they should deliuer them to mankind to bee receiued and beleeued euerie where ouer the World euen to the consummation thereof Fourthly the Apostles fulfilled this preaching to all Nations and deliuering partly by writing and partly by word of mouth the whole entire Doctrine of Saluation planted an vniuersall Christian companie and to deliuer vnto 〈◊〉 all they had 〈◊〉 from them Fiftly though the Apostles and their Primatiue Hearers be deceased yet there still remaines in the World a meanes by which men may assuredly know what the Apostles preached andthe Primatiue Church receiued of them because the Church euen to the endof the World must be founded on the Apostles and beleeue nothing as matter of Faith but that which was deliuered by them The former grounds being confessed a question remaineth to be examined What is the principall infallible meanes whereby a Christian may know what was and is the Doctrine of Faith originally preached by the Apostles Whether holy Scripture of the Apostles and Euangelists bee that meanes or perpetuall Tradition vnwritten deriued by Succession from the Apostles ANSVVER The Iesuit affirmeth the latter and produceth foure Arguments to prooue his Tenet and then supposing that he hath prooued the Question inferreth that the Roman Church is the only true Church because it is the only faithfull keeper and teacher of this Tradition IESVITS 1. Argument If the maine and substantiall points of our Faith are
haue vs reade touching his owne sayings and workes this hee commanded the Euangelists as it were his owne hands to write And in another place Although Christ spake and wrought some things which are not written yet those things which seemed vnto him sufficient to the saluation of beleeuers were selected to be written Saint Cyrill also affirmeth that all things which Christ did are not written but so much as holy writers iudged sufficient both for good manners and godly faith to the end that we shining in right faith good workes and vertue may attaine the heauenly Kingdome By the iudgement of these Fathers the holy Euangelists committed to writing so much of our Sauiours Doctrine and deeds as is sufficient for people to know that they may bee illustrious in faith and vertue and by the light whereof they may come to saluation In these things therefore the Euangelists did not cursorily touch matters but largely and fully deliuer them Secondly if the Scriptures containe all things sufficient to saluation yea more than is sufficient then the Apostles in their Scriptures did not cursorily or by the way onely touch matters But the first is affirmed both by the Fathers and confessed by some learned Papists Vincent 〈◊〉 The Canon of the Scripture is perfit and in it selfe sufficient for all matters yea more than sufficient Antonius Perez Pentateuch fidei vol. 4. c. 21. If the Scripture be compared and applied with things which faith teacheth as necessarie to saluation the same is apparently redundant and superfluous according to the nature of a rule because there be many things yea most things in the same the knowledge whereof is vnnecessarie But if the Scripture containe many 〈◊〉 superfluous and more than is needfull it is improbable 〈◊〉 thinke that it is imperfect in Principals or deliuereth them 〈◊〉 onely or by the way Thirdly the variety and multitude of points and doctrines of faith and good manners and the often repeating and declaring of them in the holy Scriptures prooueth that the Apostles 〈◊〉 fully and perfectly deliuer in their writings the whole 〈◊〉 of Christian faith and not onely cursorily touch them For all supernaturall veritie concerning the sacred Deitie Trinitie diuine Attributes and Operations Creation of the world c. is taught in holy Scripture In like manner the whole doctrine of faith concerning the Incarnation Person and Office of Christ is reuealed vnto vs by holy Scripture And for this cause Saint Cyrill calleth the Scriptures Solos fontes veritatis The sole fountaines of veritie All things concerning Iustification Charitie and good workes being meerely supernaturall are taught in Scripture The doctrine of the Law Gospell Sacraments resurrection of the dead finall iudgement c. is intirely and fully reuealed in the holy Scriptures and the Church according to Saint Augustine hath onely two brests wherewith shee feedeth her children to wit the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament And that he alwayes vnderstandeth by the Old and New Testament the Scriptures of both appeareth by his words vpon Psal. 22. Aperi legamus c. Let vs open our Fathers last Testament and reade it And 〈◊〉 the great 〈◊〉 Apostolice 〈◊〉 nec non antiquorum Prophetarum 〈◊〉 plane 〈◊〉 de sensu Numinis The Euangelicall and Apostolicall bookes together with the Oracles of the antient Prophets doe plainely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euidently instruct vs concerning the minde of God And from all the former it is manifest that the Apostles writings are not patches and shreds onely of Apostolicall Doctrine as our 〈◊〉 against all antiquitie presumeth to affirme but the very substance and marrow of their whole Preaching containing the summe of the Gospell by faith and obedience whereof wee receiue euerlasting life And thus much touching the Antecedent of the Iesuits Argument The sequel of the former Argument which is Because without precedent instruction by vnwritten Tradition wee cannot be firmely assured that wee haue the right sence of the Scripture therefore the last and finall resolution is made vnto vnwritten Tradition and not into Scripture is inconsequent and the Antecedent proueth not the Consequent for precedent Tradition may bee necessarie to deliuer vnto vs the text of holy Scripture and Precpts how to expound and vse the same and by Tradition wee may receiue a Commentarie of some texts of holy Scripture yet euen as a Schollar although hee receiue the bookes of Euclid and Aristotle from a Master and precepts in what sort hee shall proceed in his studie and withall a Commentary declaring the meaning of these Authours yet hee doth not finally being made learned himselfe resolue his knowledge into the former but into the principles of these Arts themselues so likewise a nouice in faith receiueth the holy Scripture by Ministerie and Tradition of the Church and Precepts and Commentaries whereby hee is first inabled and afterwards holpen in the right exposition thereof yet after this Introduction by further studie and diligence hee collecteth Arguments from the Scripture it selfe and being instructed in the sence thereof he doth not finally resolue his beleefe into the Commentarie and Introduction but into the text or Doctrine of holy Scripture it selfe IESVIT Hence I may further inferre that Protestants haue not throughly pondered the place of the Apostle vnto Timothie which they 〈◊〉 vehemently vrge to prooue the sufficiencie of sole Scripture for euery man as though he had said absolutely that the Scriptures are able to instruct or make men wise vnto Saluation which he saith not but speaking particularly vnto Timothie saith They are able to instruct or make thee wise vnto saluation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hast been aforehand instructed by word of mouth and doost thereupon firmely beleeue all substantiall Doctrines and knowest all the necessarie practise of Christian Discipline ANSWER The Aduersarie in this passage vseth certaine Arguments to prooue that Protestants misunderstand the Text of S. Paul 2. Timoth. 3.15 16. when they vrge the same to maintaine the sufficiencie of sole Scripture to be a ground for all Christians finally to rest their faith vpon His first Argument is The Apostle saith not absolutely that the Scriptures are able to make all men wise vnto Saluation but particularly to Timothie a man instructed aforehand and formerly 〈◊〉 all substantiall grounds of Doctrine and Discipline they are able 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make thee being such a one and so prepared wise c. To this I answere 1. That although sentences of holy Scripture are sometimes restrained to the personall or particular subiect of which they are first spoken yet this is not generall and when the same happeneth it must be prooued by better Arguments than by the bare Emphasis of a word For God said to Ioshua a man qualified aboue the ordinarie ranke I will not leaue thee nor forsake thee Ioshua 1. 5. yet the promise implied in this Text is generall and common to all iust
where they preached so 〈◊〉 was necessarie but that they made a large and entire Commentarie vpon all their Scriptures and deliuered the same to posteritie to continue perpetually is not prooued by the confession of Chemnitius and the discord which is in the Commentaries of the Fathers yea of Romists themselues vpon the Scriptures argueth the contrarie IESVIT Whereupon S. Augustine argueth That they that deliuer the Text of Christs Gospell must also deliuer the Exposition affirming That he would sooner refuse to beleeue Christ than admit any interpretation contrarie to them by whom he was brought to beleeue in Christ. For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense why may they not also deliuer a false Text as receiued from the Apostles An argument conuincing and vnanswerable ANSVVER Saint Augustine in the place obiected Lib. d. vtil Cred. cap. 14. confuteth the Manichees who condemned Faith and affirmed That people ought to credit nothing but that which is demonstrated by reason And hee argueth against these Heretikes first out of some of their owne grounds for they were compelled to beleeue something in their Religion vpon report of others and they required people to giue credit to certaine Narrations which could not be demonstrated by reason onely Secondly This Father prooueth the necessitie of Faith because without giuing credit to some report it was impossible to receiue the knowledge of Christ. Thirdly Whereas the Manichees required that men should learne to know Christs word from them Saint Augustine saith That if he had no better Guides to follow than such new and turbulent Companions as those Heretikes were he should sooner persuade himselfe not to beleeue in Christ than to beleeue vpon their bare report or to receiue this Faith from any other than from those by which he first beleeued But Saint Augustine in this place treateth not of the sense of the Scripture neither doth he say absolutely that he would sooner refuse to beleeue Christ than to admit any interpretation contrarie to them by whom he was brought to beleeue in Christ but he speaketh comparatiuely and according to humane reason hee should more easily be persuaded to beleeue nothing than forsaking the authoritie and testimonie of his first Teachers yeeld credit to these men vpon their Hereticall grounds It is cleare that Saint Augustine did not alwayes tye himselfe to the same exposition of Scripture which those that were before him had deliuered For in the questions of Grace and Free-will he found out many expositions by searching the Scriptures which both himselfe and other men before him were ignorant of vntill the heresie of Pelagius arose and in his worke De Doctrina Christiana he makes twofold charitie the modell of expounding Scripture and not the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall Teachers whom hee oftentimes expoundeth with mitigation or reiecteth with modestie and hee is most constant in aduancing the authoritie of Scripture before any Ecclesiasticall authoritie whatsoeuer IESVIT For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sence Why may they not also deliuer a false Text as receiued from the Apostles An argument conuincing and vnanswerable ANSWER The Iesuit imagineth that this Argument is inuincible But let not him that girdeth on his harnesse boast himselfe as hee that putteth it off 1. Kings 20. 11. And Sauls brags That God had deliuered Dauid into his hand prooued vaine 1. Sam. 23. 14. and 24. 5. The Argument reduced to forme will discouer its owne weakenesse If the Text of the Scripture may 〈◊〉 easily bee corrupted as the sence then all they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sence may also deliuer a false Text. But the Text of the Scripture may as easily bee corrupted as the sence Ergo All they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sence may also deliuer a false Text. The assumption of this Syllogisme which although it were concealed by the Paralogist yet it must bee added to make the Argument perfect is apparantly false and the contrary is true The Text of the Scripture cannot so easily bee corrupted as the sence and therefore it is not necessarie that they which following humane Tradition or their owne inuention may deliuer a false sence shall likewise deliuer a false Text. First the Text of the Scripture is contained in Records and Bookes which are dispersed throughout the whole Christian world and preserued in all Churches and the Coppies and Transcripts of them are innumerable Tradition is in the brest of a few and authentically as Papals affirme in the brest of the Pope and his Church onely Secondly when God Almightie would haue the knowledge and memorie of things to bee perpetuall he commanded that they should bee committed to writing Exod. 17. 14. and 34. 27. Deut. 31. 19. And although the law of nature was ingrauen in mans heart and might haue beene preserued for euer by vniforme succession yet God himselfe wrote the same in Tables Deut. 10.4 and inspired Moses to write it in Bookes Exod 20. Deut. 5. And although the Precepts of the Law of Nature were more firmely fixed in mans heart and the Tradition thereof was more generally diffused than any positiue Tradition can bee yet in processe of time many parts thereof were corrupted both in regard of knowledge and practise Thirdly experience of all ages testifieth that the Text of the Scripture hath beene preserued inuiolable euen among Iewes and Heretickes whereas the sence of the Scripture made knowne by Tradition onely is forgotten in part and they which disagree about the sence and some parcels of the Canon of the Scripture are at one concerning the verie letter of the Text. For although there were some which in antient time reiected the Epistle of St. Iames and the latter of St. Peters c. yet the literall Text of these Scriptures was faithfully preserued alwayes in the Church Fourthly whereas the Iesuite compareth vnanimous Tradition of the sence of Scripture with the written letter and Text of the Scripture vnlesse he equiuocate in the name terming that Tradition which is collected from the Scripture such vniforme Tradition as he boasteth of is verie rare for it must be such as in all ages and in all Orthodoxall Churches hath beene the same Now the most vndoubted and vniforme Tradition of all other is concerning the number and integritie of the Bookes of holy Scripture and yet in this difference hath beene betweene one Church and another and the later Romane Church disagreeth with the antient the one denying and the other affirming d the bookes of Macchabees to be Canonicall The Articles also of the late Popish Creed compiled by Pope Pius the fourth are not agreeable to the antient Tradition of the Catholike Church or to the Tradition of the elder Romane Church it selfe and among sundrie other matters in question betwixt vs this Iesuit is not able to shew by
an vniforme Tradition of all ages that the place of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 3. 12. is vnderstood of Popish Purgatorie or Math. 16. 19. Iohn 20.23 of Iubilees and Indulgences or the place of Acts 10. 13. Rise Peter and kill of murthering Princes or of the temporall dominion of the Pope If the Papists would impose no other sence vpon the Scripture than such as is confirmed by vniforme Tradition the difference betweene them and vs would easily bee composed but these men euerie day hatch nouell expositions and when they are hunted out of one they flie to another They glorie of antiquitie succession vniforme Tradition and cry Victoria Inuincible Vnanswerable before the combate is finished but they are compelled to forge Authours to impose false expositions vpon the Texts of Fathers sometimes to abridge sometimes to inlarge the Tomes of Councells and to purge and corrade Ecclesiasticall writers old and new and yet being vnable to preuaile by all the former they are forced in many cases to presse the bare authoritie of the Pope and his adheres to warrant their Tradition IESVITS 3d. Argument My third proofe I ground vpon a principle most certaine and set downe by your most gratious Maiestie That the Roman Church was once the Mother Church and consequently the One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church all other Churches being her daughters and that she is not to be forsaken further than it can be prooued that she departed from her selfe that is from the Mother and originall Doctrine deliuered by the Apostles ANSWER This principle whereupon you ground your third Argument is neither true in it selfe nor yet confessed by his excellent Maiestie in the place whereunto you referre vs His Maiestie affirmeth That wee ought not to depart from the Church of Rome in Doctrine or Ceremonie further than she had departed from her selfe in her best estate and from Christ her head This sentence of our most religious King is consequent vpon S. Pauls doctrine Rom. 12. 18. Rom. 14. 13. and the same is consonant to Charitie and Reason and argueth a mind desirous of Concord and Peace and averse from vnnecessarie Innouations And as this moderation is commendable in all men so it is most agreeable to him that is a Father of peace whose word is Beati Pacifici But whereas you incroach vpon his Maiesties speech adding a glosse which is not warranted by the Text and infer a conclusion which the premises affoord not you are herein iniurious both to the Author you alleage and to the Truth The Roman was neuer by diuine institution the Mother Church in regard of all Christians neither Vniuersall in respect of an absolute command and iurisdiction ouer all particular Churches as is challenged by the Canon Dist. 12. c. 1. Non decet c. But it was once a Mother Church as the Seas of Patriarches are stiled Mother-Churches or a Mother-Church respectiuely to such people and nations as were conuerted by her preaching and other Churches were stiled with that title as well as the Roman Theoderet speaking of the Church of Hierusalem saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We make knowne vnto you that the most reuerend and godly Cyrill is made Bishop of Hierusalem which is the Mother of all Churches The Roman Church once a Metropolitan or patriarchall Mother Church since the daies of Hildebrand is suspected to be the Mother spoken of Apoc. 17. 5. and some of your owne part haue said that in these latter times Nontam se matrem exhibet quam Noueream she behaueth her selfe more like a stepdame than a naturall mother her brests haue beene verie drie for sundrie ages past and she depriued her children of a principall portion of the food of life and in steed of milke deliuered them water mixt with chaulke Her publicke readings and seruice were in an vnknowne tongue the holy Scriptures were closed vp that people might not cast their eies vpon them fabulous legends were read and preached in steed of Gods word and hereby it came to passe as some of their owne Authors say That the greater number of people vnderstood no more concerning God and things diuine than Infidels or Heathen people IESVIT But she cannot be prooued to haue changed her Doctrine since the Apostles by any monuments of Historie or Antiquitie yea the contrarie in my iudgement may be most euidently prooued in this sort ANSVVER If by monuments of Historie and Antiquitie be vnderstood Human or Ecclesiasticall Monuments it is inconsequent to inferre that the present Roman Church hath not changed her doctrine since the Apostles although this could not be demonstrated by monuments of Historie c. for there remaineth a more firme and demonstratiue Argument to prooue this to wit the holy Scripture and if the present doctrine of the Roman Church disagree with the Scripture then it is changed from that which it was antiently The rule by which we must trie doctrines is the word of God and not humane Historie and the word of God is true and abideth for euer whereas humane Historie is fallible contingent and corruptible 1. It is not absolutely necessarie that humane Histories of all matters should be composed and the world continued many ages without any written Historie Secondly When the same are written they cause onely humane Faith Thirdly they may totally perish and be suppressed or corrupted by the enemies of Truth Fourthly Historie may be repugnant to Historie and that which is affirmed by some may be contradicted or contrauerted by others and the largenesse and difficultie of the Monuments of Antiquitie may be such as that few people can be able to read and examine them and if they which read and compare them be opposite in iudgement each to other the greater part of people shall be perplexed and cannot know how to resolue themselues Our Aduersaries teach vs That the principall Monuments of Antiquitie to wit the ancient Councels haue not beene faithfully preserued Many things supposititious haue beene added to the workes of the Antient and bastardly Bookes and Sentences passe vnder the titles of Fathers Our Aduersaries being a party whose doctrine is to be examined according to their owne challenge by Monuments of Antiquitie haue presumed to correct purge and alter such Records Lastly when the testimonie of Historians repugnant to their present Tenet is produced against Papals they despise and reiect them to wit Eusebius Socrates Sozomene c. Baronius a new vpstart censureth all Historians Pighius after one thousand yeares controls the testimonie of generall Councels and it is a rule among them that the antient Fathers then much lesse Histories are not to be 〈◊〉 any 〈◊〉 than they 〈◊〉 the keyes and 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 Church IESVIT The Doctrines that were for diuers ages vniuersally receiued in the Christian Church and no time of their beginning is assigneable
by the Fathers but diuers obscure and difficill places out of their workes may be brought against them with such a shew that common people shall not know what to say For what Tradition more constantly deliuered by the Christian Doctours than our Sauiours consubstantialitie with his Father according to his diuine nature And yet the new reformed Arrians bring very many testimonies of antient Fathers to prooue that in this point they did contradict themselues and were contrarie one to another which places whosoeuer shall read will cleerely see that to common people they are vnanswerable yea that common people are not capable of the answeres that learned men yeeld vnto such obscure passages What then shall they doe They must answere that Antiquitie did neuer acknowledge such dissention among the Fathers in the point of our Sauiours consubstantiality which they would not haue omitted to doe had there beene any such reall dissention seeing they noted the Fathers opposition in lesser matters ANSWER That which was brought in after the daies of the Fathers could not be confuted by them particularly and in expresse tearmes neither could Antiquitie or fame of Tradition make report to Posteritie of those things which happened afterwards But yet many things vttered vpon other occasion are found in the writings of the Fathers which prooue that our present Romists are degenerated and entertaine a beleefe repugnant to the Primitiue Church But it is obiected that common people cannot know certainely the perpetuall Tradition of Gods Church by such places of the Fathers partly because the exact examining of the workes and sayings of the Fathers requires great labour and skill and so it exceedeth the abilitie of these people partly because many obscure and difficile passages are found in the writings of the Fathers which will rather perplex common people than resolue them whereunto I answere That the rule whereby common people must examine Doctrine is the plaine sentence of holy Scripture and further triall and examination of Controuersies by the Fathers and Ecclesiasticall Writers belongeth to the learned and principally to the Pastors and Doctors of the Church who are to vse their gifts to the instructing of the common people If the Aduersarie shall obiect that Heretickes and deceiuers may impose a false sence vpon the Scripture I answere That notwithstanding this sufficient matter is found in the Scripture to confute hereticall exposition and God alwayes stirreth vp some Pastours or other learned persons to assist common people which haue receiued the loue of truth in true vnderstanding of diuine veritie necessarie to their saluation Secondly If the Scripture may bee abused and prophaned by heretickes Tradition may with greater colour be pretended or abused by them as appeareth by the Pharisees Thirdly Tradition is founded vpon the authoritie of a present Hierarchicall Church which may erre by the confession of many learned Papists But the Scripture is founded onely vpon the authoritie of Christ and his Apostles and is acknowledged to bee sacred and diuine by all Christian Churches IESVIT In the same manner Catholickes doe sufficiently answere Protestants that bring places of Fathers against the receiued Traditions of the Church as the reall Presence Inuocation of Saints and other the like to wit that Tradition deliuered these Doctrines as the vniforme consent of the Fathers and neuer noted such oppositions as Protestants frame out of their writings which is a cleare signe that Protestants either mis-alleadge their words or mistake their meaning For were that contradiction reall Why did not Antiquitie famously note it as it noted and conueyed by fame to posteritie their differences about disputable matters This Answere is full and a certaine ground of persuasion else as I said common people could neuer know the assured Tradition of their Ancestours vpon which they as I prooued build their Christian beleefe seeing as Doctour Field also noteth there bee few and verie few that haue leasure and strength of iudgement to examine particular controuersies by Scriptures or Fathers but needs must rest in that doctrine which the Church deliuers as a Tradition neuer contradicted To discredit therefore a constant receiued Tradition it is necessarie to bring an Orthodox contradiction thereof not newly found out by reading the Fathers but a contradiction by the fame of Antiquitie deliuered vnto Posteritie which kind of contradiction they cannot find against any point of Catholike Doctrine For let them name but one Father whom Antiquitie doth acknowledge as a contradictor of Inuocation of Saints Adoration of the Sacrament Reall presence Prayer for the Dead they cannot certainely though they bring diuerse places to prooue a thing which Antiquitie neuer noted or knew of before that the Fathers be various and wauering about these Points ANSWER The Doctrine of Reall Presence by way of Transubstantiation and the Doctrine of Inuocation of Saints imposed as an Article of the Creed c. were neuer deliuered by any vniforme consent of the antient Fathers neither hath antient Tradition affirmed That the Fathers vniformely taught and beleeued these points And as for later Tradition the authoritie thereof is doubtfull deseruing no credit further than it confirmeth that which it deliuereth by the testimonie of Witnesses more infallible than it selfe They which haue liued in succeeding Ages haue no certaine meanes to assure them what the antient Fathers taught but either their owne Bookes and Monuments or the testimonie of their Coaeualls And later Traditioners may both corrupt the Writings of the Fathers and also by report impose a false Tenet vpon them Our Aduersarie therefore beats the ayre when he laboureth to gayne the Fathers vnto his part vpon the sole Testimonie of latter Tradition and vpon a Negatiue Argument taken from the silence of the Romane Church omitting in partialitie towards it selfe the Narration of such Collections and Oppositions as were made against the Doctrine thereof out of the Fathers But when wee charge the Papalls with Noueltie wee proceed vpon more euident grounds First wee prooue that the Romish Faith opposed by vs hath no foundation or warrant in sacred Scripture Secondly the same is an addition to the antient Rule of Faith Thirdly the said Doctrine is not deriued by perpetuall and vniforme Tradition from the Apostles Fourthly the primitiue Fathers vertually opposed this Doctrine For although these Popish Articles as they are now explicitely maintained were not in perfect being in the dayes of the antient Fathers and therefore they could not so punctually or literally oppose them as wee doe yet in their Disputations Tractats and exposition of Scripture they vtter many things from which wee may collect that they beleeued not these Articles and that the same were no part of the Catholike Faith in their dayes and that if such Opinions had beene thrust vpon the Church for Articles of Faith in their dayes as now they are they would haue opposed them But our Aduersarie pleaseth himselfe immoderately with his Negatiue
Catholicke But necessitie hath no Law for if the Scriptures may be suffered to speake Papistrie must fall like Dagon before the Arke IESVIT Catholickes on the contrary side though they boast not of Scriptures as knowing that nothing is so clearely set downe in it but malapert errour may contend against it with some shew of probabilitie yet haue Scriptures much more cleare and expresse than any that Protestants can bring for themselues euen about the vse of the Image of Christ crucified in the first Apostolicall Church S. Paul to the Galathians saith O ye foolish Galathians who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth before whose eyes Christ Iesus is liuely set foorth crucified among you The Greeke word corresponding to the English liuely set foorth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to paint foorth a thing insomuch as euen Beza Iesus Christus depictus crucifixus Iesus Christ painted crucified before your eyes so that we haue in plaine and expresse tearmes that Christ was Painted crucified in the Apostolicall Churches which the Apostle doth allow thence drawing an Argument to prooue the Galathians were sencelesse and sottish that keeping in their sight Christ painted as Crucified they would be saued by the Law and not by the merits of his Crosse for it was madnesse and folly to paint Christ and honour him as crucified and not to thinke that by his death vpon the Crosse he redeemed the world ANSVVER There is reason why Romists which stile themselues Catholickes but are not should bee sparing in boasting of Scripture but the reason assigned by the Aduersarie which is that Scriptures may be peruerted by Errants is vnsufficient for it is common to Tradition and to Histories and monuments of antiquitie to be peruerted and abused and the same happeneth not by the kind and nature of the Scripture but accidentally through the malice and subtiltie of man peruerting the right wayes of the Lord. And there is sufficient matter in the sacred Scripture to demonstrate veritie and to conuince Errants when they peruert the right sence And whereas you affirme in the next place that Romists haue Scriptures more cleare and expresse than any that Protestants can bring for themselues euen about the vse of the Image of Christ. First If this were true it prooueth not the question That Images ought to be worshipped but onely that they may bee vsed for Historie Ornament and Signification as the Cherubins and other Pictures of the Temple in the old Law for Vse being a generall and Worship a speciall you cannot conclude affirmatiuely from the former to the latter Secondly You depart from your owne receiued Principles when you indeuour to prooue Image worship by Scripture for the same according to your doctrine is a diuine Tradition and such a Tradition according to learned Bannes as is neither expresly nor infoldedly taught in holy Scripture Wherefore then doe you attempt to prooue Iconolatrie out of Scripture which being in your Tenet a Tradition is Doctrina tantum non Scripta a Doctrine altogether vnwritten It is a vaine thing to promise to fetch Treasure out of a Chest or water out of a flint stone in which a man himselfe confesseth there is none Thirdly St. Paul his Text Galath 3.1 Nullis machinis can by no ingens or deuices be wrested to your Tenet All Expositors antient and moderne which haue Commented vpon this Text are against you and you haue neither the letter nor matter of the Text fauourable to you The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vpon which you insist is translated by your owne Interpretors Proscribed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iud. v. 4. Prescribed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 15.4 Haue beene written and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 3. 3. I haue written before And whereas you flye to Beza translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Depictus Painted before he telleth you in his Annotation that hee vnderstandeth not artificiall but Theologicall depainting not externall but spirituall to wit by the euident and powerfull Preaching and Doctrine of Saint Paul Christ Iesus was so liuely reuealed and set foorth to the vnderstanding of the Galathians as if they had indeed beheld him crucified before them And in this manner Chrysostome Theophilact and Oecumenius expound Saint Paul and with them agree your owne Doctors Aquinas Adam Sasbot Estius Cornelius Iustinianus Vasques Salmeron c. There is no small difference betweene vocall and spirituall depainting and betweene materiall or artificiall betweene painting vpon mindes and painting vpon materiall Tables betweene intellectuall beholding Christ Iesus crucified in the Storie of the Gospell or in the Sacrament and in a visible Statue or painted Table And therefore from St. Pauls affirming the former the Iesuits latter followeth not IESVIT I know that some Catholickes expound this place That Christ was painted out vnto the Galathians Metaphorically by preaching which I doe not denie but this doth not repugne with the other sence that he was also materially painted as crucified the which being more conforme to the natiue and proper signification of the words is not to bee forsaken but vpon euident absurditie especially seeing it hath more connexion with the drift of the Apostles discourse which is to prooue the Galathians sencelesse in forsaking Christ crucified painted before their eyes for to forsake Christ crucified set forth by preaching as the Sauiour of the world though it be impious yet is not sencelesse yea rather Saluation by the Crosse of Christ did seeme follie vnto the Gentiles But to haue Christ painted as crucified before mens eyes honouring him by Christian deuotion in regard of his crucifixion and death and not to expect Saluation by him is sottish and senceles And of this materiall painting of Christ Athanasius expoundeth this place whom Turrianus citeth wherefore I may iustly say that we haue more cleere and expresse Scripture for the vse of Images than haue Protestants for their vulgar Translations ANSVVER First yeeld vs but one Father or learned Papist who in their Commentaries expound this place literally according to your sence Secondly It is neither comformable to the signification of the words for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to be written afore and not to be pictured before neither hath it any necessarie connexion with the drift of the Apostles discourse c. For the Galathians being Christians conuerted from infidelitie and not Heathens or Iewes to whom the Crosse or death of Christ vpon the Crosse seemed foolishnesse 1. Cor. 1.18 were more sencelesse that is to say more void of right iudgement by forsaking Christ Iesus crucified which was by the preaching of the holy Ghost and Sacraments ordained by God euidently reuealed to their conscience and receiued by Faith than if they had forsaken him painted onely in a Crucifix for to forsake a thing written in the heart and beleeued
conclusion you giue vs that which is worst Iohn 2. 8. The Antecedent or leading part of your Argument is dubious and the Consequence also is infirme First you are not able to prooue out of the Texts Act. 2.42 or Luk. 24.30 that Christ and his Apostles in those places administred the holy Communion for there may be Prayer and breaking of Bread and yet no Sacrament 1. Tim. 4. v. 3.4.5 Also the place Act. 2. 42. may be vnderstood of dealing bread by Eleemosinarie dole to the poore And although some of the Fathers apply these Scriptures to the Eucharist according to the mysticall sence yet other Fathers are contrarie yea many Pontificians expound these Texts of common food or bread and not of the Eucharist But if the first Exposition were true yet Communion in one kinde cannot be hence inferred for either the words are proper or figuratiue If Romists will presse them according to the letter then no wine at all was then vsed by Christ Luc. 24. or by the Apostles Act. 2. and consequently it followeth 〈◊〉 If they will yeeld that there is a 〈◊〉 in the words then euen as when wee reade in sundrie places of Scripture That people meet together to 31.34 〈◊〉 2.10 wee vnderstand by a part of the 〈◊〉 the whole not 〈◊〉 wine or other in the 〈◊〉 Texts making literall mention of bread onely must be vnderstood as mentioning a part of the spirituall Feast for the whole Neither is there any force in the Argument ensuing which is Their eyes were opened to know Christ Ergo They 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread for the eyes may be opened by Miracle Grace and by Donation of Faith Act. 10. 14. without receiuing Eucharisticall Bread The holy Eucharist is not a sole or 〈◊〉 cause of grace 〈◊〉 there are other caufes and meanes besides and therefore the Illation is inconsequent 〈◊〉 an effect which may proceed from diuers and fundrie 〈◊〉 to one speciall and determinate efficient cause But the Aduersarie proceedeth saying That after breaking of bread Christ straight way vanished out of their sight and they hastened to Hierusalem with all speed Therefore there was no space after receiuing the Bread for the sumption of Wine The Reader may perceiue by these and other such like writhings of the Text vpon what foundation Popish Faith is builded First The word Straight wayes is not in the Narration Luke 24. Secondly The receiuing a small quantitie of Wine could neither hinder our Sauiours expedition nor the Apostles iourney to Ierusalem Thirdly How appeareth it that receiuing Eucharisticall Bread made the Disciples more agile in bodie and prompter in minde to trauell to Hierusalem for two Disciples ranne to the Sepulchre with as much allacritie and expedition as was possible 〈◊〉 20. 4 and yet they had at that present time receiued no Eucharisticall Bread Yea on the contrarie the Apostles of Christ after the receiuing of the holy Eucharist doe all of them flie away and forsake their Master Math. 26.58 This collection therefore The Disciples hasted to Hierusalem Ergo They receiued the Eucharist is dissolute and not much vnlike that of Pope Boniface the eight God said Let vs make two great lights Ergo The Pope is greater than the Emperour IESVIT These bee the Warrants that Communion vnder one kinde hath being the greatest that may bee whereby appeares that the Roman Church is furnisht with all kinde of proofe in this point in which she doth seeme to her Aduersaries to be most forsaken of Antiquitie Now supposing Communion vnder one kinde to be good and lawfull That the Church could preseribe it and That shee had iust reasons to prescribe it J will let passe without proofe as a thing not doubted of by your Maiesties excellent wisedome ANSVVER All your warrants for halfe Communions are meere Impostures and audacious words and figments Commota semel excussa mens ei seruit à quo impellitur saith Seneca The mind which is disordered and put out of frame becomes a slaue to that which impells it This is verified in you you want all kinds of iust defence for your Sacriledge in mangling and dismembring the holy Communion yet hauing once ouershot your selues and become slaues to your owne conceit of not being subiect to errour Litigare magis quam sanari vultis you chuse rather to make warre with heauen than to retract your errour for they warre with heauen which oppose the Testament of the Sonne of God the Tradition of the holy Apostles and the practise of the Primitiue Church and this is your case although you list not to see it or rather seeing to acknowledge it THE EIGHT POINT WORKES OF SVPERERROGATION SPECIALLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE TREASVRE OF THE CHVRCH IESVIT IT is hard if not impossible to giue satisfaction in this point vnto any that is not aforehand persuaded of the Catholicke Doctrine of Merit ANSVVER THe word or name of merit is taken in two notions First properly strictly and vniuocally Ro. 4.4 Deu. 7.10 Secondly improperly largely and equiuocally Eccle. 16.15 The first is tearmed by Schoolemen Merit of Condignitie and the latter Merit of Impetration or of Congruitie If the Iesuit maintaine Merit according to the first acceptation then out of all question the Doctrine of Merit is not Catholicke If he maintaine Merit according to the second notion then Popes pardons and workes of Supererogation cannot be inferred or concluded from the doctrine of Merit for how can that action bee applied to other persons as satisfactorie which is rewarded by God of his free fauour and grace aboue the desert of the person himselfe which hath wrought it IESVITS §. 1. The Doctrine of Merit declared THis Doctrine is much misliked by Protestants as proud and arrogant yet not so much misliked as misunderstood their dislike growing from misconstruction thereof For Catholickes hold that no worke is meritorious with God of it owne nature but to make the same meritorious many graces are required and those most diuine and excellent particularly these seuen ANSVVER CAn any thing be more arrogant and foolish than for a miserable begger and sinner whose iustice is rather in remission of sinnes than in perfection of vertues to maintaine that God should be vniust if he rendred not heauen to mans good workes And yet this proud Doctrine is deliuered by the Rhemists and by some other Romists But our Aduersarie laboureth by distinction to salue this Pharisaisme saying Good workes are not meritorious by their nature but by many graces c. I answer If he should maintaine that Good workes merit iustification or perseuerance not by their Nature but by Grace this distinction would not free his Tenet from error so likewise it is erroneus to maintaine that Good works merit glorie by Grace for that which is of Merit is not of Grace but of debt And diuine grace doth not eleuate vertuous actions by adding vnto them a force of meriting but
all his powers the forces therof on God without conuersion to other lawfull obiects But we 〈◊〉 with S. Augustine and other of the Fathers three things concerning this Precept First That it commaundeth to esteeme desire delight in and to honour God almightie aboue all things created and to subiect all our faculties and the forces and operations of the same to his obedience and seruice Secondly That we ought not to entertaine any cogitation or inordinate motion in our hearts repugnant to his Law or to commit any thing contrarie to his Commaundement Thirdly That this Precept obligeth all people to the obedience thereof in this life for it is the first and greatest morall Precept Math. 22.38 And Christ our Sauiour came not to destroy but to continue and ratifie the Morall law Math. 5.17 Secondly Whereas the Iesuit saith God doth not require of vs things impossible I answer That if he speake of actions and duties simply necessarie to saluation God as looking on vs in Christ and through the glasse of Euangelicall mercie requireth not of his children things vnpossible But if his meaning be either of vnregenerate persons while they are in that state or of things vertuous and holy according to their highest perfection then both Scriptures and Fathers are against him IESVIT And in this sence S. Augustine S. Bernard and other Fathers are to be vnderstood that say in the Precept Diliges Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo is contained the perfection of the life to come and a perfection impossible to be attained to in this life to wit it is contained in the Precept not as perfection commaunded to be practised in this life but as a perfection to be desired and hoped for in the next so that he that loues God sinceerely from the bottome of his heart to the keeping of all his Commandements perfectly without breach of friendship betweene him and God hauing his desires and loues referred with hope vnto Eternitie without question hee loueth God with all his heart soule and strength ANSWER First If the Precept Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thine heart c. bind men no further than to an vnfained or sinceere loue of God and the obseruing of his Commaundements without breach of friendship then it bindeth them not to the shunning of veniall sinnes But according to S. Augustine and S. Bernard it bindeth man to the auoiding of all sinne both veniall and mortall Secondly These Fathers teach expressely that the Commaundement Math. 22. 37. bindeth men in this life as a meanes to humble them and to prouoke them to sue for Gods mercie And if the Aduersarie replie That these Fathers say it is a Precept indicatiue or significatiue what is 〈◊〉 to be done but not obligant I answer First it is the first and greatest Commandement of the Morall law Math. 22.38 but the Morall law and all the Precepts thereof are perpetually obligant Secondly If it bind not then no temporall paine can succeed the breach thereof but iust persons which obserue other Commaundements vndergoe temporall paine Heb. 11. 36.37 Thirdly S. Augustine affirmeth That it is sinne in man to 〈◊〉 a lesse degree of Charitie than this law requireth and that therefore iust persons haue need to pray perpetually Forgiue vs our Trespasses But if it were indicatiue or directiue only and not obligatorie this were not true IESVITS §. 3. The Fathers taught Workes of Supererogation and prooued them by Scripture BVt they that loue God so perfectly as they loue not onely his Commandements but also his Councells not onely shunne such sinnes as separate from God but also such as binder the perpetuall actuall loue of God These bee they that doe more than they are commanded that is doe workes of Supererogation And if your Maiestie call to minde vpon how manifold graces this Merit is grounded you will not J hope condemne the same of arrogance but rather 〈◊〉 it as being taught by holy Fathers euen in expresse tearmes of Supererogation Jn proofe whereof J alleadge these few Testimonies ANSVVER THey which doe more than God hath commanded by his Law as simply necessarle to saluation to wit they which giue all their goods to the poore c. exceed not heerein the highest and strictest measure of Charitie and obedience in this life for the Euangelicall Law commandeth vs to be perfect as our heauenly Father is perfect Math. 5.48 by approaching as neere towards this Patterne as our humane frailtie will permit and to loue as Christ loued vs Luk. 6.35 Rom. 5.7 8. And there is a threefold kind of Obligation to God First of strict and expresse Law common to all persons Secondly of particular Precept by extraordinarie Reuelation Gen. 22. 2. Thirdly of Gratitude whereby according to Saint Bernard we are indebted and owe to the Almightie Omne quod sumus omne quod possumus Whatsoeuer we are and whatsoeuer we are able to doe Etsi cognouisses tu quam multa quam multis debeas videres quam nihil sit quod facis If man did consider how much hee oweth and to how many and by how many Titles he would perceiue all that hee doth or can doe to be And when Touching the distinction of Precepts and Councels I answere That if according to the Tenet of Fathers wee vnderstand by Councels Free-will Offerings or Spontaneous Actions exceeding that which the ordinarie Bond of necessarie dutie obligeth men vnto and which are acceptable vnto God in respect of their end the Doctrine of Councels prooueth not workes of Supererogation according to the Romish Tenet For as I haue formerly declared Supererogation implyeth these things first a perfect and exact performance of all commanded duties without omission of any secondly a free and voluntarie exceeding and transcending all obedience and seruice enioyned by Diuine Precept But supposing the perfection of the Diuine Law and presupposing all men to be sinners in part the former is vnpossible And if our Aduersaries will be so gracelesse as to make any man in this life except the Holyest of Holyes 1. Pet. 2.22 free from sinne the Apostle enrolleth them in the blacke Booke of Damnable Lyers 1. Ioh. 1. 10. and they may borrow a Ladder with Acesius the Nouatian Heretike and so climbe alone vp to Heauen or indeed rather fall with a breake-necke downe to Hell Matth. 9. 13. For who are more desperately sicke Quà m qui mentem febribus perdiderunt than they which by the Feauer of Pride haue lost the vnderstanding of their owne sinfull Condition IESVIT Haymo a learned Expositor of Scripture liuing in the yeere 800 thus writeth Supererogat Stabularius quando hoc agit Doctor ex voto quod non accepit ex Praecepto quod secit Paulus Apostolus quando ANSWER You cannot produce one Father or antient Doctor which maintaineth workes of Supererogation to your
our most gracious King should speake or doe any thing for Antichrist against Christ whose Hope and Vertue and Honour is all in Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A TABLE OF THE PRINCIPALL MATTERS CONTAINED in this Booke A ACcidents of Bread and Wine without substance Fol. 430 439 Acts of the Apost chap. 2. v. 42. 507 Adoration and Veneration 208 S. Ambrose receiuing the Sacrament in one kind 503 Angells reioycing at a sinners repentance 515 Angells whether adored 327. 525 527 Antecedent will of God 78 Apostolicall Church 64 98 Assurance of faith 165 S. Augustine 21 68 122 132 200 219 273 296 323 443 Authoritie of the Church 10 133 300 B Baptisme 175 177 Beginning of errour not alwayes assigneable out of historie 131 A Body in many places 180 182 183 The Brasen Serpent 209 Bread called Christs body 397. a figure 401. This is my body 398 416. Christs body no fancie 410 448. not in many places at once 450. Truely receiued in the Sacrament by faith 184 C Caietan and others of Transubstantiation 414 182 A Cammell through the eye of a needle 411. Canonising of Saints 297 The Canopie in the Greeke Church 378 Chastitie of votaries 83 Certainetie of faith not from the Rom. Ch. onely or principally 5 Catholike Church 194 Church taken in diuers notions 49 It consisteth principally of iust persons 51. 53. Obseruations concerning the acceptation of the name Church 51. the authoritie thereof in things adiaphorous 133 300. How the ground and pillar of truth 3.53 The true Church perpetuall 58. It may erre in deliuerie of Tradition 88. it may be in few 59 67 76 104 A corrupt Church may teach some veritie and preserue the text of Scripture 59 117 The present Church not equall to the Apostolicall 118 Councells and Praecepts 527.531 Coloss. cha 1. v. 24. 559 Communion of Saints 557 Communion in one kind 459.470 Concomitance 460 The Councell of Constance 474.501 The Councell of Elliberis 251 No generall Councell for the first 300 yeares 119 Councells of the late Rom. Ch. neither generall nor lawfull 159. Papall Vsurpation and Tyrannie in them 153 A lawfull generall Councell desired by Protestants 157. Acts of Councels not preserued faithfully 128 Corruptions in the Hierarch Rom. Ch. 55.57.97 Conuersion of bread into Christ Bodie 399.400.421 The new Creed of Rome 125 Curiositie to be auoided 582 D Daniel chap. 2. vers 35. 4 Daniel chap. 4. vers 24. Redeeme thy sinnes 546 Discord among Teachers 71.73 Discord of Romists 108.583.585 E Epiphanius of Images 252 Errours in the Church 135. fundamentall and preterfundamentall 147.197 Esay chap. 2. vers 1. 4 Esay chap. 63. 16. 320 The Eucharist receiued by the hand 491. sent to priuate houses in both kinds 504. no reall Sacrifice 464 Exposition of Scripture by Fathers 45 F Faciall vision 35 Diuine Faith not grounded vpon Eccles Historie 128. Historie not alwayes assigneable for change of Faith 131 Fasting not satisfactorie to God for sinne 549 Fathers authoritie 68.87.129 their consent 121 Doctour Field 73.140.196.586 A Figure in the words This is my bodie 396.397 G Galath chap. 3. 〈◊〉 maketh not for Images 281 Gelasius against Transubst 436. and against Communion in one kinde 499 Glasse of the Trinitie 308 Generall Councels 152 156 Good Workes strengthen Faith 519 The Greeke Church 115 H Halfe Communion no Sacrament 484 An Hereticke defined 195 Hierarchiall Church 55.57 Honorius Angustudonensis of the iniquitie of Romists 112 Humane Historie no rule of Faith 128 131 I Idololatrie 269 Indulgences and Popes Pardons a late deuise 562. granted for many thousand yeeres 564 Images and their Worship 206.212 Images of the Trinitie 265 Images a snare to the simple 267 Influence of Christ into Workes maketh them not meritorious 515.516 Inuocation of Saints 288 S. Iohn chap. 20. vers 23. Whose sinnes you remit c. 191 Iustifying Faith 162 K The Kingdome of Christ deuided with the Virgin Marie 362 Kings may bee deposed by Popes and Bishops is the Doctrine of many Pontificians 575 L Latria or diuine Worship 241 Liturgie in a strange tongue 365 Liuing Saints Prayers to them 333 M Manner of Presence in the Eucharist 391.406 Math. 16.18 Vpon this Rocke c. 3 Math. 22.37 Loue the Lord with all thy heart 523 Math. 26. Drinke ye all of this 488.492 Math. 28.20 I will be with you alwayes c. 94.99 Merit of Workes 172.511 Merits of Saints deceased 240 Mediator supreame and subordinate 336 Miracles 85.102 Mother Church 126 Mother of mercie 361 N Nicene second Councell 247 O Omnipotencie 181.446 Oblations to Saints 348 Opposition to the Rom. Ch. 136 Ordination and Vocation of Pastors 98 P Penance no Sacrament stricter in the Primitiue Church 192. 539. 543 Penitentiarie taxe 113 Popes no Lords of Purgatorie 567 Popish Faith nouell 129 Polidor Virgil of Images 249 Prayer to Saints in set formes c. 352 Prayers in a knowne tongue 366.373 on beades 388. not meritorious 548 Priuate Prayer in a knowne tongue 383 Primacie of Peter 157.570 Promise maketh not Workes meritorious 518 Punishment of chastisement 540 Purging Authors 125 Q The Queene of Heauen 363 R Reading Scripture 35.271.272.277.279 Reall presence 178.395 Reason when to be beleeued 438 Receiuing Scripture from the Church 118 Religious honouring of Saints 322 Repetitions of Creeds and Auees 784 Reseruation of the Eucharist 432. in both kinds 505 Resolution of Faith 13 15 20 25 31 38 47 Romane Church 1 2 103 145. a particular Church 109. not vniuersall 111. not Catholicke 201. a stepmother 126. equall to other Churches 109.145 Romists want Apost Traditions 125 586 Romists causers of discord 109 Rule of Faith 〈◊〉 S Sacramentall vnion 405 Saints not omniscient 304. no Prophets 312. in what manner like Angels 317. no Patrons 344 Sanctitie of the Church 81 101 102. and want heereof in the Rom. Ch. 5 57 Satisfaction 534 541 544 555 575 Separation from the Rom. Ch. 106 Serapions Historie about one kind 503 Schisme 107 Silence of Historie no proofe of Faith vnchanged 116 131 143 144 255 Spirituall presence 396 Spirituall eating and drinking 184 Scripture how proued Diuine 24 30 the Mouth and Hand of God 91. Sufficiencie thereof 37 43 147. preserued incorrupt in all ages 23 117 124. wherein obscure 35 45. the translation thereof 29. the exposition and sense 45 121 123. more fundamentall than Tradition vnwritten 49 90. Papists depresse Scripture 92 Succession of Pastors 65. of Romists 115 Successor of Peter 160 Supererogation 522 528 Supremacie Papall hath no ground in Scripture 570 T Tertullian of the Scripture 9. of Indulgences 2. Timoth. 3. 15. c. 39 Theoderit of Transubstantiation 436 Titles of Canonicall Bookes 19 Tradition 45 91 93 150 151 580 Transubstantiation 390. not grounded on Scripture 182 447. the same defined 419. Caietan Scotus c. touching it 182 414 Transelementation 421 Transmutation 420 The Treasure of the Church 552 V Vasques about Adoration 232 Vertues of iust persons 170 The B. Virgin
must be Doctrines vnchanged comming from the Apostles ANSVVER This Proposition may hold in prime and essentiall Articles of Doctrine but not generally in all Doctrines and some learned Papists hold that it is possible for the visible Church of one age to erre or be deceiued by a blamelesse and inuincible ignorance in points of Doctrine the expresse knowledge whereof is not necessarie to Saluation IESVIT But it is most cleere and confessed by the Protestants whose testimonie plentifull in this behalfe if need require shall be brought First that the Doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestants refuse haue beene vniuersally receiued for many ages a thousand yeares agoe at least euer since Boniface the third ANSWER It is neither cleere in it selfe nor yet confessed by Protestants that the Doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestants refuse haue been vniuersally receiued for 1000 yeres at least c. The article of the Popes Supremacie and of Purgatorie Adoration of Images forbidding married Priests to liue with their wiues were euer opposed and reiected by the Greek Church The Doctrine of the Trident Councell concerning the Canon of the holy Scriptures and the preheminence of the vulgar Translation before the Hebrew and Greeke Text was not vniuersally 〈◊〉 for a thousand yeeres The temporal authoritie of the Pope the merit of Condignitie publicke seruice in an vnknowne language Iubilees and Popes pardons Communion in one kind Transubstantiation Blessing or baptising of Bells c. were not generally receiued in the Church vniuersall for a thousand yeeres at least And a great number of Beleeuers which in this West part of the world haue alwayes denied and resisted these Articles and among other opponents there were a people called Waldenses Leonistae pauperes de Lugduno c. many in number and largely diffused through diuers Countries who denied the foresaid Popish Articles and whose Doctrine in the most points was consonant to that which reformed Churches doe now professe Reinerius an Inquisitour of the Church of Rome liuing about the yeere one thousand two hundred fiftie foure in a Booke Printed at Ingolstade writeth in this manner of the Waldenses which hee calleth Leonists Among all Sects which are or haue formerly beene none is more pernicious to the Church than that of the Leonists First because it continued longer than any other for some say it hath lasted euer since Pope Siluester others say euer since the Apostles Secondly because no Sect is more generall than this for there is scarce any countrey in which it is not found Thirdly whereas other Sects deterre men with their horrible blasphemies this Sect of the Leonists maketh a great shew of godlinesse because they liue righteously before men and beleeue all things rightly touching God and concerning all other Articles of the Ceed onely they blaspheme the Romane Church and Clergie in which thing the Laitie is forward to giue credit vnto them IESVIT Secondly That Protestants cannot tell the time when the Church of Rome began to change and deuiate from the Apostolicall Doctrine deliuered by succession Ergo the Roman Church neuer changed her Faith ANSWER If the Antecedent were true yet it followeth not Ergo the same Roman Church neuer changed her Faith For although we cannot tell the time when the progenitors of Abraham first began to change and deuiate from the Doctrine of Noah and Sem yet it is certaine that they had changed their Religion Iosh. 24. 2. And were not the Sodomites transgressors of the Law of Nature because the first beginning of their transgression cannot be knowne How many wicked Customes haue beene common in the World whose authors and first beginners were vnknowne to Posteritie The time is not knowne when the late Iewish Church did first change and corrupt the sense of the Morall Law and brought in the Traditions condemned by our Sauiour and yet they had corrupted and changed the same Matth. 5. 6. 7. 15. 19. 23. If a Tenant haue by himselfe and his predecessors long held an House which is now in decay and readie to drop downe the Landlord by this Law of the Iesuits Ergo shall neuer compell the Tenant to make reparation vnlesse he be able to demonstrate to the Tenant in what yeere and moneth euerie Wall and Rafter began to decay A Physician shall not purge a malignant humor out of a diseased bodie vnlesse hee or his Patient be able to name the time and manner of that misdiet which bred the first seed of this distemper IESVIT So that her Doctrines are to be receiued as Apostolicall supposing the Maior of this Argument be true That Doctrines vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne are to be beleeued as Apostolicall which is a Principle set downe by Saint Augustine allowed by Doctor Whitgift late Archbishop of Canturburie who in his Bookes written by publike authoritie against Puritans citing diuerse Protestants as concurring in opinion with him saith Whatsoeuer Opinions are not knowne to haue begun since the Apostles times the same are not new or secundarie but receiued their originall from the Apostles But because this Principle of Christian Diuinitie brings in as M. Cartwright speaketh all Poperie in the iudgement of all men I will further demonstrate the same though of it selfe cleare enough ANSWER If the Maior of this Argument were graunted to wit Doctrines vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne are to be 〈◊〉 as Apostolicall yet the inference is false because the Romane Doctrines opposed by vs were neuer vniuersally receiued but by many eyther not heard of or reiected and contradicted Neyther is the former Principle sufficiently prooued out of S. Augustine First because hee speaketh in all the places obiected of Customes and matters of Fact and Practise the right and Doctrine whereof is found in holy Scripture Secondly the Iesuit conueyeth into his Proposition certaine words to wit Doctrines vniuersally receiued c. which are not found in S. Augustine And this Father did neuer allow that the vniuersall Church should beleeue any thing as Doctrine of Faith which was not contained expressely or deriuatiuely in holy Scripture And in the same bookes out of which these Obiections are collected he confuteth rebaptising by Scripture and confirmeth the lawfulnesse of Infants Baptisme by Scripture So that his meaning is when matters being in common vse and practise are questioned the right and lawfulnesse hath warrant from the Scripture although no especiall example be found in the written Bookes of the Apostles of such practise yet the generall custome and vse of the vniuersall Church in all Ages argueth that such practise receiued it beginning from the Apostles For example That the Apostles baptised Infants is not particularly reported in their Writings but sufficient grounds are found in them to prooue the necessitie and to warrant the practise thereof In this and in all other the like cases Quod vniuersa tenet Ecclesia nec
still sollicitous though secure of their owne as S. Cyprian writes ANSVVER The blessed Saints in Heauen can desire that only which is according to the will of God Math. 6. 10. But that it pleaseth God they shall desire to know and vnderstand all the particular actions and occurrents of people on earth or that they shall desire to know the honour which is done to them in the inferiour world must be beleeued as a matter of Faith when the Papals prooue it by diuine Reuelation And although according to S. Cyprian blessed Saints are sollicitous of the Saluation of the Chucrh militant yet it followeth not Ergo they heare the petitions of the liuing for a father dwelling in London which hath his sonne at Constantinople is sollicitous of his sonnes safetie and yet he vnderstandeth not all the particulars about him IESVIT Wherefore our Doctrine that Saints see our prayers being deliuered so constantly by the antient Fathers so conformable to the principles of Christian beleefe about the blessednesse of Saints so consonant vnto expresse passages of Scripture we may easily 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 shew of direct opposition against it ANSWER Your insinuations are coniecturall and at the best seemingly plausible but your disputation is weake wherefore we admire your confidence in a case so groundlesse and intreat you either to argue more soundly or else to be lesse vaineglorious in your conclusions IESVIT The place continually obiected out of the Prophet Esay Abraham knew vs not Israell was ignorant of vs thou O Lord art our Father thou our Redeemer hath this sence that Abraham and Iacob when they did liue vpon earth and carnally beget children did not know particularly their posterities and so could not beare them such particular affection whereas God can and doth distinctly see and know their necessities and prouides against them deliuering his children out of them And therefore he is the onely Father the onely Redeemer Abraham and Iacob not deseruing the name of Father in comparison with God What makes this against the Saints hearing our prayers ANSVVER We receiued our exposition of this place of Esay cap. 63.16 out of S. Augustine and I marueile why the Iesuit reiecteth the same and chuseth a worse because his owne party confesseth that Abraham and the Patriarkes liuing in the darke lake of Limbus did not heare the prayers of their posteritie nor behold and vnderstand the affaires of their children liuing vpon earth IESVIT §. 3. The worship of Spirit and Truth with outward prostration of the bodie due vnto Saints THe third cause of their dislike is That we giue the honor of the Creator vnto the creature honoring Saints with religious worship with worship of Spirit and Truth euen to the prostrating of our bodies before them whereby we giue them honor due to God only and bring in many Gods as the Heathens do To this Obiection made long ago by Faustus the Manichee S. Austine answereth in these words The Christian people doth celebrate with religious solemnitie the memories of Martyrs to the end to stirre vp themselues to their imitation and 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 certaine subiection and seruitude due properly to the Deitie only wee do not honour any but onely God nor thinke that this honour ought to be giuen but only to him These words of S. Augustine shew the worship of Saints to be on the one side more than ciuile and on the other side lesse than diuine more than ciuile as proceeding out of acknowledgement of the excellencie Saints haue superior vnto all naturall by which they be partakers of diuine perfection in that high degree as no substance can by natureparticipate therof and therfore S. Austine with good reason tearmes it religious Lesse than diuine as proceeding from persuasion of excellency though superhumane yet infinitely inferiour vnto the increate and immence excellencie of God yea depending essentially thereof So that honor is giuen them dependently of God as being superexcellent participants of his perfection and his singular friends ANSVVER Our Argument is All religious worship is due to God onely Papists yeeld to Saints some religious worship Ergo Papists yeeld to Saints some worship due to God onely The Iesuit pretendeth to answere by distinction out of St. Augustine saying That religious worship is either simply Diuine and founded vpon infinite and increate excellencie called Latria or else superhumane founded vpon Grace and Glorie which is an excellencie finite and created Papists yeeld the latter kinde of religious worship to blessed Saints and Angels but not the former To this Answere Protestants replie saying That there are no other kindes of worship than there be Tables of the Morall Law But there are onely two Tables of the Morall Law the former whereof teacheth Diuine Worship and the second humane ciuile or of speciall obseruance And if there be a mixt worship partly Diuine and partly humane so much thereof as is Diuine is proper to God and may not be imparted to any Creature Esay 42.8 But against this they obiect That to euery kinde and degree of excellencie there is a worship due proportionall to that excellencie But blessed Saints and Angels haue a speciall kinde and degree of excellencie superiour to theirs which liue vpon earth Therefore a speciall honour proportioned to their excellencie and superiour to humane is due vnto them It is answered That granting in blessed Saints and Angels an excellencie of Grace and Glorie and Honour due in respect of the same this prooueth not that they are to bee adored with religious worship for then holy persons vpon earth may bee worshipped with religious worship But the vertue of Religion according to the Tenet of the Schoole respecteth immedately increated excellencie and Latria and Religion are all one and if Saints and Angels may be worshipped with religious worship they may bee serued with the worship of Latria And if they answer that worship of Saints is a materiall action of religion this answer is confuted by the schoolemen themselues who also affirme that the worship of Saints c. is an act of Dulia and not of Religion or Latria The place obiected out of S. Augustin c. Faust. Manich. li. 20. c. 2 1 is made to speake that by the Aduersarie which the holy father intendeth not for he tearmeth not the honour exhibited by the true Church to the persons of Martyrs religious but he saith onely Populus Christianus memorias martyrum religiosa solemnitate concelebrat Christian people celebrate the memorials of Martyrs with religious solemnitie And then expounding himselfe in the progresse of the chapter
the roome or seate of another is not substantiall conuersion but alteration of place IESVIT Saint Chrysostome When waxe is put into fire nothing of the substance thereof is left nothing remaines vnconsumed so likewise doe thou thinke that the Mysteries are consumed by the substance of the bodie of Christ. ANSWER This Father saith not That nothing of the substance of bread and wine is left but cleane contrarie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing of the substance goeth away And the words which follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are falsly translated for they are not Is consumed by the substance but Is coabsumed with the substance Also the substance of bread is not consumed by the bodie of Christ according to the Tenet of many Schoolemen The substance of the externall elements passeth into the bodie of the Receiuer and is consumed or vnited to the flesh of the Receiuer The bodie and blood of Christ represented by the same and receiued by Faith nourish the soule to life eternall Iohn 6. 54. And if our Aduersaries following their owne translation will expound Saint Chrysostome literally then Communicants receiue Christs bodie by the hands of the Seraphim and not by the Priests hands IESVIT S. Ambrose What arguments shall we bring to prooue That in the Sacrament is not the thing which nature hath framed but that thing which benediction hath consecrated and that greater is the force of benediction than of nature seeing by the benediction euen nature is changed ANSVVER The quantitie and accidents of the outward signes are framed by nature as well as the substance and the force of consecration and benediction passeth vpon the one as well as vpon the other and therefore the change of nature which Saint Ambrose intendeth is not the destruction of the elements and the conuersion thereof into another substance but the eleuating of these earthly creatures to be mysteries of grace and holy instruments to apply and communicate that which is represented by them It is inconsequent to argue They are changed in their nature Ergo Their naturall substance is destroyed for nature implieth qualities and properties as well as substance and it is taken Theologicè as well as Physicè for S. Peter speaking of regenerate persons 2. Pet. 1. v. 4. saith They are made partakers of the Diuine nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet his meaning is not that their former substance is abolished The nature of glorified bodies is changed and they are made spirituall 1. Cor. 15. 44. and yet they retaine the same substance Mans nature was changed after his fall Ephes. 2. 3. yet the substance of his nature remained Saint Ambrose himselfe saith That in Baptisme man is changed and made a new creature and treating farther of the Sacrament of Baptisme he saith Learne how the word of Christ is accustomed to change euery creature and when he will he altereth the course of nature IESVIT Secondly They require that the Authour that changeth bread into Christ his Bodie be omnipotent and consequently the change not meerely significatiue but substantiall S. Cyprian This Bread changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the word is made flesh S. Cyrill Hee that in the marriage of Cana changed Water into Wine by his onely will is not hee worthie that we beleeue him that he hath changed Wine into his Bloud S. Gaudentius The Lord and Creator of Natures that of Earth made Bread againe because he can doe it and hath promised to doe it makes of Bread his owne Bodie and he that of Water made Wine now of Wine hath made his Bloud ANSWER S. Cyprian was not the author of the Booke de Coena Domini so Bellarmine confesseth and before him Iohannes Hessels but in some copies it passeth vnder the name of Arnoldus who liued manie ages after Cyprian And yet in one part of that worke d. vnctione Chrysmatis there is a manifest place against Transubstantiation Our Lord saith he in the table wherein he banqueted with his Disciples with his owne hands deliuered Bread and Wine c. declaring also how the thing signifying and the thing signified are called by the same name Secondly to a mysticall change the omnipotent power of God is necessarie as appeareth in the water of Baptisme and earthly creatures cannot be instruments of grace or meanes to communicate spirituall or miraculous benefits without the same as appeareth in the waters of Iordan 2. Reg. 5. and in the poole of Bethesda Ioh. 5. Therefore although some do require an omnipotent power to eleuate and change the creatures of Bread and Wine yet it followeth not that they maintained Transubstantiation Thirdly the author by the words Natura mutatus changed in nature vnderstood not a corporall change for in the same sentence he declareth himselfe by the example of Christs humanitie which being personally vnited to the deitie is changed but not so as that it looseth his naturall forme and substance And in the same Booke this Father faith That although the immortall food deliuered in the Eucharist differ from common meat yet it retaineth in the kind of corporal substance He saith not Species in the plurall number meaning according to the new Popish sence the externall shapes and accidents for let the Aduersarie prooue out of antiquitie that S. Cyprian or the Primatiue Church maintained the late Romish Doctrine concerning shapes of Bread and Wine without the materiall substance and we will freely grant that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is antient but he saith Speciem the kind in the singular number that is the corporall substance and forme in the same sence in which S. Ambrose vseth the word saying Ante benedictionem verborum Coelestium alia species nominatur Before the benediction of wordes applied it is called another kind of thing S. Cyrills place maintaineth not Popish Transubstantiation for in this the shapes and accidents remaine and the materiall substance is corrupted but in our Sauiours miracle Ioh. 2. the shapes accidents and forme were changed and the materiall substance remained Gaudentius saith Satis declarat Sanguinem suum esse omne Vinum quod in figura passionis sua offertur Bonauent d. 11. q. 6. in 4. sent Omnia verba significantia innouationē circà corp ' Christi sunt falsè dicta Haec est simplicitèr impropria Corpus Christi fit Ne 〈◊〉 putes quod Coeleste effectum est per eū qui transit in 〈◊〉 Nam cum panem consecratum vinum Discipulis suis porrigerat c. The Lord makes Bread of his owne Bodie and he makes Wine of his Bloud and then he saith further of Bread he makes his owne Bodie and of Wine his owne Bloud but he saith not that this is done by Transubstantiation for Christs Bodie and Bloud are not transubstantiate but calling the same coelestiall food he declareth his meaning
to be that the change is spirituall and mysticall And speaking of the elements of Bread and Wine he affirmeth expresly that our Sauiour deliuered consecrated Bread and Wine to his Disciples If then according to Gaudentius the consecrated signes which Christ deliuered his Disciples were Bread and Wine they were not abstracted shapes and figures of Bread and Wine for where the matter and essence is abolished and the accidents onely remaine there is not the verie thing but a shadow and image thereof onely IESVIT Thirdly the Instrument by which God workes this Transubstantiation is by them acknowledged the most efficacious that may be to wit the word not of man but of God S. Ambrose Moses his word changed the water of Egypt into blood and againe turned them from bloud into water If so great was the benediction of man what may we thinke of diuine Consecration where the verie words of our Sauiour worke The words of Elias had power to bring downe fire from Heauen and shall not the words of Christ haue force to change the kinds of the Elements Againe thou seest how working and efficatious is the word of Christ. If therefore such vertue is in his Word that thereby things that are not receiue being how much more hath it power that the things that are still remaine in the geneall latitude of being and according to the sensible accidents and be conuerted into another substance ANSWER Among the six or seuen examples brought by S. Ambrose of changes only two are substantiall and the rest accidentall and the elements are changed when of common and naturall creatures they are made sacred and become chanels and instruments of sauing grace So the Fathers affirme That the word of Christ in Baptisme is most efficacious to alter the property of naturall water and to giue regeneratiue force and vertue to it Also the holie Scripture affirmeth concerning Euangelicall Doctrine That it is the immortall Seed of God the Word of eternall life the Power of God to saluation c. 1. Pet. 1.29 Act. 5.20 14.3 Rom. 1.16 the same conuerteth people to God Act 2.37 and maketh them new creatures 2. Cor. 5.17 1. Cor. 4.15 But yet from hence we cannot inferre that either the water of Baptisme or regenerate persons are changed by Transubstantiation IESVIT Fourthly The effect of this Transmutation taught by the Fathers is the presence of the substance of Christs bodie and the absence of the substance of Bread binding vs to abnegate our senses and not to beleeue what we seeme to see with our eyes Theophylact Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable creation although to vs it seeme Bread because we are weake and haue horror to eate raw flesh specially the flesh of man for this reason Bread appeareth but in essence and substance it is not Bread S. Cyril Come not therefore as vnto simple Bread and Wine for it is the Bodie and Bloud of Christ according to the affirmation of our Lord for although sense suggest the contrarie yet let Faith confirme thee iudging not of the thing by tast but indubitably and with full Faith beleeue that thou art made partaker of the Bodie and Bloud of Christ. And againe know this and with full certitude beleeue That the Bread seene is not Bread though it so seeme to the tast but the Bodie of Christ and that Wine seene is not Wine though tast iudge it to be so but the Bloud of Christ. ANSWER First the Fathers teach and we with them acknowledge that Christs bodie is mystically present to faithfull communicants 1. Cor. 10.16 But corporall presence by indistance of place and absence of the materiall substance of the elements was not taught by the antiēt Church for they teach That the creatures of Bread and Wine are present in the Eucharist and that after they be changed they nourish the bodie but the abstracted shapes of Bread and Wine are not Gods creatures but Popish fancies Againe they teach that such signes and elements are present as haue power to feed and nourish the bodie and to resemble the mysticall vnion betweene Christ and Christian people to wit Bread confected of many cornes of graine Wine of many grapes but mathematicall Bread and wine haue neither power to nourish neither doe they resemble the mysticall Vnion aforesaid for there is in them onely the shadow of graine and Grapes but no substance and Papists may as well say That painted bread and wine haue power of feeding and mysticall representation as these fictions and Mathematicall shadowes Secondly Cyrill sheweth in other passages of that worke what hee intendeth and meaneth namely That the consecrate bread is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common prophane and meere naturall bread which the sight and taste iudge so to be but sanctified eleuated and changed to supernaturall vse and operation Thirdly If Theophylact a late Writer and some one or two besides speake obscurely and improperly in this Argument what is this to the grounding and raysing of an Article of Faith or to the proouing a matter in question by a common and euident consent of Fathers Fourthly The Fathers exhort people to abnegate their sences in Baptisme wherein they maintaine no Transubstantiation and there is good reason why wee should doe this in the holy Eucharist because wee therein eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Sonne of man Credendo by beleeuing Iohn 6. 35. and not by sensible or corporall eating IESVIT Finally That the Fathers held Transubstantiation is prooued by the continuancie which they taught of Christs bodie in the Sacrament so long as the accidents of bread last as appeareth by their reseruing of the same For Reseruation to haue beene the custome of the Primatiue Church Protestants grant That the Sacrament was of some reserued in the elder dayes of the Church is not saith Master Fulke so great a question as whether it ought to be reserued And Chemnicius granteth that in this point on our side stands 〈◊〉 consuetudinis late patentis diu propagatae And whereas 〈◊〉 addeth Haec tamen veritati praescribere non debet hee accuseth the Primitiue Church and opposeth no lesse against them than vs and I am sure your Maiestie knowes that the Primitiue Fathers did vse to send the Sacrament vnto them that were lawfully absent from Church as doth witnes S. Iustin and vnto the sicke as Dyonisius Alex. writes of Serapion That Christians carryed the same to their priuate houses to take in the morning before other meate as testifieth Tertullian That many times they did weare the same about them for protection as Satyrus brother to S. Ambr. going to sea carryed it in a stole by vertue whereof he was saued in shipwracke That Martyrs had the same frequently with them to receiue it for their Viaticum as Tharsilius a most glorious Martyr who being taken with the
Sacrament about him permitted himselfe rather to bee bruised with stones to death than disclose it to the Persecutors who when they had crowned the Martyr searching seriously for the Sacrament in his cloathes and about his dead body found nothing God by miracle keeping the same out of their impious hands S. Cyprian records diuers miracles done in confirmation of this our Sauiours permanent presence in the Sacrament 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 saith S. Cyprian Tanta Maiestas And so fully were they persuaded in this opinion That Christs body is permanently in the Sacrament that Cyril dareth say Insaniant qui dicunt benedictionem a Sanctificatione cessare Si quae reliquiae remanserunt eius in sequentem diem non enim mutabitur sacrosanctum corpus Christi sed virtus benedictionis viuificatiua gratia iugis in eo est Now what reason could the Fathers haue thus constantly to defend this continuancy of our Sauiour in the Sacrament but that they beleeued Bread to be changed into his body remaining demonstrable by the formes and accidences thereof so long as they remained entire and were not changed into the accidences of some other substance ANSWER Your obiection reduced to forme of argument is All they which vsed reseruation of the Sacrament and maintained continuancie of Christs body therein beleeued Transubstantiation The antient Fathers vsed reseruation of the Sacrament and maintained continuancie of Christs body therein Ergo The ancient Fathers beleeued Transubstantiation If the argument be thus formed First the Maior Proposition is denyed for the Fathers might vse reseruation of the Sacrament and beleeue the permanencie of Christs body therein vpon the Tenet of reall Presence by Consubstantiation and not vpon beleefe of Transubstantiation Secondly the Primitiue Church and antient Fathers generally or vniuersally vsed not reseruation of the Sacramentall signes and Iustin Martyr and Ireneus speake onely of the sending of the Sacrament from the Church where it was administred to sick persons and strangers Some examples of reseruation proceeded vpon the ignorance and superstition of priuate persons in which case although some Fathers vsed conniuence yet these abuses were afterwards reformed The Minor therefore if it be generall is denyed and if it be particular then the Maior and Minor inferre not the conclusion because that which was done by some vpon priuate opinion and in another kind or manner than Romists doe at this day and was also opposed and corrected by others cannot be a matter of Catholike doctrine or practise But this question of Reseruation hath beene largely handled by many of our part and whatsoeuer Romists haue obiected concerning the same is fully answered and therefore because this Iesuit produceth no new matter but onely repeateth what wee haue formerly confuted and especially because Reseruation concludeth not Transubstantiation which is the matter now in question I forbeare further examination of the particular Testimonies produced by him IESVIT Against this consent of Fathers Protestants obiect the Testimonie of Theodoret and Gelasius who in plaine tearmes affirme That the substance of Bread and Wine remaines in this holy Eucharist bringing this as an example of the Incarnation where the Natures of God and man remaine in Christ Signa mystica saith Theodoret post sanctificationem non recedunt à sua natura And Gelasius Non esse desinit substantia vel natura Panis Vini I answer That these Fathers by the substance of Bread and Wine vnderstand the naturall qualities that flow from the nature and essence of Bread and Wine for ordinarily and in common speech the naturall accidents and proprieties of a thing are tearmed the nature of the thing Thus wee say That to be heauie and to fall downeward is the nature of the Stone to be hot and to burne is the nature of the Fire which yet are but naturall qualities and properties of Stone and Fire By this or rather by a more strange manner of speech S. Theodote Bishop of Ancyra to explicate against Nestorius and Eutyches the coniunction of two Natures in one Person by the example of the Water that Moses conuerted into Bloud saith That the Water was not changed in nature nor did cease to be Water which in rigor of speech taking the nature of Water for the substance thereof as condistinct from the naturall qualities is not true But because Water changed into Bloud remaines according to some naturall qualities and properties which it hath common with Bloud as Moisture Liquidnesse and the like he the better to sit and accommodate the similitude saith The Water remained according to the nature that is according to some naturall qualities thereof For these Fathers bring those similitudes to declare the Mysterie of the Incarnation against the Heresie of Eutyches who denied the naturall qualities and properties of the two Natures of God and man to remaine distinct in the Person of Christ which Error they reiected by the example of the Eucharist where the naturall qualities of Bread remaine together with the Bodie of Christ in the same Sacrament Which naturall qualities 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 seem common to the Mysteries of both the Incarnation and Eucharist and so the similitude seeme more fit and proper though the Fathers knew well that the phrase did not agree to both Mysteries equally in the same sense Which obscure vttering his mind is the lesse to be wondered at in Theodoret because he doth professe in that place not to speake plainely as fearing that some Infidels or Catechumes were present to whom the Mysterie of Transubstantiation was not to be reuealed Non oportet saith hee aperte dicere est enim veresimile adesse aliquos non initiatos Much lesse cause haue they to stand vpon the words of S. Augustine Quod videtur in Altari panis est quod etiam occuli renunciant Quod autem fides postulat panis est corpus Christi For the sense is That consecrated Bread is Bread in outward apparance and the naturall Accidences of Bread truly remaine as the eye doth witnesse but inwardly and according to the substance it is not Bread but the Bodie of Christ as Faith requireth we beleeue And it is to be noted that these words are not extant in the workes of S. Augustine but alledged by venerable Bede a follower of S. Augustines Doctrine and so it is not likely they are to be vnderstood but as Bede vnderstood them who sets downe his mind in these words The forme of Bread is seene but the substance of Bread is not there nor any other Bread but onely that Bread which came downe from Heauen ANSVVER Demonstration hath largely beene made by our part that
Luc. 22.18.1 Cor. 10.16 11.26.27.28 Secondly the same affirmeth not that the substance of Bread and Wine is abolished Thirdly naturall reason sheweth that accidents must haue a subiect of inhaerencie and that bare formes and shadowes of things cannot nourish without corporall substance Fourthly the sences of Tast and Feeling discerne apparantly a corporietie in the elements receiued In this case there is no reason to imagine that our sences are deluded or that God almightie by miracle worketh in a contrarie manner to the course of nature and to that which he hath otherwise reuealed in his word It is not sufficient for Romists to affirme That God vseth a miraculous course in these things and to palliate absurdities repugnant to sence reason and scripture vnder pretext of Gods omnipotencie but they must prooue by diuine Reuelation that he will doe this for God effecteth not all things by his omnipotencie which men may imagine to be possible In the wordes of our Sauiour This is my Bodie This cuppe is the new Testament in my Bloud c. there is not a sillable concerning accidents without a subiect or concerning any miracle wrought in the Sacrament by omnipotencie neither is there any such doctrine elsewhere reuealed And if Christs words be expounded figuratiuely according to S. Augustine Tertullian Theoderit Origen Bertram c. they make nothing for corporall presence by indistance of place and if they be vnderstood literally they prooue not Transubstantiation for Bread may be called the bodie of Christ by an inusitate forme of speaking which according to the Tenet of some learned Diuines is no trope or figure And if neither of these expositions content our Aduersaries they might haue beleeued the words of the holy Text as they sound literally and a reall presence of Christs Bodie and Bloud wrought by the power of the holy Ghost without defining and determining the expresse manner how For if they beleeue that accidents subsist without a substance and nourish and are tasted and felt and passe into the stomach and yet are not able to expresse the distinct manner how and if they beleeue a substantiall presence of Christs indiuiduall humane bodie in many hosts and yet are vnable to declare the maner how Why might they not haue suspended other questions concerning the distinct manner of presence and maintained onely a true and mysticall presence the distinct manner whereof is incomprehensible in this life and not haue disturbed the peace of the Church by defining as an article of Faith such a doctrine as hath no foundation in diuine Reuelation to make it appeare certaine and infallible IESVITS 1. Consideration The first is grounded vpon the supposall of two things most certaine First that the Primitiue Church preaching vnto Pagans Iewes and other Infidels the rest of Christian mysteries as the Trinitie the Incarnation the Resurrection of the bodie did most carefully keepe as much as might be from their knowledge the mysteries of the Eucharist yea Catechumens and Nouices were not before Baptisme fully taught or instructed therein Secondly the reason moouing the Primitiue Church to be carefull in this point was least Catechumens and Infidels being fully acquainted with the whole mysterie the one should be scandalized and the other mocke thereat Hence it was accounted such a haynous offence that Christians should discouer this secret vnto Infidels or dispute about the difficulties thereof in their presence The Councell of Alexandria relating the crimes of Arians number this as one of the greatest They were not ashamed in publique and as it were vpon a scaffold to treat of the mysteries before Catechumens and which is worse before Pagans And a little after Jt is not lawfull to publish the Mysteries before them that are not initiated for feare least Pagans out of ignorance mocke and Catechumens entring into curiosities be scandalized And againe Before Catechumens and which is more before Iewes and Pagans blaspheming Christianitie they handled a question about the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour S. Ambrose saith To declare the mysteries vnto them that be Catechumens is not Tradition but Prodition seeing by such declarations danger is incurred least they be diuulged vnto Jnfidels that will scoffe at them This supposed I infer that the seeming absur dities of the Catholique reall presence should incourage a true Christian mind to beleeue it for a true Christian desires to beleeue and firmely cleaue vnto the reall presence that was beleeued by the Primitiue Church But this was a reall presence accompanied with many so seemingly grosse absurdities that the Church had no hope to satisfie Infidels therein or to keepe them from blaspheming but by concealing the mysterie from them and consequently they held the Catholique not the Protestant Doctrine in this point The Protestant Doctrine that makes Christs bodie present spiritually by Faith vnto the deuout Receiuer that communicating thinks sweetly of Christs passion and death containes no mysterie to be concealed in respect of the seeming absurdities ANSWER In the daies of the Fathers Heathens Iewes and Heretickes might enter into the Church and heare the publicke Sermons and preaching as appeareth by the fourth councell of Carthage and Infidels might read the bookes and tractates of the Fathers But the Fathers in their sermons to the people and also in their written bookes deliuered the Doctrine of the holy mysteries as appeareth by Ireneus Iustin Martyr S. Cyprian Gregorie Nissen Cyrill of Hierusalem S. Chrysostome S. Augustine S. Ambrose c. Neither is it apparant that the said Fathers taught any other secret Doctrine touching the holy mysteries than such as they preached in their Homilies and penned in their Bookes and therefore these Homilies and Bookes being publique it appeareth not that the Primitiue Church was more carefull to conceale the Doctrine of the Eucharist than of Baptisme or of the Trinitie The Obiections out of Athanasius and S. Ambrose shew that it was held vnlawfull in those ages to treat or dispute of the holy Eucharist intempestiuè that is before Heathens which were not at all instructed in the first Principles of Religion or to treat of this Doctrine in prophane places or auditories But what is this to Transubstantiation For it was held vnlawfull in the Primitiue Church in maner aforesaid that is in an vndue time order place to treat or dispute of the mysteries of Baptisme or of other profound mysteries belonging to Christian faith Also if it were granted that some antient Fathers beleeuing a reall Presence did therefore conceale the doctrine of the holy Eucharist Ratione scandali because of offence of Infidels arising vpon many difficulties and seeming contradictions to sence and common reason it followeth not from hence that those Fathers beleeued Popish Transubstantiation for many difficulties and repugnances to sence and common reason are found in Consubstantiation as well as in Transubstantiation and sundrie places of the Fathers may with more
word of any definition of the Church therefore Ea Res That thing by which he answered was a Foundation of prime and settled Scripture Doctrine not any definition of the Church Therefore that which he tooke from the Foundation of the Church to fasten the Stone that shooke was not a definition of the Church but the Foundation of the Church it selfe the Scripture vpon which it builded as appeareth in the Mileuitan Councell where the Rule by which Pelagius was condemned is the Rule of Scripture Rom. 5.12 Therefore S. Augustine goes on in the same sense That the Disputor is not to be borne any longer that shall endeuour to shake the Foundation it selfe vpon which the whole Church is grounded Secondly If S. Augustine did meane by Founded and Foundation the definition of the Church because of these words This thing is founded This is made firme by full authoritie of the Church and the words following these To shake the foundation of the Church yet it can neuer follow out of any or all these Circumstances and these are all That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall in the Faith For first no man denyes but the Church is a Foundation That things defined by it are founded vpon it And yet hence it cannot follow That the thing that is so founded is Fundamentall in the Faith for things may be founded vpon humane Authoritie and be verie certaine yet not Fundamentall in the Faith Nor yet can it follow This thing is founded therefore euerie thing determined by the Church is founded Againe that which followes That those things are not to be opposed which are made firme by full Authoritie of the Church cannot conclude they are therefore fundamentall in the Faith For full Church Authoritie is but Church Authoritie and Church Authoritie when it is at full Sea the time that included the Apostles being past and not comprehended in it is not simply Diuine therefore the Sentence of it not fundamentall in the Faith And yet no erring Disputor may be endured to shake the Foundation which the Church in Councell layes But plaine Scripture with euident sense or a full demonstratiue argument must haue roome where a wrangling and erring Disputor may not be allowed it And there 's neither of these but may conuince the definition of the Councell if it be ill founded And the Articles of the Faith may easily prooue it is not fundamentall if in deed and veritie it be not so And the B. hath read some bodie that sayes Is it not you That things are fundamentall in the Faith two wayes One in their Matter such as are all things as be so in themselues the other in the Manner such as are all things that the Church hath defined and determined to be of Faith And that so some things that are de modo of the manner of being are of Faith But in plaine truth this is no more than if you should say Some things are fundamentall in the Faith and some are not For wrangle while you will you shall neuer be able to prooue That any thing which is but de modo a consideration of the manner of being onely can possibly be fundamentall in the Faith And since you make such a Foundation of this place I will a little view the Mortar with which it is laid by you it is a venture but I shall find it vntempered Your assertion is All Points defined by the Church are fundamentall your proofe this place Because that is not to be shaken which is setled by full authoritie of the Church Then it seemes your meaning is that this Point there spoken of The remission of 〈◊〉 sinne in Baptisme of Infants was defined when S. Augustine wrote this by a full Sentence of a Generall Councell First If you say it was Bellarmine will tell you it is false and that the Pelagian Heresie was neuer condemned in an Oecumenicall Councell but only in Nationalls But Bellarmine is deceiued for while they stood out impudently against Nationall Councels some of them defended Nestorius which gaue occasion to the first Ephesine Councell to excommunicate and depose them And yet this will not serue your turne for this place For S. Augustine was then dead and therefore could not meane the Sentence of that Councell in this place Secondly And if you say it was not then defined in an Oecumenicall Synod plena Authoritas Ecclesiae the full Authoritie of the Church there mentioned doth not stand properly for the Decree of an Oecumenicall Councell but for some Nationall as this was condemned in a Nationall Councell and then the full Authoritie of the Church here is no more than the full Authoritie of this Church of Africke And I hope that Authoritie doth not make all Points defined by it to be Fundamentall You will say Yes if that Councell be confirmed by the Pope And I must euer wonder why S. Augustine should say The full Authoritie of the Church and not bestow one word vpon the Pope by whose Authoritie onely that Councell as all other haue their fulnesse of Authoritie in your iudgement An inexpiable omission if this Doctrine concerning the Pope were true F. Secondly J required to know what Points the B. would account Fundamentall Hee said All the Points of the Creed were such B. Against this I hope you except not For since the Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the two Regular Precepts by which a Diuine is gouerned about the Faith since your owne Councell of Trent decrees That it is that Principle of Faith in which all that professe Christ doe necessarily agree Et Fundamentum firmum vnicum not the firme alone but the onely Foundation since it is Excommunication ipso iure for any man to contradict the Articles contained in that Creed since the whole body of the Faith is so contained in the Creed as that the substance of it was beleeued euen before the comming of Christ though not so expressely as since in the number of the Articles since Bellarmine confesses That all things simply necessarie for all mens saluation are in the Creed and the Decalogue What reason can you haue to except And yet for all this euerie thing Fundamentall is not of a like neerenesse to the Foundation nor of equall Primenesse in the Faith And the B. graunting the Creed to be Fundamentall doth not denie but that there are Quaedam prima Credibilia Certaine prime Principles of Faith in the bosome whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded vp One of which since Christ is that of S. Iohn Euery Spirit that confesseth Iesus Christ come in the flesh is of God And one both before the comming of Christ and since is that of S. Paul He that comes to God must beleeue that God is and that he is a
Church of which a Councell be it neuer so generall is a verie little part Yea and this verie Assistance is not so absolute nor in that manner to the whole Church as it was to the Apostles neyther doth Christ in that place speake directly of a Councell but of his Apostles Preaching and Doctrine 2. As for Christs being with them vnto the end of the World the Fathers are so various that in the sense of the antient Church wee may vnderstand him present in Maiestie in Power in Aid and Assistance against the difficulties they should find for preaching Christ which is the natiue sense as I take it And this promise was made to support their weakenesse As for his presence in teaching by the Holy Ghost few mention it and no one of them which doth speakes of any infallible Assistance further than the succeeding Church keepes to the Word of the Apostles as the Apostles kept to the guidance of the Spirit Besides the Fathers referre their speech to the Church vniuersall not to anie Councell or Representatiue Bodie And Maldonate addes That this his presence by teaching is or may be a Collection from the place but is not the intention of Christ. 3. For the Rocke vpon which the Church is founded which is the next place wee dare not lay any other Foundation than Christ Christ layd his Apostles no question but vpon himselfe With these S. Peter was layd no man questions And in prime place of Order would his clayming Successors be content with that as appeares and diuerse Fathers witnesse by his particular designement Tu es Petrus But yet the Rocke euen there spoken of is not S. Peters person eyther onely or properly but the Faith which hee professed And to this beside the Euidence which is in Text and Truth the Fathers come in with very full consent And this That the Gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it is not spoken of the not 〈◊〉 of the Church principally but of the not falling away of it from the Foundation Now a Church may erre and daungerously too and yet not fall from the Foundation especially if that of Bellarmine be true That there are many things euen de Fide of the Faith which yet are not necessarie to saluation Besides euen here againe the promise of this stable edification is to the whole Church not to a Councell at the least no further than a Councell builds as a Church is built that is vpon Christ. 4. The last place is Christs Prayer for S. Peters Faith The 〈◊〉 sense of which place is That Christ prayed and obtained for S. Peter perseuerance in the grace of God against the strong temptation which was to winnow him aboue the rest But to conclude an infallibilitie from hence in the Pope or in his Chaire or in the Romane See or in a Generall Councell though the Pope be President I find no antient Fathers that dare aduenture it And Bellarmine himselfe besides some Popes in their owne Cause and that in Epistles counterfeit or falsely alledged hath not a Father to name for this sense of the place till he come downeto Chrysologus Theophylact and S. Bernard of which Chrysologus his speech is but a flash of Rhetorike and the other two are men of Yesterday compared with Antiquitie and liued when it was Gods great grace and our wonder the corruption of the time had not made them corrupter than they are And Thomas is resolute that what is meant here beyond S. Peters person is referred to the whole Church And the Glasse vpon the Canon Law is more peremptorie than he euen to the denyall that it is meant of the Pope And if this place warrant not the Popes Faith Where is the infallibilitie of the Councell that depends vpon it And for all the places together weigh them with indifferencie and either they speake of the Church including the Apostles as all of them doe and then all graunt the voyce of the Church is Gods voyce Diuine and Infallible or else they are generall vnlimitted and applyable to priuate Assemblies as well as Generall Councels which none graunt to be infallible but some mad Enthusiasts or else they are limitted not simply into All Truth but All necessarie to Saluation in which I shall easily graunt a Generall Councell cannot erre if it suffer it selfe to be led by this 〈◊〉 of Truth in the Scripture and take not vpon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit For suppose these places or any other did promise Assistance euen to Infallibilitie yet they graunted it not to euerie Generall Councell but to the Catholike Bodie of the Church it selfe And if it be in the whole Church principally then is it in a Generall Councell but by Consequent as the Councell represents the whole And that which belongs to a thing by consequent doth not otherwise nor longer belong vnto it than it consents and cleaues to that vpon which it is a Consequent And therefore a Generall Councell hath not this Assistance but as it keepes to the whole Church and Spouse of Christ whose it is to heare his Word and determine by it And therefore if a Generall Councell will goe out of the Churches Way it may easily goe without the Churches Truth 4. Fourthly I consider That All agree That the Church in generall can neuer erre from the Faith necessarie to saluation No Persecution no Temptation and no Gates of Hell whatsoeuer is meant by them can euer so preuaile against it For all the members of the Militant Church cannot erre either in the whole Faith or in any Article of it it is impossible For if all might so erre there could be no vnion betweene them as members and Christ the Head And no vnion betweene Head and members no Bodie and so no Church which cannot be But there is not the like consent That Generall Councels cannot erre And it seemes strange to me that the Fathers hauing to doe with so many Heretikes and so many of them opposing Church Authoritie in their condemnation this Proposition euen in tearmes A Generall Councell cannot erre should be found in none of them that I can yet see Suppose it were true That no Generall Councell had erred in any matter of moment to this day which will not be found true yet this would not haue followed that it is therefore infallible and cannot erre I haue not time to descend into particulars therefore to the Generall still S. Augustine puts a difference betweene the Rules of Scripture and the definitions of men This difference is Praeponitur Scriptura That the Scripture hath the Prerogatiue That Prerogatiue is That whatsoeuer is found written in Scripture may neither be doubted nor disputed whether it be true or right But the Letters of Bishops may not onely be disputed but corrected by Bishops that are more learned and wise than they or by