yours Cath. Because we never heare of any cleare and undeniable miracles I am sure ye have none to confirme the articles wherein ye Protestants differ from us no nor any that lookes like miracles when they are compared with ours 14 Minist Seeing thou dost not desire to speake of miracles let us returne to Scripture Grant that the texts of Gods Word which we bring against Popery were not cleare must they not therefore be believed because forsooth they are obscure Christian Faith must be obscure honest fellow Doth not thy Parish Priest instruct thee thus Cath. My Pastor and Confessor both tell me that the mysteries of Christian Faith are obscure but never incredible Min. Now friend I have caught thee Is it not incredible that there is no bread in the Sacrament of the Altar Why therefore dost thou believe Transubstantiation as a mystery of Faith Cath. It is rather incredible there should be any bread in the blessed Sacrament for if there were why should all Catholicks deny a thing that hath so great appearance Whether bread be there or no Priests have the same almes for saying Masse no gaine acrues to them by Transubstantiation On the other side its impossible that all Catholicks should be so mad as to contradict their own senses if God had not commanded them not to credit their eyes and tast in this Divine mystery but rather to rely upon his words and believe that the blessed Sacrament is his Body if it be Christs Body it can not be bread because our bodies are no bread and Christs Body is of the same nature with ours 15 Min. Alas poor ignorant soule Christs words must be understood spiritually he himselfe told the Disciples that his words are spirit and life Cath. Iohn 6. I heard our Pastor the last Sonday explaine that same text to confirme Transubstantiation For he said that Christ is in the Sacrament truly and really but with a spirituall presence and that we receive his very Body and Bloud though not in a corporall manner there is some difference quoth he betweene eating of Christs Flesh and eating a piece of beefe This onely was Christs meaning when he said that his words were spirit and life which no way can prejudice Transubstantiation though some Puritans thinke that they are contrary to the reall presence Whether bread be there or no Christs true Body and Bloud is received in the Communion according Protestants so that it concerns them as much as Catholicks to interpret these words of Christs as we do unlesse ye will become Calvinists by saying that ye eate Christs Body by Faith that is ye believe to receive him when ye do not which is a lying and false Faith or that ye receive his grace but not himself and that is to deny in plain termes the reall presence All this did our Pastor teach in the Cathechisme 16 Min. Well in this matter none is bound to believe your Pastor or his Cathechisme we believe that Christ is really present in the Sacrament but how he is there we do not examine neither ought the Roman Church or the Councell of Lateran impose Transubstantiation upon us as a thing necessary to be believed Cath. I have heard talke much of that Councell of Lateran they say there were present thereat the Pope and two Pattiarchs of the East 70. Metropolitans 400. Bishops and 800 other learned men out of all parts of the world If Transubstantiation was not a necessary article of Faith they did very ill to declare it one and condemne as Hereticks all such as denyed it Yet me thinks the testimony of so many learned men is of greater weight I pray Sir pardon me if I offend you I do not intend it then the testimony of any reformed Church to the contrary I never heard of such a Councell in any Protestant Church It s true I heare that the Ministers of Stratzburg and of the Church of Zurick look as reverendly as the Protestant Church of England and have set forth as exact a Confession of their beliefe as ye have done of yours in the 39. articles but I could never learn that any of you had such an Assembly as the Councell of Lateran or of Trent Therefore ye can not blame Catholicks to preferre the testimony of these Councells before the testimonies of the Church of Stratzburg Zurick or that of England which was modeld as our Priests tell us by six Bishops and six other men or the major part of them seven of them were sufficient to cast Christian Religion take away Sacraments alter the matter and forme of them and change the ancient ceremonies Without doubt its more reasonable to rely upon the Councell of Trent then upon the twelve or seven persons that invented the Common prayer Booke and the Ritual of the English Church 17 Min. Hast thou ever heard of one Fr. Paulo who writ the History of the Councell of Trent and describes how the holy Ghost was sent in a bag thither from Rome Cath. I have heard much of that man they say he was no Saint at least of our Church and had a spleene against the Pope If what he writes were true not onely the Bishops and others who were in the Councell of Trent had beene mad or Impostors but all the Catholicks of the world who accepted the same as a true Councell ought to be declared and recorded naturall fooles It s more credible that Fr. Paulo was a lying Knave then that all the Catholicks of the world are naturall fooles or that all the Bishops of the Couuncell were Impostors Therefore I can not believe his History of the Councell of Trent Truly his expression of the holy Ghosts journey in a bag proves him to have been a profane fellow They say his history is both solidly and elegantly confuted by Palavicini the Jesuite It s strange to me how sober Protestants can believe such fopperies and wicked practises of the chief Prelats and persons of the Catholick Church 18 Min. Hold there friend Dost thou thinke that onely the Roman Catholicks are the whole Catholick Church ye are but a part Cath. I am sure Roman Catholick alone were the whole Catholick Church before that Luther and Calvin begun their pretended Reformation They and all ye Protestants differ from us in Faith Therefore ye are no part of the Catholick Church that was called so in the year 1516. If God hath Instituted another Catholick Church since and ye make that appear I am content to call ye Catholicks but untill then Master Doctor you must excuse me Min. Ye and we believe the same things onely ye differ from us in some petty matters not necessary to be believed as Transubstantiation Cath. Do you call that a petty thing which the Catholick Church defined to be a matter of Faith who shall be the Judge of what is necessary or not necessary to be believed Min. Not your Pope nor his Councels because y are a part and have a prejudice
the Catholick Religion in VVisbich Castle as Master Bluet Doctor VVatson Bishop of Lincolne and others These had it from the said Master Neale and other Catholicks present at Parkers Consecratiod in the Nags-head as Master Constable affirmes The story was divulged to the great griefe of the newly consecrated yet being so evident a truth they durst not contradict it notwithstanding that not onely the nullitie of their Consecration but also the illegalitie of the same Counterblast fol. 301. was objected in print against them not long after by that famous Writer Doctor Stapleton and others whose words I will set downe in the proper place 5 Parker and the rest of the Protestant Bishops not being able to answer the Catholicks arguments against thâ— invaliditie of their Ordination nor to cry downe the illegall and extravagant manner of it at the Nags-head werâ— forced to beg an Act of Parliament whereby they mighâ— enjoy the temporalities notwithstanding the knowne defects of their Consecration against the Canons of thâ— Church and the Lawes of the Land For albeit Edwarâ— the VI. Sanders lib. 3 de schism Mason Pag. 121. Poulton in his Kalend. pag. 141. n. 5. Rite of Ordination was reestablished by Act oâ— Parliament in the first yeare of Queene Elizabeths reignâ— yet it was notorious that the Ordination of the Nags head was very different from it and framed ex tempore bâ— Scorys Puritanicall spirit that hated no lesse a set forme oâ— consecrating Bishops then of praying to God The word of the Act are Such forme and order for the consecrating 〈◊〉 Archbishops Bishops Priests c. as was set forth in the timâ— of King Edward the VI. shall stand and be in full force and effect and all Acts and things heretofore had made or done by any person or persons in or about any Consecration Confirmation or Investing of any person or persons elected to the office or dignitie of Archbishop Bishop c. by vertue of the Queenâ— Letters Patents or Commission sithence the beginning of he reigne be and shall be by authoritie of this Parliament declared and judged good and perfect in all respects and purposes any matter or thing that can or may be objected to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding 8. Eliza. 1. By which Act appeares that not onely King Edwards Rite but any other used since the beginning of the Queenes reigne upon her Commission was enacted for good and consequently that of the Nags-head might passe Hence it waâ— that they were called Parliament Bishops 6 Master Mason a great stickler for the valid Ordination of Parker Pag. 133. of whom depends that of all the Protestanâ— Clergy seeing this to be over cleare to be denyed laboureth to shadow it at least in some sort saying that thâ— Queene did but dispense with the trespasses against her own Lawes not in essentiall points of Ordination but onely in accidentall not in substance but in circumstance But if the Consecration was at Lambeth and according the forme oâ— King Edward the VI. what ueed was there of any dispensation especially given not in conditionall but in very absolute termes both substance and circumstance was acâ—ording the Protestant Lawes The truth is all the world â—ught at the Nags-head Consecration and held it to be â—valid not so much for the circumstance of being perâ—rmed in a Taverne as for the new forme invented by â—ory differing not onely from that of the Church but alâ—â— from that which is prescribed in the English Ritual of â—dward the VI. and confirmed 1. Eliza. 7 This is demonstrated in the publike Abridgement of Diers reports 7. Eliza 234. and notorious â—se of Bishop Bonner who being prisoner in the Marshalâ—a was indited by Master Horne one of the first Protestant â—â—shops consecrated by Master Parker or together with â—m for refusing to take the oath of supremacy He apâ—eared before the Judges of the Kings Bench. The indiâ—ment being read he excepted against it because the oath â—as said to have beene tendered unto him by Robert Horne â—â—shop of VVinchester who was by no Law Bishop and â—herefore had no authoritie to tender him the oath After â—uch debate at the barre and after by all the Judges at â—argeants-Inne in Fleetstreete in Judge Catline the chiefe â—ustice his Chamber it was resolved by all the Judges â—hat Bishop Bonner his plea upon this issue that he was not â—ulpable because Horne was no Bishop when he tendered â—im the oath should be received and that the Jury should â—y it noâ— what the triall was appeareth by that he was â—t condemned nor ever troubled any further for that â—se though he was a man specially shot at Hereupon in â—e next yeare following 8. Eliza. the aforesaid Act of â—arliament was made 8 Notwithstanding all these testimonies and evidences â—f Protestants against themselves and the constant prause of Catholicks reordaining their Ministers not condiâ—onally but absolutely an evident argument of their â—eere secularitie and laytie the moderne Protestant â—ergy endeavour to make the world believe that Parker â—d the first Protestant Bishops were consecrated by imâ—sition of hands of true and lawfull Bishops with great â—â—lemnity at Lambeth This they prove by certaine Reâ—rds produced by Master Mason in the yeare 1613. fifty â—ares after they ought to have beene shewed and in a tiâ—e it can not be testified by any lawfull witnesses of â—eirs that they were not forged There can not be a more evident marke of forgery then the concealment of Registers if they be usefull and necessary to the very same persons in whose custody they are if they did produce none when their adversaries did insult and triumph over them it s as impossible any should be then extant as it is that men should conspire with their greatest adversaries to take upon themselves and their Church an everlasting infamie It is not worth the refuting that which some moderne Protestants say Ye have no Witnesses for the storâ— of the Nags-head and other things objected against Protestants but Roman Catholicks we value not their testimony because they are our knowne adversaries a party concerned against us c. This weake answer is very frequent though no lesse ridiculous then the exception that a certaine Officer of the Parliament in Ireland made against the testimony of all the Inhabitants of a Village he had pillaged They complained to his Commander who shewing unto the Officer how many witnesses there were of his misdemeanour he replyed there was not one lawfull witnesse amongst them because they were all concerned in the businesse and a part when Protestancy begunne in England and the first Protestant Bishops were consecrated at the Nags-head all who were not Protestants were Roman Catholicks no others could be witnesses of their Ordination but Catholicks or themselves and truly their owne silence in a matter that concerned them so much to speake against doth demonstrate they had nothing to say against the testimony of Catholicks Silent witnesses in
Clergy If not they are guilty of the losse of their owne soules for venturing so rashly being forewarned to â—ommit so many and so great sacrileges against God and his holy Sacraments 22 But as to the impossibility of forging so many Registers in case there be so many it is easily answered â—hat it is no more then that the Consecrator and other persons concerned should have conspired to give in a falâ—e Certificat that the Consecration was performed with all due ceremonies and rites and thereby deceive the Courts or make them dissemble and this is a thing moâ—e possible and probable then that all the Protestant Clergy should have conspired not to produce the said Registers when they were so hardly prest by their adversaâ—ies Or that so many Catholicks should have beene so â—oolish to invent and maintaine the story of the Nagsâ—ead in such time when if it had beene false they might â—ave beene convinced by thousand witnesses Or that so many grave and learned Divines who for conscience sake â—eft all should without feare of damnation ingage themselves and posterity in damnable sacaileges by occasioning so many sacrilegious reordinations upon their charâ— ging Protestants with no Ordination no moderate anâ— prudent man can suspect that such persons should damnâ— their soules out of meere spight against the Church oâ— England If we Catholicks did reordaine the Protestant Ministers upon title of their heresie and not of theiâ— knowne invalidity we should also reordaine the Greciaâ— Priests which is notoriously against our practise and Tenets in so much that we hold our selves obliged to examine with all diligence whether there be any probability of the person having received valid orders and finding but any probable appearance thereof the practise is and hath beene for diverse ages to give orders not absolutely but conditionally whereas it is notorious that all our English Ministers who after their conversion have beene made Priests received their Orders in absolute termes without any condition adjoyned in the same manner which wâ— use in ordaining meere laymen 23 Let us go one step further with our Protestant Clergy and suppose that their first Bishops were ordained by Catholicks we reserve yet another nullitie in store foâ— their consecration And to wave many doubts that mighâ— be moved concerning the matter of their Ordination wâ— will onely speake of the forme or words prescribed in the Protestant Rituall It is a knowne principle common to both Protestants and Catholicks that in the forme of Ordination there must be some word expressing the authority and power given to the person ordained the intention of the Ordainer expressed by generall words indisserent and appliable to all or divers degrees of holy Orders is not sufficient to make one a Priest or a Bishopâ— As for example Receive the holy Ghost these words being indifferent to Priesthood and Episcopacy and used iâ— both Ordinations are not sufficiently expressive of eitheâ— in particular unlesse Protestants will now at length professe themselves Presbyterians making no distinction betweene Priests and Bishops but they are as farre from that as we Catholicks In the words or forme wherebâ— Protestants ordaine Bishops there is not one word expressing Episcopall power and authority The forme 〈◊〉 this Take the holy Ghost and remember that thou stirre 〈◊〉 the grace of God which is in thee by impositions of hands foâ— God hath not given us the spirit of feare but of power and loâ—e and sobernesse The grace of God is given by imposiâ—on of hands in all holy Orders as also the spirit of â—ower love and sobernesse There is not one word in â—his forme expressing the difference and power of Episcoâ—acy Let Protestants search all Catholick Rituals not â—nely of the West but of the East they will not finde â—ny one forme of consecrating Bishops that hath not the â—ord Bishop in it or some others expressing the particuar authority and power of a Bishop distinct from all oâ—her degrees of holy Orders See Ioannes Morinus in his â—earned Commentaries De sacris Ecclesiae Ordinibus printed â—t Paris an 1655 who sets downe the ancient formes both â—n Greeke and Latin as well of Priesthood as of Episcoâ—acy 24 The forme or words whereby men are made Priests must expresse authority and power to consecrate or make present Christs Body and Bloud whether with or without Transubstantiation is not our present Conâ—roversy with Protestants but onely whether their forme hath words expressing authority and power to make Christs Body truly present See the forme of Priesthood used by the English Clergy set downe by me in the first Chap. num 10. and you will not finde one word expressing this power and authority Receive the holy Ghost doth not involve it because it s used in the consecration of Bishops who would be recordained Priests when they receive Episcopall Order if the said words include power â—o consecrate Christs Body To dispense or minister the Sacraments come farre short of the power and authority of consecrating the elements or making present Christs Body Deacons did minister and dispense the Body of Christ to the people in ancient times but were never â—houht to have power and authority of consecrating The power of remitting sinnes doth not include power to consecrate or make present the Body and Bloud of Christ for every layman hath power to remit sinnes by baptizing and no layman hath power to consecrate or make present Christs Body Therefore words giving power to remit sinnes doth not include power to consecrate all Sacraments ordained for remission of sinnes as some Protestants endeavour to make the ignorant believe In all formes of ordaining Priests that ever were used in the Easterne or Westerne Church is expresly set downe the word Priest or some other words expressing the particular and proper function and authority of Priesthood If any States or Countrey should say We choose such a person to be King in the word King is sufficiently expressed all Kingly power and authority Therefore the Grecians using the word Priest or Bishop in their formes do sufficiently expresse the respective power of every Order 25 The true reason why the English forme of making Priests and Bishops is so notoriously deficient and invalid is because it was made in King Edward the VI. his time when Zuinglianisme and Puritans did prevaile in the English Church the reall presence was not believed by them of the Clergy who bore sway therefore they did not put in the forme of Priesthood any word expressing authority and power to make Christs Body present They held Episcopacy and Priesthood to be one and the same thing therefore in the forme of making Bishops they put not one word epressing Episcopall function onely some generall termes that might seeme sufficient to give them authority to enjoy the temporalities and Bishopricks This is also the true reason why Parker and his Collegues were content with the Nags-head consecration and why others recurred to extraordinary vocation in Queene Elizabeths time
well versed in Scripture have so much honesty as not to conceale from the world that true sense of Scripture which seemeth to themselves cleare and evident after the combination and examination of all controverted texts But to be briefe and decline all comparisons which are odious let us suppose for the present which Protestants ought to take as a courtesie that learned Protestants and learned Catholicks are equally honest and equally learned both honest and both learned if the contrary be not made appeare by the ensuing demonstration 5 It is impossible for men equally learned and equally honest to have any controversie about the sense of any words of Scripture if the sense be cleare and evident But Protestants and Catholicks who are supposed to be equally learned and equally honest have controversies about the sense of such words of Scripture as concerne Transubstantiation worship of Images and other controverted points Therefore its impossible that the sense of such words of Scripture as relate to Transubstantiation c. should be cleare and manifestly against the Doctrine of Catholicks Therefore the testimony of all Protestant Churches maintaining the clearnesse against them is not onely incredible but manifestly false Because the testimony of Catholicks though in their owne defence is made evidently true by the controversie it selfe a visible and undeniable effect that can proceede from no other cause amongst learned and honest men but from the obscurity of the words and sense wherein their judgements differ If they squable about what is cleare both parties or at least one is ignorant or not honest We Catholicks have no reason to thinke that all our Doctors want knowledge and sincerity its cleare to all Christenâ—ome that in our Church we have in all parts of the world â—oth learned and honest men and if Protestants thinke â—he same of themselves they must grant that our controâ—ersies do manifestly demonstrate the obscurity of Scripture 6 Seeing Scripture is obscure and in no place cleare against Transubstantiation worship of Images Purgatory c. what ground or warrant had the first Protestants for their pretended Reformation would not all the world have reason to laugh at us Catholicks if we should part with that ancient sense of Scripture in favour of Transubstantiation Purgatory c. which we received from the Church that went before us assuring it was revealed by God upon the bare word of Luther Calvin Knox or the â—2 persons that made the Ritual and pretended to reforme in Edward the VI. time the Sacraments both in matter forme and number What signes or miracles did they shew for their extraordinary Mission and Apostleship of reforming the Doctrine of the Catholick Church If any man who received his Land by inheritance from his Ancestors ought not to part with it if not forced by better evidence then his owne how can we part with our Faith and sense of Scripture which is the ground of all our supernaturall inheritance and happinesse untill Protestants shew a better title then the inheritance or continuall succession of our Doctrines from the Apostles They must produce better evidence then their pretended clearnesse of Scripture If they laugh at Quakers notwithstanding all the texts of Scripture which they have at their fingers ends against Protestant Doctrine how do they imagine did Catholicks looke upon the first pretended Reformers One advantage these new Quakers have against all Protestants which Protestants have not against Catholicks and it is that a new Quaker may say with truth to an old or new Protestant he hath as prudent ground and as good evidence for his owne interpretation of Scripture and Religion as the Protestant hath for his their fancies the onely ground of both their Faith being much alike and their Mission being not warranted by any precedent Church This the Protestants can not object against Catholicks because we had alwayes the word and warrant of a precedent visible Church for our interpretation of Scriptures and Religion CHAP. IX VVhether any Puritanicall Congregation be the Catholick Church by reason of their pretended spirit 1 THere not a trades-man or simple woman amongst the purer sort of Protestants who do not imagine themselves to be more infallible in interpreting Scripture then the Pope and all the generall Councells together This infallibility they attribute to the Spirit of God which they all pretend to have But this fond imagination is as easily refuted as the clearnesse of Scripture hath beene in the former Chap. because every pure Protestant or Puritan pretends to have the Spirit of God but that Spirit contradicting it selfe according the diversity of Tenets which the purely inspired hold it is impossible it should be the Spirit of God who can not inspire contradictions Yet they are so obstinate that its impossible to perswade them to the contrary though you may clearly convince them The Pope must be Antichrist Catholick Kings the horns of the Beast religious Orders rags of Rome wherewith the VVhore of Babylon adornes her selfe The Puritans must onely be the Elect the Saints and pure Zealots of the beauteous discipline of Sion which to carry on though whole Nations be extirpated their holy Spirit doth not onely rid them from any remorse of conscience but assures them no worke can be more meritorious If you inquire of them how they know whether this spirit of theirs be good or bad of God or the Divel Calvin their Patriarch and Master answers that they do discerne it as clearly as they do white from black sweet from sower and light from darknesse his proofe is the experience and testimony of every one of the faithfull Brethren concerning the purenesse of his owne spirit 2 This Calvinisticall and private spirit being so hidden and undiscernable can not be a sufficient and prudent ground at least for any man that hath it not to believe it is the Spirit of Truth and of the Catholick Church Men who are not in the true Church must be led into it by some credit and exteriour signes And though Faith be a gift of God yet it is communicated by preaching and hearing Rom. 10. We do not deny that God must helpe all Catholicks interiourly with his supernaturall grace and spirit but the difference between the Puritan and Catholick spirit is that the Puritan spirit inspireth a beliefe contrary to reason the Catholick spirit inspires a beliefe non contrary but agreable to reason Though Christian Faith be above reason it is not unreasonable But it can not be agreable to reason that any person believe a Puritanicall spirit without any more proofe of the goodnesse of it then a Puritans word against a sense of Scripture which hath beene continued in the Roman Churches since the primitive times as is evident by tradition testimony of Fathers and acknowledged by the Magdeburg Centuries and other Protestant Writers Therefore the private spirit can not be a sufficient proposall of the true Faith or a credible and convincing signe of the true Church
3 Another proofe that no private spirits interpretation of Scripture can be the true one being contrary to the publick testimony of the Church which went before it and Puritans pretend to reforme may be borrowed from Saint Peter who giveth to understand Pet. 1.20 that no private interpretation can be the true sense of Scripture The reason is cleare because there is none if not confirmed in grace who may not be an obstinate Heretick against the true sense of Scripture in controverted texts but no man can be obstinate against his owne private interpretation and the sense of his private spirit Therefore he can not be an Heretick if the private interpretation of Scripture against the publick testimony of the precedent or present Church which he impugneth be the true meaning and sense of Gods Word 4 Perhaps Puritans will grant that its impossible for any of them to be an Heretick seeing their spirit is infallible If this be granted it s also impossible for any other to be an Heretick or obstinate against their spirit or interpretation because he who is obstinate may be convinced and it s not possible to convince any man but by cleare reason or at least by lawfull witnesses Cleare reason Puritans can not pretend for their spirit because it s against reason to believe it Lawfull witnesses for it there can be none or no more then one which is not enough nor allowed as lawfull in a mans owne case Though every Puritan giveth not onely a testimony of his owne but also of his Brethrens spirit yet he is no lawfull witnesse for any other mans spirit because he hath no better evidence or ground for the testimony he gives then the other mans owne word in commendation of his owne spirit he neither seeth the spirit of the other nor any signe whereby it may be made credible onely he may witnesse that the man whose spirit it is sayeth it is of God but one mans word in his owne case is no sufficient evidence for a lawfull testimony Therefore there are no lawfull witnesses for the private spirit and consequently none can be obstinate against us because none can be convinced that it is of God Whence it followeth that the spirit can be no sufficient proposall of Gods Word or sense and therefore no inspired Congregation of Protestants can be the Catholick Church CHAP. X. VVhether that Congregation of persons which live in communion with and subjection to the Roman Church be the Catholick and true Church of God 1 THis question seemeth to have beene resolved by what is said in former Chapters Because iâ— there be a Catholick Church Vide summam Concâ—liorum A.F. longo in Conâ—il â—â—orâ—n 〈◊〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 and that is noâ— all Congregations of Christians taken together nor any Protestant Church in particular the dispute can onely be now between the Greek Church and the Roman but the Grecians having so many times altered their Faith so many of their ancient Patriarchs being condemned Hereticks and all their Church being legally convicted of Schisme and Heresie in three generall Councells of Florence Lions and the Lateran they can not pretend to be the true Church which never erred I do not speake of that part of the Greeke Church which communicates with us Roman Catholicks because that is part of the Roman But suppose the Roman Church were not the Catholick I see not what advantage Protestants may have by pleading for the Grecians seeing these agree not with them but are altogether against the pretended Reformation and condemne it as Heresie as appeares by the answer of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Protestants of Germany mentioned by Bellarmine lib. 3. de Euchar cap. 21. in fine 2 To prove therefore that the Roman Church is the true Catholick it must be made appeare that it proposeth sufficiently its Doctrine of Faith as Divine Revelation this sufficient proposall can not be done by cleare and evident reason because the mysteries of Christian Religion are above humane capacity Therefore it must be done according to what hath beene said in the 4. Chap. by authority and the testimony of lawfull witnesses But lawfull witnesses in matters of Faith are onely they whose testimony hath beene confirmed by miracles as hath beene demonstrated in the 2. Chap. Therefore we must prove also miracles if we intend to prove that the Roman Church is the whole Catholick and that it proposeth sufficiently its Doctrine as Divine Revelation Now to the proofe of the assertion 3 That Doctrine is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation which is delivered to us as such by the testimony of lawfull witnesses confirmed by miracles But the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is delivered to us as Divine Revelation by the testimony of lawfull witnesses and their testimony is confirmed by miracles Therefore it s sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation and by consequence the Church of Rome is the true Catholick 4 If the Minor or second proposition be proved my intent is concluded That the Roman Church hath lawfull witnesses of its Doctrine to be Divine Revelation hath this difficulty A lawfull witnesse requires not onely knowledge of what he testifieth but also honesty both qualities are necessary an honest foole being as little to be credited as a knowing knave But how can the Roman Church now extant in the 17. age of Christianity have lawfull witnesses of the Doctrine and sense of Scripture which Christ and the Apostles taught the world so long since Though honesty can not be denyed to many Roman Catholicks yet the knowledge what the Apostles taught which is required for a lawfull witnesse of the true Church can not be granted to any seeing none is now living on earth that conversed with the Apostles This argument doth equally impugne all Churches yet none can answer it but we Roman Catholicks 5 It concernes all the world even our very adversaries to grant that the Roman Catholicks have lawfull witnesses with sufficient knowledge of what Religion and sense of Scripture was taught by the Apostles in the primitive Church nay which is more that no other Church pretending to Reformation can have sufficient knowledge required for lawfull witnesses of the true Religion sense of Scripture and Doctrine of the primitive Church If the Roman Church hath not sufficient knowledge for lawfull witnesses of Christ and the Apostles Doctrine no hereditary King or Prince can have a title or right to his crowne because the right descended to them by inheritance doth depend upon a lawfull testimony averring that they are the true heires of such a man who reigned perhaps three or four hundred yeares ago Henry the IV. of France proved himselfe by lawfull witnesses to be the heire of Saint Lewis But who couldbe a lawfull witnesse that Henry the Great descended of Saint Lewis All France did give a lawfull testimony of it because it was a constant tradition in the whole Kingdome descended from Saint Lewis his time to this present
age That is to say in every Century or age there were honest men and lawfull witnesses who testified that Henry the IV Ancestors descended from Saint Lewis though one onely age could remember or see Saint Lewis yet the next ensuing did see the first and heard their testimony the third did see the second c. In every age did live men whose testimony might be relyed upon It must be granted therefore by all that the knowledge which is grounded upon a continuall and never interrupted tradition is sufficient for lawfull witnesses 6 That the Roman Catholick Church hath a continuall and never interrupted tradition of its Faith and sense of Scripture being taught by Christ and the Apostles can not be denyed by our adversaries it being evident to the world that they who contradicted any article of this Faith we now professe in former ages were looked upon and condemned as Hereticks which is an infallible argument that we in every age received our Doctrine from the former not as the word of men but as the Word of God or as Divine Revelation for if it were not believed as Divine Revelation why should we condemne men as Hereticks because they denyed it Neither do Protestants deny that we believed our tradition and the testimony of our Church to be grounded upon Divine Revelation they onely say we were mistaken and that both our tradition and testimony of the Roman Church was fallible But then we urge that they acknowledge both were infallible in delivering to them the Scripture and testifying that it was the Word of God therefore in delivering and testifying all the rest seeing the same testimony delivering many things together must be of equall authority in all and equally believed by them who accept of it as a lawfull proofe All our pretended Reformers had no other ground in the yeare 1517. to believe Scripture as Divine Revelation but the testimony of the Roman Church Therefore they ought to believe all the rest or not to believe Scripture 7 I said it concernes also our adversaries to grant that their reformed Churches have no lawfull witnesses in matters of Faith because there can not be that sufficient knowledge which is required in a lawfull witnesse of Faith without tradition whereby it may appeare that the Faith and sense of Scripture of this age doth agree with that of the primitive Church If once our adversaries acknowledge lawfull witnesses of things past long since without a constant and never interrupted tradition every man whose spirit of ambition moves him may pretend to be true heire of any hereditary crowne or estate and without further proofe then his owne word and spirit or some obscure text of Scripture will exclude Kings and others whose rights are grounded upon tradition But if tradition be so necessary to preserve and make credible the testimony of men in matters of estates and rights in the Common-wealth it can not be superfluous to make credible the testimony of men concerning matters of Faith 8 It remaines now we prove that the testimony of the Roman Catholick Church hath beene confirmed with supernaturall signes or miracles But seeing there are in the Roman Church lawfull witnesses who prove that the Faith which they now professe is the same with that of the primitive Church miracles also are proved by the same witnesses it being granted by Protestants themselves that miracles were wrought in the primitive Church to confirme the Faith which Christ and his Apostles taught Yet in the Roman Catholick Church there are now lawfull witnesses and have beene in every age since Christs preaching that there have beene miracles done in confirmation of the Roman Faith This is evident to all who read the Ecclesiasticall Histories of present and past times Neither can our adversaries deny that we have lawfull witnesses for miracles now wrought in our Church even in confirmation of that Doctrine wherein we differ from them and reported by so credible testimonies See the 13. Chap. that it were imprudence in any person whosoever to deny them which is enough to propose sufficiently our Doctrine as Divine Revelation But Protestants do not believe our miracles because they imagine that they are against Scriptures that is against their owne interpretation of it and that some miracles have beene false and forged We do not say that all things which the common people thinke to be miracles are really true miracles but we affirme that true miracles there are in our Church and very frequent confirming that very Doctrine which Protestants reject the forgery or knavery of some particular wicked men in feigning miracles can not prejudice all especially such as are seene and experimented by persons of knowne integrity and learning able to discerne betweene true and false miracles otherwise it will follow that all the new Testament must be called in question or denyed to be Gods Word because Saint Thomas his pretended Ghospell or Nicodemus his writings are condemned as forged or Apocryphall That no reformed Church of Protestants can have lawfull witnesses to propose sufficiently their Doctrine as Divine Revelation is evident because for the space of 1500. yeares they were without any visible Church or tradition therefore their witnesses also are invisible and by consequence not lawfull or credible Fox and others made a certaine Catalogue of men who opposed the Doctrine of the Roman Church in former ages but they were known Hereticks and did neither agree amongst themselves nor with Protestants in their Tenets or Religion as hath beene demonstrated by Father Persons in his Examination of Fox his Kalendar and by many others 9 I conclude therefore that seeing Protestants grant there is and hath alwayes beene a Catholick Church upon earth and that Church must have lawfull witnesses testifying their Doctrine to be Divine Revelation it being evident that no Congregation of men can produce any such lawfull witnesses but the Roman Catholicks amongst whom I include also them of the Greeke Church who agree with us it s also evident that there can be no Church Catholick but the Roman CHAP. XI VVhether Transubstantiation and the lawfulnesse of the worship of Images be sufficiently proposed by the testimony of the Roman Catholick Church as Divine revelation and whether Protestants have any lawfull exceptions against them 1 THere are so many Bookes printed in defence of these Catholick Tenets that I judge it superfluous to treate of them ex professo I will onely answer some exceptions that Protestants have made against them to my selfe in diverse occasions That the Roman Church doth propose these articles sufficiently as Divine Revelation is cleare because it proposeth them by the same testimony and confirmed by the sames signes whereby it proposeth Scripture to be Gods Word this last proposall Protestants themselves grant to be so sufficient that no man may in prudence deny it Therefore the same must be said of all the rest and in particular of Transubstantiation and worship of Images 2 But let us
heare the exceptions of Protestants against each of these mysteries Against Transubstantiation they object the evidence of our senses it never being read in Scripture say they that God by a miracle deceived mens senses or made appeare to them one thing for another Moyses and Aarons rod in Egypt was really converted into a serpent and seemed so also to the senses of the spectators The Magicians rods seemed to be serpents to the senses but really were not From hence they conclude that by false miracles and illusions the senses may be deceived but never by true supernaturall signes or miracles Against Transubstantiation they object also novelty of the word and of the thing defined which was in the Councell of Lateran first and after in the Councell of Trent 3 As for worship of Images they looke upon it as idolatry or at least as a thing inclining the common people to it and therefore both dangerous and unlawfull Some object also novelty against it the first time say they worship of Images was heard of being some 800. yeares ago in the second Councell of Nice 4 Now to their first exception and the evidence of their senses against Transubstantiation I answer that the senses are not deceived because according to common Philosophie their proper object which are the accidents do remaine But seeing divers both Catholicks and Protestants do deny that there be any accidents separable from their proper substance my second answer is That there are two sorts of miracles Some miracles are wrought not to be seene but to be believed because they are not onely miracles but also mysteries of Christian Faith The Incarnation or Union of God and man in one person is one of the greatest miracles yet it was not done to be seene or manifested to our senses in this life but being concealed from them to be believed The miracle of Transubstantiation is called by Christ himselfe Mysterium Fidei a mystery of Faith it was not done to be perceived by our senses but to be believed by our understanding 5 Other miracles there are which have been wrought by God to the end they may move us to believe not themselves for they are seene and manifest but some other revealed truth these miracles are patent to our senses because they give us sufficient evidence that the mysteries of Faith may prudently be credited as Divine Revelation Such was Moyses his miracles in Egypt the rod was not turned into a serpent that Pharao and the Egyptians should believe what they did see with their eyes but that they should believe somewhat else to wit that Moyses was sent by God 6 Supposing this difference betweene miracles there can be no difficulty in answering the objection made by Protestants against Transubstantiation Miracles which are not wrought principally to the end that they may be believed by Faith but rather to the end they may be evidently seene and by their meanes other mysteries believed can not deceive the senses because then they would be of no use Gods providence and end in working them would be frustrated Miracles which are together mysteries of Faith and are done that they may be believed and not seene must not appeare evidently to our senses but rather be concealed from them otherwise we should have evidence and beliefe of one thing in the same time The mystery of Transubstantiation is a miracle not to be evidently seene but to be believed Therefore it s no mervaile that it be not patent to our senses when Christ turned water into wine he did it in such a manner that the sense perceived it to be wine because from that evident and sensible miracle they might inferre and believe that he was the true Messias But when he changed bread and wine into his owne Body and Bloud there was no appearance of change it seemed to remaine still bread because the insensible change of one substance to another was a mystery to be credited and not to be seene The Manna which was a figure of the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar did savour to the Jewes whatsoever they fancied though it remained the same substance it was before I see therefore no reason why we Christians should give more credit to our palat then the Jewes who had as much reason to doubt of the Manna as we of the Sacrament nay we have lesse because Christs words are so absolutely and cleare This is my Body if it be his Body it is not bread being impossible that Christs Body should be bread 7 Seeing God will not have the mystery of Transubstantiation be evident to our senses it s not to be thought either superfluous or incredible that the species or appearance of bread and wine worke the same effects which their substance would have done if it were present for God is as coherent in supernaturall things as in naturall its necessary therefore for the concealment of this mystery and for the merit of Christian Faith that no want of the substance of bread and wine may be perceived in the Sacrament by any curious experience of men who would eate and drinke onely conscerated species The not manifesting this great mystery to our senses requireth that the same effects be worked by the species as by bread and wine 8 Some Protestants thinke it a contradiction that one body be present in many places together But all Catholicks hold that Christs Body and Bloud have a spirituall presence in the Sacrament which once granted there can be no difficulty in believing that our Saviours Body and Bloud may be in many places at the same time because it s granted to all things which have a spirituall presence 9 If any inquires how can a body have a spirituall presence I answer him with demanding how can a spirit have a corporall presence How can an Angel have the appearance and presence of a young man whereof there are many examples in Scriptures Whence it followeth that our senses may be deceived or to speake more properly may give occasion to the understanding to be deceived not onely in the mystery of Transubstantiation but also in others expressed in Scripture which is contrary to what our adversaries object Angells seemed to the eyes of Abraham Iosue Tobias and others to be young men and yet they were not men but spirits 10 As for their saying that Transubstantiation is a novelty brought into the Church by the Councell of Lateran an 1215. it s a mistake because the very condemning of of Berengarius as an Heretick for impugning this mystery doth demonstrate it was no novelty but believed as an atticle of Faith not onely before the Councell of Lateran but since the Apostles For otherwise how were it possible that the Patriarchs of Hierusalem and Constantinople 70. Metropolitanes 400. Bishops and 800. Conventuall Priors who were present at that Councell should all agree to declare Transubstantiation to have beene revealed by God to the primitive Church and yet the same to be at the same