resplendant verity of the thing With these promises sayth S. Augustine (c) Quâ promissâ animâ— naturaliter gaudet humana sanorum escas appetendo irruit in vâ—nena fallentium Augustin Ibid. the soules of men are naturally ouerioyed whilest they gape after the promised sight of diuine truth whereof as yet they be not capable the cosening promisers cast into their mouth make them deuoure the poysoned morsells of their falshood Concerning the light of Scripture §. 3. CONCERNING the light of Scripture two thinges are euident First some arguments of probability may be drawne from the Scriptures to proue they are of God which serue for the comfort of Belieuers and may somewhat incline Infidels to belieue vpoÌ„ other greater motiues to wit the authority of God his Church This probable euidence euident probability is al which the testimonies of Scholemen brought by the Minister affirme Secondly the Scripture hath not light to shew it selfe with euident certainty to be the word of God but is belieued to be such without being seene as much as any other point and mystery of fayth to wit vpon the word of God so reuealing deliuered by tradition This is demonstrated because to be the word of God and the rule of fayth is to be true and certayne not only in some partâ— but also in al euery part particle therof so that as sayth our (e) Pag. 16. lin 2. Minister no lyer can speake therein and if (f) Augustin epist. 9. Si ad scripturas admittatur meÌ„dacium quid eis authoritatis remanebit one sentence of Scripture be prooued false the credit of the whole is lost But it is impossible that any man should know by the light euidence of the sense and doctrine of Scripture that the Scripture according to euery booke chapter leafe and line is certayne and assured truth and that no lye or falshood is contayned therein as these seauen Arguments euince The first Argument First because the (g) Hieron epist. ad Aug. 19. inter epist. Aug. Scripturae obscurissimae sunt Iren. l. 2. c. 47. Origen lib. 7. contra Celsum Reuerà multis locis obscurae Vide Bellarm. de Script l. 3. c. 1. Fathers teach and (h) Field Church l. 4. c. 15. No question but there be manifold obscurityes in Scripture Protestants euen our (i) Reply pag. 35. Minister acknowledge that there be many darke and obscure passages of Scripture that the Scripture is full of innumerable difficultyes that sometimes one (k) Quid vel falsò suspicentur non inueniunt Aug. l. 2. de doctr Christ. c. â— Whitaker de Eccles. pag. 220. Quaedam loca de quibus nihil certo statui potest can hardly so much as giue a probable guesse at their meaning but these texts and places cannot be knowne to containe diuine truth no falshood by the euideÌ„ce of the doctrine Therefore we cannot know the Scripture to be the word of God that is nothing but truth by the euidence of the doctrine HeÌ„ce appeareth that Protestants teaching that â—he Scripture is known to be the word of God and that no lye is contayned therein by the euidence and light of the doctrine coÌ„tradict themselues in saying that in many places it is difficill and darke as they cannot assuredly vnderstand it For how can they know by the light of the sense or doctrine that the texts not vnderstood containe nothing but truth The second Argument Secondly the Scriptures are pretended to be known by the maiesty (l) Reply pag. 16. Internall matter maiesty of the bookes Item pag. 30. 68. Field appendix 34. Caluin Instit. l. 1. c. 7. purity of the doctrine but though some mysteries of the Scriptures carry a maiesty in respect of naturall reason and a shew of sublimity aboue it as the Blessed Trinity yet (m) Sunt quaedaÌ„ in sacris litteris quae quia suboffendunt animos ignaros negligentes sui quae maxima turba populariter accusari defendi autem populariter propter mysteria quae in illis coÌ„tinentur non à multis admodum possunt Aug. de vtil cred c. 1. other points of Scripture seeme vnto reason ridiculous and childish As that the serpent did speake to the woman that Adam and Eue were naked without perceiuing themselues to be so that there was day and night before the sunne was created the like Therfore we must haue some other surer ground then this maiesty of the doctrine to be certayne that the Scripture is nothing but truth Gods infallible word The third Argument Thirdly wheras the (n) Reply pag. 19. Minister much vrgeth the harmony of Scripture to proue the same to be of God Though this harmony appeare in diuers thinges yet who doth not know that innumerable seeming contradictions are obiected against Scripture (o) This is euident vnto al that haue read the coÌ„meÌ„taryes of the Fathers many of which are only probably answered by the Fathers many answered by thinges assumed without proofe only because otherwise we must admit contradiction in Scripture (p) This appeareth particularly in the foure first chapters of Genesis and in the Genealogy of our Sauiour And in concording the Chronologyes of the Booke of Kings some places not fully answered but the Fathers were forced to fly from literall vnto allegoricall senses how then could the ancient Fathers know the harmony of Scripture by the euidence of the thing thereon ground their faith that the Scripture is of God Or if they could not how can we For what the Minister boastingly affirmeth (q) Reply pag. 24. lin 15. of himselfe and his fellowes we find at this day a perfect harmony of all the parts of the Gospell among themselues and a perfect agreement of the same with the Scriptures of the old Testament This Ministeriall bragge I say of their finding the harmony of all Scriptures at this day aboue all the Ancients by the euidence of the thing is incredible for men cannot be more sure of the perfect harmony of Scriptures then they are sure that all contradictions laid to the charge of Scripture haue true solutions But no man liuing euer was or is sure by euidence that all the solutions and answeres vsed to reconcile Scriptures be the truth no not Protestants For did they vnderstand assuredly euery text of Scripture and euery seeming contradiction is reconciled could there be amoÌ„gst theÌ„ such different and aduerse exposition of Scripture Therefore no man euer did or doth know the perfect harmony of all Scriptures by the euidence of the thing nor consequently the Scripture to be of God by the euidence of this harmony The fourth Argument Fourthly wheras the Minister pretends the Scripture to be known by the style affirming that seeing God hath bestowed tongues and voyces on men by which they may be known the Iesuite cannot persuade any reasonable man that God so speaketh in Scripture as men eleuated
man offending him comparatiuely with him infinitely base wherfore mortall sinne which is an abandoning of God for some transitory content is iniury done vnto God incomparably grieuous On the other side satisfaction is the lesse esteemed by how much the person satisfying is meane and the person offended great Men and Angells what are they being compared with God Certainly nothing therfore certainly their works satisfactions are inestimably disproportionable to satisfy for any the least mortall sinne the guilt wherof is so great a debt as it is vnsatisfiable but only by the precious bloud of the Sonne of God He being a person Coequall Consubstantiall with his Father to satisfy Gods anger by humbling the infinite dignity of his persō vnto the most disgracefull death of the Crosse offered satisfaction full and complete yea superabundant the person satisfying in regard of his Diuinity being infinitly more honorable then the person offending was contemptible by reason of his basenes Thirdly the Roman Church teacheth that those that haue byn made the Childrē of God by Baptisme if they sinne mortally afterward when they repent God forgiues them the guilt of sinne and consequently the eternall punishment by the Sacrament of Pennance bountifully graciously through the meer merits of Christ without their satisfaction only they must by Fayth by feare by hope by Contrition by purposes of amendment prepare make themselues capable of that gracious and grace-infusing pardon Fourthly the Roman Church holdes that God by Pennance forgiuing the eternall punishment doth in lieu thereof many tymes appoint a taske of tēporall paine to be endured by the Penitent This reserued penalty is greater or lesser according to the multitude and grieuousnes of the sinnes committed and is that for which penitents may and must satisfy And why may not the penall workes performed by the Children of God beautifyed by so many aforenamed excellent graces be sufficient to deserue of God the remission of this temporall mulct and cancell the debt of enduring transitory payne I could bring testimonyes of the most ancient Fathers in great number for the necessity we haue of suffering these voluntary afflictions for sinnes and of the efficacity therof to expiate sinne with the very name of Satisfaction (*) The Minister would fayne elude this consent of Fathers by diuers Shifts but two be the chiefe which I will heere fully refute Pag. 544. he saith The Romists in their course of doctrine about Satisfaction peruert all that which the Fathers taught First that which the Fathers speake of the fault and guilt of sinne they wrest to the temporall payne of mortall sinne remayning after the remission of the euerlasting guilt Answer You are according to the Ministerial wōt proud bold in your accusations but poore and miserable in your proofs You say the Fathers spake not of the tēporall payne of mortall sinne but of the very guilt thereof And in another place pag. 547. yet more boldely WHAT SOEVER is spoken in holy Scripture or by the ancient Fathers concerning redeming sinnes by satisfaction belonges to the fault and eternall payne of sinne and this satisfaction must be performed by the delinquent himselfe in this present life This you say but proue it not yea the contrary is cleere truth and proued by these 4. or 5. Arguments First if after the remission of the euerlasting guilt there remayne a temporall payne to be mitigated and taken away by penitential workes then there is no reason to thinke but the Fathers spake something thereof But your selfe p. 540. lin vlt. say That there is a remaynder of Temporall affliction after the remission of the guilt of sin And pag 541. lin 7. That this temporall payne may be remoued or mitigated by workes of mortification and pennance Therefore you haue no reason to thinke the Fathers neuer spake thereof Secondly The Fathers spake of that kind of satisfaction which Dauid made vnto God for his adultery and murder of Vrias yea they make this satisfaction of Dauid the prototype and perfect patterne of that satisfaction they require Hilarius in Psal. 118. alij But Dauid his satisfaction by patient enduring penaltyes inflicted was satisfaction for the temporal payne and not for the staine and eternal guilt of sinne which was remitted longe before presently vpon his inward contrition and repentance Dominus à te transtulit peccatum tuum 2. Reg. 12.13 Therefore the satisfaction which Scriptures and the Fathers require is for the temporall payne not for the guilt of mortall sinne Thirdly the Fathers teach that after inward griefe and contrition for sinne by which they knew the guilt of sinne and of eternall payne was remitted according to the truth of Gods word Ezechiel 18.22 long continued satisfaction must be done to pacify Gods wrath Cyprian Epist. 40. Dominus longa continua satisfactione placandus est But the guilt of sinne and eternall paine being remitted men need not nor cannot satisfye but for the temporall Fourthly the Fathers teach that men must seeke to satisfye for their sinnes euen after they be iust and Gods adopted Children Hierom. in Epitaph Paulae but in the Children of God the euerlasting guilt is remitted and nothing can remayne to be remoued by satisfaction but the guilt of Temporall payne Finally the Fathers teach that after this life often there remayneth something of sinne to be expiated by Purgatory paynes from which soules may be released and relieued by the pious workes of their liuing friends So sayth S. Augustine expressely l. 21. de Ciuit. c. 24. serm 32. de verbis Apostol and many others I omit other demonstrations of this truth To what you so much obiect that Fathers say men must redeeme their sinns and satisfy for their offences to God I Answere By sinne they meane the payne due vnto sinne which is tearmed sinne because it is the effect of sinne Hence sinne is sayd after the remission thereof to remayne in the soule to wit in his effect nor can the soule be sayd to be fully cleansed vntill this debt be satisfyed Minister pag. 544. Secondly that which the Fathers stiled Satisfaction improperly and by way of deprecation the Romists make satisfaction of condignity yea of rigour of Iustice. Nazarius in 3 p. D. Thom. q. 1. art 2. controu 7. pag. 113. And for veniall sinne more effectuall then Christs satisfaction Suarez Tom. 4. in 3. p. disp 48. sect 3. Answere Your slaūdring humour is intolerable Nazarius sayth proueth that our satisfactiō neither is nor can be in rigour of iustice He addeth If our satisfaction be ioyned with Christs dicetur eam esse de rigore iustiti◠ratione satisfactionis Christi it shall be sayd to be in rigour of iustice in respect not of it selfe but of the satisfaction of Christ. Hence you charge him with this proposition Men may make satisfaction to God in rigour of iustice Verily you may as well accuse S. Paul of making himselfe omnipotent absolutely and without any
2. That this Worshippe was euer since the Apostles in the Church without beginning pag. 142.143 c. § 3. The places of Exodus Deut. with no probability vrged agaynst the Worship of Images by Protestants that make them pag. 154.155 c. § 4. Inconueniences which may come by occasion of Images easily preuented and their vtilities very great pag. 158.159 THE SECOND AND THIRD POINT II. Praying offering Oblations to the B. Virgin Mary III. VVorshipping Inuocation of Saints Angells pag. 172. § 1. An Eleauen Demonstrations that the Ancient Christian Church did euer hould Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Fayth Religion pag. 173.174 c. § 2. Inuocation of Saints not to be disliked because not expressed in Scripture pag. 194. § 3. Knowledge of Prayers made to them communicable communicated vnto Saints pag. 196.197 c. § 4. The Worship in spirit Truth with outward prostration of body due vnto Saints pag. 206.207 c. § 5. Praying to Saints not iniurious to Gods mercy but rather a commendation thereof pag. 211.212 c. § 6. Inuocation of Saints not an iniury but an honor to Christ the only Mediatour pag. 215.216 c. § 7. How it is lawfull to appropriate the obtayning of Graces and Cures vnto Saints pag. 219.220 c. § 8. Cōcerning Oblatiōs made to Saints p. 223.224 c. § 9. The Roman Churches set-formes of Prayer without cause misliked pag. 226.227 THE FOVRTH POINT IIII. The Liturgy priuate Prayers for the Ignorant in an vnknovvne Tongue pag. 130.131 THE FIFTH POINT V. Repetitions of Pater Nosters Aues Creeds especially affixing a kind of merit to the nūber of thē p. 241.242 c. THE SIXT POINT VI. The doctrine of Transubstantiatiō ¶ An Addition prouing the Catholike Reall Presence according to the litterall Truth of Gods word agaynst Ministeriall Metaphors Figures shifts pag. 248. ¶ § 1. The Zwinglian and Caluinian Religion about the Sacrament pag. 248. ¶ § 2. The Zwinglian Caluinian Presence confuted pag. 250. ¶ § 3. The Ministers Arguments agaynst the litterall sense of Christs word vayne idle pag. 253.254 c. § 1. That the Reall Presence of the whole body of Christ vnder the formes of bread belongs to the substance of the Mystery pag. 260.261 c. § 2. Transubstantiation belonges to the substance of Reall Presence pag. 266.267 c. § 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers pag. 271.272 c. ¶ A Refutation of the Ministers shifts to elude the former Testimonyes of the Fathers pag. 276.277 c. § 4. The seeming repugnances this Mystery hath with Sense should inclyne Christians the sooner to belieue it pag. 290.291 THE SEAVENTH POINT VII Communion vnder one kind abetting of it by Cōcomitancy pag. 305. § 1. The Doctrine of Concomitancy proued pag. 306.307 c. § 2. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Institution of Christ. pag. 311.312 c. § 3. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Sacrament pag. 315.316 c. § 4. Communion vnder one kinde not agaynst Christ his Precept pag. 319.320 c. ¶ The place of S. Iohn Qui manducat hunc panem c. explicated with an Answere to the Testimonies of the Fathers pag. 330.331 § 5. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the practice of the Primitiue Church pag. 332.333 c. THE EIGHT POINT VIII VVorkes of Supererogation specially vvith reference to the treasure of the Church pag. 334. § 1. The Doctrine of Merit declared pag. ibid. 335.336 c. ¶ The Ministers Arguments or rather Inuectiues against this Doctrine of Merit answered pa. 347.348 c. § 2. Merit of works of Supererogation p. 348.349 c. § 3. The Fathers taught works of Supererogation and proued them by Scripture pag. 352.353 c. § 4. The Doctrine of Satisfaction pag. 358.359 c. § 5. Workes with reference vnto the Treasure of the Church pag. 362.363 c. ¶ The Ministers rayling Argumēts agaynst the former doctrine censured pag. 372.373 c. THE NINTH POINT IX The opiniō of deposing Kings giuing avvay their Kingdoms by Papall povver vvhether directly or indirectly pag. 382. ¶ The Ministers fond Cauill That Iesuits honour not the King as Soueraygne pag. 383.384 c. ¶ His fond proofs of his Slaunder that Iesuits hold singular Opinions to the preiudice of Kings pa. 385.386 c. ¶ His Fondnes in Cauilling at the Iesuits words about the Temporall Soueraignity of Popes pag. 389.390 c. ¶ His miserable Apology for Protestāts p. 391.392 c. ¶ His Cauill agaynst the Iesuits speciall Vow of Obedience to the Pope pag. 393. c. THE CONCLVSION Faultes escaped in the printing In the Picture and Censure Pag. 10. lin 14. Christ read Christs Pag. 12. lin 17. in marg Ministery read Minister Pag. 13. l. 2. in marg conferunt read conferant Pag. 16. l. 20. place translated read place truly translated Pag. 25. l. 19. pleasore read pleasure Pag. 37. l. 7. are read were Pag. 86. l. 19. now read new Pag. 44. l. 3. this read his Pag. 104. l. 16. of read in Pag. 121. lin 32. an read be Pag. 132. l. vlt. diriue read driue In the Answere and Reioynder Pag. 4. l. 10. in marg if read it Pag. 19. line penult in marg seipsum read sensum Pag. 24. l. 1. God Though read God though Ibid. l. 16. could not read could not Pag. 56. lin 30. in marg this read thus Pag. 71. lin 32. in marg but must read but they must Pag· 74. l. 16. in marg do to proue read do proue Pag. 80. l. 30. in marg Votaies read Votaries Pag. 81. lin 32. Philip in dele Ibid. l. 34. in innumerable dele in Pag. 100. l. 1. 3. suppositious read supposititious Pag. 115. l. 16. in coll read in loc Pag. 119. l. 12. opinions read opinion Pag. 129. lin 1. Axione read Axiome Pag. 32. l. 34. in marg a positiue read a positiue precept Pag. 141. l. 11. in marg Sect. 3. read Sect. 1. Pag. 142. l. 26. in marg the argues read he argues Pag. 144. lin 21. viz. read verò Pag. 145. l. 10. reliueth read relieueth Pag. 152. l. 33. in marg Anthropomorphilae read Anthropomorphitae 177. l. 9. in marg praebitur read praebebitur Pag. 180. l. 22. wash awayt read washt away Pag. 227. l. 5. if they dele if Pag. 229. lin 23. in marg him that dele him Pag. 141. lin 9. reuerent read renewed Pag. 378. l. 22. satisfaction read satisfaction Pag. 396. l. 4. Roall read Royall Pag. 399. l. 2. fallable read fallible THE TRVE PICTVRE OF D· VVHITE MINISTER Or the Censure of his Reply vnto M. Fisher. The Reason of this Title THIS Short Censure is prefixed vnder the Name of your Picture that the Reioynder may correspōd in proportion vnto your Reply the beginning whereof is consecrated by an Image of your (a) For he teacheth
against the context and order of the sentences of Gods word this sentence He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer being fiue sentences or verses after this other Vnlesse you eate the flesh and drinke the bloud Yea these words he that eateth this bread liueth for euer are absolutely the very last wherewith Christ shutteth vp his discourse about Sacramentall taking his flesh and bloud Wherfore not to be forced to grant that Christ promised as much to the eating of Sacramentall bread onely as to eating and drinking both you are forced to deny the text and context of Gods word If you say our Sauiour indeed spake the wordes He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer but that he spake not of Sacramentall bread nor of Sacramentall eating I reply First why then did you not acknowledge this text aswell as this other If any eate this bread he shall liue for euer Secondly you contradict your selfe for that the seaueÌ„th Chap. of S. Iohn speaketh of Sacramentall eating drinking your selfe affirme many tymes in this Reply as pag. 395. lin 8. pag. 406. lin 13. pag. 466. lin 20. A second example of your being forced to deny or not to acknowledge the text of Gods word is found pag. 75. There the Iesuit saith that euen in the dayes of Antichrist the Church shall be visibly vniuersall referring himselfe for proofe to the Apocalips 20. v. 8. You in lieu of the eight verse cite the seauenth Then shall Satan be let loose shall goe forth and seduce nations which are vpon the foure corners of the earth Gog and Magog shall gather them into a battaile the number of whoÌ„ shall be as the sands of the sea Which text is impertinent For it proueth that the army of Antichrist shall be for multitude of men innumerable Not the vniuersall diffusion of the Christian Church in his raigne Why stopped you at the seaâ—enth verse Why would you not proceed to set â—owne the words of the eight that were vnder your â—yes vnto which the Iesuits marginall quotation reâ—erred you Verily you saw that they proued the Ieâ—uits intent so cleerly as you knew not what to reâ—ly For the text saith (a) Apoc. 8.20 of Antichrists Purseuants â—hey went ouer the breadth of the earth and compassed aâ—out the campe of Saints and thc beloued Citty By which â—lace it is euident that the campe of Saints and the beloâ—ed Citty to wit the Church persecuted by Antiâ—hrist in his raigne shall be spread ouer the face of â—he earth â—ou are forced to goe agaynst Christs expresse word §. 2. THE Iesuit pag. 409. argueth in this sort If God can put a whole Camell in the eye of a needle is he not â—ble to put the whole body of Christ in a consecrated Host â—ut God can put a Camell in a needles eye witnesse our Saâ—iour Matth. 19. v. 24.25.26 where hauing sayd It is â—ore easy for a Camell to passe through a needles eye then â—or a rich man to enter into the Kingdome of heauen wheÌ„â—is disciples did much wonder therat demanding who then can be saued He answered With men this 〈◊〉 impossible but all thinges are possible vnto God Our Answere say you pag 412. is that these words â—ll things are possible to God are referred to the latter â—art of Christs speach touching the rich mans entring into â—eauen and not to the Camells passing through the needles 〈◊〉 All things agreable to truth and which God will haue done are possible but that it is agreable to truth for a Camell retayning his quantity with the whole body to passe through a needles eye or that God will haue this to be done deserueth to be credited when the Aduersaryes prooue it by diuine Reuelation or by other demonstration Thus you forced by your aduersary to deny the expresse word of God as I demonstrate by three arguments First if our Sauiour hauing named many thingâ— as difficile hard and impossible with men conclude that not one of these things only but al are possible with God then to say that one of the things only not all are possible to God is directly to contradict our Sauiour to giue him the lye Our Sauiour hauing named many things as hard difficile and impossible vnto men to wit that Camells passe throgh a needles eye and that rich men enter into the Kingdome of heauen concludeth that not one of these things only but all are possible vnto God apud Deuâ— omnia possibilia sunt (b) Matth. 19.16 Mar. 10.27 all these hard and difficile things are possible with God Ergo you in saying that one sort of these things by him named as hard difficile are impossible vnto God to wit that Camells passe through a needles eye do directly contradict the words of our Sauiour giue him the lye Secondly to affirme that a Camells passage through the eye of a needle is impossible vnto God is more directly agaynst this speach of our Sauiour then to say that a rich mans entrance into heauen is impossible This I prooue If our Sauiour say that of the two the Camells passing through a needles eye is more easy that is lesse difficile then to deny the Camells passing through a needles eye to be possible vnto God is more directly agaynst our Sauiours â—ord then so to affirme of a rich mans entring into 〈◊〉 Kingdome of heauen For if things more easy â—â—sse difficile be impossible how much more things â—â—sse easy and more difficile If we may with truth â—ffirme that God cannot do what by the truth of his word we know to be more easy much rather may we affirme God cannot doe what by the truth of his word we belieue to be more difficile This is cleere â—ut our Sauior saith most expresly that it is more eaâ—y that is lesse difficile for a Camell to passe through â— needles eye then for a richman to enter into the Kingdome of heauen Ergo Your saying the pasâ—ing of a Camell through a needles eye to be imposâ—ible vnto God is more against this place of his word â—hen had you so affirmed of a rich mans entring inâ—o heauen Thirdly if this word of our Lord All is possible vnto God be referred directly properly and specialâ—y vnto a Camells passing through a needles eye not vnto a rich mans entring into heauen then you do directly oppose the truth of Gods word But that â—his speach All is possible vnto God is in this manner â—eferred vnto the Camels passing through a needles eye not vnto the rich mans entring into heauen â—s euident by the drift of this place For our Lord by this discourse doth directly intend to shew not a rich mans saluation to be possible but the Apostles argument which moued them to dispayre of the saluation of richmen not to be good They hearing our Sauiour say it is more easy for a Camell to passe through a needles eye then that a rich man enter in
â—f his spirit inwardly mouing the heart of man to â—dhere vnto an infallible externall ground of assurance proposed vnto him God by the helpe of his grace making him apprehend diuinely of the authority thereof This second manner of inward assurance is ordinarily giuen vnto euery ChristiaÌ„ without (r) Triden sess 6. Can. 3. Arausican 2. Can. 6. which no man is able to belieue supernaturally and as he ought vnto Saluation The first manner of assurance is extraordinary and immediate reuelation such as the Prophets had Wherfore Protestants if they callenge this first manner of inward teaching assurance they approue Enthusiasme immediat reuelatioÌ„ which in the Swenkfeldians they seeme to condemne If they challenge only the second manner of inward teaching and assurance then besides inward light they must assigne an externall sufficieÌ„t ground why they belieue these Scriptures to be the Apostles then I aske what ground this is besides Tradition Secondly they wil obiect that though they haue no infallible ground besides the teaching of the Spirit yet they are not taught immediatly in Propheticall maÌ„ner because they are also taught by an external probable motiue to wit the Churches tradition I Answere that except they assigne an externall infallible meanes besides Gods inward teaching they cannot auoyde but they challenge immediate reuelation For whosoeuer knoweth thinges assuredly by the inward teaching of the spirit without an external infallible motiue vnto which he doth adhere is assured prophetically though he haue some externall probable motiues so to thinke S. Peter had some coniecturall signes of Simon Magus his peruersity incorrigible malice yet seing (s) Act. 8.32 In felle amaritudinis obligatione peccati video te esse he knew it assuredly we belieue he knew it by the light of prophesy because besides inward assurance he had no externall infallible ground If one see a man giue publickly almes though he perceaue probable tokeÌ„s signes that he doth it out of a Vayne-glorious intention yet cannot he be sure therof but by the light of immediat reuelation because the other tokens are not grounds sufficient to make him sure For if a man be sure haue no ground of this assurance in any thinge out of his owne hart it is cleere that he is assured immediatly only by Gods inward speaking Wherfore ProtestaÌ„ts if they will disclayme in truth and not in wordes only from immediate reuelation and teaching they must eyther grant tradition to be infallible or else assigne some externall infallible ground besides Tradition whereby they are taught what Scriptures the Apostles deliuered Thirdly they will say they know the Scriptures to be from the Apostles by an externall infallible ground besides Tradition to wit by certayne lights lustres euidences of truth which they see to blaze emane from the thinges reuealed in Scripture by which they are sure that the doctrin thereof is heauenly I Answere If they did see such lustres and lights that cleerly not only probably conuince the doctrine of Scripture to be heauenly truth they be not indeed assured by immediate darke reuelation but by an higher degree of heauenly knowledge to wit by the supernaturall light and euidence of the thinge belieued which is a paradox and pretence farre more false and sensibly absurd then is the challenge of immediate reuelation or Enthusiasme as hath beene shewed Wherefore seing that God hath chosen no externall meanes besides Catholicke Tradition to make men know perpetually vntill the consummation of the world what doctrins Scriptures the Apostles published it is cleere vnto euery Christian that this is the meanes by him chosen which he doth assist that it cannot be obnoxious vnto errour so that precedently and independently of Scripture the Catholicke tradition of Christian pastors fathers is proued to be infallible through Diuine speciall assistance and therefore a sufficient ground for Fayths infallible assurance The Fourth Principle proued §. 6. IF we be resolued that sauing truth is that which God reuealed that he reuealed that which the Apostles published the doctrine published by then the Catholicke Christian Tradition our search is ended when we haue found the Christian Catholicke Church Heere the fourth Enemy of true Christian Religion offers himselfe to wit the Willfull Ignorant These kind of men not only hold agaynst Pagans the doctrine of saluation to be that only which was reuealed of God agaynst Iewes the reuealed of God to be only the Apostles but also in wordes they condemne the Heretikes professe that no doctrine is truly Apostolicall but the Catholick yet in resoluing what doctrin is the Catholicke they follow the partiality of their affections These are tearmed by (t) De vtil cred c. 1. S. Augustine Credentes haereticorum Belieuers of Heretikes building vpon the seeming learning and sanctity of some men being therein so willfull as to venture their soules that such doctrine is Catholike not caring nor knowing what they say nor what the word Catholicke put into the Creed by the Apostles doth import Some be so ignorant as to thinke that the word Catholicke doth signify the same as conforme vnto Scripture And so what doctrine is Catholicke they resolue by the light and lustre of the doctrine or by the in ward teaching of the spirit whereby they fall vpon the principle of Heresy and become not so much belieuers of Heretikes as Heretikes Some vnderstand by the word Catholicke Doctrine truly Catholicke that is deliuered froÌ„ the Apostles by Christian worlds of Fathers vnto Christian worlds of children yet are so blind as to giue this Title vnto Sects lately sprung vp which through pretended singular Illuminations gotten by perusing the Scripture haue chosen formes of fayth opposite one agaynst another reformed agaynst the forme to them deliuered by their Ancestors These Sects I say they tearme Catholicke which not to be Catholicke in this sense is as euident as that night is not day Some through willfull ignorance no lesse grossely deuide the name of Catholicke according to the diuision of Countryes naming the Catholicke doctrin of the Church of France of the Church of England c. Which speach hath no more sense then this A fashion euer since Christ vniuersally ouer the world newly begun and proper vnto England Agaynst this Enemy true Religion is resolued in this fourth principle The Catholicke Tradition of doctrine from the Apostles is the Roman By Roman we vnderstand not only the Religion professed within the Citty Diocesse of Rome but ouer the whole world by them that any where acknowledg the primacy of Peter and his successours which now is the Roman Bishop About this principle fayth is assured by a fourth perfection belonging vnto God as he is prime Verity reuealing truth which is that he cannot permit that the knowing of sauing doctrine be impossible Hence I argue God being Prime Verity reuealing cannot permit the meanes of knowing his sauing truth to be hidden nor a false meanes to
be so adorned with the markes of the true as the true become indiscernable from it But if the Roman be not the true Catholicke Tradition the true Catholicke Church and Tradition is hidden yea a false Church hath so cleerly the markes of Catholicke that no other can with any colour pretend to be rather Catholicke then it that is to haue doctrin deliuered from the Apostles by whole worlds of Christian Fathers vnto whole worlds of Christian Children Hence eyther there is no meanes left to know assuredly the sauing truth or else the meanes is immediat reuelatiō that is inward teaching of the spirit without any externall infallible meanes or else Scripture knowne to be the word of God and truly sensed by the light lustre and euidēce of the things which wayes of teaching it is certayne God doth not vse towards his militant Church succeeding the Apostles For teaching of diuine and supernaturall truth by the light lustre and shining of the thing or doctrin is proper vnto the Church triumphant Inward assurance without any externall infallible ground to assure men of truth is proper vnto the Prophets and the first publishers of Christian Religion Hence I conclude that if God be the Prime Verity teaching Christian Religion darkely without making men see the light and lustre of thinges belieued and mediatly by some externall infallible meanes vpon which inward assurance must rely then he must euer conserue the Catholicke tradition and Church visible and conspicuous that the same may without immediat reuelation and otherwise thē by the lustre of doctrin be discerned to wit by sensible markes If any obiect that the senses of mē in this search may be deceaued through naturall inuincible fallibility of their organs and so no ground of fayth that is altogether infallible I Answere that euidence had by sense being but the priuate of one man is naturally and physically infallible but when the same is also publicke and Catholicke that is when a whole world of men concurre with him then his euidence is altogether infallible Besides seing God hath resolued not to teach men immediatly but will haue them to cleaue vnto an externall infallible meanes to find out this meanes by the sensible euidence of the thinge he is bound by the perfection of his Veracity to assist mens senses with his prouidence that therein they be not deceaued when they vse such diligence as men ordinarily vse that they be not deceaued by their senses Now what greater euidence cā one haue that he is not deceaued in this matter of sense that the Romā Doctrine is the Catholicke that is Doctrine deliuered from the Apostles by worlds of Christian Ancestors spread ouer the world vnanimous amongst themselues in all matters they belieue as Fayth what greater assurance I say can one haue that herein he seeth aright then a whole world of men professing to see the same that he doth Some may agayne obiect I belieue the Catholicke Church is an Article of Fayth set downe in the Creed but Fayth is resolution about thinges that are not seene I Answere An article of Fayth may be visible according to the substāce of the thing yet inuisible according to the manner it is belieued in the Creed The third article He suffered vnder Pontius Pilate was crucifyed dead and buried according to the substance of the thinge was euident vnto sense and seen euen of the Iewes and is now belieued of their posterity But according to the manner as it is belieued in the Creed to wit that herein the Word of God by his auncient Prophets was fulfilled that this was done in charity for the saluation of Man in this manner I say that visible Article is inuisible and belieued in the Creed In like māner that there is in the world a Catholicke Church and that the Roman is the Catholicke Church Pagans Iewes Heretikes if they shut not their eyes agaynst the light do cleerly behold But that herein the word of God about the perpetuall amplitude of his Church is accomplished that this is an effect of Gods Veracity to the end that the meanes to learne sauing truth may not be hidden this is a thing inuisible according to this notiō the Catholicke Church is proposed in the Creed Secondly propositiōs of fayth must be inuisible according to the Predicate or thinge belieued but not euer according to the subiect or thing wherof we belieue The thinges the Apostles belieued of Christ to wit that he was the Sauiour of the world the Son of God were thinges inuisible but the subiect and person of whome they did belieue was to them visible seen yea God did of purpose by his Prophets fortell certayne tokens whereby that subiect might by sense be seen and discerned from all other that might pretend the name of Christ or els his coming into the world to teach the truth had been to no purpose In this sort the Predicate or thing belieued in this article the holy Catholicke Church to wit Holy is inuisible but the Subiect to wit the Catholicke Church which we affirme and belieue to be holy in her doctrine is visible and conspicuous vnto all Yea God hath of purpose foretold signes and tokens whereby the same by sense may be cleerly discernable from all other that may pretend the title of Catholicke For were not this subiect the Catholicke Church we belieue to be holy and infallible in her teaching visible and discernable from all other that pretend the name of what vse were it to belieue that there is such an infallible teaching Church in the world hidden we know not where as a needle in a bottle of hay The End of the Resolution of Fayth THESE thinges supposed the Reader will haue no difficulty to discerne how friuolous the Ministers exceptions are agaynst the resolutiō of fayth in respect of belieuing doctrines to be the Apostles into Perpetuall Tradition and how solide the Iesuits discourse was which here ensueth THE FIRST GROVND That a Christian resolution of Fayth is builded vpon perpetuall Tradition deriued by succession from the Apostles §. 1. BEFORE I come to the proofe of this principle some things are to be presupposed which I thinke Protestants will not deny First that no man can be saued or attayne to the blissefull vision of God without firme and assured apprehension of diuine supernaturall truth concerning his last end and the meanes to arriue thereunto Secondly that this assured apprehension is not had by a (e) The Minister heere graunteth that Fayth is not had by cleere euident sight but afterward he sayth the same is resolued by the resplendent verity of the doctrine cleare and euident sight nor gotten by demonstration or humane discourse by the principles of reason nor can be sufficiently had by credit giuen to meerly humane authority but only by Fayth grounded on the word of God reuealing vnto men things that otherwise are knowne only to his Infinite wisdome Thirdly that God
of Waldo Wickliffe and Husse Fabulae sunt they are Fables you turne as by him spoken of perpetuall Traditions of the Catholicke and Roman Church The Pharisees did indeed corrupt Scripture But how By Logicall deductions out of the same according to your Protestant and the common Hereticall fashion pretending greater skill then all their Ancestors That they did affirme that their speciall obseruations were Traditions vnwritten from Moyses the Scripture hath not a word yea the thing they most of all obiected agaynst our Sauiour was the written Tradition of Moyses about keeping the Sabboth Day Ioan. 7. From which precept not by Tradition vnwritten but by Logicall inference they concluded that our Lord brake the Sabboth-Day by healing diseased persons thereon So that Pharasaicall Traditions were neuer so much as pretended to be doctrines vnwritten as you imagine but to be doctrines concluded from the text of Scripture by the rules of Reason and Logicke iust according to your Protestant pretence Also what you say that the Fathers Traditions vnwritten be not our doctrines but yours is spoken because you would haue men so thinke though they erre not because you can thinke the same to be so in truth For thus I argue agaynst this your seely Shift The Fathers as appeareth by their wordes vnderstand by Tradition Apostolical vnwritten Dogmata quae peti non possunt è Sacra Scriptura Doctrines of fayth that cannot be gathered froÌ„ the holy Scriptures with such certitude as they may therevpon be belieued as articles of fayth But you pretend and glory that all your Doctrines of Fayth be ex sacris Scripturis petitae so drawne and gathered from holy Scriptures as they are belieued as Fayth only vpon this rule Ergo it is great vanity for you to say that the Fathers by Apostolical Tradition vnwritten vnderstood the Doctrine not of the Roman Church but of your Protestant Separation And if from generality vpon which Ministers whose drift is to deceyue do willingly dwell we descend to particulars we shall find that you reiect those Doctrines customes of the Roman Church as Fabulous dreames and human inuentions which the Fathers expressely and in tearmes affirme to be Apostolicall Traditions To pray for the reliefe of the Soules of the faythfull deceased Protestants esteeme fabulous the (1) (1) Chrys. Homil 69. ad Pop. Fathers affirme it was ab Apostolis sancitum ordayned by the Apostles The binding of the Cleargy-men and those that are in the holy Ministery to single life and from woing wiuing do not Protestants detest as impious (2) (2) Concil Carthag Can. 2. yet the fathers say haec docuâ—runt Apostoli haec seruauit antiquitas this the Apostles taught this was kept by the Ancients That it is damnable Sin for Votaries to marry after their vowes do not Protestants contemne as a fabulous inuention yet (3) (3) Epiphan haeres 61. the Fathers say tradiderunt Sancti Dei Apostoli this is the Tradition of the holy Apostles of God The custome of making the signe of the Crosse on the forhead ProtestaÌ„ts deride as foolish (4) (4) Basil. de Spirit Sanct. c. 27. yet the Fathers affirme hoc tradiderunt Patres nostri in silentio sine literis it was taught by our Fathers the Apostles in silent Tradition without writing The Fast of Lent is it not in neglect and derision with Protestants yet the (5) (5) Hieron Epist. ad Marcell de erroribus Montan. Fathers sayd as we do QuadragesimaÌ„ semel in anno ex Apostolica traditione ieiunamus we fast one Lent a yeare by the tradition of the Apostles Do not Protestants also scorne the feast of Ember-weeke foure tymes in the yeare And yet the (6) (6) Leo de ieiunio sexti mensis Serm. 6. de Pentecost Fathers say ex Apostolica traditione seruantur they are receyued by Apostolical Tradition To fast one fryday or the sixt Day of the weeke in memory of our Sauiours passion Protestants condemne as superstitious yet (7) (7) Epiphan haeres 75. the Fathers say hoc decreuerunt Apostoli the Apostles made this decree and the Church by Tradition from them hath perpetually obserued it The making and blessing of holy water do not ProtestaÌ„ts reiect as magicall Yet the (8) (8) Basil. de spir san c. 27. Fathers say expressely it is a Tradition of the Apostles To mingle water with Wine in the Chalice of the holy Eucharist is thought by Protestants to be fabulous But by the Fathers (9) (9) Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. Dominica institutio the institution of our Lord by Tradition vnwritten deriued to vs. Luther dareth to cast off with a iest the commandement not to receiue the holy Eucharist but fasting that so the body of our Lord may enter in at our mouth before other meates (10) (10) Aug. Ep. 118 ad Ianuar c. 6. yet the Fathers say hoc placuit Spiritu sancto hoc Christus per Apostolos disposuit it pleased the holy ghost it should be so and by his inspiration the Apostles did so appoint What shall I say of (11) (11) Aug. lib. 4. in Iulian. Leo primus Ep. 14. Exorcizandi sunt secundum ApostolicaÌ„ regulam Exorcismes ExsufflatioÌ„s vsed in Baptisme the (12) (12) Origen Homil. 5. in Num. A magno Pontifice Christo eius filiis Apostolis traditam forme of interrogations answeres and other ceremonies That (13) (13) Fabian Ep. 2. ad Oriental Christus instituit they that be baptized be afterwards Chrismed with the oyle of balme (14) (14) Tertul. li. 1. ad vx Apostolica praescriptio Epiphan haer 50. Propter eminentiam celebrationis traditam That they who haue beene maried more then once be not promoted vnto Priesthood out of reuerence vnto that dignity (15) (15) Aug. lib. 17. de Ciuit. c. 4. Hoc votum illi potentissimi vouerant That the Apostles made the vow of Religions perfection That (16) (16) Chrys. homil 17. ad Paph Antiochen A Christo introducta Casian Coenobitarum disciplina tempore praedicationis Apostolorum sumpserat exordium Monasticall profession began by their institution (17) (17) Tertul. de Corona Militis Anniuersarios dies colimus the keeping festiuall Dayes in the honour of Saints deceased (18) (18) Concil Antioc Apostol citat in 7. Synod act 1. The placing the Images of Christ and his Saints in the Church (19) (19) Damascen orat 4. de Imagin Synod Nicen 2. act 7. Their Worship (20) (20) Aug. Serm. 17. de verbis Apost Cyril cathec 5. Mystagog To commend our selues vnto the prayers of Saintes deceased in the holy Sacrifice of Masse These things Protestants detest as Superstitions all which yet the Fathers mantayne to be Apostolicall Traditions metamorphize the word Profitable as to make it signify the same with the word Sufficient which is very hard yet were the text much ouer-short to proue their intent that Scripture alone
of the Church disagree about maters which they preach as necessary poynts of Fayth how can their Tradition and Testimony be of credit therin or haue any authority to perswade Who will or can firmely belieue disagreeing witnesses vpon their wordes And this (g) By this Note Protestants are conuinced not to be the true Church for the Protestant Church allowes that dissonant doctrines be preached as her doctrine as the word of God as the truth of saluation she permitteth that her preachers condemne ech other as heretikes without disclayming from the communion of eyther side For she imbraceth in her communion both Lutherans who preach as an article of faith the carnall manducation of Christs true body by the wicked Luther tom 3. Germ. fol. 264. and Caluinists who detest this carnall manducation as blasphemous and impious Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalum But it is euident that the Church that allowes of dissonant preaching in matters of fayth cannot be the true Church For how can she be the one true Church which allowes that doctrine she knowes to be false be preached as her Religion the truth of faith The Protestant Church knoweth that of contrary doctrines the one side must needs be false Therefore consenting that both sides be preached as her fayth as sauing truth she yields that doctrine knownely false be preached as her doctrine and sauing truth and so is Mistresse of falshood as much as of truth consent must be conspicuous and euident For if in outward apparence and shew preachers dissent one from another in mayne materiall doctrines their authority is crazed and their testimony of no esteeme howsoeuer perchāce their dissentions may be by some distinctions so coloured that one cannot (h) One cānot conuince an obstinate gaynsayer wrester of words but still he wil wrangle yet may he be conuinced that he doth falsify and wronge authors in his interpretations and this euidently in the iudgement of euery indifferent Reader conuince him that would boldly vndertake to defend as (i) D. Field lib. 3. of the Church cap. 42 Doctour Field vndertakes for Protestants that their dissensions be but verball But what is this to the purpose Do the accused dissentioners allow this Doctors reconciliation do they giue ouer contention thereupon No but professe that such reconcilers misse of their meaning that they disagree substantially about the very Prime articles of faith How can these men be witnesses of credit for substantiall articles cōcerning which there is open confessed professed dissention amongst them Fiftly I inferre that this Church is vniuersal spread ouer all nations that she may be sayd to be euery where (k) Morally that is according vnto common humane reputation by which a thing diffused ouer a great part of the world famously knowne is said to be euery where In this māner the Apostle said that the fayth of the Romās was renowned in the whole world Rom. 1.12 In this sort the Church is still vniuersall and euery where By this is answered all the Minister brings vpō mistaking of morally morally speaking being so diffused that the whole knowne world may take notice of her as of a worthy and credible witnes of Christian Tradition howsoeuer her outward glory and splendour peace and tranquillity be sometymes obscured in some places more or lesse and not euer in all places at once A truth so cleere that it may be euidently proued out of (l) The text Apocalyps 20.8 sayth They the Purseuāts of Antichrist went vpon the breadth of the earth and compassed about the campe of Saints beloued Citty which place proues cleerly that the Church and campe of God shall be spread ouer the whole bredth of the earth in the dayes of Antichrist This verse the Minister mistaketh of purpose and in lieu thereof citeth the seauenth and very absurdly sayth that Antichrist shall persecute Christians that is put them in prison kill them where they were not And Protestants themselues affirme that euen all the dayes of Antichrist the Church shall be right famous continew dispersed ouer the world Bullinger in Apocal. 20. Fulke against the Rhem. in Thess. 2. sect 5. Whitaker answer to M. Reynols preface p 34.37 Scripture Apoc. 20. v. 8. that euen in Antichrists dayes the Church shall be visibly vniuersall For she shall thē be euery where persecuted which could not be except she were euery where visible conspicuous euen to the wicked The reason of this perpetuall visible Vniuersality is because the Tradition of the Church is as I haue proued the sole ordinary meanes on which we ground fayth for substantiall points Wherfore this Tradition must be so deliuered as it may be knowne to all men seeing God (m) The Minister sayth p. 78. l. 22. That God will haue all men saued according to his antecedent will citing Schoolmē that say that Gods antecedent will is only a velleity a wish a complacence thence cōcluding that though God haue antecedent wil that all be saued yet this doth not inferre that he alwais prouides sufficient meanes for the saluation of all I answer That God by his antecedent will of mans saluation wisheth two things First the saluation of all men Secondly the meanes of their saluation In respect of the meanes the will of God is absolute that all men in some sort or other haue sufficient meanes of saluation In respect of the end to wit the saluation of all men the will of God is not absolute but as Schoolmen say virtually conditional that is God hath a will that al men be saued as much as lyeth in him if the course of his prouidence be not stopped and men will cooperate with his grace Whence I thus argue If God did not prouide sufficient meanes for all men it could not be sayd that on his part he wisheth the saluation of all But euen our Minister pag. 78. lin 38. grants that God wisheth the saluation of all men and of euery indiuiduall person Therefore God still makes his Church visibly vniuersal vt neminem lateat as saith S. Augustine that no man perish through the hiddennes and inuisibility thereof will haue all men without exception of any nation to be saued come to the knowledge of the truth 1. Tim. 2.4 But if the Church were not still so diffused in the world that all knowne (n) The Answerer wryting to his Maiesty knowing the Prouerbe sapienti verbū did intēd by this word to insinuate how God prouided means of saluation for the world wherof one part was many ages vnknowne The solution of this difficulty much vrged by the Minister pag. 78 consisteth in these points first God our Sauiour being borne and dying in this knowne world prouided that his Church should be still visibly spread ouer the same famously known Secondly Nations be not so vnknown but by nauigation and other such naturall meanes they may be discoueuered vnto this world where our
ad com Philip. in 1. ad Corinth This may conuince our Minister that his allegations be of no credit and that Iudgement of the Sanctity of a Church is not to be made by the report of zealous complaint but by the euidence of sight ruled by vnpartiall search By which rule one may find in the Catholike Cleargy thousands and thousands that shew admirable charity specially in conuerting Infidells yea that winne the glorious crowne of Angelicall Chastity for which they would neuer haue striuen had not the Church bound them thereunto So that if human infirmity by occasiō of this law make some men impure that otherwise perchance in marriage would haue beene chast so the Grace of God by the same occasiō worketh in innumerable Angelical Saints who had neuer beene such but for the Churches exaction And this haruest makes full recompence for that losse specially seing also many of such delinquents be not lost but saued by Pennance yea become more excellent Saints then they had beene had they neuer fallen Chastity Obedience Charity in vndergoing labours for the help of soules Fortitude in suffering of heroycall Martyrdomes Zeale and Patience in the rough and rigorous treaty of their bodyes by miraculous fasting another austerityes This sanctity shineth not in all children of the Church but in her more eminent preachers professours Which kind of sanctity togeather with miracles if the Church did want she could not be a sufficiēt witnes of the truth vnto Infidells who commonly neuer begin to affect admire Christianity but vpon the sight of such wōders of Sanctity other extraordinary works Holy for doctrine in regard her Traditions be diuine and holy without any mixture of errour For if the Church could deliuer by consent of Ancestours togeather with truth some Errours her Traditions euen about truth were questionable could not be belieued vpon the warrāt of her traditions for who can without danger and securely feed on that dish that may aswell containe poyson as wholsome sustenance And whereas some Protestants affirme that the Church cannot erre in fundamentall points but only in thinges of lesse moment the truth is that in perpetuall Traditions she cannot erre at all If the Tradition of the Church deliuering a small thing as receyued from the Apostles may be false one may call into question her Traditions of moment For like as if we admit in the Scripture errours in small matters we cannot be sure of its infallibility in substātial matters So likewise if we graunt Traditions perpetuall to be false in things of lesse importance we haue no solide ground to defend her Traditions as assured in others of moment Wherfore as he that should say Gods written word is false in some lesse matters as when it sayes S. Paul left his Cloake at Troas erreth fundamentally by reason of the consequence which giues occasion to doubt of euery thing in Scripture euen so he that graunteth that some part of Traditions or of the word of God vnwritten may be false erreth substantially because he giueth cause to doubt of any Tradition which yet as I haue shewed is the prime and originalll ground of Faith more (q) The Minister heere rayleth largely lustily tearming this assertion impudent Antichristian prophane bastardly c. yet the assertion is euident truth his reasons agaynst it are of no force For they goe not agaynst the assertion but proue another thing to wit the excellency of Scripture which none denyes For Tradition Scripture according to different cōparisons are equall superiour the one to the other Compare them in respect of certainty of truth they are equal as the Councell of Trent defineth sess 4. both being the word of God the one Written the other Vnwritten and so both infinitly certayne Compare them in respect of depth sublimity and variety of doctrine the Scripture is farre superiour vnto Tradition Tradition being playne and easy doctrine concerning the common capitall and practicall articles of Christianity wheras the Scripture is full of high hidden senses and furnisht with great variety of examples discourses and all manner of erudition Aug. Epist. 3. Compare them in respect of priority and euidence of being the Apostles the Scripture is posteriour vnto Tradition in tyme and knowledge and cannot be proued directly to be the Apostles therfore Gods but by Tradition as sometime not only Fathers but euen Protestants afffirme As Philosophy is more perfect then Logicke and Rhetoricke then Grammer in respect of high excellēt knowledge yet Logike is more prime originall fundamentall then Philosophy Grammer then Rhetoricke without the rules and principles wherof they cannot be learned Euen so Tradition is more prime and originall then Scripture though Scripture in respect of depth and sublimity of discourse be more excellent then Tradition fundamentall then the very Scripture which is not knowne to be Apostolicall but by Tradition wheras a perpetuall Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by its owne light For what more euident thē that that is from the Apostles which is deliuered as Apostolicall by perpetuall succession of Bishops consenting therein The Propertyes of the Church proued by Matth. 28.20 §. 4. ALL this may be cleerly prooued to omit other pregnant testimonyes by the words of our Sauiour in the last of S. Matthew Going into the world teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to keepe all that I haue commanded you and behold I am with you all dayes euen to the consummation of the world A (r) The Minister pag. 195. lin 4. sayth that this promise is conditionall in repect of Pastours succeeding the Apostles to wit that Christ will assist them conditionally whē they teach and baptize as he hath commanded but that they shall so still teach he doth not promise p. 24. lin 28. This exposition is false first because our Sauiour here promiseth his Presence vnto the Apostles and their successours to baptize and teach vntill the worlds end by one and the same forme of speach and indiuiduall breath so that the promise cannot be conditionall in respect of the successors except it be also conditionall in respect of the Apostles But in respect of the Apostles the promise is absolute as the Minister grants pag. 94. lin 23. Therefore it is also absolute in respect of their successors Not that this or that Pastour may not be deceaued but that they shall neuer deliuer by ioynt consent any falshood as the Apostles doctrine Secondly if the promise be conditionall then the sense is this I will alwayes assist you to teach Christen aright when you teach christen according to my commandement as the Minister expounds pag. 94. lin 22. But this sense is idle and iust nothing as if Christ had sayd Behold I will assist you to teach aright when you teach aright for what is to teach Christian Religion aright but to
because it doth still proceed and must needes flow froÌ„ inward reuerence towards God For how can one worship Saints purely and only as they are the friends seruants and temples of God but out of the instinct of Religion vnto God Hence S. Augustine tearmes the honor of Saints Religious solemnity And S. Chrysostome sayth Serm. de Martyr 69. That we admire their merits with Religious charity Lesse then diuine as proceeding from persuasion of excellency though super-human yet infinitly inferiour vnto the increate immense excellency of God yea depending essentially therof So that honour that is giuen to theÌ„ dependeth of God as being superexcellent participants of his perfection his singular friends Now that men may worship Angells and Saints in this sort with true affection of spirit euen to the prostration of their bodyes may be proued out of holy Scriptures supposing what is already shewed that they see our actions For if Saints see our actions we may as lawfully and as profitably bow kneele and prostrate our bodyes vnto them as vnto Saints liuing on earth But it is lawfull to honour liuing Saints with bowing kneeling and prostration of body as may be proued by many examples 3. Reg. 18. Abdias an holy man (i) Timebat Dominum valde adored Elias (k) Cecidit super faciem suam prostrate on the ground not for any humane excellency or respect but because he was a Prophet a singular Saint of God The Children of the Prophets (l) 4. Reg 2.15 Adorauerunt proni in terraÌ„ seeing signes of supernaturall and diuine power in Elizaeus coÌ„ming vnto him adored him prostrate on the ground The Sunamite woman her Sonne being dead went presently vnto Elizaeus fell downe at his feete suing not so much with words as with teares and mournefull complaints for the resuscitatioÌ„ of her dead sonne (m) 4. Reg. 4. Corâ—uit ad pedes eius adorauit super terram We read also that holy men haue adored with kneeling and prostration of their bodyes holy Angels appearing vnto them as Abraham (n) Gen. 18.3 Adorauit in terram Loth (o) Gen. 19.19 4. Adorauit pronus in terram Balaam (p) Num. 22. Iosue (q) Iosue 5.15 Cecidit pronus in terram adorans so that this Adoration of Saints and Angells (r) The Minister saith pag. 325. That Elias Elizaeus and the Angels were present visibly and sensibly but the Saints are not sensibly present so we must not bow vnto Saints deceased as Children kneele not to their parents when they are absent Answer We haue proued by the word of God that to be true which the Fathers teach with full consent namely S. Basill de Virgin c. 16. Euery Angell holy Spirit of Saints see what is done euery where And if this be true that they are present vnto vs and we a spectacle vnto them why should we not worship theÌ„ as much as if they were sensibly present Not sense but faith is the ground of our deuotion towards Saints May we worship Saints that are present to vs according to the iudgemeÌ„t of flesh and not worship them that are present according to the Iudgement of fayth and the truth of Gods word with more then human naturall respect and with acknowledgement of more then humane and naturall perfections in them is cleerly deduceable from holy Scripture Neither haue Protestants reason to stand agaynst so many pregnant examples of Scriptures vpon the one example in the Apocalyps of the Angell refusing to be adored of S. Iohn saying See thou do it not I am one of thy fellow seruants adore God specially this place being explicated long agoe by the Fathers as not against the custome of ChristiaÌ„ Saint-worship for eyther the Angell so appeared as Saint Iohn tooke him to be God would haue adored him as God whereof the adorer was to be warned as S. Augustine (s) S. August q. 61. in Genes Corrigendus erat adorator expoundeth or rather the Angell for bad that worship not as iniurious vnto God but only as coumbersome to himselfe being loath as S. Gregory noteth after the incarnation of the Sonne of God to see a man lye prostrate vnto him specially so holy a man and so speciall a friend of Iesus And the words Do it not adore God import no more which I declare Suppose that one prayse a Preacher to his face for an excellent sermon he hath made the Preacher out of modesty say Prayse not me I am an vnworthy instrument of diuine wisdome prayse the authour of all This his speach doth not import that he thinkes to commend a Preachers sermon to be Idolatry giuing away the glory of God to a creature but only that modesty makes him wish that men would not prayse him but rather turne all the prayse glory of that sermon vpon God In this sort the Angell seing the great and glorious friend of Iesus prostrated at his feeâ—e requested him to rise vp not condemning that adoration as Idolatrous but refusing it as an actioÌ„ though in regard of the offerer pious godly yet to him the receauer cuÌ„bersome which he could not without some vnwillingnes behold in regard of the dignity of the person he saw prostrated before him (t) The Minister in this place is large in bitternes against vs because he knowes not what to say or how to frame an argument against vs out of this text of the Apocalips For if S. Iohn did giue diuine and religious worship to the Angel due to God onely the example is not to the purpose For we say Saints are not to be honoured as Gods If he did onely offer honour more then ciuill vnto the Angell in respect of his supernaturall dignity with prostration of body then the same was not vnlawfull For the Minister pag. 336. lin 30. forced by the Iesuits arguments doth acknowledge such obeâ—sances and reuerent comportments may and must be done to Saints and Angels when they are corporally visibly present as his Angell was visibly and corporally present to S. Iohn Now that this great Apostle of Christ was more ignorant then any Triuiall Minister that he knew not what was due vnto Angels better then they who will belieue It is euident that he offered no more then he might without iniury vnto God else being warned he would not haue offered it the second tyme. Therfore it was honour that might piously be giuen vnto an Angell though that Angel did in modesty forbid him to shew the respect he bare to that great Apostle and friend of Iesus as the Iesuit argueth to which the Minister replyes not a word but only rayleth This is euidently gathered out of the sacred text seing S. Iohn after this prohibition did the second tyme offer the like honour to the same Angell which he would neuer haue done had he not knowne adoration of Angells by mortall men to be pious religious on their
could not haue more fondly sensed them For his Maiesty speaking of prayers and denying merit vnto the repeating of prayers what according to sense could he meane but the merit proper of prayers which is to impetrate or obtayne And so the Iesuit prouing the speciall merit of Impetration hath proued what his Maiesty questioned As for your selfe seeing you deny not that vnto repetition of prayers speciall merit of Impetration is affixed I do not doubt but you yield the very Doctrine his Maiesty disliked to wit that repetition of prayers in a fixed number hath speciall force and efficacy to impetrate certayne number for the causes before mētioned destitute of the example of Saints that liued in the best ages of the Church Palladius in his history cap. 14. 25. setteth downe some examples of Saints praying in this kind Yea the Century-writers Cent. 4. col 1329. and Osiander acknowledge the example of Saint Paul a most holy Monke liuing in the fourth age after Christ that In dies singulos trecentas orationes Deo velut tributum reddidit ac ne per imprudentiam in numero erraret trecentis lapillis in sinum coniectis ad singulas preces singulos eiecit lapillos consumptis igitur lapillis constabat sibi orationes lapillis numero pares abs se expletas esse Which example of so great a Saint so knowne and notorious (u) The Minister answereth that singular exāples are no rule for Ammonius being sollicited to be a Bishop cut of his owne eare yet he is not imitable herein so neyther is S. Paules exāple in saying prayers vpon Beades to be followed I Answere Some thinges are such of their owne nature as they cannot be done lawfully and with out sinne but by special reuelation as the killing mayming himselfe in which kind examples in Scripture or else where related are admirable not imitable But when the thinge vsed by some singular Saint is not agaynst any law of God or man but a thinge that may be done without speciall reuelation the same is imitable by all others in due circumstances Now what law diuine or human forbids a man to say three hundred prayers a day one hundred to ech of the three Diuine Persons Or what law doth prohibit him to vse 300. little stones or beades in numbring them for help of Memory Or why may we not help our memory in numbring our deuotions by calculation of Beades if S. Paules example be pious and laudable If to say Prayers in a certayne number vpon beades be intrinsecally euill it cannot be done piously by the singular instinct of Gods Spirit seing God can neuer inspire men to doe any thinge that is essentially euill If it be not of it selfe essentially euill why should Protestants forbid men to vse such helpes of our deuotion except they can shew an expresse positiue Diuine law in Scripture agaynst it and neuer censured by any Father may more then abundantly suffice for satisfaction in a matter of no more moment then this For we are not curious in this Point nor doe require of any man that he say his prayers in a certaine number so that he may not say more or lesse as his deuotion serues him THE SIXTH POINT The doctrine of Transubstantiation YOVR Excellent Maiesty submitting your Iudgement to Gods expresse word doth firmely belieue the body of Christ to be truly present in the most venerable Sacrament of the Altar which doctrine doth naturally and necessarily inferre whatsoeuer the Church of Rome holds as matter of Fayth concerning the manner of this Presence To declare this and togeather answere an Obiection much vrged by some Protestants that they belieue the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament but are not boūd by this to belieue the Manner that not being expressed in Scripture We must note that men are bound firmely to belieue the manner of a mystery reuealed when the same belongs to the substance therof so that reiecting the manner we reiect the beliefe of the substance of the mystery This is euident and may be declared by the example of the mystery of the Incarnation the substance wherof is that in Christ Iesus the nature of God and the nature of man are so vnited that God is truly Man man verily God The manner of this mystery is ineffable and incomprehensible yet we are bound to belieue three thinges concerning it which if we deny we deny the mystery in substāce howsoeuer we may retayne the same in words First that this vnion is not only Metaphoricall (a) Non affectualis vnitas sed secundū subsistentiam Synodus 5. Generalis quae est Constantinop 2. Can. 4. by Affection as two persons that are great friends may truly be sayd to be all one but also true and Reall Secondly reall Vnion of natures is (b) Qui nō confitetur Dei verbū substantialiter VNIRI carni Anathema sit Synod Chal. act 5. Synod quinta General can 5. substantiall and not accidentall so that therby the nature is not only accidentally perfected by receauing excellent participations of the diuine nature power wisdome and Maiesty but also substantially the very fulnes of the God-head dwelling corporally and substantially in him Thirdly that this substantiall Vnion is not according to the Natures so that the nature of God the nature of man became one and the same nature as Eutiches taught but (c) Ex duabus naturis secundū substātiā vnitis vnum eumdem Christū qui non confitetur condēnatus est Concil Lateran sub Martin 1. Can. 6. Hypostaticall whereby God and Man became one and the same person These particulars about the manner of the Incarnation though high subtill and incomprehensible to reason Christians may and must belieue because they belong to the substāce of the Mystery and are declared by the Church in generall Councels though the vulgar be not bound explicitely to know them In this sort we say that the manner how our Sauiours Body is in the Sacrament of his last Supper must be belieued may not be denyed as farre as it concernes the very life being and substance of the Mystery reuealed Which mystery in substance is that the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament in such sort that the Priest minister therof demonstrating what seemeth bread may truly say thereof in the person of Christ This is my body This supposed as the substāce of the mystery I inferre that two Catholike doctrines concerning the manner of this mystery belong to the substance of this mystery cannot be called in question without danger of misbeliefe First the Real Presence of the whole body of Christ vnder the formes of bread Secondly that this is done by Transubstantiation An Addition prouing the Catholicke Reall Presence according to the litterall Truth of Gods Word agaynst Ministeriall Metaphores Figures and Shifts HIS Maiesty in questioning onely Transubstantiation seemeth to suppose the Reall Presence of the Body and Blood of our
Sauiour vnder the Sacramentall signes and that the words of our Sauiour This is my body be true in their proper and litteral sense This was the reason that the Answerer omitted to proue largely this Catholicke Doctrine Now the Minister finding himselfe vnable vpon this supposition of his Maiesty to answere the Iesuits argumēts for Transubstantiation yea Pag. 397. affirmeth that vnlesse Transubstantiation be granted the wordes of our Sauiour cannot be true in their proper and litterall sense Hence he denyes the presence of the body of Christ Substantially within the sacred signe laboureth to proue that the words of the Supper are figuratiuely and not properly to be vnderstood He grants a Reall and True Presence of Christs body in words but so obscurely as no man is able to vnderstand his meaning Wherfore to cleere this matter wherein Ministers desire to be darke that men may not see the grosse infidelity of their hart agaynst Gods expresse word I shall shew 3. things First what Zuinglians and Caluinists hold in this point Secondly how the Doctrine both of Zuinglius Caluin is against Gods word Thirdly that their reasons not to admit of the literall truth of Christs word be vaine and idle The Zuinglian and Caluinian Religion about the Sacrament §. 1. A Three-fold presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is confessed on all sides The first Figuratiue or in a Sacramentall signe bread signifying his body and wine his bloud The second Imaginatiue or by the pious apprehension of the faithfull receauer who for more deuotions sake doth or may imagine as if he saw the body of our Lord in the Eucharist truly really and bleedingly present vnder the signes of bread and wine The third Effectuall or according to the Spirituall effects of grace purchased by the Body and Bloud of our Sauiour and giuen by vertue of this Sacrament vnto the soule to nourish the ghostly life therof As all proceed thus farre so Zuinglians will proceed no further They grant the body and bloud of Christ to be present in the Sacrament figuratiuely in a signe imaginatiuely by fayth effectually by grace but deny them to be present according to their corporall substance or further then in the outward signe to the mouth and in the inward effect to the soule So that they grant the Sacramentall signe to be bare and empty in respect of contayning the body of Christ though full and effectuall in respect of affoarding soule-nourishing grace Caluinists seeme in their words to maintaine a more reall presence For though they maintayne the substance of the body of Christ in respect of place to be in heauen only and not in the Sacrament yet they teach that the same body without being present vpon earth is giuen vs on earth not only by the apprehension of fayth Non solùm dum fide amplectimur Iesum Christum pro nobis crucifixum à mortuis excitatum Not only in the inward spirituall effects of soule-nourishing grace purchased by the death of his body Non solùm dum bonis eius omnibus quae nobis acquisiuit corpore suo efficaciter communicamus but realiter really truly Dum habitat in nobis dum vnum fit nobiscum dum eius membra sumus de carne eius dum in vnam vt ita loquar cum ipso substantiam coalescimus Caluin in cap. 11.1 ad Cor. Hence we may discouer the Caluinian iugling and playing fast loose about this Mystery when they so often say that the body of Christ is really present but Spiritually for the word Spirituall may be vsed in this Mystery for two ends First to expresse the substance of the thing present to signify the reall Presence not of the corporall substance of our Lords body but only of the spiritual effect therof to wit of soule-feeding grace This sense is false as shall be proued and the very same which Caluin doth condemne in the Zwinglians as execrable blasphemy opusculo de Coena Domini Secondly to expresse the manner of the Presence and to signify that the corporall substance of our Lord is present truly yet in a spirituall that is secret inuisible indiuisible manner this doctrine is true and herein not differing from the Catholike In like manner their Phrase of Presence by Fayth is equiuocall and may haue a threefold sense First Presence by Fayth may signify Presence by pious imagination of Fayth the Receauer conceauing the body of our Lord as if he saw the same corporally and bleedingly present If by Presence by fayth Caluinists meane no more then this then they doe not differ from the Zwinglians nor do they put any more reall presence then imaginatiue that is presence of things according to pious representation and apprehension though not really in truth Secondly Presence by Fayth may signify that Fayth doth dispose and prepare the soule and that then vnto the soule prepared by Fayth our Sauiour is vnited really and truly not according to the corporall substance of his body but only according to the spirituall effect of his grace This sense is also Zuinglian and condemned by Caluin as hath been shewed Thirdly Presence by Fayth may signify presence according to the iudgment of Fayth or a presence which only Fayth can find out feele behold This sense is true and Catholike and doth suppose the body of Christ to be present absolutely and independently of Fayth For were not the body of Christ afore hand present Fayth should not be true that iudgeth his body to be present Whether our Minister be Zuinglian or Caluinist in this point God only knowes he speakes obscurely of purpose He neuer sayth as Caluin doth li. 4. Institut c. 17. n. 7. That by substantiall communication the body and blood of Christ are vnder the signes of the supper deliuered vnto the fayth full yet he sayth and often repeates that the body of Christ is truly really effectually communicated These words sauour more of the Caluinian then of the Zuinglian phrase Notwithstanding his adding effectually after truly and really may draw the speach to be Zuinglian in sense to wit that the body of Christ is giuen truly really effectually that is really accordinge to the truth and reality of the Spirituall effect not really according to the truth and reality of the corporall substance The Zuinglian and Caluinian Presence confuted §. 2. THE Zuinglian doctrine that the body of Christ is present only in an effectuall signe of grace not in substance is against the plaine expresse words of our Sauiour For he did not say this is the signe or figure of my body nor this is the benefit or effect of my body but this is my body and consequently it is his body in substance and essence if the substantiall Verbe Est do signify substance and essence Hence Luther Epist. ad Argent sayth that the words are nimis clara toto cleer and much more cleere then he could haue wished Caluin also in cap.
mysterijs initiantur cap. â— Moyses his word changed the waters of Aegypt into bloud agayne turned them from bloud into water If so great was the benediction of man what may we thinke of diuine consecration where the very words of our Sauiour worke The word of Elias had power to bring downe fire from heauen shall not the words of Christ haue force to change the kinds of the elements Againe (i) Ambros. lib. 4. de Sâ—cram cap. 4. Thou seest how working efficacious is the word of Christ. If therfore such vertue is in his word that therby things that are not receaue being how much more hath it power that the things that are still remayne in the general latitude of being according to the sensible accidents and be conuerted into another substance VIII Fourthly the effect of this transmutatioÌ„ taught by the Fathers is the presence of the substance of Christs body the absence of the substance of bread binding vs to abnegate our senses and not to belieue what we seeme to see with our eyes IX Theophilact (k) Theophilact c. 4. 26. Matth. Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable operation although to vs it seeme bread because we are weake and haue horrour to eate raw flesh especially the flesh of man for this reason bread appeareth but in essence and substance it is not bread Saint Cyrill (l) Cyrill Hieros Catech. mystagog 4. Come not therfore as vnto simple bread and wine for it is the body and bloud of Christ according to the affirmation of our Lord for although sense suggest the contrary yet let fayth confirme thee Iudge not of the thing by tast but indubitably with full fayth belieue that thou art made partaker of the body bloud of Christ. And againe Know this with full certitude belieue that the bread seene is not bread though it so seeme to the tast but the body of Christ that wine seene is not wine though tast iudge it to be wine but the bloud of Christ. X. Finally that the Fathers held Transubstantiation is prooued by the continuancy which they taught of Christs body in the Sacrament so long as the accidents of bread last as appeareth by their reseruing of the same For reseruation to haue been the custome of the primitiue Church Protestants grant That (m) Habent veteris Ecclesiae exemplum fateor Caluin Instit. l. 9. c. 17. sect 39. the Sacrament was of some reserued in the elder dayes of the Church is not sayth (n) Fulke agaynst Heskins Saunders p. 77. M. Fulke so great a questioÌ„ as whether it ought to be reserued And Chemnitius (o) Chemnit in exam Con. Trid. p. 2. p. 102. granteth that in this point on our side stands Antiquitas consuetudinis latè patentis diu propagatae And whereas he addeth haec tamen veritati praescribere non debet he accuseth the Primitiue Church opposeth no lesse agaynst them then vs. And I am sure your Maiesty knowes that the primitiue Fathers did vse to send the Sacrament vnto them that were lawfully absent from Church as doth witnesse S. Iustine (p) Iustin. Apol. 2. fine vnto the sicke as (q) Dionys. Alexand ep ad Fab. apud Euseb. l. 6. cap. 36. Chrysost. Ep. 1. ad Innocent Dionysius Alexandrinus writes of Serapion That Christians carryed the same to their priuate houses to take in the morning before other meate as testifyeth Tertullian (r) Tertul. l. 2. ad vxorem Gregor Nazian orat de Gorgon That many tymes they did weare the same about them for protection as (s) Ambros. orat in obitâ—â— fratris Satyri Satyrus brother to Saint Ambrose going to sea carryed it in a stole by vertue whereof he was saued in shipwracke That Martyrs had the same frequently for their Viaticum as (t) SimeoÌ„ Metaphrast vitae S. Stephani Papae Martyris cap. 17. Vsuard in martyrolog Guitmund de corp sanguine l. 2. Tharsilius a most glorious Martyr who being taken with the Sacrament about him permitted himselfe rather to be bruized with stones to death then disclose it vnto the Persecutours whome when they had crowned thy searching curiously for the Sacrament in his clothes and about his dead body found nothing God by miracle keeping the same out of their impious hands Saint (u) Cyprian serm de Lapsis Cyprian records diuers miracles done in the confirmation of this our Sauiours permanent presence in the SacrameÌ„t namely of a woman vnworthily approaching to the chest where the same was kept that was frighted backe with fire that thence flashed out tanta est Domini potentia sayth Saint Cyprian taÌ„ta maiestas And so fully were they perswaded in this opinion that Christs body is permanently in the Sacrament that Cyrill (x) Cyrill Alex. ep ad Calosyr dareth say Insaniunt qui dicunt benedictionem à sanctificatione cessare siquae reliquiae remanserunt eius in sequentem diem Non enim mutabitur Sacrosanctum corpus Christi sed virtus benedictionis viuificatiua gratia iugis in eo est They be mad with hereticall folly who say that the blessed Sanctification of the Sacrament ceaseth if the same be reserued vntill the next day For thereby the sacred body of Christ is not changed but the grace of benediction viuification is perpetuall in it Now what reason could the Fathers haue thus constantly to defend this continuation of our Sauiour in the SacrameÌ„t but that they belieued bread to be changed into his body remayning demonstrable by the formes accidences thereof so long as they remayned entyre and were not changed into the accidences of some other substances XI A Refutation of the Ministers Shifts to elude the former Testimonies of the Fathers according to the reference of the precedent Numbers I. NO words of Scripture or Christian Antiquity can be so cleere euident which Hereticall obstinacy will not wrest against the truth yea racke till they rent them in peeces by violent interpretations as saith S. Ambrose Ep. 17. In which kind be the Ministers Replyes vnto these expresse pregnant testimonies of the Fathers for Transubstantiation as wil appeare by the confutation which heere ensueth II. Transelementing The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TranselemeÌ„tation saith the Minister pag. 421. proueth not Transubstantiation For in Transubstantiation the matter is destroyed the quantity and accidents remayne in Transelementation the matter remayneth the essentiall accidentall formes are altered Answere The falshood and inanity of this Shift is conuinced by these foure arguments which shew Transelementation to import the same as Transubstantiation The First is drawne from the notion of the word Elements Transelementation For Transelementation of bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord signifyes that there is a change betwixt them according to their elemeÌ„ts Elements import the primordiall simples the original principles the substantiall parts of which
the choyce of Printers that Protestants inioy Of thee Gentle Reader in requitall of my Labours I require no more then that to the perusing of them thou wilt bring an vnpartiall minde free from preiudicate opinion raysed by Pulpit-inuectiues and Popular Reports free I say from human regards affected vnto the Truth of Saluation resolued when the same appeares not to be kept from the imbracing therof through the feare of teÌ„porall dangers If thy mind be thus indiffereÌ„tly piously disposed I do not doubt but after atteÌ„tiue reading thou wilt giue the same Censure of the Conferences and Disputations bâ—twixt vs and our Aduersary which Marcellinus pronounced of the CoÌ„ferences betwixt the Catholicks and Donatists Augustin in Breuiculo Collat. Omnium ArgumentoruÌ„ manifestatione à Catholicis Aduersarios confutatos esse That the Catholickes are proued superiour vnto their Aduersaryes by the manifest truth of all kind of Arguments A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS AND PRINCIPALL Matters handled aswell in the Answere as in the Reioynder THE Preface to the Reader An Introduction to the Censure shewing the vanity of the Pictures and Pageants displayed in the first two pages of the Ministers Booke CONTENTS OF THE CENSVRE Sect. I. Doctour White his Ignorance of Latin and Grammer or els wilfull going agaynst the knowne Truth pag. 9. § 1. S. Epiphanius words about Images interpreted agaynst Grammer pag. 10.11 c. § 2. His Grammaticall Ignorance about the wordes Accipite Manducate Bibite pag. 12.13 c. § 3. His grosse misprision in translating of Latin pag. 15.16 c. § 4. About S. Cyprians teaching Transubstantiation and the word Species pag. 19.20 c. § 5. His abusing the Iesuits words agaynst English Construction to an impious sense pag. 23.24 c. Sect. II. D. White his grosse and incredible Ignorance in Logicke pag. 30. § 1. His fond accusation of the Iesuit as peccant agaynst the forme of syllogisme pag. 31. § 2. Foure Arguments by him brought all foolish peccant in forme pag 37.38 c. § 3. His ridiculous Arguments to proue a diuine Ordinance for Lay-men to read the Scripture pag. 43.44 c. Sect. III. D. White his grosse Ignorance of Theology pag. 51. §· 1. His teaching that vnto Ministers Religious Adoration is duâ— pag. 52.53 c. § 2. That that cannot be the true Church which hath wicked Pastours pag. â—6 57 c. § 3. He professeth Infidelity about the Blessed Sacracrament pag. 64.65 c. § 4. His grosse Ignorance further discouered about the same pag. 68 69· c. § 5. His extreme Ignorance about Satisfaction pag. 72.73 c. § 6. His Ignorance about the Holy Crosse Water of Iordan pag. 77.78 c. § 7. His Ignorance About Traditions pag 83.84 c. Sect. IIII. D. White his Ignorance in holy Scripture pag. 86. § 1. He denyeth the Text context of Scripture pag. 87.88 c. § 2. He is forced to go agaynst Christs expresse words pag. 89.90 c. § 3. He is forced to deny the Creed pag. 92.93 c. § 4. In answering Scriptures he contradicteth himselfe grants the Iesuit the Question pag. 95.96 c. § 5. In lieu of answering he confirmes the Iesuits Arguments pag. 98.99 c. § 6. He sends the Iesuite to God for an Answere pag. 101.102 c. § 7. His innumerable grosse Impertinencies in cyphering scoring of Scriptures pag. 104.105 c. § 8. He citeth Scriptures that make agaynst him pag. 108.109 c. § 9. Scriptures abused falsifyed pag. 112.113 c. The Text of Matth. 24.24 That euen the Elect shall be deceaued were it possible by him most grossely applyed pag. 116. c. The Text Act. 17.11 About the Beroeans abused pag. 118.119 c. The Text 1. Ioan. 18. If we say we haue no sinne c. falsifyed pag. 120.121 c. Sect. V. His Ignorance Fraude Falshood in alleaging Fathers and all manner of Authours pag. 125. § 1. Seauen Testimonyes of S. Augustine about Scripture Tradition falsifyed 127.128 c. § 2. Seauen Testimonyes of other Fathers falsifyed pag. 134.135 c. § 3. Foule Calumniation Falsification of Hosius Bellarmine Petrus à Soto Bosius p. 143.144 c. § 4. Other Fathers impudently falsifyed as if they did auerre what they do most constantly maintayne proue pag. 150.151 c. § 5. Grosse Imputations with manifest falshood imputed vnto Cardinall Baronius pag. 153.154 c. CONTENTS OF THE ANSVVERE AND REIOYNDER THE Preface to King Iames. pag. 3. That the Roman Church is the only true Church p. 3. A short Treatise concerning the Resolution of Fayth for the more full cleering of the ensuing Controuersies about Tradition Scripture the Church pag. 15. § 1. The Protestant Resolution of Fayth declared pag. 15.16 c. § 2. The former Resolution confuted by six Arguments pag. 16.17.18 c. § 3. Concerning the light of Scripture pag. 21.22 c. ¶ The second Part of this Treatise About the Catholicke Resolution of Fayth pag. 30. § 1. The first Principle proued pag. 30.31 c. § 2. The seeond Principle demonstrated pag. 32.33 c. § 3. The third Principle proued pag. 36.37 c. § 4. How the Churches Tradition is proued infallible independently of Scripture pag. 38.39 c. § 5. The difference betweene Propheticall and ordinary diuine Illumination by which Protestants Cauills are answered pag. 41.42 c. § 6. The fourth Principle proued pag. 44.45 c. THE FIRST GROVND § 1. That a Christian Resolution of Fayth is built vpon perpetuall Tradition deriued by succession from the Apostles pag. 50.51 c. § 2. Concerning the Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture pag. 61.62 c. ¶ How Catholikes grant the same sufficiency to be in Scripture as Protestants do and the true state of the Question about the sufficiency of Scripture and of Tradition pag. 63.64 c. THE SECOND GROVND § 3. That there is a Visible Church always in the world to whose Traditions men are to cleaue That this Church is One Vniuersall Apostolicall Holy pag. 70.71 c. § 4. The Properties of the Church proued by Matth. 28.20 pag. 82.83 c. § 5. That the Roman is the One Holy Catholike Apostolicall Church from by which we are to receaue the Tradition of Christian Doctrine pag. 85.86 c. ¶ That the Protestant Church was not before Luther pag. 85.86 c. ¶ That the Grecians were not Protestants in Essence pag. 87. ¶ That the Waldenses were not Protestants for Essence and kind pag. 88. ¶ That Protestants not being able to cleere themselues to be the Visible Church by Tradition do vaynely appeale vnto Scripture for their Doctrine pag. 89.90 c. § 6. The Conclusion of this Matter shewing that Protestants erre fundamentally pag. 108.109 c. THE NINE POINTS I. Point About vvorship of Images pag. 123. § 1. Worship of Images consequent out of the Principles of Nature and Christianity pag. 125.126 c. §
that Religious AdoratioÌ„ is due to Ministers See the Censure Sect. 3. §. 1. Adored Selfe and with other glorious Giew-gawes in honour of your Booke and Religion Touching which I will say a word that hereby the Reader may giue a ghesse at the Truth Learning Discretion Modesty you shew in your booke A good house as sayth (*) Bona domus ex limine debet agnosci Ambros De institut Virg. S. Ambrose being knowne by the Frontispice thereof The Roman Oratour rebuketh some ancient Philosophers who made shew to contemne human Glory whereof in their harts they were insatiably greedy conuincing their Hypocrisy by this Argument (b) Cicero pro Archia Libris quos de contemnenda gloria scribunt sua nomina inscribunt Their bookes inscribed of the coÌ„tempt of glory are superscribed with their names that they may be glorious What then may we thinke of you who in the booke wherein you reiect the Image of your Lord and Sauiour as (c) Reply pag. 21â— no good nor effectuall means to breed godly memory heauenly desires in this very Booke I say eueÌ„ in the first Page thereof next after the Blankes you haue placed your owne Picture in as Liuely Louely Venerable manner as you could deuise that people gazing thereon might by the aspect thereof be moued with Loue with Veneration with Deuotion towardes you This sheweth that through a Vayne glorious Humour you feele that Truth in your hart which through want of Religious deuotion you (d) Reply pag. 214. deny in wordes to wit that Honours done to the Image are by the law and institution of Nature referred and to be taken as done to the Person And if this be so in a Minister why should not holy Images be good meanes of pious Deuotion and godly Memory towardes Christ Iesus Why should not meÌ„ be moued to Religious Deuotion by the Image of our Sauiour crucifyed aswell as by yours heere paynted with all the Ornaments of a Ministeriall Deane By the Picture I say of the Sonne of God suffering for man not sitting in a curious wrought Chayre as you doe but hanging on a Paynfull and Ignominious Crosse not with a Veluet Cap on his Head as you weare to keepe in your Witts but with a Crowne of Thornes which piercing into his sacred Temples let out his bloud not cloathed in Damaske as you be but in the Purple of his pretious Bloud not set forth with fine Ruffebâ—nds and Cuffs wherwith your wrests and necke be trimmed to make your face looke smugge and gracious to the eye of flesh but ful of rough blowes â—â—ide sores bleeding wounds which represent the (e) Credentibus vbique Sponsus pulcher occurrit pulcher ad dexteram Patris pulcher in manibus Matris pulcher in Caelo pulcher in Ligno pulcher in Miraculis pulcher in Flagellis Augustin in Psal. 44. beauty of his Charity to the eye of the Soule But herein you are pardonable in that this Irreligious Vanity comes to you by (f) The like was done by Acacius that Enemy of the Roman Sea as writeth Suidas And by the Bohemian Protestant-Rebell Zisea who hauing destroyed all holy Images caused his owne to be set vp in euery place Aeneas Syluius Histor. Bohem. kind You imitate herein the Grand propagatour of your Ministeriall Stocke Iohn Caluin He hauing reiected the images of Christ Iesus his Saynts not allowing them so much as to be fit Bookes to instruct the Ignorant (g) Caluin Instit. l. 1. c. â—◠§. 1. checking Saint Gregory for so affirming As not brought vp in the Schoole of the Holy Ghost Neuerthelesse he did dote on his owne Image and was most greedy of the tokens of Affection shewed him by the same Hence when sundry persons specially the Damsells of Geneua (i) La via de Caluin c. â—â— to shew their deuoted Loue to this their Arch-Prophet wore his Image about their necks directly vpon their harts he tooke therin singular Content so farre as vnto some zealous Ministers and Godly Brethren that with shew of dislike warned him thereof he made this charitable Answere The thinge shall be continued in despight of you if you like it not turne away your eyes otherwise let your harts breake with Enuy. Whereby it is cleere that Ministers vnderstand feele by the instinct of Nature that Images are fit instruments to kindle and conserue Affection towardes Persons Venerably represented giuing vs iust cause to suspect that their condemning the vse of Christs Image by way of Religious Deuotion towardes him proceedes not in truth as is pretended from their zeale agaynst Idolatrous Worship but because themselues alone by the meanes of their Images would take possession of mens Harts What is the reason that so many fond Images are dayly inuented and vented in England in lying formes no lesse Honorable to your Religion then Disgraceful to the Roman but that you know that Images are the Bookes of the Ignorant and weapons to expugne the harts of the simple eyther with loue affection or by auersion and contempt A Candle signifying the Light of your Ghospell is paynted with a generall Assembly of your Gospellers with great shew of Piety about it Luther Caluin Zuinglius Husse Wickliffe Melancthon Knox Bullinger Beza Zanchy some other A Diuell a Pope a Cardinall a Fryar in Vggly shapes puffing and blowing casting holy water in vayne to put it out A fabulous vanity to delude Sottes seing euery maÌ„ that is not a foole may most easily know euen by Luthers Confession (k) Luther Tom. 7. Wittemberg Anno 15â—8 lib. de Missapriuata Vnctione Sacerdotum fol. 228. that his light came not from heauen but from Hell kindled by conference with the Diuell whose (l) Halitus eius prunas ardere facit Iob 41.18 breath made your dead coales to burne so farre is he from going about to quench the fire of your Gospell As for the generall meeting of your Gospellers sitting together in such a Concordious manner they that haue read their Writings know that should they meete in truth as they are made in your fancy if their tongues be of the same temper as their pens they would not sit so demurely and peaceably as they are paynted by you but fall together by the eares and to Cuffs the one with the other that as sayth your (m) Bilson de perpetua gubernat Eccles. c. 16. Si linguae eoruÌ„ similiter se habent ac calami pluribus cerâ—è opus erit Pacis Custodibus ad pugnas praeueniendas quà m Notarijs ad decreta eoruÌ„ perscribenda Bishop Bilson without doubt there would be need of more Iustices of peace to part the frayes â—â—en of notaryes to write the decrees of that CouÌ„cell Hence the Painter not without mystery and with great foresight hath made the Minister KNOX in the midst of this imagined Assembly to signify that if euer a Generall Councell of your Reformers happ
taken with agues and with death yea some with Ministers wiues Verily should Deane-ryes be giuen in England according to learning this your discourse about taking would deserue this verdict in the Iudgement of all learned â—en His Deane-ry let another man take The third Example §. 3. WHAT shall I say of your grosse misprision in translating which shewes your ignorance in Latine or else your fraudulency willfull impugnation of knowne truth To proue that Generall Councells may erre in â—ayth yow (k) Reply pag. 155. cite this saying of (l) Cusan lib. 2. concord c. 6. Cusanus Notandum est experimento rerum vniuersale Concilium plenarium posse deficere The true English wherof is It is to be noted that a plenary Vniuersall Councell may fâ—ile in the experiment of things or (m) deficere potest in experiendo ibid. matters of fact You translate Experience of things doth manifest that a plenary Vniuersall Councell may be deficient What grossenes is this Doth notandum signify manifest what more manifest though not noted by yow then that Cusanus (n) Docet Augustinus quomodo plenaria coÌ„cilia per subsequentia CoÌ„cilia corrigantur ob FACTI ERROREM ibid. by experiment of things meanes matters of fact For his drift is to shew that former Councels may be corrected by the later ob facti errorem in respect of errours in matter of fact otherwise in matters of fayth that plenary vniuersall Councells are INFALLIBLE Cusanus doth (o) Si concordanti senteÌ„tia aliquid definitum fuerit censetur à Spiritu sancto inspiratum per Christum in medio congregatorum in eius nomine praesidentem INFALLIBILITER iudicatum ibid. c. 4. hold and proue in that very Booke To proue that all Heretiks pretend not scripture (p) Orthodox pag. 41. 42. yow cite S. Augustine as saying All heretikes reade not scriptures (q) August lib. 7. in Gen. c. â— whose wordes in Latin be Neque enim non omnes haeretici scripturas Catholicas legunt nec ob aliud haeretici sunt nisi quod eas non rectè intelligentes suas falsas opiniones contra earum veritatem pertinacitâ—â— asserunt Which place translated proueth the contrary For it is this All heretikes read scripture nor are they heretikes for any other cause but that vnderstanding thâ— scriptures amisse they pertinaciously maintaine their erroneous opinions against their truth These words neque enim non omnes haeretici scripturas Catholicas legunt yow translate all Heretikes do not read scriptures against Grammer against sense Against Grammer by the Rules wherof two negations affirme so that non omnes haeretici non legunt is the same as omnes Haeretici legunt all Heretikes read the scriptures Against sense for in this your translation All heretike do not read scriptures nor are they heretikes for any other reason but because they vnderstand them noâ— aright one part of the sentence destroyeth the 〈◊〉 For if all heretikes read not scriptures as yow 〈◊〉 S. Augustine say in the first part then the cause of their heresy is not onely pertinacious misprision 〈◊〉 the sense of scripture as he affirmeth in the 〈◊〉 No doubt if heretikes read not the sacred text 〈◊〉 not only misinterpretation of the sense but also ignorance of the text may be the cause of their 〈◊〉 This same Ignorance in Grammer makes you in this (r) Repl. pag. 35. in margin lit b. your Reply in proofe that Protestantes acknowledge some places obscure in scripture to cite these wordes of your fellow-Minister Paraeus NON nâ—gâ—mus scripturam NIHIL habere obscuritatis Is not 〈◊〉 the playne contrary of what you intend For what is non negamus but we affirme scripturam nihiâ— habere obscuritatis the scripture to be no where obscure To proue that we make scriptures subiect to 〈◊〉 Pope yow cite the Dictates of Gregory the 7. set downe by Baronius containing certaine priuiledges of the Popes authority wherof one is Quòd nullum Capitulum nullusque liber Canonicus habeatur sine authoritate ipsius yow (s) Reply pag. 92. in fine translate thus that no chapter no booke of scripture be esteemed Canonicall without 〈◊〉 authority In which translation you shew both falshood and ignorance Falshood in that yow ad to the text (t) This you haue done not only in this place but also in your Orthodoxe three or foure tymes as in the Epistle dedicatory pag. 10. elswhere in the same letter as part thereof no â—â—â—pter of scripture no booke of scripture those words 〈◊〉 being in the latine text nor in the sense for if it â—â—re granted that the Pope doth here speake of the chapter of bookes it doth not follow that he meanes 〈◊〉 bookes of scripture but rather the bookes of Canon law which lawes in that age (u) Burchardus Isidorus Gratianus diuers did beginne to compile gather togeather into volumes and so he defineth that no Chapters that no bookes of Canon or Church-law be held authenticall without his approbation Ignorance because common sense might haue taught yow that this Decree could not be vnderderstood of Chapters or Bookes The reason is because to put chapter before booke and to say no chapter of booke nor any booke shall be held Canonicall without the Pope is idle and senselesse For if no chapter can be Canonicall without the Pope much lesse a whole booke so that hauing sayd that not so much as a chapter be held Canonicall without the Pope it was senselesse to adde the same of whole bookes This speach is as foolish as this should one say Not any person nor any whole family came to Church or as this He read not one line nor one chapter nor one booke wheras sense would say not one booke not one chapter not one line Thirdly a little skill in latine ioyned with iudgment would haue easely found out the true and coherent sense of this Dictate For Capitulum signifyes not onely a chapter of a booke but also a Chapter-house or colledge of Chanons Liber signifyes noâ— onely a booke but also free and exempt Canonicâ—â— also as euery man knowes signifyes not onely Canonicall but also a Chanon or Prebend So that the Popes priuilege quòd nullum Capitulum nullusqâ—â— liber Canonicus habeatur absque illius authoritate is thus in English that no Chapter-house or Colledge of ChanoÌ„s nor any single Canon or Prebend be free exempt froâ— the authority of the Ordinary but by the Popes authority 〈◊〉 sole authority of Metropolitans or Primates not 〈◊〉 sufficient to make such exemptions As for â—â—okes of scriptures we teach that they all be diuine and canonicall in themselues and for the most part â—â— owne to be such by the perpetuall tradition of the Church some very few excepted that haue been â—anonized vnto vs by generall Councells and not 〈◊〉 by the sole and single authority of the pope Behold how wide off the marke yow shoote through your ignorance of
recom Sacrae scripturae Ergo A Christian is built fundamentally on Scripture I wish that this my Discouery may make you wise vnto your eternall Saluation as is doth lay open your shamefull Ignorance vnto your temporall disgrace for here you are so grossely and togeather vnluckily ignorant as you are fallen into the very same fault in Logicke wherof without cause you charged your Aduersary as peccant to wit of making Syllogismes whereof both propositions were affirmatiue in the second figure An argument is affirmatiue in the second figure when the Meanes of proofe is affirmed in both propositions Your Meanes to prooue that a Christian is fundamentally built on Scripture is this terme Built on the rocke and this is the very thing affirmed in both your propositions In your maior Built on the rocke is affirmed of the Christian The Christian or he that is fundamētally built is built on the rocke In the minor the same is affirmed of him that is built on Scripture The Scripture is the rocke that is he that is built on the Scripture is built on the rocke Hence your conclusion Ergo The Christian or he that is fundamentally built is built on the Scripture is affirmatiue in the second figure How fond inconsequent this forme of arguing is you may feele by this of the same tenour with change of matter He that is borne in Sicily is borne in an Iland He that is borne in England is borne in an Iland Ergo He that is borne in England is borne in Sicily This is a folish Sophisme because concluding affirmatiuely in the second figure so is yours For as it is not consequent if a man be borne in an Iland that he is borne in Sicily because there be other Ilands besides Sicily so this is no good consequence A Christian is built on the Rocke Ergo on the Scripture because Scripture is not the only Rocke the word of God as deliuered by Tradition being a rock and ground of Fayth no lesse sure infallible then Scripture or Gods Word as written Abraham Isaac Iacob Ioseph and innumerable other holy persons were fundamentally built in fayth yet not built on Scripture the word of God not being then extant in writing S. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. doth write that in his dayes many Nations were Christian and did diligently obserue the true Christian Religion printed in their harts and yet had not any Scripture nor the word of God as written False then is this negatiue which your argument put into true forme doth imply No man is built fundamentally on the Rocke that is not built on the word of God as written Your third argument (k) Reply pag. 48. The seed of fayth is the roote and foundation of euery Christian But the Scripture is the seed of fayth Ioan. 20.41 for it is the word of God Luc. 8.11 Ioan. 1.18 1. Cor. 4.15 This argument is also an idle fallacy and sophististicall sillogisme for both the propositions thereof are particuler which forme as hath been said is vicious and not lawfull in any figure This you may perceaue by this argument formed punctually according to the shape of yours with chāge of matter The seed of Fayth is the roote and foundation of euery Christian. But the bloud of Martyrs is the seed of Fayth for it is the seed of the Christian Church Ergo The bloud of Martyrs is the roote and foundation of euery Christian. This argument is like yours and both are vaine because the Argument being in the first figure the Maior proposition is particuler which ought to be vniuersall in this sort Euery seed of fayth is the roote of euery Christian The Scripture or word of God as written is the seed of Fayth Ergo. The Scripture or word of God as written is the roote of euery Christian. This argument is in lawfull forme but the maior therof is false for euery seed of Fayth is not the roote of a Christian but only that seed which first breedeth fayth in him and whereon all other seedes depend Now the seed which first breedeth Fayth in Christians is not the word of God as written but the word of God as deliuered by tradition For vpon the credit of Tradition we know the written word and without this ordinarily speaking and without new immediate Reuelation we cannot know the Scripture or written word to be from the Apostles and by them of God Ergo the word of God not as writtē but as deliuered by tradition is that seed of fayth which is the roote of euery Christian. The fourth Argument (l) Reply pag. 48. The Scripture giuen by diuine inspiration is simply and without exception to be receaued and all tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be refused Hence it followes that Scripture is a rule of Tradition and not Tradition of Scripture This argument proceedeth vpon the supposal of an impossibility so is idle sophisticall inept Logitians are taught by their Mayster Aristotle if one impossibility be admitted a thousand other impossibilityes and absurdityes will be thence concuded You suppose in this argument that the word of God as deliuered by full tradition may be repugnant vnto the word of God as written Hence you inferre that Tradition is not simply to be receaued but only so far forth as it agrees with the Scripture Your supposition is blasphemous for the word of God vnwritten cannot be repugnant vnto truth being the words of the Prime VERITY that cannot deceaue nor be deceaued This impossibility supposed your cōsequence is not good Ergo Tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be reiected and Scripture to be held only simply as the rule of Fayth For if Gods vnwritten word could be repugnant vnto the written it would not follow that the vnwritten word were to be reiected and the written simply to be receaued but that neyther the written nor vnwritten were to be credited This is cleere because if God may lye and deceyue vs by his word of liuely voyce deliuered by Tradition why not also in his writings deliuered by Tradition What authority doth writing adde to Gods word that God cannot lye in writing if he may lye in speaking I hope I haue shewed apparently these your Arguments wherein you so much glory to be not only false in respect of matter but also fallacious in respect of forme The same I could shew of allmost all the rest of your Arguments of this your Reply Is not then the case of your ignorant Proselites most deplorable and desperate whome you persuade to trust these your halting consequences rather then the perpetuall Traditions of the Church You will haue them to make themselues Iudges not only of what is contayned expressely in Scripture but also of what is thence deriued by Arguments according to the rules of Logicke wherein if they chance to mistake they erre and are damned The third Example §. 3. A Third Example of Logicall Ignorance is your heaping togeather of many fond
subscribed vnto as containing (m) See the Approbation I Francis White c. nothing but what is aggreable to the publike Faith and Doctrine established in the Church of England And yet heere yow say It is certaine that the Pope is the man of sinne sonne of perditioÌ„ so shewing your selfe to be of their number whome the said Authour in that very place doth rebuke as Omnium horarum homines Halters in opinions for priuate ends I omit also your folly in exclaming at the misery of English Romists for that they adhere vnto your supposed Antichrist not marking that to cleaue to the Antichrist of your forming must euen according to your owne principles be singular happines For Antichrist according to your Tenet doth sit gouerne in the House and Temple of God and so by the same breath wherwith you make men vassals of Antichrist you make them Gods Domesticks his House his Temple Will it be misery to be found such at the day of Iudgement Yea rather the Church of Christ the Temple of God being onely one out of which no saluation is had what a misery will it be at the day of Iudgement wheÌ„ by your owne mouth you shall be conuinced to haue forsaken that company which you confesse to be the Church and Temple of God through feare of your owne shaddow and fancy For what can be more foolish then to fasten the name of Antichrist vpon the Gouernour of the ChristiaÌ„ Church who doth dayly professe to belieue in Christ Iesus the sonne of God and Sauiour of the world who by his Adherents doth more then all the world besides defend and propagate amongst Pagans his most holy Name Religion But to let these things passe marke how you coÌ„tradict your selfe in saying on the one side that that caÌ„not be the House Temple of God which now hath or in former times hath had wicked Pastours On the other side that that is the House and Temple of God in which the Man of sinne that is a succession of wicked Pastours hath a long while for many ages gouerned and doth rule and gouerne So hard is it for men blinded with passion agaynst Christian Doctrine deriued by succession from the Apostles to run in their passionate conceipts without falling into the pit of open contradiction whereby their folly comes to be manifest vnto all men The third Errour You profâ—sse Infidelity about the Blessed Sacrament §. 3. THVS you write pag. 179. To that part of the Iesuits speach that we deny the Reall Presence or else the mayne Article of the Creed that Christ is still in heaâ—en because we will not allow a body in two places at â—nce I answere We cannot graunt that one indiuiduall â—ody may be in many distant places at one and the same â—nstant of time vntill the Papalls DEMONSTRATE THE POSSIBILITY THEREOF by teâ—timony of Scripture or the ancient TraditioÌ„ of the Church â—r by apparent reason Thus you This is playne deaâ—ing and open profession of Infidelity For what â—s heretical obstinacy but to reiect the word of God â—bout the mysteries of our Fayth in the playne exâ—resse and literall sense vntill the possibility of â—hat sense be first demonstrated No Heretike was eâ—er so barbarous as to prefer his reason beyond Gods word so farre as to affirme that the word of God contrary to his reason was false Their impiety was to reiect Gods word about some mistery of fayth in the literall sense flying to morall and mysticall interpretation because they could not comprehend and therefore would not belieue the possibility of the playne and litterall sense The Arrians did not deny the word of Scripture saying (n) 1. Ioan. â— 7 of the Father Word and Holy Ghost these three are one nor the Word of Christ (o) Ioan. 10.30 I and my Father are one to be true morally and mystically in respect of vnity by singular affection and consent betwixt these three persons They were Heretikes for denying the truth of these wordes in the proper and substantiall sense because the same seemed to them impossible For seing that we might not expound the Scriptures about mysteries of fayth to an easy figuratiue sense when the same according to the letter goeth beyond the capacity of our vnderstanding God doth so often in holy Writ (p) Gen. 18.17 Numquid Deo quid est difficile Hieâ—rm 32.17 Non est difficile tibi omne verbum Et v. 27. Numquid mihi difficile erit omne verbuÌ„ Luc. 1.37 Non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbuÌ„ Et Deo omnia possibilia sunt Matt. â—9 26 Luc. 18.27 Omnia possibilia sunt credenti Mar. 9.22 assure vs that nothing is impossible or difficile vnto him and (q) Iob. 9.10 That he can do things incomprehensible without number What greater obstinacy then for Christian men to professe that they will neuer belieue his word about the mysteryes of fayth in the literall sense vntill the possibility of the sense be demonstrated vnto them that is brought within the compasse and comprehension of their wit You may perchance excuse your selfe by saying the words of Christs institution This is my body takeÌ„ in the literall sense do not inforce that Christ according to his corporall substance is in two places at once I answere this you cannot say without contradicting not only the word of Scripture as is proued in the Reioynder but also your selfe For you do plainly affirme that this our doctrine yea euen Transubstantiation is contayned in the literall sense of the words of the Institution If say you the substance of bread and wine be deliuered in the Eucharist then the wordes are figuratiue and cannot be true in the proper sense because one indiuiduall substance cannot be predicated of another properly Thus you (r) Reply pag. 3â—7 whereupon I thus argue That without which the word of Christ cannot be true in the proper and literall sense is inforced and prooued by the word of Christ taken in the literall sense But except the substance of bread be absent and Christ in lieu thereof present according to his corporall substance the word of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the literall and proper sense as you affirme Ergo Transubstantiation and the presence of Christ on earth according to his bodily substance in lieu of bread is inforced proued by the literall sense of the word of Christs institution Wherfore to professe as you â—o neuer to belieue Christs body to be in two places at once vntill it be demonstrated vnto you to be possible is to professe you will not belieue the word of God in the literall sense about mysteries of fayth further then the possibility thereof can be made euident vnto you Is not this to professe Infidelity Secondly you may say that when you require that we demonstrate by testimony of Scripture that a body may be in two places at once you meane not that we bring texts of
Scripture that demonstrate by reasō how this is possible but only that we bring places that expresly say that This is possible vnto God For as you say pag. 438. In the wordes of our Sauiour This is my body there is not a sillable concerning accidēts without a subiect or of a bodyes being in two places at once or concerning any miracle wrought by Gods omnipotency I answere that likewise in this text of Scripture (s) Ioan. 1 1◠The Word was made flesh there is not a sillable that a perfect substantiall nature can exist without proper personality or that two complete natures can subsist togeather in the same Hypostasis nor of any miracle done by the diuine omnipotency yet because this text of Scripture about the mistery of the incarnation cānot be true in the literall sense except those hard incomprehensible things be graunted to be possible by diuine omnipotency we must togeather with the mistery implicitly belieue that God can separate proper subsistance from complete substantiall natures that two natures infinitly distant in perfection can subsist in the same Hypostasis though the Scripture doth not expressely so affirme In like manner though the words of Christ This is my body do not expressely say that his body may be in many places at once nor that accidents can exist without a subiect by diuine omnipotency yet because this his word whereon we grounde our fayth concerning this mistery cannot as your selfe graunt be true in the proper and literall sense except Transubstantiation and the Presence of his body in many places at once be belieued hence we must togeather with the reall presence and litterall sense of Gods word implicitely belieue these miracles to be done Wherfore in saying you will neuer belieue them except their possibility be first demonstrated vnto you through ignorāce of Theology you professe Infidelity For to resolue not to belieue seeming implicācies inuolued in the misteries of faith except they be eyther seuerally expressed as possible in Gods word or els demonstrable by reason is the right way to belieue iust nothing there being no mistery of faith which doth not imply some difficultyes the possibility of which is neyther expresly auerred in scripture nor can be demonstrated by reason A fourth Example of your Ignorance in Theology §. 4. I Adde another Example about the Blessed Eucharist wherein you discouer grosse Ignorance not only against Theology but euen common sense And this Example may serue as a patterne how insufficiently and impertinently you answere the Iesuites argument The Iesuit pag. 406. argueth in this sort Christ doth affirme that the Sacrament is truly really substantially not the figure and effect of his body but his very body but how can consecrated bread be termed truly really and substantially the body of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with it Thus you answere pag. 406. To the effecting hereof locall corporall presence is not necessary A Father and his Sonne may be absent by distance of place one from the other yet the Sonne is TRVLY AND REALLY VNITED with his Father so as his Fathers nature is in him and he hath right in his Fathers person and state A mans goods may be at Constantinople and yet he liuing in England is a true possessour and owner of them and he may communicate and vse them and distance of place hindreth not his right and propriety Now although there be a difference betweene things temporall and spirituall yet thus farre there is agreement that euen as we possesse temporall things being locally absent so likewise we may receyue and partake Christs body and bloud by the power of Fayth and donation of the Holy Ghost according to a celestiall and spirituall manner Thus you Now behold how many wayes yow discouer grosse Ignorance in this answere First were all that you say true yet is it impertinent and ineptly brought in answere of the Iesuits argument For the question is not whether men may receiue by the vertue of Fayth and donation of the holy Ghost sanctity and grace through the merits of Christs body and bloud that are absent for this al acknowledge to happen in Baptisme and to be possible in the Eucharist if Christ had so ordained The question is about the truth of Gods word whether consecrated bread may be truly and really called the body of Christ being as you say a thing not only indiuidually distinct but also locally distant from his body A man being in London may possesse iuridically an Horse that is in the Countrey is it therfore true to say that this man in London is truly really the Horse in the Countrey A Merchant in London may haue great treasures of money in Constantinople and a right to lay them vp in his Coffers at London may one therfore shewing his empty coffers at London say truly this is a treasure of money In like manner suppose which is false that a man hath iuridicall authority ouer Christs body absent and existing in heauen to dispose therof at his pleasure may he therfore be sayd to be truly and really Christs body May one therefore shewing the Sacrament being in your Tenet an empty thing in respect of containing Christs bodily substance say truly therof This is really Christs body and corporall substance who will maintaine such absurdities that is sober Wherefore your discourse that a man may truly posesse a thing absent serues nothing to satisfy the Iesuites question how can consecrated bread be truly verily really the body of Christ if he be not so much as present in place with it Secondly what more absurd then what you affirme that a man may not only in right possesse but really and truly vse his things that be absent Can a man in London vse and ride on his horse that is at Yorke Or a Merchant in Bristow feed on his grapes that are growing in his vineyard in Spayne If they cannot and it is ridiculous to say they can how can a man existing on earth receaue truly and really Christ distant from him as farre as the highest heauen Receaue him I say not in a signe only according to gracious Effects but euen according to his body and corporall substance with their mouth of flesh For Christ did not say This is a figure of my body or this is soule-feeding grace giuen by the merit of my body and bloud but This is my body euen to your corporall mouth wherewith I bid you to take and eate it Thirdly who cā forbeare laughing to heare you so soberly affirme that the Son that is absent from his Father as far as Constantinople is from London is not only morally by Loue and Affection but TRVLY and REALLY VNITED with his Father For Vnion is the way vnto Vnity so that whensoeuer two indiuiduall things are truly really vnited by this vnion is made a third indiuiduall thing distinct frō ech of them a part from all other
〈◊〉 Tradition vnwritten that this is the prime ground of â—ayth more fundamentall then Scripture you most larâ—ely labour to refell and tearme it pag. 91. an Anti-â—hristian and impudent assertion to depresse the written â—ord of God exalt the prophane bastardly Apocriphal â—â—aditions of the Pope This is bitter inough yet cerâ—â—ynly you teach that there be traditions maintayâ—ing and vpholding the Scripture in authority or 〈◊〉 you speake ineptly not knowing what you affirâ—e For some two pages before this your reprochfull words to wit pag. 89. you thus distinguish about Traditions The Church hath no perpetuall Traditions but such as are EYTHER contayned in Scripture OR which are subseruient to MAINTAINE the Fayth Verity and AVTHORITY of the Scripture the doctrine thereof Thus you I demand of you These subseruient Traditious about fayth and doctrine be they contayned in Scripture or not If they be your distinction is senselesse one member thereof not being condistinct agaynst the other for if subseruient traditions be traditions coÌ„tayned in Scripture what more inept then to say traditions eyther contayned in Scripture or subseruient If they be not contayned in Scripture but condistinct from them then according to your distinction there be some traditions not contayned in Scripture which maintayne and vphold the authority of Scripture and the verity and doctrine thereof If you grant this as you must vnlesse you will grant your distinction be voyd of iudgment then must you also grant tradition to be more fundamentall then Scripture For thus I argue That which is the ground of the authority of Scripture is more fundameÌ„tall then Scripture That which doth mantayne and vphold the authority of Scripture is the ground and foundation of the authority of Scripture Ergo That which doth vphold and mantayne the authority of Scripture is more fundamentall then Scripture Now your selfe ascribe vnto Tradition subseruient condistinct agaynst written Tradition the office of mantayning the authority of Scripture So that eyther you know not what you doe write or else by your owne distinctions you are conuinced to establish that very doctrine which elsewhere you so sharpely censure as Antichristian impudeÌ„t prophane bastardly Certainly you are a seely Disputant about matters of Theodogy No more sense or iudgement is there in the distinctioÌ„ you make of holy Belieuers into triumphant militant pag. 49. The tearme Church say you is taken in the holy Scripture for the vniuersall number of holy belieuers in all ages and more strictly for the whole number of holy belieuers vnder the new Testament Hebr. 12.23 Apoc. 5.9 Ephes. 5.25.27 And thus it comprehendeth both the Church militant triumphant Thus you distinguishing the Church of belieuers into militant and Triumphant whence it is consequent that the Triumphant Saynts in heauen are belieuers What more ridiculous and agaynst the prime and knowne Notion of Triumphant Saynts It may be God permitted you to stumble vpon this grosse simplicity through want of reflexion that you might thereby be warned to reflect vpon the foulenes of another doctrine which wittingly willfully you mantayne though being no lesse exorbitant then this The doctrine is that your Protestant Militant Church is a multitude who (a) Iohn White in his Defence pag. 309. by diuine illumination see manifestly the truth of thinges belieued of the Blessed Trinity and other mysteryes that you are like not vnto men (b) Francis White Orthodoxe pag. 108. which see a farre off a certayne obscure glimmering of the light but vnto men that coming to the place where the light is behold the sayd light in it selfe Verily to tearme the Church militant a multitude of BEHOLDERS resolued of truth by manifest light euidence is as Exoticall and as idle Gibberish in Christian Theology as to call the Church triuÌ„phant a multitude of BELEEVERS that warre and walke by Fayth As for your Protestant triuÌ„phant Church if they did not formerly belieue in this life the word of God without seing the light lustre and resplendant verity of the doctrine thereof as you pretend they did not I do not doubt but they are belieuers in the next world to wit in the number of them of whom the Apostle writeth Ioan. 2.9 credunt contremiscunt Ignorance in Scripture SECT IV. CONCERNING Holy Scripture you brag intollerably in euery page of your Reply how the same standeth cleerly on your side and that the Iesuit hath not been able to proue any of the Nine Poynts by Scripture How vaine this your vant is doth appear by the Reioynder wherin you are proued almost in euery controuersy to forsake the litterall and plaine sense of Scripture and to deuise now figuratiue typicall and mysticall interpretations How idlely also you dispute out of Scriptures for matters of greatest moment which you most confidently maintayne in your Religion is made euident by what hath been shewed concerning your arguing for the preteÌ„ded Diuine Ordinance binding ignorant Laymen to read the Scripture Notwithstanding that your ignorance herin may more indeniably appeare I will add here some other arguments and tokens of the same to wit vnto what shamefull shifts you are forced to answere Scriptuâ—es brought by your Aduersary in the behalfe of Caâ—holicke doctrine You deny the Text and Context of Scripture §. 1. FIRST many times you are enforced by your aduersary when you cannot answere to deny the â—ext context of Scripture wherof I alleadge two â—xamples The Iesuit pag. 480. to proue that Christ â—romised eternall life vnto the worthy participant â—f the sacrament vnder the forme of bread bringeth â—he words of our Sauiour Iohn 6. Qui manducat hunc â—anem viuet in aeternum he that eateth this bread shall â—ue for euer You in the place quoted answere The â—cripture Iohn 6.51 saith not whosoeuer eateth sacraâ—entall bread without wine shall liue for euer but if any â—â—te this bread which came downe from heaueÌ„ to wit Christ â—â—sus incarnate shall liue for euer And then it followeth â—nlesse you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke 〈◊〉 blood you shall not haue life in you Iohn 5.53 Thus 〈◊〉 Now marke vnto what straytes maugre your â—â—agging you are brought by the Iesuite First you are not acknowledge these words cited by the Ieâ—â—ite he that eateth this bread liueth for euer to be our â—â—uiours but onely those If any shall eate c. Wherâ—â— they be our Sauiours the expresse text of Scripâ—â—re in so many words syllables Iohn 6.59 which â—â—yth He that eateth this bread liueth for euer Seâ—â—ndly you are compelled to answere that Christ â—â—ter he had said he that eateth this bread liueth for â—â—er said Vnlesse you eate the flesh and drinke the â—â—oud of the sonne of man you shall not haue life in â—ou By which ensuing senteÌ„ce he did as you thinke â—eclare the former If any eate this bread c. that it must not be vnderstood of Sacramentall bread without wine This is
â—each that Blessed Mary was an entyre Virgin only vntill â—er Childbirth But according to the CATHOLICKE FAYTH he came forth of the Virgins woÌ„be the same still resting entyre and as a Bride-grome out of his Bride-Chamber Now you may crow and crake crowne your Booke as you do in your Picture when you are so pressed by your Aduersary that you are forced to defend your Errour by holding ancient Heresyes and by laying the tearme of Sophisticall Inference vpon the Catholicke Fayth of the Creed and of the whole Christian Church In answering Scriptures you contradict your selfe and grant the Iesuit the Question §. 4. THE vanity of your former brag that the Iesuit hath proued nothing by Scripture is further made apparent in that he doth so vrge you with Scripture as you are sometimes forced to contradict your selfe sometimes to grant as much as he doth require against your selfe The Iesuit pag. 98. proueth that the Church of Christian pastours succeeding the Apostles is infallible in her Tradition because our Sauiour saith Matth. 28. Behold I am with you all dayes vntill the consummation of the world You answere pag. 100. That which is promised vpon condition is not absolute vntill the condition be fulfilled The presence of Christ is promised to the Apostles successours conditionally and as they were one with the Apostles by imitation subordinatioÌ„ that is so farre as they walked in their stepps conformed their doctrine and ministery to the patterne receiued from them Thus you in this place But pag. 174. lin 21. speaking of the absolute perpetuity and duration of the Church you say that the place Matth. 28.20 Behold I am with you all daies vntill the end of the world proueth that the Church is vniuersall in respect of time and that it continueth successiuely in all ages This your saying ouerthrowes what you said that the presence of Christ is promised vpon condition wherin the successors of the Apostles might faile For this place Behold I am with you all dayes vntill the worlds end doth shew the Church to be alwaies in the world no other wayes then because Christ according to his promise is alwaies and all dayes to the worlds end with his Church he caÌ„ not be still in the world with his Church except his Church haue still a being in the world So that according to the truth of this place we may aswell or better say the Church shall not be alwaies in the world then that it shall be in the world without Christ or his Diuine assistance to teach men infallibly the truth Wherfore if by this place we cannot as you say we cannot proue that the Church shall be euer absolutely assisted of Christ much lesse doth this place conuince that the Church shall be alwaies in the world or further then conditionally if it walke in â—he Apostles doctrine Contrariwise if this place â—roue that the Church is absolutely alwaies in the world vntill the consummation therof then à forâ—iori more strongely and more directly doth it proue â—hat Christ is absolutely not onely conditionally â—reseÌ„t with his Church all dayes to the worlds end â—o that to answere the Iesuits proofes of his Religion â—y Scripture you coÌ„tradict your selfe yea somtimes â—rant agaynst your selfe as much as he would proue For to proue the same infallibility of the Church â—e bringeth pag. 3. the place of S. Paul (g) 1. Tim. 3.15 that the â—hurch is the grouÌ„d pillar of truth but the ground of â—ertaine infallible Truth such as the Christian is â—ust be certaine infallible You answere pag. 4. lin â— If by the Church wee vnderstand the Church of Christ â—â—uing afâ—er the Apostles the same is by office and calling â—he pillar and ground of truth in all ages This your anâ—were alloweth vnto the Iesuit asmuch as he desires 〈◊〉 can desire to shew the Church to be alwaies infalâ—â—ble For that which is by office and diuine vocation the â—â—llar and ground of infallible truth hath by diuine â—rdination and assistance sufficiency for the perforâ—ance of that office as is most euident The Church â—hich is fallible may erre is not a sufficient pillar 〈◊〉 ground that is hath not sufficieÌ„cy to be the grouÌ„d 〈◊〉 Christian truth which is infallible For how can 〈◊〉 building sure immoueable stand founded vpon 〈◊〉 vncertaine ruinous and tottering foundation â—herfore seing you grant the church succeeding the â—postles to be in all ages the ground of truth by diuine vocation vnto that office you do consequently allow vnto the Iesuit as much as he would proue to wit that the Church succeeding the Apostles is iâ— all ages vntill the worlds end certaine and infallible in her teaching In lieu of answering you confirme the Iesuits Arguments §. 5. THE Iesuit pag. 38. accuseth Ministers of abusing the word of God who to proue the sole sufficiency of Scripture in respect of all men cite the text of S. Paul 2. Tim. 3.15 The Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto saluation For the words of the Apostle are directed particulerly to Timothy saying they are able to make THEE wise vnto saluation whence it is consequent that the Scriptures were sufficient for Timothy and are sufficient for such men as Tymothy was to wit for men learned and aforehand instructed by word of mouth and therupon firmely beleeuing all the most maine and necessary points of Christian doctrine and discipline That the Scriptures for men in this manner taught and grounded in fayth are aboundantly sufficient who will deny Thus the Iesuit Vnto whom you shape this answere pag. 39. Although sentences of holy Scripture are sometimes restrayned to the personall and particular subiect of which they are first spoken yet this is not generall and when the same hapneth it must be proued by better arguments then by the bare Emphasis of a word For God said 〈◊〉 Iosuah a man qualifyed aboue the ordinary ranke I will not leaue nor forsake thee Iosuah 1.5 Yet the promise implyed in this text is generall and common to all 〈◊〉 persons Hebr. 13.5 Thus you confirming the Iesuitâ— â—olution in lieu of confuting therof For as the proâ—ise I will not leaue thee made particularly vnto Ioâ—ue in regard he was a iust man doth not agree vnto â—ll men but onely vnto such as Iosue was to wit â—nto iust men and such as seeke God as he did So the â—ext of S. Paul they are able to make THEE wise vnto â—aluation spoken particulerly vnto Timothy in reâ—ard he was learned iudicious aforehand instruâ—ted grounded in Christian tradition doth agree â—nely to Timothy and such men as Timothy was to wit men aforehand taught and grounded in the â—ayth of tradition On the other side as the promise â—ade to Iosue in regard he was a Iust man cannot â—e challenged of other men that be not iust as he was if they rely theron they deceaue themselues â—o the promise the Scriptures are able to make
Ministers you cypher 1. Tim. 6.12 Fight the good fight of fayth lay hold on eterâ—all life whereunto thou art called Ibid. lin 3. to proue â—he Scripture to be sufficient for spirituall men you â—ypher 1. Cor. 2.15 But he that is spirituall iudgeth all â—hinges and is iudged of none which proueth the conâ—rary if it proue any thing to wit that the spirituâ—ll Man is not iudged and ruled by Scripture but raâ—her the Scripture is iudged and ruled by him Pag. â—0 lin 21. to proue that we wrong you in saying â—ou derogate from the Church you cite Matth. 18. â—7 He that heareth not the Church let him be as a Heathen publican Ibid. to the same purpose you cypher Heb. â—â— 17 Obey your Prelates and submit your selfe vnto them â—ag 169. lin 22. to proue that no Church euer priâ—â—d the oblation meritts of Christs passion more â—â—ghly and religiously then you do you cypher Heb. â— 14 With one oblation he did consummate for euer the â—â—nctifyed and Ephes. 5.2 He gaue himselfe a sacrifice 〈◊〉 vs to a sweet smelling sauour Iohn 1.29 Behold the â—ambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world â—ct 4.12 There is not Saluation in any other Name Pag. â—1 lin 1. to proue we wrong you by saying you aâ—â—int that (m) The words of Iohn White way pag. 126. EVERY particuler MAN examine â—â—dge of the Church her teaching you cite 1. Cor. â— 19 Are all Apostles Are all Prophets Are all teachers â—re all workers of miracles If one would study to apâ—â—y Scriptures impertineÌ„tly I am persuaded he could â—â—rdly deuise greater impertinencyes then these â—hich are so riâ—e in euery page of your booke so that it was intolerable folly for your Poet and Paynter to represent this your Voluminous cyphering of Scripture with a crowne vpon it bidding men to Behâ—â—â— grace and wisdome in your looke and Truthes Triumphâ—â—â— your booke For if this kind of cyphering of Scripture be Wisdome what I pray you is the last Extreme anâ— Non-plus of (*) I wonder you would not be warned to be more wise by the Booke of Quaeres or Prurit-anus For you cite the Scripturs as impertinently in good earnest as he did in iest to shew your Ministeriall Folly Folly You cite cypher Scriptures that make agaynst you §. 8. HEREVNTO I adde that the texts you cypheâ— many tymes make agaynst you Pag. 548. lin 19. to proue that reward is giuen vnto workes of Graâ—â— and bounty aswell as of Desert you cypher Rom. 4 4. which sayth to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of grace but of debt Could any text be deuise more directly agaynst the purpose you cite it For by this place ioyned with a sentence of yours I conclude vnanswerably our Catholike doctrine of Merit The reward which is giuen to him that worketh in regard of the Goodnes and Righteousnes of his worke is giuen not of grace but of debt But Eternâ—â— life is tearmed a Crowne of glory because it is bestowed 〈◊〉 them which exercise Righteousnes and in regard of thâ— righteousnes the true inherent dignity sanctity and purity of their workes Ergo Eternall life is a reward oâ— good workes giuen to Gods children of debt not 〈◊〉 meere grace and bounty The Maior is S. Paules by you cyphered in this place the Minor your ownâ— in so many words pag. 174. in fine and 1â—9 so thâ—â— the text of Scripture by you cited proueth inuinciâ—bly the doctrine of Merit against which you cite iâ— Pag. 558. lin 4. to proue that liuing Saints haue no communion with Saints defunct by partaking the â—â—perabundant satisfaction you cyte Rom. 12. v. 4. We haue many members in one body and euery member hath â—ot the same office This text proueth the contrary to â—hat you intend to wit that Satisfactions are communicable betwixt Saints for from this text I arâ—ue thus If Saints liuing Saints deceased be memâ—ers of the same body hauing different offices then â—here must be betwixt them coÌ„munion in all things which superabound in some members and are neeâ—ed of other for this we see to be that fellowship which by the institution of nature the members of â—he same body ought to enioy the one with the oâ—her But the Myrrh of mortifications and satisfactions superabound in many most rare innocent and penitent Saints in heauen and is no lesse needed of diuers other Saints vpon the earth that haue done many sinnes and cannot do such great pennance Therfore the Myrrh of superabounding Pennance and Satisfaction ought to flow downe from deceased Saints in heauen vnto their fellow-members the needy Saints that liue on earth The Iesuite (n) See the Reply pag. 523. sayth that the first Precept Thou shalt loue thy Lord God with all thy hart c. bindeth not man to loue God in this life with Beatificall loue nor to be alwayes in actuall imployment of his loue on him but only to loue sincerely and inwardly to the keeping of all commandements without any mortall offence which breaketh friendship with God desiring though not inioying the happynes of beatificall loue This he sayth is the meaning of S. Bernard and S. Augustine when they say the perfection of the next life is contayned in this precept to wit in voto not in re This doctrine you impugne pag. 525. lin 26. saying That the Saints of God hauing obserued other commandements brake the first commandement and did vndergo corporall payne after the breach thereof How proue you this marry you cypher Heb. 11.31 They were stoned they were sawen a sunder they were slayne with the sword Doth this text proue the Saints transgressed the first Commandment That they were corporally afflicted for their not louing God with all their hart Doth it not rather shew the contrary that they loued God perfectly and were temporally tormented because they so loued him with al their hart that they would rather vndergo most cruell and barbarous deaths then offend him or abandon the truth of his word which is as our Sauiour saith the highest degree of Charity Pag. 10. lin 20. You deny the Church to be infallible in her Traditions and Definitions yet say you we acknowledge her lawfull authority for expounding Scripture and maintayning vnity in right fayth In proofe hereof you cite Matth. 18.17 Who so heareth not the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and Publican You could not haue inuented a text that doth more inuincibly shew the coÌ„trary of what you intend Let vs make this text of Scripture the Maior and your Protestant doctrine the Minor and put your Argument in forme then will you see how handsomely you proue that you acknowledge all the lawfull authority of the Church The Scripture saith The Church is of so great absolute infallible authority that whosoeuer doth not heare her is to be held as an Heathen and a Publican Protestants say the Church is so subiect to
with Scripture in so many mayne articles of Controuersy about Fayth whereof some as you (a) pag. 106. confesse are only implicately contayned in the Scripture and must by the rules of Logicke and Deduction be thence wrunge out Finally the Beroeās read the Scriptures only for their greater cofirmatiō in Fayth in case they should find by their priuate reading the doctrine of S. Paul to agree with the Scripture They read not by way of doubtfull examination that is with purpose not to belieue S. Paul if so they should not find the Scriptures to yield playne testimony vnto his doctrine That they read not in this manner is cleere For the Scripture sayth that before they searched the Scripture they receaued the word with all alacrity and readines of mind But if they had been doubtfull of S. Pauls doctrine had to cleere that doubt gone to search the Scriptures it could not haue been truly sayd of them that they receaued the word with alacrity and all readines of mind and afterward searched the Scriptures Therefore they did not search Scriptures by way of doubtfull examination but with full resolution to belieue S. Pauls doctrine euen in case they should not find by their priuate industry the same cleerly deliuered in the Scripture How then may you by this example make good your Protestant doctrine that Vnlearned People may compare the doctrine of the Church with the Scripture in doubting manner that is with intention not to belieue the Church in case they should not be able to discouer her doctrine by priuate reading in their vulgar Bible Or in case that in the seeming of their priuate iudgment the Scripture should appeare as opposite vnto the Church The Text 1. Iohn 1.8 If wee say wee haue no sinne c. falsifyed WHEREAS the Iesuit pag 550. sayth out of S. Ambrose and S. Augustine that the Blessed Virgin neuer committed actuall sinne you pag. 551. reply It is a manifest vntruth For S. Iohn speaking in the person of all the Elect sayth 1. Iohn 1.8 If wee say we haue no sinne we deceaue our selues and there is no truth in vs. And vers 10. If we say we haue not sinned we make him a lyar and his word is not in vs. And pag. 517. much more bitterly thus you write to this purpose If our aduersaries wil be so gracelesse as to make any man in this life except the Holyest of the Holyes 1. Petr. 2.22 free from sinne the Apostle enrolleth him in the blacke booke of damnable lyars 1. Iohn 1.10 And they may with Acesius the Nouatian borrow a ladder and so climbe vp alone to heauen yea rather fall to Hell for who are more desperatly sicke quà m qui mentem febribus perdiderunt then they which by the feauer of pride haue lost the vnderstanding of their sinfull condition Thus you which you cannot deny to be bitter in excesse What is the Iesuits fault No other but this he sayth that not only Christ Iesus the holyest of the holyes was by nature Hypostaticall Vnion impeccable but also (*) Cōcil Trident sess 6. can 23. Sicut de Maria Virgine tenet Ecclesia that his Holy Mother was pure from all actuall sinne by speciall grace And why is this so great and damnable an offence Marry because S. Iohn sayth If wee say wee haue not sinned wee make God a lyar and this he spake not in the person of only ordinary Saynts but in the person of all the Elect euen of Saynts as singularly chosen as the Blessed Virgin This is the ground of your bitternes But first though the Scripture had sayd that all the elect commit actuall sinne yet perchance not without warrant we might except the mother of God but I will not stand herein agaynst you Shew in Gods word this text all the elect haue sinned or this S. Iohn sayd in the person of al the elect If we say we haue no sinne we deceaue our selues the Iesuit presently yieldes What can you wish more But if in the persō of all the Elect be as in truth it is your addition vnto the text ioyned therwith so cunningly as it may seeme the very letter of Gods word what may we thinke of you but only that your rayling agaynst vs is not so bitter but your iniury vnto Gods word is greater I adde that to say S. Iohn spake the aforesayd wordes in the person of all the Elect not only is not the text but also agaynst the text except wee will make S. Iohn excessiue in the conceyte of himselfe For thus I argue It is manifest S. Iohn spake the words aforesayd in the person of such Saynts in the number of which he ranketh himselfe If WEE say that WEE haue no sinne But S. Iohn could not without pride ranke himselfe in the number of Saynts as singularly chosen as was the glorious Virgin so that if the sense of his saying be If we that is Saynts as singularly priuiledged as Gods Blessed mother say wee haue not sinned we deceaue our selues what can be more arrogant Luther (a) Luther Serm. de Natiuit Mariae Sumus pares Matri Dei ac aequè Sancti sicut illa indeed hath left behind him written We are all as holy as the Virgin Mary but that S. Iohn euer sayd it or thought it the Minister will neuer an able to proue So that without any question as also the (b) S. Augustin de nat grat c. 42. 60. Epist. 95. Fathers note S. Iohn spake in the persō only of al cōmon holy Christians among whō he might without pride nūber himself As for your reproaches so many so bitter for two reasons you are to be pityed first for that your passion against the Iesuit is either so blind as you see not what lyeth before you or so fierce as not to spare him you let contumelious tearmes fly that must light on the head of the holy Fathers For this is your cēsure They that hold any except the Holyest of the Holyes to haue been free from actuall sinne are gracelesse are by S. Iohn enrolled in the blacke booke of damnable lyars mentem febribus perdiderunt they haue lost their witts by the phrensy of pride Now vnder this your Censure I subsume a knowne and vndeniable truth But holy Fathers exempt the Blessed Virgen frō actuall sinne not only S. (c) Serm. 2. de Assumpt Bernard S. (d) De excell B. Virg. c. 3. Anselme but also S. (e) Epist. ad Epict. Athanasius S. (f) In cap. 1. Reg. Gregory S. (g) Ser. 22. in Psal. 118. Ambrose yea S. Augustine (h) de Nat. Grat. c. 36. who thus speaketh for them all In matter of sinne no mention is to be made of the mother of our Lord she is not included in the generall sentences of that kind Scimus enim c. For wee KNOVV WEE ARE CERTAINE that vnto her singular Grace was giuē to conquer
sinne euery way What is hence consequent That except you recall your Censure you must censure the Fathers as Gracelesse Dānable lyars Franticke fooles so great is your passion and so small your iudgment in rayling at the Iesuit Secondly you are to be pittyed in regard your passion is so extreme as you cannot ioyne togeather the parts of your discourse in any sensible manner You say that the Iesuit holding the Blessed Virgin was immaculate and pure from actuall sinne is like to Acesius the Nouatian who thought himselfe pure and innocent and denyed possibility of saluation vnto men that sinned after baptisme so leauing no ladder to Climbe vp to heauen but only that of Innocency What can be more inept then to lay this censure on the Iesuite in that respect If the Iesuite hold the Blessed Virgin to haue been euer free from actuall sinne doth it follow that he must also so esteeme of himselfe as did the Nouatian May he not iudge her to be an Immaculate Virgin and yet himselfe a sinfull man crauing pardon of his sinnes by her prayers And if he should be so fond also as to thinke himselfe vnspotted pure from sinne doth it follow that he must needes with Acesius exclude from saluation all penitent sinners allow no ladder vnto heauen but only that of purity taking away the other of pennance Surely you cannot but see this your Inuectiue to be not only wrongfull but also witlesse The same distemper of passion causeth you not to marke the want of coherence betwixt your Textuall assertions and Marginall proofes In your text you say The Iesuit by saying the Blessed Virgin was pure from sinne hath lost his witts by the feauer of pride In proofe hereof you cite in your margent this sentēce of S. Cyprian Quisquis se inculpatum dixerit aut superbus aut stultus est who so doth say that himselfe is without sinne is eyther proud or a foole Do you not yet perceaue the wonderfull impertinency of this proofe Let the same be put into forme then you will perchance presently feele it Whosoeuer sayth that himselfe is without sin is a proud foole The Iesuit sayth that the mother of God was without sinne Ergo The Iesuit is a proud foole Verily the Iesuit is not so great a foole as he who doth not perceaue the folly of this arguing which is iust as good as this Who so thinketh himselfe the holyest learnedst Deuine of this age is a very foole But Francis White thinketh Iohn Caluin the holyest and learnedst Deuine of this age Ergo Francis White is a very foole Suppose you were thus conceyted of Caluin and some Catholike Deuine should thus come vpon you for the same would not his folly seeme prodigious vnto all learned men Other falsifications I might yet further discouer as pag. 5. lin 8. where to shew that the Church shall not be alwayes visible Aug. de vnit Eccles. c. 16. you bring the Donatists obiection The Scriptures fortell a large reuolt from heauenly truth 2. Thessal 2.2 these words from heauēly truth are added to the Text for the Text only sayth first there shall come the defection or reuolt which most Expositours vnderstand from the Roman Empire And pag. 519. citing 1. Iohn 5.18 He that is begotten of God SINNETH NOT for the Diuine generation keepeth him and the wicked One toucheth him not you omit sinneth not that the Scripture might not seeme to auouch what you so bitterly rayle agaynst that the Saints of God by speciall grace may liue without sinne Likewise to reproue the Iesuites doctrine that Saints though they sinne venially yet doe not sinne agaynst the Diuine Law For this Law doth exact thinges of men no further then they are necessary vnto eternall life but Veniall sinne destroyeth or opposeth nothing that is necessary to eternall life Agaynst this doctrine you argue pag. 522. lin 20. If iust men haue any sinne they performe not all the Diuine law requireth for euery sinne is a transgression of the Diuine law 1. Iohn 3.4 Heere to the Text of your English Bible you adde Diuine the Text being Euery sin is a transgression of the Law or of a Law And this sentence is true for though Veniall sinns be not against the Diuine speciall law because they are not against Charity and Saluation yet they are against the law of reason which bindeth mē as much as may be not to be forgetfull inconsiderate euen in small matters And though some sentences of Scripture recōmend these small thinges vnto vs it is only to put vs in mind of what we are bound vnto by the law of reason not to lay new diuine obligations vpon vs Many such other tricks of your falshood I omit to discouer for breuityes sake Ignorance Fraud and Falshood in alleadging Fathers and all manner of Authours SECT V. IN this subiect I might be large you being copious in your quotations whereof scarce one is to be found which being examined to the originall is not eyther impertinent or wrested agaynst the Authours mind or falsifyed by mis-translation in the very text Which to discouer fully and particulerly were an hugh worke and hardly worth the labour and no wayes necessary For euen as to the end that one may know the Sea to be salt it is not needfull that he drinke vp the whole mayne two or three tasts taken heere and there may sufficiently resolue him of this truth so foure or fiue examples in euery kind may more then abundantly serue to make this your want of conscience knowne vnto your vnwary Credents that they may see whome they trust in a busines that doth so highly import These your falsifications are of two kinds some crafty and subtill some grosse and impudent Crafty falsification is when to draw Authours to your purpose in your translation of their text you eyther adde to it or detract frō it some words or particles thereby changing the sense or else cite their words truly but contrary to their meaning Grosse falsification is when you lay doctrines to the charge of Authours which they reiect euen in the places by you cyted Both these kinds of falshood S. Paul doth signify to be practised by Heretikes Ephes. 4 8. where he sayth That Christ hath left Pastours and Doctours to his Church to the end that we be not carryed away with the blasts of euery doctrine by the wylinesse of men to circumuent weakelings in errour What be the blasts of hereticall doctrine but their violent and audacious falsifyings of Scriptures and Fathers What their wylinesse to circumuent in errour but crafty corruption by stealing away or cogging in words in their producing of the monuments of Chistian Antiquity The Greeke word vsed by S. Paul is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies properly cogging of the dyce or helping the dyce craftily to cast what chāce they please Euen so Heretikes by helping the yee by cogging wordes in out of the Text make
likenes and similitude confoundeth â—he sight not to discerne the one from the other In scriptuâ—es it is not so the doctrine proposed therein being not gold mingled with earth but pure Gold the word of God is pure syluer refined wilth fire so that the Scriptures be not mettals that require workemeÌ„ to seuer in their doctrine Drosse from Gold they offer a ready and refined treasure to them that seeke the riches hidden in them Thus S. Chrysostome and he doth there largely discourse how euery thinge in Scriptures euen the Chronologies and proper Names of men do affoard wholesome and profitable doctrine to the Reader but to find this treasure we must not as he there sayth nudam tantùm scripturam aspicere sed insistere cum studio repositas scrutari opes not only looke vpon the Scripture but insist with study search out the riches hoarded vp therein Haue you not theÌ„ notoriously falsifyed the sense of his discourse by the insertion of words of your owne In the behalfe of your Protestant sole-sufficiency of Scripture you cite (d) Pag. 50. in Marg. lit E. pag. 3. lin 6. in marg lit E. alibi saepe this sentence of Durand tearming him A famous Scholeman Ecclesia licèt Dei Dominationem habeat in terris illa tamen non excedit limitationem Scripturae Although the Church haue the power authority of God vpon earth yet that authority doth not exceed the limitation of the Scripture This place is by you alleadged many tymes in this your Reply but most impertinently For his meaning is that the Church though it haue the authority of God vpon earth (e) Matth. 16. v 20. Quicquid solueris quicquid ligaueris super terram erit solutum ligatum in caelis yet the same power is in some cases restrayned and limited by the Scripture In which respect the Church cannot dispense in many thinges wherein God might dispense In (f) Ecclesia licèt habeat authoritateÌ„ Dei in tertio illa tamen non excedit limitationeÌ„ Scripturae Scriptura autem docet expresse seruos conuersos ad fidem adhuc manere Dominis suis prioribus licet illi maneant infideles particuler she cannot saith he exempt slaues that be made Christians from their subiection vnto their old Maâ—sters because that the Scripture doth expressely teach that Slaues conuerted vnto the Fayth are to be still subiect to their former Maisters though their Maisters be Infidels Thus Durand Now what is this to the purpose of prouing that men are bound to belieue nothing but what is cleerly contayned in Scripture Except according to your skill in Logicke you will argue in this sort The Church cannot do the thinges forbidden her in Scripture because her power is not beyond the restraynt thereof giuen in the Scripture Ergo she cannot belieue teach doctrines proposed vnto her by the rule of Tradition without Scripture which is a thinge commended vnto her in Scripture Hold the Traditions you haue whether by speach or by Epistle 2. Thessal 2.15 How many tymes in this your Reply haue you cited this testimony of the Maister of the Sentences (g) Lombard l. 4. sent d. 18. lit f. God doth not still follow the iudgment of the Church which sometimes through ignorance and surreption iudgeth not according to truth This I say you cite (h) See pag. 89. in lit â— p. 93. lit d alibi to proue that the Church may erre in fayth at the least about secondary articles And yet it is most certayne and euident that he speakerh of iudgment in criminall causes For hence he inferretth (i) Soluere noxios vel damnare se putant innoxios cùm apud Deum non sententia Sacerdotum sed reorum vita queratur Et ita apertè ostenditur quòd non semper sequitur Deus iudicium Ecclesiae quae per ignorantiam surreptionem interdum iudicat the Church-meÌ„ must not thinke because Christ said vnto them whatsoeuer you bind or loose vpon earth shall be bound loosed in Heauen that therefore they may condemne the Innocent and absolue the Nocent For God in such case doth not follow their sentence but iudgeth according to the life of the accused To prooue that the Roman Bishop was not anciently acknowledged the supreme Pastour of the Catholike Church you say pag. 161. lin 15. Pope Stephen was sleighted by S. Cyprian and other Bishops of Africa In proofe whereof you cite in your margent (g) Ibid. lit D. these wordes of Firmilian (h) Firmil apud Cyprian epist. 75. Atque ego in â—ac parte iuste indignor in tam manifestam apertam Steâ—hani stultitiam quòd qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloriaâ—ur se successionem Petri tenere contendit And indeed I am iustly grieued against the open manifest folâ—y of Stephen that he so much glorieth of the dignity of his Bishopricke and standeth vpon his hauing the succession of Peter Thus you Now behold your falshood for I omit your ignoraÌ„ce in naming Firmiâ—ian as a Bishop of Africa whereas he was a Bishop â—f the East to wit of (i) Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. Caesareae Capadocensis Episcopus Caesarea in Cappadocia Your Legier-de-maine I say and falshood is twofold First you omit to let your Reader know that this Firmilian when he wrote this Epistle was a Quartaâ—eciman and also addicted to the Errour of Rebaptiâ—ing theÌ„ that had been baptized by Heretiks And because S. Stephen a most (k) Vincent Lyrinensis aduersus Haeres cap. 9. Holy Pope Martyr had made a decree against their Nouelty (l) Cyprian epist. 74. Nihil innouaÌ„dum praeâ—erquam quod traditum Let no nouelty be admitted â—ut let the ancient Tradition be kept this Firmilian wrote against him an Epistle full of sharpe contumelious speach Had you mentioned this quality of Firmilian which I do not doubt but you knew your impertinency would haue been apparent For this supposed your Argument goeth thus Some Bishops specially Firmilian erring against Fayth and blasted for the tyme with the spirit of Heresy wrote a coÌ„temptuous Epistle against the Sea of Peter Ergo the Sea of Peter is not by diuine Institution the Rocke of the Church agaynst which the gates of hell all Heresyes should rage but neuer preuayle Secondly you notoriously falsify the sentence of Firmilian in making him to rayle against the Roman Bishops being the successour of Peter For this euen in that his Hereticall passion wherof he afterward was (m) This is testifyed by Dionysius Alexandrinus who then liued in his Epistle to Xistus the Successour of S. Stephen apud Euseb. l. 7. Histor. c. 3. Niceph l. 6. c 7. penitent he neuer did yea he doth rather acknowledge the Roman Bishops succession froÌ„ Peter and thence argueth that seeing to Peter only Christ said To thee I will giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen c.
Scripture say that the Bookes of the Prophets and Apostles be diuine yet shall I not certainly belieue it except I haue aforehand belieued the Scripture which doth 〈◊〉 affirme to be diuine For also in sundry places of Mahoâ—â—ts AlcoraÌ„ we read that the same was sent of God froÌ„ heaâ—â—â—â— yet do we not belieue it Is there no difference betâ—â—xt these two sayings A maÌ„ is not bound to belieue the Sâ—â—ipture affirming the bookes of the Prophets to be Diuine 〈◊〉 then the Alcoran and this I should not belieue the Sâ—ripture saying the bookes of Prophets are diuine except I 〈◊〉 belieue the Scripture that so sayth Verily they differ 〈◊〉 much as Hell and Heauen as Blasphemy and Truth With Hosius you ioyne Petrus Soto to be a debaser 〈◊〉 Scriptures (m) Pag. 152. in lit a. citing these words as his (n) Petrus Soto â—nstructio Sacerdotum Part. 1. lect 6. pag. 17. if he be truly cited for in my Edition it is pag. 25. Quae 〈◊〉 cultum pertinent magis ex traditione Spiritus Sancti â—â—â—ustratione quà m ex scriptura petenda sunt The things 〈◊〉 belong vnto worship are to be taken by Tradiâ—â—on and the light of the Holy Ghost rather then froÌ„ 〈◊〉 Scripture Thus you Omitting and putting in â—â—ordes chopping and changing the Text. Let vs â—â—are the Authours very words (o) Aduerâ—aÌ„t hunc Doctrinae Euangelicae modum Quod ad vitae rationem attinet post illa quae communia sunt omnibus qualia sunt praecepta Decalogi atque dilectionis Dei Proximi de quibus Christus frequenter loquitur Post haec inquam omnia aduerâ—ant plura esse quaerenda extraditione illustratione Spiritùs Sancti potiùs quà m ex Scriptura praecipuè quae ad cultum pertinent Post haec omnia â—â—uertant plura quaerenda esse ex Traditione illustraâ—â—one Spiritus sancti quà m ex Scripturis praecipuè quae ad â—â—ltum pertinent After all these thinges that is after a â—riest knowes not only the articles and mysteries of â—ayth but also in respect of manners and good life 〈◊〉 communia omnibus de quibus Christus frequenter loâ—â—itur those thinges that are commonly to be kept 〈◊〉 all Christians as the Ten Commandements and 〈◊〉 like about which Christ doth frequently speake â—fter they know these things let them remember that more â—â—ings yet are to be sought for rather by Tradition and the 〈◊〉 Ghosts illumination then by the Scripture spâ—cially 〈◊〉 thinges that belonge vnto Reuerence In these words â—etrus Soto deliuers two thinges First that the things â—oncerning matters not only of Fayth but also of good life that are common and must be knowne of all Christians are largely deliuered in holy Scripture Secondly that post haec omnia after the knowledge of all these common substantiall matters 〈◊〉 for other particuler thinges they are to be learned by Tradition more then by Scripture Hence I inferre that Petrus Soto by the words quae ad cultum pertinent doth not meane the mayne dutyes of Latriae and Religion but Reuerentiall carriage and ceremonyes to be vsed in the administration of the Sacraments This is cleere For by things pertinent vnto Reuerence he meanes thinges that are not common vnto all nor to be knowne and obserued of all But the mayne dutyes of Latria Religion are common vnto all Christians Therefore Soto doth not meane them in his wordes Quae ad cultum pertinenâ— but only things of ceremoniall Reuerence in the vse of the Christian sacrifice and Sacraments as the Authour (p) Quae autem in celebratione Baptismatis qua ratione agenda sunt vbi est scriptum Credendúmne est tantum Ministerium sine vlla praeparatione SOLEMNITATE RITV quae ad eius excitant venerationem traditum esse Ibid. pag. 26. doth also in that place declare So that it is in you wonderful boldnes by so many leauings out by so many alterings and transposings of words to change Sotus his meaning as though he had been besotted with Swenckfeldian fancy of immediat Reuelation without Scripture In your Reply to the Preface (m) These leaues want numbers but it is in the sixt leafe the first side froÌ„ the beginning of the Reply to the Preface you say Thâ—â— the Roman Church doth require that Protestants send the holy scriptures packing and not reckon the same among Dâ—â—uine Principles To make this slaunder good you 〈◊〉 in the margent (n) Had Bosius spoken inconsideratly what folly or impotent malice is it to vrge the vnaduised speach of a priuate writer as the fayth of the Church Bosius de sig Eccles. lib. 16. cap. 10. scriptura non refertur inter eiusmodi principia the Scripture is not reckoned amongst these principles 〈◊〉 wit Diuine This saying of Bosius you repeate ouer ouer in your Booke yea the same is twice repeated in your answere to the Iesuits Preface In your Orthodoxe you haue it also and your (o) Defence pag. 1â—1 Brother more ofteÌ„ as though Bosius did say the Scripturs were not Diuine But your slaunder is intollerable for he doth not say that Scriptures are not reckoned amongst Diuine Principles but only not amongst the articles of the Creed His wordes are We know that amongst other articles of the Creed one is I belieue the holy Catholike Church Now these articles are as it were certayne principles which must be knowne and belieued in the first place But the Scripture is not numbred amongst THESE Principles although it be named HOLY and SACRED Hence appeareth how notoriously you slauÌ„der and falsify Bosius by making him say that Scriptures are not numbred amongst Diuine Principles First because he sayth not they are not numbred amongst Diuine Principles but only not amongst the twelue Articles of the Creed which is a truth so manifest as Ministers cannot be ignorant thereof if they be acquainted with the Creed SecoÌ„dly because in that very place and sentence he doth affirme the contrary to wit that the Scriptures are holy and sacred What is this but Diuine Verily this accusation that Protestants if they will be Catholikes must send the Scriptures packing is as true as what you (s) Answere to the Preface fol. 6. pag. 1. lin 19. there also affirme That they must let the Roman Nahash pluck out their right eye and vow blind obedience vnto him Which you proue because Bonauenture (t) In vitâ— Francisci c. 5. sayth that S. Francis exhorted his Fryars vnto blind Obedience As though Protestants might not be admitted into the Roman Church except they will be Fryars or that by Religious obedience men put out their right eye which regardeth God and Heauen and not tather the left which looketh vpon earth and worldly pleasure Had you eyther the right or left eye of Wisdome you would not write as you doe Had you any sparke of diuine Wisdome you would not vent such false odious slanders Had you any dramme of humane Wisdome you
(a) Baron an 1089. n. 11. Non eos homicidas arbitramur It is monstrous â—octrine which was hatched by Pope Vrban and approued 〈◊〉 Baronius that they are not to be iudged Murtherers â—hich slay Excommunicate persons As who should say â—ope Vrban and Baronius affirme that to murther â—ny way any Excommunicate persons is no sinne â—ut your slaunder will seeme moÌ„strous when their â—octrine according to truth is set downe This it is Certayne Cleargymen and Schismaticall Priests of â—ewd and dissolute life excommunicated by the Church did agaynst the lawes of the Church take armes and were slayne in the field (b) In a battayle fought betwixt Henry Emperour Egbert Marquesse of Saxony as men may iustly be in lawfull warre Now because the law of the Church censures such as strike Cleargymen they that killed these wicked seditious priests in the field had a scruple and demanded absolution and pennance of their Bishop The Bishop wrote of the matter to Pope Vrban who answered (c) Iuo part 10. c. 54. That although he did not iudge those that thus had killed such Excommunicate persons in the battaile to be murtherers yet that the discipline of the Church might be kept also because such as killed theÌ„ though the fact were lawfull might haue had some sinister and insincere intention therein as doing it out of priuate emnity that therefore the Bishop (d) SecunduÌ„ intentionem eorum modum congruae satisfactionis iniunge should according to their intention desire inioyne them a measure of congruous pennance Hence it followes that it is no sinne to kill any excoÌ„municate person euen Priests when they be inuaders of our life and in iust warre but vniuersally that it is no sinne to kill any excommunicate person what way soeuer is not Pope Vrbans Monstrous Doctrine but a Monster of your ProtestaÌ„t slaundering out of a monstrous desire you haue to delude and enrage men with lyes agaynst the Catholicke Church In the same page 114. lin 29. You thus write of Baronius (e) Baron Anno 1106. n. 14. Cardinall Baronius coÌ„mendeth to the skyes yong Henry the Emperours sonne for rebelling agaynst his naturall Father for deposing imprisoning him and bringing him with sorrow to the graue What Turke or Sauage would be the Encomiast of such vnnaturall and enormous Villany Thus you Let the truth be examined and then it will appeare that Baronius his commendation â—f yong Henry is not to the skye but your slaundeâ—ing of Baronius comes froÌ„ as low as the pit of Hell â—irst it is false according to truth of the History that â—enry the Fourth Emperour dyed of sorrow in the â—estraynt which he had layd vpon him by his Sonne (f) See Baronius ibid. and all other Historians that write of these matters nay he was in that durance vsed with such mildâ—es and liberty as he easily got away gattered forâ—es and inuaded his Sonne who by his owne conâ—ent and by the voyces of all the Electours and â—rinces of the Empire had been made crowned â—mperour This is your first vntruth that Baronius â—rayseth that imprisoning of the Father wherein he â—as brought with sorrow to his graue by his Sonne Secondly Baronius doth not commend yong â—enry at all for that fact but only speaketh conâ—itionally and on both sides no more in his prayse â—en his disprayse For hauing set downe the letters which the Emperour Henry the Elder now being at â—â—berty wrote full of complaynt agaynst his sonne â—aronius thus turneth his speach to the Reader If (g) Baron Tom. 12. pag. 46. â—hou sit Arbiter betwixt the Father the Sonne as for â—he Sonnes procuring his Fathers restraynt and deposition â—rom the Empyre by the Peeres and Princes thereof the â—onne is not to be condemned IF as he pretended HE â—ID this sincerely out of (h) Si verè pietatis intuitu prout prae se tulit ea omnia praestitit PIETY to bringe his Faâ—her vnto a better mind and to make him seeke to be absolâ—ed from Excommunication wherwith he had been so many â—â—mes tyed and chayned On the other side IF as his Faâ—her complaynes HE DID those thinges by wicked plots â—nd stratagems by periury and breaking his oath giuen to â—is Father verily HIS DEED CANNOT DE PRAISED 〈◊〉 wonderfull is the Iustice of God that this Emperour â—â—ould suffer the same persecution from his wicked Sonne which he had by perpetuall incorrigible hatred for many yeares together offered vnto his spirituall Father Thus Baronius Hence it is apparent that as Baronius and Bellarmine were great friends in their life so they are by you slaundered in the same maÌ„ner after their death That Bellarmine may seeme Turkish and guilty of propension to Turcisme you make him say The Scripture affirming a thinge is not therefore to be belieued more then Mahomets Alcoran whereas he only sayth conditionally I should not firmely belieue the Scripture affirming a thinge did I not aforehand belieue the Scripture to be diuine as I do not the Alcoran though it say of it selfe that it is of God EueÌ„ so to make Baronius seeme more sauage then any Turke wheras he sayth conditionally If yonge Henry did restrayne his Father sincerely out of piety for the good of his Father that he might returne to the Church be absolued of excommunication afterward peacebly inioy his Empyre this kind of seuerity was indeed piety you make the proposition absolute and make Baronius say It was piety in the Sonne to vse Cruelty to his Father The Reader I do not doubt seeth the exorbitancy of this false dealing I must needs adde another falsification you (i) Pag. 56. in margin lit c. vse towardes Baronius accusing him as blasphemously extolling the Authority of the Pope in this saying (k) Baron Ann. 373. num â—1 Vt planè appareat ex arbitrio dependisse Romani Pontificis Fidei Decreta sancire sancita mutare Whence it appeareth that it was in the power of the Roman Bishop to establish Decrees of Fayth and to recall the established This you bringe as if Baronius had held the Pope may make and vn-make Decrees about the Truth of Fayth making that to be Truth which before was Errour and that Errour which before was Truth So easily do you belieue charge any Barbarous and Inhumane conceyte vpon Catholicke Authors But he that shall consider attentiuely the Antecedents Consequents of the place will see that Baronius speaketh not of Decrees of Fayth in regard of the truth of Doctrine which are Eternall and so immutable that if the Pope should endeauour to change them he were (l) Decret d. 40. c. 6. Si Papa by Catholicke Doctrine an Heretike and to be deposed but only of decrees of fayth about keeping or denying Communion vnto persons suspected of Heresy in regard of doubtfull propositions This would haue appeared had you cited the wordes of Baronius that immediatly follow This is his whole
senteÌ„ce Hence (m) Baron Tom. 4. pag. 306. Decreta sancita muâ—are DECERNERE quibuscum à reliqua Ecclesia COMMVNICANDVM sit it may appeare that it did depend on the iudgment of the Roman Bishop to establish Decrees of Fayth and to recall the established and to DECREE with whome the rest of the Church were to keep COMMVNION Hence it is euident that Baronius speaketh of Decrees of fayth declaratiue with whome Communion in Fayth is to be kept that those are mutable as the Church shall see cause For the better vnderstanding whereof we must know that it was the practise or Heretikes (n) Sic Verba temperant sic ambigua quaeque concinnaÌ„ vt nostram aduersariorum confessioneÌ„ teneant Hieron epist. ad Pammach Ocean as S. Hierome noteth to couch their Errours in such ambiguous wordes that taken one way they sounded Heretically another way they carryed a Catholike sense Hence vpon the arising of new Heretikes euen the Catholike Fathers were sometymes deuised some coÌ„municating with some denying communion vnto such Dogmatizants The decision of these doubts is to be made by the Catholik Church and the supreme Pastour thereof in which case the Church may change her decrees For when there is sufficient reason to thinke that such propositions be taken by the Authours in the Hereticall sense Decree is to be made that no communion be held with them If afterward it appeare by good proofe that they meant the said propositions according to the Catholike sense they may be receaued by some latter Decree and the former Decree about auoyding their Communion may be repealed In this sense true is the saying of S. Augustine (o) Lib. 5. de Baptism c. 1. That former Councels are reformed by later when by experimeÌ„t of things what before was hidden commeth to light In this sort ancient Councells (p) In coÌ„cilio Ephes. Christiparae nomeÌ„ explosum est Canis de B. Virg. l. 3. c. 19. made this decree of Fayth that none should tearme the most Blessed Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christs Mother because by that Title Heretikes did meane tacitely to imply that she was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods Mother And yet this Decree of Faith is now by custome repealed because it now appeareth that such as tearme her Christes Mother meane not therby to deny that she is truly and verily Gods Mother This is that which Baronius saith for speaking of the Apollinarians who did vtter their Errours (q) Ruffin de adulterat libror Origen in doubtfull wordes he saith that first by Pope Damasus they were reiected as Heretikes and Catholikes were forbidden to communicate with them Afterwards these (r) Greg. Nazian ad Chelid epist. 2. Apollinarians falsely gaue out that the Councell of the Westerne Church including principally the Roman Bishop had againe receaued theÌ„ into Communion Vpon the newes of this report S. Gregory Nazianzen thus writeth Those that agree with Apollinaris say that they were admitted by the Councell of the West or Roman Bishop by whome it is manifest they were once condemned Yet (s) Hoc osteÌ„dant nos acquiescemus let them but shew this and we yield For it is manifest (t) PERSPICVVM enim eos veritati assenâ—iri nec enim aliter se res habere potest si hoc consecuti sunt that their doctrine doth agree with the true Fayth for it cannot otherwise be if they haue obtayned this This S. Gregory Nazianzen Hence Baronius doth inferre against Heretikes that the Grecian Fathers did beare such reuerence vnto the Roman Church and Roman Bishop belieuing he could not erre that if his Decrees declaratiue of doubtfull ambiguous propositions should change alter they were ready to change and alter with him and to thinke that manner of speach in matters of Faith most fitting for the present which he did for the present allow This I say is all that Baronius doth affirme not that the Pope may change his Decrees about the truth of the articles and mysteries of Fayth as you in your blind auersion would impose vpoÌ„ him catching at words syllables of euery lesse cleere sentence which to be the right iogge (u) Aguntur spiritu maligno in pios vt Satanicâ virulentia incensi EORVM VERBA ET SCRIPTA NON MALOTIO SE INTERPRETARI non possint Loc. commun Martini Lutheri 5. Classe pag. 26. of the Caluinian spirit Luther long agoe noted THE CONCLVSION BEHOLD good store of your Ignorances Impertinencyes Misallegations of Scriptures Wilfull Vnconscionable Falshoods in your producing the Fathers which I offer vnto your Picture to adorne that Crowne which in your Glorious Humour you haue caused to be set ouer your Booke in the second page therof giuing it the Title of Wisdome and Truths Triumph Verily no Iewells and Gemmes can sit the Crowne of such Wisdome and Truth as yours is better then these being made in this Censure Cleere Shining Illustrious by manifest proofe My purpose was to haue discouered many besides these yea more then an hundred no lesse notorious then these about the Nine Points with many other eminent Vntruths but now I perceaue that hereby your Picture would grow though not disproportionable to the greatnes of your Desert yet into a greater bignes they Paper-Images vse to haue which commonly are still lesse then their Patterns I must therefore remayne indebted vnto you for the rest which are many hundreds engaging my selfe to pay the last farthing of this debt whensoeuer the same shall be exacted with sufficient assurance that the performance thereof shall auayle not only to your personall Disgrace but also to the publicke Good by conuersion of so many by you miserably seduced soules Although I must confesse that the former are so many and so cleere as they may sufficiently resolue such as depend on you of their miserable and dreadfull danger and mooue them to returne to the truth if they erre through weaknes of Vnderstanding not through willfulnes of hart For as S. Cyprian sayth (x) Lib. aduer Demetrianum initio Qui ad malum motus est mendacio fallente multò faciliùs ad bonum mouebitur veritate cogente such as haue been simply lead away vnto euill by the fallacy of lying will more easily be brought backe agayne vnto Good by the force of Truth FINIS THE ANSWERE VNTO The Nine Points of Controuersy Proposed by our late Soueraygne of Famous memory vnto M. Fisher of the Society of IESVS AND THE REIOYNDER Vnto the Reply of D. Francis VVhite Minister Et faciam VOS fieri PISCATORES Hominum Matth. 4.19 And I will make YOV FISHERS of Men. Permissu Superiorum M.DC.XXV His Maiestyes Note deliuered vnto M. Fisher. SOME of the principall points which with-hold my ioyning vnto the Church of Rome except she reforme her selfe or be able to giue me satisfaction Are these 1. The worship of Images 2. The Prayings Offering oblations to the Blessed Virgin
Controuersy in which all other are inuolued and by the decision therof resolued the Church (b) 2. Tim. 3.15 Math. 16. Isa. c. 2. v. 3. Dan. c. 2. v. 35. being the Pillar and Foundation of truth the eminent Rocke and Mountaine filling the whole world on the toppe wherof standeth the Tradition of sauing doctrine conspicuous and immoueable If this Church be ouerthrowne the totall certainty of Christianity cannot but with it togeather fall to the ground if it be hidden made inuisible men must needes wander in the search of the first deliuered Christian doctrine without end or hope of euer arriuing at any certayne issue And if this CoÌ„trouersy be not examined and determined in the first place disputatioÌ„ by (c) Non ad Scripturas prouocandum nec in ijs constituendum certamen in quibus aut nulla aut parùm certa victoria Tertull. in praescrip c. 19. Scripture will proue fruitlesse by the sole euidency wherof no victory can be gotten against proteruious errour or at least no victory that is very (d) The Minister pag. 8. sayth that by the Church appareÌ„t victory caÌ„not begotten more then by the Scripture which is false For apparent victory is that wherby men are forced to yield or els to disclame from the authority of the Iudge If the true Church be found out and made Iudge men may be forced by her sentence to yield vnto truth or els to disclame from the Iudge which yet we see is not done by the Scripture For men that allowe the same Scripture to be Iudge neyther are forced to yield vnto truth nor to appeale from the Scripture yea sayth Luther Tom. 2. Witt. in Concion Domin octauae post Trinit fol. 118. Neuer any Heresy was so pestilent or foolish that did not couer it selfe with the veyle of Scripture apparent neither will answeres about particular Doctrines easily satisfy a mind preoccupyed with a long continued dislike of them BECAVSE the Minister hath repeated sundry false Principles and moued many doubts about the Resolution of Fayth declared in the two ensuing Grounds of the Iesuits Answere Because also this CoÌ„trouersy is the grouÌ„d of the rest by which they are finally resolued and except it be cleered in the first place Heresy will be still hyding it selfe in the obscurity thereof Hence I haue thought necessary in this very Entry to superadde and prefixe this ensuing Treatise A SHORT TREATISE CONCERNING THE RESOLVTION OF FAITH For the more full cleering of the ensuing Controuersies about Tradition Scripture the Church THIS Treatise is deuided into two Partes In the first I will set downe and refute the Protestant forme of Resolution In the second declare and proue the Catholicke The Protestant Resolution of Fayth declared §. 1. PROTESTANTS perceaue that if they pretend to belieue Christian Religion without seing the truth thereof vpon the sole authority of God reuealing they must consequently belieue that God reuealed it vpon the word and authority of the Apostles who preached the same to the world as doctrine vnto them reuealed of God then agayne that the Apostles did thus preach publish it by (d) Quid Apostoli praedicauerint praescribam non aliter probari debere quà m per easdem Ecclesias quas ipsi condiderunt Tertull. de praescrip c. 19. the light of the Church succeeding theÌ„ deliuering it haÌ„d to hand as froÌ„ them which TraditioÌ„ if they admit as a certayne infallible rule they are (e) To this purpose they say So long as we stay vpon the Fathers we shall still continue in our old Popish errors Peter Martyr de votis pag. 476. Luther de serâ—uo Arbitrio Tom. 2. Wittemberg pag. 434. Pomeran in Ionam Napier vpon the reuelations Calius Curio alij brought into streights and mightily pressed to receaue many doctrines of Tradition which they are now resolute neuer to belieue Therefore to lay the axe to the roote they would fayne build their fayth on an higher ground then the authority of God darkely reuealing to wit (f) Iohn White defence pag. 309. None can belieue except God illuminate their hartes but such as haue this illumination do SEE MANIFESTLY the truth of thinges belieued on Diuine illumination whereby they see manifestly the truth of thinges belieued whereby they are (g) Francis White Orthodoxe pag. 108. adding that Protestants herein are like to a man that sees a farre off an obscure glimmering but coÌ„ming to the place beholds the light it selfe And the same is taught by Caluin Institut l. 1. c. 7. n. 2. and the rest conuicted in conscieÌ„ce by the euidence of the thing it selfe that their Religion is Diuine by the lustre and resplendent verity of the matter of Scripture and maiesty of the doctrine thereof sensed according vnto their manner The former Resolution confuted by six Arguments §. 2. THis pretence of Resolution so much (h) Pag. 19. lin 4. pag. 28. lin 3. ibid. lin 28. pag. 68. lin 20. The Maiesty and lustre of Heauenly doctrine is such as it appeares illustrious though propounded by meane and obscure persons as a rich Iewell doth manifest his owne worth repeated by our Minister in this Reply is refelled by 6. arguments as being extremely arrogant ignorant disorderly fond desperate the deuise of Sathan The first Argument First what more Arrogant then to challenge ordinary illuminations more high rare and excellent then the Apostles had The Apostles though they had this priuiledge that Christian Religion was to them immediatly reuealed of God yet did they not see the resplendent verity shiâ—ing truth of the Doctrine therof but saw darkely belieuing what they did not see as S. Paul doth (i) 1. Cor. 13.12 Videmus nunc in speculo in aenigmate we se through a glasse darkely that is we be sure by belieuing Gods word of what we do not see testify Therefore illuminatioÌ„ shewing manifestly the truth of things belieued challendged by Protestants is more high rare and excellent light then that the Apostles had what greater (k) Innumerabiles sunt qui se Videntes non solùm iactant sed à Christo illuminatos videri volunt Sunt autem haeretici Augustin tract 43. in Ioan. arrogancy Swenkfeldians equall themselues vnto the Apostles pretending immediate reuelation and teaching from God such as the Apostles had but Protestants pretending to see manifestly the truth of things belieued equall themselues vnto the Blessed whose happines is to see (l) Fides est credere quod nondum vides cuius Fidei merces est videre quod credis Augustin de verb. Apostol Serm. 29. what we belieue specially seing one point of the doctrine Protestants pretend to see is the blessed Trinity the true light and resplendent verity whereof a man caÌ„not see manifestly without being blessed The second Argument Secondly what greater Ignorance against the Rudiments of Christian Religion then to resolue Christian fayth by the euidence and resplendent verity of the
by grace cannot discerne the same to be his voyce and word This is spoken with more confidence then consideration God hath an (s) Ioan. 1. Eternall Increate manner of speaking to wit the production of the Eternall Word by which the Blessed discerne him from all other speakers by the euidence of blisse-full learning but no created manner of speaking (t) This is also true wheÌ„ God speaketh inwardly to the soule For in that speaking he vseth the natiue intellectuall tongue that is the vnderstanding Faculty of the soule his diuine inspirations being apprehensions of vnderstanding of the will and affections Hence this inward speaking is not by the meere souÌ„d knowne to be Diuine but by the coniecture of some effects or by speciall reuelation is so proper to God as it can be knowne to be his speaking by the meere sound of the voyce without speciall reuelation or els some consequent miraculous effect Which I declare and proue by this argument If there were a man that had no proper sound and accent of voyce but could and did exactly vse the voyce of euery man as he pleased this man could not be known by his voyce Likewise if a man had no proper stile in writing but could perfectly write the stile of any authour as he should thinke good he could not be knowne from other writers by his phrase But God hath no proper external sound or accent of voyce nor any proper stile or phrase in writing but vseth the propeâ— tongue of those men whome it pleaseth him to inspire folding vp his heauenly coÌ„ceites in the Prophets naturall language whence ariseth (u) The differeÌ„ce of stile betwixt the Apocalyps and the Ghospell of S. Iohn is noted by Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Euseb. l. 7. c. 10. And Caluin Institut l. 1. c. 8. noteth variety of stile amongst the Euangelists Prophets Dauidi Isaiae â—ucunda suauis fluit oratio Apud Amos Pastorem Ieremiam ZachariaÌ„ asperior sermorusticitatem sapit such difference of stiles amongst the sacred writers So that it is great want of discretioÌ„ to thinke to know a book to be of God by the stile abstracting from the matter Now the matter is such as it doth not with euidence certainly shew it selfe to be nothing but truth as hath beene prooued Learned men as hath been sayd may from within Scripture gather arguments that probably perswade that the same is the word of God but euident probability cannot be the ground of persuasion certayne and ineuident it may be a comfortable coÌ„firmation not an assured foundation of Fayth The fifth Argument If Scriptures be not cleere and euident but only to such as haue the light and faculty of fayth they cannot be the prime principles of Fayth euident in themselues not prooued by the principles of faith This is cleere because euery faculty supposeth her principles by the light of them which the student bringes with him she sheweth truths pertineÌ„t vnto her skill that were hidden But the Scriptures are not cleere and euident but to such only as haue aforehand the light and faculty of fayth yea they be dark obscure vnto Infidels as not only the (x) Verbum eius infidelibus nox est Hilarius in cap. 10. Matth. 2. Caluin l. 1. Iustit c. 8. n. 9. Fathers teach but also Protestants graunt Therefore the Scriptures be not the prime principles of fayth supposed before fayth which Infidells seeing to be true resolue to belieue the mysteryes of Fayth but only are secondary truths darke and obscure in themselues belieued vpon the prime principles of fayth The sixt Argument Hence ariseth the sixt argument which is à priori If Scriptures may be prooued by the light of a superiour principle of Fayth they are not the prime principles of sayth euident in themselues and indemonstrable But Scripture is prooued by a superiour more euident principle of faith For the doctrine of the Scripture is proued to be true because God the prime verity authour of Scripture cannot deceaue nor be deceaued Now that prime verity cannot deceaue nor be deceaued is a principle of fayth superiour and more euident then that the Scriptures be of God and diuine Therfore Scripture is not the supreme indemonstrable principle of Fayth but is proued to be truth by the authority of God reuealing it to be of God by the miracles of the Apostles publishing it to be the Apostles by the tradition of the Church deliuering it as such euen as all as other mysteryes of Fayth are proued The seauenth Argument Finally Protestants for this their fancy of finall resolution of fayth by the resplendeÌ„t verity of the doctrine haue not any argument worth a rush Their chiefe Argument are two First Scripture is a principle of fayth but principles are to be euident in themselues and to be knowne by their own light This argument much often vrged by you your (a) Way pag. 37. Defence cap. 20. Brother is seely because al principles must not be euideÌ„t in theÌ„selues but only the first prime principles of euery faculty or hability of knowledge as all know But Scriptures are not as hath been shewed the prime principles of fayth but are secondary principles which being known we by the light of them may know many other things The second argument (b) This argument is vrged by the Minister pag. 16. and often elswhere The Scripture is light for the word of God is light and Scripture is the word of God But euery light is euident in it selfe and knowne by the euidence it hath in it selfe Therefore the Scriptures must of themselues appearâ— and shew that they are diuine truth I Answere the Minor of this Argument is false the whole argument grounded vpon ignorance in not discerning a difference betwixt corporall spirituall light True it is that euery corporal light that doth enlighten the eye of body must be euident in it selfe primely originally cleere but not so euery truth that illustrates mans vnderstaÌ„ding The reason is because the eye of body cannot by thinges seene inferre conclude things that are hidden but only can appreheÌ„d what doth directly and immediatly shew it selfe But mans Vnderstanding not only apprehends what sheweth it selfe but by things knowne inferreth breedeth in it selfe knowledge of thinges hidden Hence vnto Vnderstanding though things shewing themselues directly and by their owne light be her prime principles and meanes to know other thinges yet also things hidden in themselues being formerly knowne by the light of authority may thereby become lights that is meanes to know yet further of things hidden So that speaking of spirituall and intellectuall lights it is false that all lights enlightening mans Vnderstanding to know other thinges are euident in themselues yea some secondary Principles and Lights there are which must be shewed by superior light before they become lights In which kind is the Scripture being a Light vnto the faythfull
because knowne by the Churches perpetuall Tradition to be from the Apostles by the Apostles miraculous authority to be of God by Gods supreme Verity who cannot deceaue nor be deceaued to be the truth THE SECOND PART About the Catholike Resolution of Fayth NO doubt but that to the end a man may belieue diuine inward illuminatiō annointing his hart is necessary The question is what is the externall infallible ground vnto which Diuine inspiration moueth men to adhere that they may be setled in the true sauing fayth The answere in few words is this The Resolution of true Religion is firmely assured about foure Principles agaynst foure Enemyes by foure Perfections belonging vnto God as he is Prima veritas Prime and Infinite Verity that cannot deceaue nor be deceaued This I declare and proue The first Principle prooued §. 1. THE first Enemy of true Christian Religion is the Pagan (a) Dicunt pagani Ben◠viuimus or Prophane (b) Fuerunt Philosophi de virtutibus vitijs sublimia multa tractantes Aug. Tract 45. in Ioan. Philosopher who is persuaded he may attayne vnto perfect felicity and Sanctity by the knowledge of sole naturall truth Against this enemy is the first principle of true Christian Religion The Doctrine of Saluation is that only which was reuealed of God vnto his Prophets About this Principle true belieuers are resolued by a perfection which in the first place belonges vnto God as he is Prime Infinite verity to wit that he cannot lye nor reueale any vntruth when he speaks immediatly himselfe by secret inspiration Hēce we thus resolue God the Prime verity cannot reueale vntruth specially about the State-matters of saluation when he speakes by secret inspiration immediatly himselfe But he reuealed in this manner by inspiration vnto his Prophets that men cannot serue him truly nor be saued without knowing supernatural truthes beyond the (c) As mans felicity the blissfull visiō of God is aboue the forces of Nature so it was conueniēt God shold bring him vnto it by belieuing truth aboue the reach of his reason reach of Reason which truthes in particular he reuealed vnto them Therfore the doctrine of saluation is supernaturall truth such as was reuealed of God vnto his Prophets and others whome he did vouchsafe to teach immediatly by himselfe and send them to be the teachers of the world This the prime and highest principle of Christian resolution Protestants not in expresse words but in deeds and by consequence reiect from being the stay of their fayth For as they that belieue the doctrine of Aristotle lastly and finally by the light and euidence therof because it sheweth it selfe to be conformable to reason do not build vpon the authority of Aristotle nor vpon his bare world euen so they that belieue the doctrine of Scripture by the light resplendent verity thereof because it shewes it selfe to be diuine and heauenly truth as Protestants pretend to doe do not build vpon the authority of God the authour and doctour of Scripture nor his bare meere pure word This is most euident for who doth not see that it is one thing to belieue the word of some Doctour by the light of the doctrine and another to belieue his word through reuerence vnto his authority as knowing him to be infallible in his word Hence the Protestant fayth is so independent of the authority of God as though God were not prime verity but fallible in his words yet their fayth might subsist as now it doth This is cleere because let one be neuer so fallible and false yet when his sayings shew themselues to be true we may yea we cannot but belieue his word in respect of the resplendent verity therof But Protestants pretend that the sayings of Scripture shew themselues to be true by the light lustre of the Doctrine belieued therin vpon this resplendēt verity they build lastly their fayth Therfore though God were fallible might be false yet their fayth that his Scripture is truth which sheweth it selfe to be truth by the resplendent verity of the doctrine might subsist Is this the true Christian fayth which depends not vpon Gods being the Prime and Infallible Verity which giues no more credit vnto God then men wil giue vnto a lyar to wit to belieue him so farre as they see him To credit the word of his teaching so farre as it sheweth it selfe to be truth by the light of the doctrine Verily this forme of Fayths resolution is grosse and vnchristian which I am persuaded Protestants would not mantayne did they well vnderstand what they say or could they find some other way of Resolution wherby they might know what doctrine is the Apostles and therfore Gods without being bound to relye vpon the Tradition of the Church The second Principle demonstrated §. 2. SOME will say God is prime Verity by whose word we cannot be deceaued But how prou◠you these pretended diuine reuelations to be truly such Here cōmeth in the second enemy of true Religion who following his blind passion labours to depriue the world of the proofes of diuine reuelations that are more euident then the Sunne This Enemy is the Iew who graūting the doctrine of saluation to be supernaturall truth reuealed of God denies the reuealed doctrine of God to be Apostolicall that is the doctrine which the Apostles preached to the whole world as the doctrine of saluation Agaynst this Enemy is the second Principle of true Religion The Doctrine of saluation reuealed of God is no other but Apostolicall that is which the Apostles published to the world About this principle true belieuers are resolued by a second perfection of the prime Verity which is That he cannot with his seale that is with miracles and workes proper to himselfe warrant or subsigne falshood deuised or vēted by any man Hence we make this resolution God being Infinite verity cannot by signe and miracle testify falshood deuised and vented by men God hath by manifest miracles testifyed the doctrine of the Apostles to be his word and message Ergo the same is not a false religion inuented of men but the doctrin of Saluation reuealed of God The miracles by which the Prime verity hath giuen testimony vnto the Apostles doctrine may be reduced vnto foure heades First the miraculous predictions of the Prophets most cleerly punctually fullfilled in Christ Iesus his B. Mother his Apostles his Church Secondly the miraculous workes in all kindes which Christ Iesus and his disciples haue wrought which are so many so manifest so wonderfull aboue nature as we cannot desire greater euidences Thirdly the miraculous conuersion of the world by twelue poore vnlearned Fisher-men the world I say which thē was in the flowre of human pride glory in the height of human erudition and learning bringing them to belieue a doctrine seemingly absurd in reason to follow a course of discipline truly repugnant vnto sensuality to imbrace a way of saluation
Gods Ergo God being the prime verity cannot permit Catholicke Christian Tradition to be falsifyed How the Churches Tradition is proued infallible independently of Scripture §. 4. HENCE is answered the common Obiection which Protestants make that Tradition of doctrine from hand to hand made by men is fallible subiect to errour for they may deceaue or be deceaued If We answere that Christian Catholicke Tradition of doctrines is infallible through Gods speciall assistance They reply this infallibility of traditioÌ„ through diuine assistaÌ„ce cannot be knowne but by the Scripture and so before we can build our fayth on Tradition as infallible we must know the Scripture to be the word of God and consequently we cannot build our persuasion of the Scriptures being Apostolicall and diuine on Tradition except we comit a Circle I Answere First that Catholicke Tradition is proued to be (m) Est suÌ„mus gradus certitudinis humanae de qua SIMPLICITER dici potest noÌ„ posse illi falsum subesse Suarez de gratia l. 9. c. 11. n. 11. Et hoc ibid. probat simply infallible by the very nature thereof For TraditioÌ„ being full report about what was euident vnto sense to wit what doctrines and Scriptures the Apostles publickly deliuered vnto the world it is impossible it should be false Worlds of men cannot be vniformely mistaken and deceaued about a matter euident to sense and not being deceaued being so many in number so deuided in place of so different affectious and conditious it is impossible they (n) Neglexerit officiuÌ„ suum Villicus Christi c. Quî verisimile vt tot tantae Ecclesiae in vnam fidem errauerint variasse debuerat error EcclesiaruÌ„ Caeterùm quod apud multos vnuÌ„ inuenitur non est erratuÌ„ sed traditum Tertullian de praescript c. 28. should so haue agreed in their tale had they maliciously resolued to deceaue the world Wherefore it is impossible that what is deliuered by full Catholicke tradition from the Apostles should be a thing by the traditioners first deuised Secondly I say that how soeuer human Tradition may be by nature fallible yet the Christian Catholicke is assisted of God that no errour can creep into the same Which diuine assistance to be due vnto it is demonstrated by the perfection of Diuine verity by the nature of tradition precedently independently of Scripture and therefore without any Circle by two Arguments The first is the same we before touched God beâ—ng Prime Verity cannot conniue that the meanes of conueying the Apostles doctrine vnto posterity which bindeth Religious belieuers to receaue the same as his word should secretly be infected with damnable Errour For being Infinit Verity in his knowledg this cannot be done without his priuity Knowing thereof being infinit veracity in his teaching the truth he cannot yield that the meanes of conueying his truth obliging men to belieue should â—mperceptibly be poysoned whereby men for their deuotion vnto his Verity incurre damnation This being so I assume But the Catholicke tradition of doctrine from the Apostles bindeth Christians to whome it is deliuered to belieue the same as Gods word This I proue When doctrine is sufficiently proposed as Gods word men are bound to belieue it But that is sufficiently proposed as Gods word vnto Christians which is vnto them sufficiently proposed â—s Doctrine of the Apostles Now that Catholicke Tradition of doctrine from the Apostles is sufficient proposition and proofe that that Doctrine is the Apostles is proued first because Catholicke tradition of doctrine is by nature simply infallible as hath bin shewed but proposition knowne simply to be infallible is sufficient to bind men to belieue Secondly Catholicke tradition that is the report of a world of Ancestors coÌ„cerning sensible matters of fact is so pregnant and obligatory as it were insolent madnes to deny it In so much as euen (o) Caluin Institut l. 1. c. 8. n. 9. Quaerunt quis nos certiores fecerit à Moyse aliis Prophetis haec fuisse scripta quae sub eorum nominibus leguÌ„tur c. quis non colaphis flagellis castistandum illum insanum dicat Certô certiùs est ipso rum scripta non aliter peruenisse ad posteros quà m de manu in manuÌ„ TRADITA Caluin sayth that such as deny the tradition of Ancestors concerning the authors of the Canonicall bookes are rather to be reformed with a Cudgell then refuted by Argument Thirdly God himselfe sendeth children vnto the tradition of their Ancestors to learne of them the sensible workes of his miraculous power done in former ages (p) Deuteron 32.7 Aske thy Father and he will tell thee thyne Auncestors and they will certifye thee Fourthly the proofe of tradition is so full and sufficient as it conuinceth infidels For though they be blind not to see the doctrine of the Apostles to be Diuine yet are they not so voyd of common sense impudent and obstinate as they will deny the doctrine of Christian Catholicke tradition to be truly Christian Apostolical Whence two thinges are euident First that Catholicke tradition from the Apostles is an externall sufficient proposition and a conuincing argument that the doctrin so deliuered is Apostolicall consequently Diuine reuealed Doctrine Secondly that Heresy which stands agaynst this tradition 〈◊〉 willfull obstinacy and madnes and worse then Paganisme The second argument God being Prime verity binding all men that will be saued to know and firmely belieue the Apostles doctrine euen vntill the worlds end cannot conniue that the only Meanes to know this doctrin perpetually and euer after the â—postles decease be secretly insensibly poysoned with errours agaynst the truth of Saluation This is â—eere The only meanes whereby men succeeding â—he Apostles may know assuredly what Scriptures â—nd doctrins they deliuered to the Primitiue Cathoâ—icke Church is the Catholicke tradition by worlds â—f ChristiaÌ„ Fathers Pastors vnto worlds of Chriâ—tian children and faythfull people Ergo Catholike Tradition is by God the Prime verity so defended â—reserued assisted as no errour agaynst Saluation â—an be deliuered by the same consequently it apâ—eareth by the very notion of prime Verity indepenâ—ently of Scripture that Catholicke tradition is â—roued to be infallible through Gods speciall assiâ—tance â—he difference between Propheticall and ordinary Diuine Illumination by which Protestants Cauills are answered §. 5. AGAYNST the Minor of the former argument Protestants obiect first that though the testiâ—ony of tradition be a good (q) Reply pa. 15. lin 32. morall human and proâ—able proofe that these Scriptures were by the Apoâ—tles deliuered yet the chiefe ground of fayth in â—his poynt is inward illumination the testimony â—f the spirit speaking within our hart and assuring 〈◊〉 of the truth I answere God may assure men of â—ruth by inward inspiration two wayes first by the â—â—ght of inward teaching and inspiration without â—he mediation and concourse of any externall inâ—allible ground of assurance Secondly by the light
reuealed all these verityes to Christs Iesus and he (f) Omnia quae audiui à Patre nota feci vobis Ioan. 15. v. 15. agayne to his Apostles partly by word of mouth but principally by the immediate teaching of his holy spirit to the end that they should deliuer (g) Docete omnes gentes Math. 28.20 them vnto mankind to be receiued and belieued euery where ouer the world euen to the consummation thereof Fourthly that the (h) Illi profecti praedicauerunt vbique Marc. vlt. 20. Apostles did accordingly preach to all nations deliuer vnto them partly by wryting partly by word of mouth the (i) O Timothee depositum custodi 1. Tim. 6.20 whole entyre doctrine of saluation planting an vniuersall Christian company charging them to keep inuiolably and to deliuer (k) Haec commenda fidelibus hominibus qui possunt alios instruere 2. Tim. 1.2 vnto their posterityes what they had of them the first messengers of the Ghospell Fiftly though the Apostles be departed their primitiue Hearers deceased yet there still remaynes a meanes in the world by which all men may assuredly know what the Apostles preached and the primitiue Church receyued of them seing the Church euen to the worlds end must be (l) Ephes. 2.20 c. 4.5.11 founded on the Apostles and belieue nothing as matter of Fayth besides that which was deliuered of them These things being supposed the question is What this meanes is and how men may now adayes so many ages after their death know certainly what the Apostles taught originally preached To which question I answere that the last and finall resolution (m) Note that the Minister many tymes doth falsify the Iesuits Tenet specially pag. 34. saying That the last and finall resolution is into vnwritten Tradition not into Scripture This he doth not say but that the persuasion that our Fayth is true is finally resolued into the authority of God reuealing and that it is Diuine into the Apostles miraculous preaching But what doctrine was taught by the Apostles we know only by Tradition therof is not into Scripture but into the perpetuall tradition of the Church succeeding (n) All from this place vnto the first argument the Minister leaueth out being the substance of the whole discourse yet he sayth he hath set down the booke verbatim See his Preface the Apostles according to the principle set downe by Tertullian in the beginning of his golden by Protestants commended Booke (o) Tertull. de praescript 1.61.21 Quid Apostoli pâ—â—dicauerint praescribam non aliter probari debere quà m per easdem Ecclesias quas ipsi condiderunt that is I set down this principle what the Apostles taught is to be proued NO OTHERVVISE then by the TRADITION of the Churches which they planted By which Prescription ioyned with the other fiue suppositions is raysed the Ladder for true Catholike resolution about Faith set down by the sayd Tertullian on which a Christian by degrees mounts vnto God or as S. Augustine (p) August de vtilitate credendi cap. 10. sayth ducitur pedetentim quibusdam gradibus ad summâ penetralia veritatis the Ladder is this the ascending by it in this sort What (q) Tertull. de praescrip c. 21. 37. Nos ab Ecclesijs Ecclesiae ab Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus à Deo I belieue I receaued from the present Church the present from the primitiue Church the primitiue Church from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God God the prime verity from no other fountayne different from his owne infallible knowledge So that who so cleaueth not to the present Church firmely belieuing the tradition thereof as being come downe by succession is not so much as on the lowest step of the Ladder that leads vnto God the reuealer of sauing truth successiue tradition vnwritten being the last and finall ground whereon we belieue that the substantiall points of our beliefe (r) Note the Iesuit doth not say Tradition is the last ground on which we belieue our Fayth to be sauing truth or the word of God but only that it came froÌ„ the Apostles so mounting vp by the Church vnto the Apostles by the Apostles vnto God and by him vnto all necessary truth came from the Apostles This I proue by these foure (*) These arguments as they coÌ„uince there is no meanes to know what the Apostles taught but Christian Tradition so they consequently conuince that if the Christian Religion be sauing truth God must assist this perpetual Catholike Tradition therof that no Errors creep into it arguments The first Argument IF the mayne and substantiall points of our fayth be belieued to be Apostolicall because writteÌ„ in the Scripture of the new Testament and the Scriptures of the new Testament are belieued to come from the Apostles vpon the voyce of perpetuall tradition vnwritten then our ResolutioÌ„ that our fayth is Apostolicall stayeth lastly and finally vpon Tradition vnwritten But so it is that the Scriptures of the new TestameÌ„t cannot be prooued to haue been deliuered vnto the Church by the Apostles but by the perpetual Tradition vnwritten conserued in the Church succeeding the Apostles For what other proofe can be imagined except one would prooue it by the (a) The Minister pag. 19. to Titles addeth inscription of some Epistles subscription insertion of names in the body of the bookes but neither is this true of all books nor of all Epistles nor it is inough to satisfy a man For may not a counterfayte write a Gospell for example in the name of Peter repeating the name of Peter the Apostle in the booke twenty tymes So it is childish to meÌ„tion this as the last stay of persuasion For what more childish then to prooue a thinge vnknowne by another as much vnknowne Titles of the bookes which were absurd seing doubt may be made whether those Titles were set on the Books by the Apostles themselues of which doubt only Tradition can resolue vs. Besides the Ghospell of S. Marke S. Luke as also the Acts of the Apostles were not written by any Apostles but were by their liuely voyce and suffrages recommended vnto Christians as Sacred Diuine otherwise as also (b) Bilson de perpetua gubernatione Ecclesiae pag. 85. Historiae illae à Marco Luca exaratae Canonicam authoritatem ex Apostolorum suffragiâ—s nactae sunt qui eas lectas approbârunt M. Bilson noteth they should neuer haue obtayned such eminent authority in the Church neyther should they be now so esteemed but vpon the supposall of Apostolicall approbation But how shall we know that the Apostles saw these writings and recommended the same vnto Christian Churches but by Tradition Ergo the last and highest ground on which we belieue what doctrine was deliuered by the Apostles is the tradition of the Church suceceding them For we may distinguish three properties of doctrine of faith
is sufficient for euery man seing the Apostle speakes not of euery man but expressely of him who is Homo Dei the man of God that is one already fully instructed and firmely setled by Tradition in all the mayne poynts of Christian fayth and godly life such an one as Timothy was The Scriptures for men in this manner aforetaught and grounded in fayth are abundantly sufficient who will deny it But this proueth at the most the sufficiency of the Scripture ioyned with Tradition not of Scripture alone or of onely-onely-onely Scripture as Protestants bookes in great Letters very earnestly affirme Hence also we may conclude that the (z) The Minister to proue Scriptures are cleere vnto Infidels that haue not the Spirit of fayth heapes many testimonies of Fathers that teach Scriptures in some matters to be cleere Who denyes this they are so to the faythful not vnto Infidels not vnto them that are vnsetled in the Catholike fayth yea many places he brings speake expressely only of the faythfull pious Sicut vera Religio docet accedunt as S. Augustine others by him alleadged affirme and therefore are brought impertinently to proue the sufficiency clarity of Scriptures in respect of Infidels pag. 34.35.36 many allegatiōs of Fathers which Protestants bring to proue the Scripture to be cleere in all substātiall points are impertinent because the fathers speake of mē aforehand instructed in all substantiall poynts who may by the light of Tradition easily discouer them in Scripture as they that heare Aristotle explicate himselfe by word of mouth may vnderstand his booke of nature most difficill to be vnderstood of thē that neuer heard his explicatiō either out of his owne mouth or by Tradition of his Schollers I hope I haue in the opinion of your most learned Maiesty sufficiently demonstrated this first GROVND of Catholicke fayth to wit That a Christian is originally and fundamentally builte vpon the word of God not as written in Scriptures but as deliuered by Tradition of the Church successiuely from the Primitiue vpō the authority wherof we belieue that both Scriptures and all other substantiall articles of fayth were deliuered by the Apostles thence further ascending inferring they came from Christ and so from God the prime veracity author of truth THE SECOND GROVND That there is a visible Church alwaies in the world to whose Traditions men are to cleaue That this Church is One Vniuersall Apostolicall Holy §. 3. THIS principle is consequent vpon the former out of which six things may be clerly proued First that there is alwaies a true (a) The Minister still cōeth forth with his distinctiō that by Church we may vnderstand a Hierarchy of mitred prelates thē he denyes that there is still a church teaching the truth in the world Secondly for a number of belieuers smaller or greater teaching and professing the right sayth in all substantial points then he grants there is still a true Church of Christ in the world This distinction so much repeated specially pag. 57. and 58. is impertinēt for by Church we vnderstād not euery small number of right belieuers but a Christian multitude of such credit and authority as vpon her tradition we may be sure what Scriptures doctrines were the Apostles For this is a fundamentall pointe necessary to be knowne that so we may know what Doctrine is of God and it cannot be knowne but by Tradition of the Church as hath bene proued Now whether this Church be Mitred or not Mitred goe in Blacke or in White or in Scarlet doth little import Let the Minister but shew vs a Church that hath euident Tradition of Doctrine hand to hand frō the Apostles we will say she is the true Church though she haue no Surplisse or Miter but be as precise as Geneua it selfe but if there be no Church in the world but this Hierarchy of Mitred Prelates whose Tradition hand to hand can assure men which be the Scriptures and doctrines of Religiō deliuered by the Apostles men ought not to beare such spleen against a Miter or Corner-Cap or Surplisse as in respect of them to fly from the Church that onely hath Catholicke Tradition from the Apostles Church of Christ in the world for if there be no meanes for men to know that Scriptures and all other substantiall Articles came from Christ and his Apostles and so consequently from God but the Tradition of the Church then there must needes be in all ages a Church receiuing and deliuering these Traditions els men in some age since Christ should haue bene destitute of the (b) The Minister pa. 59. lin 15. sayth A corrupt Church may deliuer vncorruptly some part of sacred truth as the Scripture and Creed by which men may be saued Answer We may conceaue two wayes of deliuering an incorrupt text The one Casuall by chance and so a corrupt Church yea a Iew an Infidell a child may deliuer an vncorrupt Copy of the Bible The other Authentike assuring the receauer this to be the incorrupt text of the Apostles Scripture and binding him so to belieue This Authentik and irrefragable Tradition cannot be made by a false Church erring in her Traditiōs as is cleer Now it is necessary to saluation that men not only Casually haue the true Scripture but must be sure that the text therof be incorrupt Therfore ther must be stil a Church in the world whose Tradition is Authentike that is a sufficient warrant vpon which men must belieue Doctrines to come from the Apostles ordinary meanes of saluation because they had not meanes to know assuredly the substantiall Articles of Christianity without assured Fayth wherof no man is saued Secondly this Church must be alwaies (c) The Minister pag. 61. lin 15 lin 26. obiects that in time of persecution the true Church may be reputed an impious sect by the multitude and so not be knowne by the notion of True and Holy nor can her truth be discerned by sense and common reason I answere As there are foure properties of Church-doctrin so likewise there are foure notions of the Church The first is to be Mistresse of the sauing truth According to this notion the Church is inuisible to the naturall vnderstanding both of men and Angels For God only his Blessed see our Religion to be the truth The second is to be Mistresse of Doctrine truly reuealed by secret inspiration According to this notion ordinarily speaking the Church is inuisible to almost all men that are or euer were the Apostles onely and the Prophets excepted The third to be Mistresse of Doctrine which Christ and his Apostles by their Miraculous preaching planted in the world According to this notion the Church was visible to the first and Primitiue world but now is not The fourth to be Mistresse of Catholike doctrine that is of doctrine deliuered and receaued by full Tradition and profession all the aduersaryes therof being vnder the name of
Christian deuided amongst themselues and notorious changers According to this notion the Church is euer visible sensible to all men euen vnto her very enemies For not only Iewes and Infidels but euen Heretickes know in their conscience and sometimes acknowledge in words that the Church is truly Catholike So long as the Church according to this notion of Catholicke is in the sight of the world the world hath sufficient meanes of saluation They that see with their eyes which Religion is Catholicke may easily find out the truth For it is cleer to common reason that the Catholike Doctrine is the Apostles cleere by common discourse that the Apostles miraculous preaching was of God and that God being the prime verity his doctrine ought to be receaued as the truth of saluation On the other side if the Church according to the notion of Catholike be hidden and the light therof lost there is no ordinary meanes left for men to know what the Apostles taught nor consequently what God by inspiration reuealed vnto them We must begin againe anew from a second fountaine of immediat reuelation from God and build vpon the new planting of Religion with miracles in the world by some recent Prophet And if this be absurd then there must euer be in the world a Church whose Tradition is illustriously Catholicke and consequently shewing it selfe to be the Apostles vnto all men that will not be obstinate visible and conspicuous For the Traditiōs of the Church must euer be famous glorious and most notoriously knowne in the world that a Christian may truly say with S. Augustine de vtilit cred c. 17. I belieue nothing but the consent of Nations and countries and most celebrious fame Now if the Church were hidden secret inuisible in any age then her Traditions could not be Doctrines euer illustriously knowne but rather obscure hidden Apocriphall Ergo the Church the mistresse pillar and foundation of truth must be alwaies visible and conspicuous which if need be may be further proued most euidently Thirdly that this Church is Apostolicall and that apparently descending from the Apostolicall Sea by succession of Bishops (d) The Church that hath a lineall succession of Bishops from the Apostles famous and illustrious whereof not one hath beene opposite in religion to his immediate predecessour proues euidently that this Church hath the doctrin of the Apostles for as in the ranke of 300. stones ranged in order if no two stones be found in that line of different colour then if the first be white the second is white so the rest vnto the last euen so if there be a succession of 300. Bishops all of the same Religion if the first haue the Religion of the Apostles and of Peter the second likewise hath the same and so the rest euen vntill the last vsque ad Confessionem generis humani euen to the acknowledgment of humane kind as S. Augustine l. de vtil Cred. cap. 17. speaketh for how could the Tradition of Christian Doctrine be eminently and notoriously Apostolicall if the Church deliuering the same hath not a (e) The Minister sayth p. 67. circa finem That this note of succession makes nothing against the Church of England because their Pastors and Bishops are able to exhibite a pedigree or deriuation both of their ministery and doctrine from the Apostles This is ridiculous For if they can really exhibite such a pedigree and deriuation of their fayth in all ages from Christ to Luther why do they still keepe vs in suspence and neuer exhibite the same which we so earnestly beg at their hands Let them but name the Church or Pastour that did commit vnto Luther the Ministery of preaching his doctrines against the Roman religion The Roman Church made him priest gaue him cōmission to preach her doctrine but to preach agaynst her Religion who gaue him order That commission to preach seeing he had it not frō any Church as is manifest he had it eyther from himselfe coyning a religion of his owne head out of Scripture vnderstood in his owne manner or from Satan with whome he conferred and vnto whose arguments he yielded as himselfe doth witnes Tom. 7. Wittenberg fol. 228. or els immediatly from God and then he ought to haue made this immediate reuelation knowne by miracles Let not Ministers therfore idly say we can exhibite a pedigree feeding vs with wordes but affoard vs present payment of so long an exacted debt If they know the pedegree of their faith the labour is not great to write the names of their Ancestours in euery age That done they may rest For if we cannot demonstrate that these their pretended Ancestours were eyther Catholike Romans or else opposite one to another in substantiall points and this by as authentike records as they do to prooue they held some points of their Religion the victory shall be theirs Is it possible they should thus delude men by saying we can exhibite and yet neuer do it manifest and conspicuous pedigree or deriuation from the Apostles Which is a conuincing argument vsed by the same S. Augustine Epist. 48. circa medium How can we thinke that we haue receiued manifestly Christ if we haue not also receiued manifestly his Church It is a principle of Philosophy Propter quod vnum quodque tale illud magis but the name of Christ his glory his vertues his miracles are to the world famously knowne frō age to age by reason of the Church her preaching who in her first Pastors saw him with their eies Ergo this Church must needes be more famous more illustrious as able to giue fame euen vnto the being and doctrine and actions of Christ. Fourthly this Church is One that is all the Pastors (f) The Minister pag. 108. lin 14. alleadgeth the differences amongst Schoolemē particularly betwixt Dominicās Iesuits about the manner of explicating the efficacy of Grace as an argument that the Roman Church wants vnity of faith as much as Protestants I answer this is Idle these differences not being in matters of faith If Scholmen should preach different doctrines as matters of fayth condemning ech other as Heretikes and the Church this notwithstanding should alow of both sides as her children then there should be in the Church disunion in fayth But the Roman Church doth not allow such dissonant Preachers only she permitteth them to differ in matters they teach as greater probability and priuate opinion If any preach their priuate probabilityes as Doctrines and as matters of fayth condemning others as heretikes except they recall their censure the Roman Church shutteth them out of her communion not permitting disunion in faith For such permittāce would vtterly discredit the authority of her preaching shew that euen in matters of faith she is a Church to be belieued no further thē seene and Preachers therof deliuer and consequently all her professors and children belieue one the same fayth For if the Preachers and Pastors
old Fathers meaning the Fathers oâ— the Old Testament not of the New whiâ—â— appeares because in proofe of his saying 〈◊〉 brings not the Testimony of (i) The Minister saith pag. 250. lin 11. that Polidore nameth Gregory amongst the old Fathers that condemned the worship of Images for feare of Idolatry as Hierome doth witnes Answere This is false and impossible For Gregory liuing all most two hundred yeares after the death of S. Hierome how could he be one of the old Fathers whom S. Hierome witnesseth to haue condemned Image-worship for feare of Idolatry Gregory theÌ„ is named by Polidore not amongst the old Fathers but as one of the new Fathers that is Fathers of the new Testament as seeming to speake against Image-worship but in truth doth not as hath bene said any Father of the New Testament but onely of the old as of Moyses Dauid Hieremy and other Prophets And the scope of the whole chapter is to declare that the reason why in the old Testament the Fathers misliked the worship of Images of God was because they could not paint him aright Cùm Deum nemo vidisset vnquam because then no man had seen God (k) The Minister saith that the Iewes at least might haue adored the Images of Prophets if such adoration had bene lawfull as the Papists hold Answer In the same manner I argue The Iewes might haue made the Images of their holy Prophets if the making of them had bene lawfull as Protestants hold Let the Minister proue by Gods word they made them I will proue they worshipped theÌ„ Let him I say shew that Images of Prophets were set in the beginning of their Prophesies as his is set in the frontispice of this his Reply and I promise him to proue the same were honoured This is the thinge wherof we require example in Scripture and wherin the Minister is as dumbe as a fish not able to shew one proper Image of an adored person lawfully made that might not lawfully be adored Afterwards God saith Polidore hauing taken flesh and being become visible to mortall eyes men flocked to him and did without doubt behold and reuerence his face shining with the brightnes of Diuine light and euen then they began to paint or carue his image already imprinted in their mindes And these Images they receiued with great worship and veneration as was reason the honour of the Image redounding to the original as Basill writes which custome of adoring Images the Fathers were so farre from reprouing as they did not onely admit therof but also decreed and commanded the same by Generall Councells in the time of Constantine the fourth and Iustinian the second his sonne And therfore what man is there so dissolute audacious as can dreame of the contrary and doubt of the Lawfulnes of this Worship established so long ago by decree of most holy Fathers Thus writeth Polidore and much more to the same purpose in the very place where the Minister Citeth him to the contrary which shewes how notoriously his credulous readers are abused in matters of most moment Hence appeareth the third falshood that in Gregoryes dayes images began to be set vp in Churches which to haue bene in the Churches longe before the Testimonyes of S. Basill Paulinus Lactantius and Tertullian do sufficiently witnes Neither can our Aduersary bringe any cleere testimony of antiquity against this custome For the decree of the Councell (l) The Minister sayth that some Pontificians grant that this Councel forbad the making of images so cleer is their decree agaynst them I Answere such Authors had no reason in the world to be so persuaded of this CouÌ„cell but only the wordes of the decree Now the wordes of the decree be not cleere yea they cannot admit that sense being compared with the wordes that immediatly follow as the Iesuit doth demonstrate In so much as the Minister to frame an argument out of this decree is forced ridiculously to curtall the text take some few wordes leauing the rest Such is his obstinacy agaynst the light of truth of Eliberis that no Picture should be made in the Church least that which is worshipped or adored be painted on walls which the Minister way pag. 345. much vrgeth cleerly signifyeth the contrary For may not Images painted on tables be in Churches and yet neither made in the Church nor painted on walls which kind of Images the Councell doth not forbid And why doth the Councel forbid Images to be made in the Church as pertinent to the fabricke therof or to be painted on Walls but out of reuerence vnto Images for they being holy things and so to be honoured for their prototypes sake the Councel thought it vnworthy of their dignity that they should be made on walls where they may easily be defaced and deformed and by Persecutours for that Councell was held in time of persecution abused He doth also Way pag. 345. much insist vpon Epiphanius epist. ad Ioan. Hicrosol but relates according to his fashion both his fact words vnsincerely Epiphanius sayth he finding an Image painted on a cloath hanging in a Church rent it downe and said it was against the authority of the Scripturs that any Image should be in the Church Thus he vnsincerely as I said not expressinge what kind of Image that was that Epiphanius rent in peeces For Epiphanius saith Cùm inuenissem imaginem hominis pendentem in Eâ—cl sit tanquam Christi aut alicuius Sancti nâ—scio enim cuius erat when I had found an Image of a man hanging in the Church as Christs or some Saints for I know not of whom the Image was Epiphanius (m) Here the Minister rayleth most intolerably crying that the testimonyes are cleere but not so much as endeauours to answer the Iesuits arguments that are demonstratiue as much as any can be in this kind of matter The Ministers arguments on the other side haue no force at all being two proposed in a double interrogation If sayth he pag. 254. lin 2. Epiphanius himselfe did not remember whose Image it was whether of Christ or of a Saint or of some prophane man how knowes this Iesuite that it was the Image of a prophane person I Answere That Epiphanius did know that it was not Christs image nor any Saints but some prophan persoÌ„s thogh he knew not determinately what prophane persons the same was For Epiphanius would not haue vrged the vnlawfulnes of hanging that image in the Church in regard it was a mans Image had he not vnderstood a prophane mans Hence his second interrogation is answered why was Epiphanius silent and did not say it was some prophane mans Answere Epiphanius was not silent that the image he tore in peeces was the image of a prophane man seeing he tearmeth it the Image of a man hanging in the Church as Christs or some Saints And this the complayners knew well inough for if this picture had been Christs or some
the Creed and prime Principles of Christianity in plaine and Catechisticall manner Besides it is easy for the RomaÌ„ Church to keepe her children from belieuing that Images be Gods or true liuing things or that any diuinity or diuine vertue resides in them as may be proued conuincingly in my Iudgement by experience had of her power in this kind about a point more difficill For what may seeme more euident then that a consecrated Hoast is bread of which foure senses sight feeling smel tast giue in euidence as of bread no lesse verily theÌ„ any other so farre as they can discerne And yet so potent is the word doctrine of the Church grounded on General CouÌ„cells declaring the word of God for TransubstaÌ„tiation as Catholikes denying their senses belieue assuredly that what seemeth bread is not bread but the true body of our Sauiour vnder the formes of accidents of bread Now caÌ„ any man with any shew of the least probability in the world thinke that it is difficill for this Church to perswade her childreÌ„ that the image of Christ is not a liuing thing nor hath any godhead or liuing diuine power lodged in it as plaine Scriptures shew and Generall Catholicke Councells particularly the Tridentine sess 25. and the Nicene act 7. define which doctrine neyther reason nor sense can mislike Or shall the sole similitude of members correspondent vnto humane liuing meÌ„bers which images haue so much preuayle in catholike minds so to bow down their thought to base Idolatry as to thinke a stocke or a stone to be a God and that the Church shall not be able by her teaching to direct them to a more high diuine apprehension being able to make them firmly belieue a consecrated hoast is not bread agaynst the Iudgement that they would otherwise frame vpon most notorious euidency of sense The ProtestaÌ„ts Church on the other side may seeme to haue no great vigour by preaching to perswade commoÌ„ people agaynst the Errour of the Anthropomorphits seing their Principle is that a world of preachers is not to be belieued agaynst the euident Scripture yea (r) Heere the Minister is bitter saying p. 277. lin 30. That it is impossible for Papists to deale sincerely That his Brother M. Iohn doth not speake of euery priuate man nor any company of people but that one Michaia one Stephen one Athanasius with the word of truth in mouth is to be preferred agaynst 4. hundred Baalites I answere The Minister denying his Brother spake of euery particular man shall receaue his doome by the breath of his Brothers owne mouth telling him the coÌ„trary who thus writeth in the place cited by the Iesuite to wit Way pag. 126. lin 12. It is lawfull and necessary for EVERY PARTICVLAR MAN to try all thinges and by the SCRIPTVRE to EXAMINE and to IVDGE of the things the CHVRCH teacheth him And when A MAN in this manner reiects the teaching of a Church as great and good as the Roman Catholike his iudgement therin is not PRIVATE as Priuate is opposed to SPIRITVAL Nor sayth he pag. 128. lin 2. is it impossible for a PRIVATE MAN to espy an errour in the best Church that is And pa. 150. lin 18. Whereas the Catholiks answer That the text of Scripture try the Spirits doth not allow EVERY MAN to doe this but only Pastours The Minister replyeth this is all false for the Epistle of S. Iohn speakes indiffereÌ„tly of ALL MEN Euery man by the Rule of Scripture is to try spirits that Epistle being directed not to the CLEARGY but to the PEOPLE And the reason added shewes that the PEOPLE are they that must try spirits for they must try the spirits that are in danger to be seduced by false Prophets and such are the PEOPLE and therefore they must examine theÌ„ All these are his brother Iohns words Now let the Reader iudge whether Iohn White doth not hold that not only extraordinary Prophets as Michaeas Stephen not only chiefe Patriarkes as Athanasius but that euery particular man of the people may iudge of the teaching of the whole Church and condemne as great a Church as the Protestants if by his spirituall exposition or by the spirit he be moued so to do What reason then had our Minister in respect of this allegation to be so bitter as to say it is impossible â—or Papists to deale sincerely Verily M. Francis had you as much natural vnderstanding togeather with knowledge of the Protestant Religion as had your Brother Iohn you wold see this doctrine that euery Priuate man is by diuine Order and InstitutioÌ„ to iudge of the Church how absurd soeuer to be necessarily consequent of the Protestant Principle That euery man must finally resolue his fayth into the light of the Scripture yea I could shew how your selfe euen in this reply haue giueÌ„ this authority of iudging the Church vnto euery priuate MaÌ„ as may partly appeare by the Censure sect 4. that a common ordinary man by Scripture may oppose as great and greater Church then is the whole Protestant Doctour White in his way pag. 59. Which principle being layd how will they conuince people that God is a pure spirit whome the Scripture doth so perpetually set forth as hauing humane members I may conclude therefore that their translating Scriptures into their vulgar languages breeds more danger vnto common people then our making of images But they will say the Translation of Scriptures into vulgar languages is commanded in Scripture and the Apostolicall Church practised it whereas we cannot proue by Scripture that the Apostles did warraÌ„t or practise the setting vp of images This they say with great confidence but any substantial proofe of this their saying I could neuer read or heare The testimonyes they bring in this behalfe Search the Scriptures Let his word dwell plentifully among you c. are insufficient to proue a direct and expresse precept or practise of traÌ„slating Scriptures into the vulgar tongue Catholikes on the coÌ„trary side though they boast not of Scriptures as knowing that nothing is so cleerly set downe in it but malapert errour may contend agaynst it with some shew of probability yet haue Scriptures much more cleere and expresse then any that ProtestaÌ„ts can bring for themselues euen about the vse of the image of Christ crucifyed in the first Apostolicall Church S. Paul to the Galatians c. 3. v. 1. sayth O yee foolish Galathians who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth before whose eyes Christ Iesus is liuely set forth Crucifyed among you The greeke word correspoÌ„ding to the English liuely set forth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to paint forth a thing In so much as eueÌ„ Beza traÌ„slates Iesus Christus depictus Câ—ucifixus Iesus Christ painted or pictured crucifyed before your eyes So that we haue in plaine and expresse tearmes that christ was pictured as Crucified in the Apostolical churches which the Apostle doth
Christians behaued thēselues towards it sayth Flecte genu lignumque Crucis venerabile adora Bow knee adore the Crosses sacred wood Origen Homil. 6. in Epist. ad Rom. So great is the power of the Crosse that if it be placed before the eyes and faythfully retayned in mind fixed vpon the death of Christ the army of sinne flesh is conquered S. Gregory called Illuminator who conuerted Armenia did as Euthim. panop part 3. tit 20. relates place wooden Images of the Crosse vpon the shrines of Martyrs bidding the multitude of people that thither resorted to giue worship vnto God by the Adoration of the Crosse. S. Procopius Martyr as doth witnes Nicephorus l. 7. c. 15. did adore a golden image of the Crosse of Christ crucifyed by it got great victoryes In the second age in the beginning wherof some of the Apostles liued Tertull. in Apol. c. 44. writing against Heathens that obiected that Christians were worshippers of the woodden image of the Crosse graunts the thing to be true defendeth the same Yea the Protestant Magdeburgians Centur. 5. c. 6. acknowledge that such Crosses of wood were then amongst Christians frequently vsed set vp in Churches S. Ignatius epist. ad Philip. doth acknowledge diuine power vertue in the image of the Crosse. It is sayth he the victorious trophey or the monument of Christs victory against the Diuell quod vbi viderit horret S. Martial Epist. ad Burdeg l. 8. exhorts Christians still to haue the Crosse before them in mente in ore in signo in mind in mouth in the image thereof this being the inuincible armour of a Christian agaynst Satan The Canons of the Apostles haue beene euer famous in the Christian Church wherof one is cited in 2. Nicen Synode which sayth Let not the faythfull be deceyued by Idolls but paint the diuine humane vnmingled image of the true God our Sauiour Iesus Christ of his seruants agaynst Pagans Iewes that so they neyther goe astray vnto Idolls nor be like the Iewes Finally that these images of Christ crucified were vsed in the Apostles time by their allowance the Iesuite proueth by the text of S. Paul to the Galathians 3.1 so cleerly as you are forced to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify to depaint agaynst all Lexicons agaynst the principall Protestants that so translate yea agaynst your selfe and yet you wonder at your aduersaries wondrous weakenes THE SECOND AND THIRD POINT 2. Prayings offering Oblations to the B. Virgin Mary 3. VVorshipping Inuocation of Saints and Angells I Haue ioyned these two Controuersyes togeather hoping I might doe it with your Maiesties good liking the maine difficulty of thē both being the same to wit worship and Inuocation of Angells and Saints For I am fully perswaded that if your Maiesty did allow of Inuocation of any Saint you would neuer deny that deuotion vnto the B. Virgin mother of God Opera Regia Respons ad ep Card. Peron p. 402. whome you honour and reuerence aboue the rest though perchance you may dislike some particular formes of our prayers that seeme to giue her Tytles aboue that which is due to a creature about which I shall in the end of this discourse endeauour to giue your Maiesty satisfaction In which question I will suppose without large and particular proofe being able to prooue it by testimonyes vndeniable if need be that Worship Inuocation of Saints hath byn generally receaued in the whole Christian Church at least euer since the dayes of Constantine HEERE the Minister either out of ignorāce or rather out of desire to out-face the truth writes in this sort pag. 290. You presuppose that which notwithstanding your outfacing you will neuer be able to proue that Inuocatiō of Saints was vniuersally receaued as an article of faith This Discourse following is an addition wherin is declared that the Ancient Fathers held Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Fayth euer since the dayes of Cōstantine Thus he Wherfore aswell because the matter is important as also to take away this tergiuersation I will heere make good the Answerers word and demonstrate that al the Fathers some one way some another haue testifyed to the world that they held Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Christian fayth and Religion An eleauen Demonstrations that the Ancient Christian Church did euer hold Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Fayth and Religion § 1. TO accomplish this more cleerly and with lesse tediousnesse vnto the Reader I shal reduce the Fathers saying vnto an eleauen heads which may serue as an eleauen different arguments demonstrations of this truth The first Demonstration If the Fathers held the doctrine that Saints are to be inuocated that men are aided by their merits as certain infallible then they held it as a point of faith or a reuealed truth for on what other ground but the word of God could they pretend to hold it as certaine the same not being euident in the light of nature But the Fathers teach this doctrine as a matter certayne and infallible not to be doubted of by Christians as their words declare S Augustine (a) Augustine de cur◠pro mortuis cap. 16. Illa quaestio vires superat intelligentiae meae quemadmodum Martyres opitulentur ijs quos per eos CERTVM est adiuuari This question is beyond the reach of my knowledge how martyrs help them whome it is CERTAINE that they help And againe (*) Idem serm 244. Tunc pro nobis absque vlla dubitatione Sancti Martyres intercedunt Then WITHOVT ANY DOVBT the holy Martyrs intercede for vs when they find in vs some part of their vertues S. Ambrose (b) Ambros. ser. 91. Quid non credunt vtrum quòd à martyribus possunt aliqui visitari hoc est Christo nou credere ipse enim dixit Et maiora his facietis Not to belieue that Martyrs may visit and relieue men liuing in this world is Not to belieue in Christ seing he sayd you shall do yet greater thinges Nectarius speaking vnto Saint Theodore Martyr (c) Nectar orat in primū Sabb. sanctorum Ieiuniorum in S. Theodorum Te post mortem viuere CREDIMVS vt ergo in Christo viuis stas prope eum precibus tuis propitium eum redde famulis tuis We belieue that thou doest liue in God a life without decay or end Therefore as thou doest liue in Christ stands by him so make him by thy prayers propitious mercyfull vnto vs thy seruants What is this but to say that as certainly as Saints see God so certaine it is that they pray for vs and heare our prayers S. Gregory Nazianzen (d) Gregory Nazianzen orat 26. in patrem suum Apostolium ferè ab initio NEC DVBITO quin hoc nunc quoque magis faciat postulatione sua quā priùs doctrinâ I do NOT DOVBT but this blessed Saint in
Theodos. Nor as the sanctifyer of our soule dwelling in the same by grace Hierom in Prouerb c. 2. Nullum inuocare idâ—â— intus orando vocare nisi Deum debemus Thirdly that the Preist doth not inuocate Saints by direct prayer in the Lyturgy of the Masse which being a sacrifice the deuotion therof is to be directed to God onely Augustine lib. 22. de ciuit c. 10. Carthag 4. c. 23. Fourthly that our friends that are deceased do not now heare vs in the familiar manner they were wont conuersing with vs. Hierom. ad Heliodor de obitu Nepotiam whatsoeuer I write seemeth to be dead 〈◊〉 because Nepotian doth not heare it to wit iâ— visible manner delighting therein and applauding the same as he was accustomed to doe in his life-time (c) HeÌ„ce appeareth the impertineÌ„cy of the Minister that so often vrgeth this place of S. Hierome pag. 29.2 lin 22. Orthodoxe pa. 54. li. 6. Fiftly that they do not know what is done in this world by their natural forces Augustine de cura pro mortuis c. 16. Per diuinam potentiam Martyres viuorum rebus intersunt quoniam defuncti per naturam propriam viuorum rebus interesse non possunt Sixthly speaking vnto some deceased persons they make an If whether they heare them or not because they speake vnto such as they knew not certainly to be Saints Nazianzen orat 3. in Iulian. (d) The Minister here sayth Did not the Fathers reckon Constantine to be in ioy and glory and yet Gregory Nazianzen vsing an Apostrophe to him sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heare o thou Spirit of Great Constantine if thou hast any notion of these thinges I Answere you falsify the text of Nazianzen both in the Greeke in your English translatioÌ„ For his words are Heare o thou Spirit of Great Constantius if thou haue any notion of these thinges Yea that we might see you corrupt the text wilâ—â—lly against your conscience euen in this very Reply in this poynt â—f controuersy you cite the same pag. 359. lit a. in this manner Audi etiam 〈◊〉 Constantij magni anima siquis mortuus sensus est Heare o thou Spirit of â—reat Constantius c. Now Constantius was an Arian and a persecutour of Catholickes vnto his dying day though on his death bed it was sayd â—e made some kind of repentance Hence S. Gregory NazianzeÌ„ might doubt â—f his being in Glory and say Heare if thou haue any notion of these â—â—inges The same Father in his funerall Oration for his sister Gorgonia where he sayth Sister admit of this oration in lieu of many funerall offeâ—â—ngs If this reward be giuen to holy soules to feele these things he doth not doubt of her hearing his prayers but only whether she receaued an humane naturall content in that his affectuous Panigyricall made in her prayse THIS truth supposed I cannot but coÌ„ceaue that your Maiesty professing so much loue to the first primitiue ages may â—eceaue satisfaction about this point the causes of Protestants dislikes being weake and not to be opposed against the strength of so long continued authority as I shall endeauour to demonstrate in their eight usuall Exceptions Inuocation of Saints not to be disliked because not expressed in Scripture §. 2. AND first I must satisfy the transcendeÌ„tall cause of their dislike (a) Confess August art 12. Fulke against Rhem. which is that worship and Inuocation of Saints deceased is no where expressely set downe in Scripture without expresse warrant wherof nothing may lawfully be done that belongs to Religion But this though carrying a shew of deuotion in the conceit of common people is altogether vnworthy of the erudition of any learned Protestant For howsoeuer in the beginning of their separation they did (b) Luther l de seruo arb serm de Cruce siue expresso Dei mandato cry for expresse Scripture expresse Commands oâ— the Written Word yet now they are 〈◊〉 gone (c) Wotton in his Tryall pag. 89. from that principle as they are exceeding angry (d) Iohn White in his defence pag. 228. with vs that wâ— should thinke that any of theirs were 〈◊〉 any time broachers of such an absurdity Wherfore in their written bookes whâ—â— they teach in Pulpits I know not they (e) D. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 20. Whitaker de sacra Scrip. cont 1. q. 6. disclaime from expresse Scripture and thinke it a sufficient warrant of a Christâ—â—â— custome that the same be (f) Note that it is one thing to be expressed in Scripture and another to be grouÌ„ded on Scripture All Christian doctrine is not expressed in Scripture yet euery Christian doctrin is so grouÌ„ded on Scripture that it may in some sort or other be proued from Scripture grounded â—â— Scripture that is may be deduced by good discourse from truthes reuealed therin 〈◊〉 be proued consonant to the rules principles therof according to which ample extent of Scriptures vnto things deducible from them or consonant vnto them there is no Catholike custome that hath not warrant in Gods word as we are able to shew This onely we require that ignorant people be not Iudges of such inferences an office so farre aboue their capacity as I am perswaded no vnlearned man that hath in him any sparke of humility or any mediocrity of Iudgement will vndertake it For no man is competent to iudge assuredly of argumeÌ„ts by deduction froÌ„ Scripture that hath not exact skill of Scripture to know the false sense from the true as of Logicke to distinguish Syllogismes from Paralogismes being able to giue sentence of the truth of principles by the one and of the inferences by the other A thing so hard as euen learned Deuines do much suspect their owne sufficiency to iudge of deductions dare not absolutely pronounce their sentence but referre the same to definitions of authority which besides skill of Scripture Logicke hath the promise of Gods perpetuall assistance in teaching the Christian Church Wherfore if Protestants will bind vs to bring expresse Scripture for the worship of Imags Adoration of the Sacrament Inuocation of Saintes they must themselues likewise be bound to bring expresse Scripture against Anabaptists for (g) D. Field l. 4. of the Church c. 20. saith It is no where expressely deliuered in Scripture christening of Infants and for the keeping of the Sunday in lieu of the ancient Sabboath Day for their dedicating of (h) CoÌ„cerning the Protestants keeping festiuall daies of Saints with religious solemnity the Minister saith not a word which is tacitely to grant that this duty of ReligioÌ„ is vsed piously by the English Church although the same waÌ„t the warrant of Scripture why then may not Catholicks pray vnto Saintes though there were no warrant in Scripture for such practise Dayes in memory of the Apostles with religious solemnity for the (i) Concerning the Crosse in baptisme the Minister saith pag. 302. that it is
11.1 ad Cor. I heare saith he what the words of the supper import For Christ doth giue vs not only the benefit of his death and resurrection but also the very body wherin he died and arose againe from death Yea libro de Coena inter eius opuscula pag. 133. he saith that Negare veram corporis sanguinis substantiam to deny the true substance of the body and blood of Christ to be giuen in the supper is execrabilis blasphemia auditu indigna an execrable blasphemy against which we ought to stoppe our eares The Caluinian Doctrine that Christs body being only in heauen is Spiritually present not only by fayth not only according to the effects of his grace but also in his bodily substance yet only vnto the faythfull receauer not vnto the Sacramentall signe is both against Gods word and implicatory in reason First it is no lesse then the Zuinglian against the plaine expresse words of our Sauiour For our Sauiour by saying Take eate this is my body drinke yee all of this for this is my blood Matth. 26. doth auerre the Sacrament to be his body and blood in respect of that taking and eating vnto which by these words he doth inuite and exhorte But by this speach he doth inuite and exhorte vnto Sacramentall and corporall taking and eating This appeareth by the immediat practise of the Apostles who vpon these words of our Lord tooke the Sacrament with their corporall mouth This also our aduersaryes cannot deny seing they vrge by vertue of these wordes corporall receauing in both kinds Therfore the words of our Sauiour auerre the reall presence of his body in substance in respect of corporall taking and eating with the mouth of flesh which Doctrin Caluinists stiffely deny only holding the substantiall communication of Christs body in respect of spirituall receauing by the facultyes of the soule Secondly their Reall Presence is a fiction to no purpose For there is no reason to put the Reall Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament but only in respect of verifying the word of our Sauiour This is my body in a true and reall sense so making the thinge Christ had in his hand and which was demonstrated by the Pronowne This to be truly really his body But Caluinists put not a Presence which maketh the thinge Christ had in hand and demonstrated by the Pronowne This to be truly and really his body but only by figure This I proue That which is the body of Christ in figure and shew and not in substance is not truly really Christ his body Euen as what is a man in shew and figure not in essence and substance is not truly and really a man But Caluinists say that This or the thinge which Christ hath in his hands was Christs body in shew figure and not in substance Ergo they put not a Reall presence which makes that which Christ had in his hand did demonstrate by the particle This to be truly his body It is therefore a fiction deuised to satisfy the Caluinian fancy not the Christian fayth or the rigurous truth of Gods word Thirdly by this Doctrine they bind themselues and others to belieue an high and incomprehensible Mystery without any necessity or compulsion from Gods word For what can be more vnintelligible then that there should be true and reall vnion according to substance betwixt two distinct indiuiduall substances that be distant the one from the other as farre as heauen is from earth Hence Caluin saith libro de Coena that this is sublime arduum quod neque quidem cogitatione complecti possimus in Cap. 11.1 ad Cor. arcanum mirificum Spiritus sancti opus quod intelligentiae nostrae modulo metiri nefas sit But the word of God doth not inforce this Caluinian Mystery nor is there sufficient ground to affirme it This is proued because the mystery of their Reall Presence either hath no ground in Scripture or is grounded on these words of the Institution Take eate this is my body But Caluinists on these words cannot ground the incomprehensible mystery of their reall presence For they vnderstand these words of our Sauiour in a Figuratiue sense and say that they are not true properly and literally Now a mystery of Fayth cannot be grounded vpon the Figuratiue sense of a place of Scripture yea vpon meere Figuratiue construction of Scripture to obtrude vnto others an article of necessary beliefe is impudency as saith S. Augustine Epist. 68. Non nisi impudentiss mè nititur quis aliquid in Allegoria positum pro se interpretari nisi habeat manifesta testimonia quorum lumine illustrentur obscura Therfore the Caluinian Reall Presence is a mystery incomprehensible grounded on meere figuratiue construction of Gods word not backed by any literall text and consequently it is belieued without necessity or any Diuine and supernaturall warrant Hence I Inferre two things first that the belieuers of the Caluinian Reall Presence are vnwise For what greater folly then for men to deny their wits and breake their heads to belieue an hard and difficill matter in belieuing wherof ther is no merit of fayth In belieuing the Caluinian Reall Presence there is no merit of Fayth For the merit of Fayth is to captiuate our Vnderstanding vnto mysteryes cleerly deliuered by the word of God not vnto mans figuratiue expositions therof yea no figuratiue exposition aboue reason is to be belieued except it be proued by some literall text or be deliuered by the full Tradition as Gods word vnwritten Secondly I inferre that Caluinists beare more reuerence vnto Iohn Caluin then vnto Iesus Christ for Caluins mystery is belieued by Caluinists being confessedly a Doctrine most hard difficill incomprehensible and yet not the literall sense of Gods word but Caluins figuratiue comment ther-vpon On the other side Transubstantiation being acknowledged by them to be the litterall and proper sense of the word of Christ Iesus so that without Transubstantiation his word this is my body cannot be literally true as our Minister doth confesse pag. 397. yet because it is hard difficill incomprehensible Caluinists cannot be brought to belieue it What is this but to be more ready to belieue Caluin then Christ Specially seing the mystery of Christs literall sense is not so hard and vn-intelligible as Caluins figuratiue construction For one may more easily conceaue a body to be in two places at once which the litteral sense of Christs word doth inforce then a body to be truly and substantially giuen where truly and substantially it is not which is the article of fayth by Caluins figuratiue construction obtruded The Arguments agaynst the litterall sense of Christs Word vayne and idle §. 3. THE Minister to prooue that the words of the institution are to be figuratiuely vnderstood bringeth seauen Arguments pag. 391. one pag. 401. and three other pag. 418. but the first and third of these three are the same with the second
last of the seauen so that his arguments are Nine in all These being the summe and substance of all his disputation I will heere set them downe answere them one by one that the Reader may see vpon what friuolous reasons these men are mooued to reiect the literall sense of Gods word concerning the highest mysteryes of Fayth His first Argument pag. 397. If the substance of bread and wine do remayne Christs speach This is my body This is my bloud cannot be properly true because one indiuiduall substance cannot be predicated of another properly But it shall be afterward by Fathers and Scriptures proued that the substance of bread and wine remaynes ANSWERE You will prooue the substance of bread to remayne in the holy Eucharist ad Kalendas Graecas the meane while out of what you heere confesse I argue agaynst you You grant that except Transubstantiation be maintayned the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the literall sense But they must be vnderstood in the literall sense for on these words the Church of God doth ground a chiefe mystery or Sacrament of Fayth But as hath beene prooued no figuratiue text can be the ground of our beliefe concerning any Sacrament or mystery of Fayth The second Argument pag. 397. The words wherby the wine is consecrated Luc. 22.20 are Tropicall by the confession of our Aduersaryes ANSWERE First it is not absurd that our Sauiour deliuering some precept article or Sacrament should vse words that are figuratiue and exorbitant according to the rules of Grammer if they be not figuratiue nor vnusuall but ordinary playne manyfest perspicuous according to the common phrase and vulgar manner of speach This speach This is the cuppe of my bloud which is shed for you if it be figuratiue according to Grammer yet is it playne easy cleere according to common speach for no man hearing these words This is the cup of my bloud shed for you can thinke that the cuppe and not the bloud contayned therein was shed for vs. Secondly I deny that any word of this speach This is the cuppe of the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you is figuratiue This is the cup of my bloud is not figuratiue seing Christ had in his hand a true cup not the figure of a cup and the thing contayned therein was truly and properly bloud The bloud of Christ is also truly and properly sayd to be the new Testament for it is the thing required by the new Testament Couenant for the remission of sinnes but commonly and vulgarly men say of the thing required by Couenant this is our Couenant Finally the cup in his bloud is properly sayd to be shed seing the bloud was truly and properly shed so the cup properly shed in that respect as to say of a cup of wine this cup is spilt in the wine therof is not figuratiue but rather a speach vnnecessarily playne The third Argument pag. 397. If the words be taken properly then the body and bloud of Christ is deliuered and receaued without the soule and Deity of Christ for in propriety of speach the Body is a distinct and diuerse thing from the soule and likewise from Bloud ANSWERE Thousand instances might be brought that shew your grosse Ignorance in Theology who thus argue For example the Ghospell Iohn 1.10 sayth the Word was made flesh Is this Argument good Flesh in the propriety of speach is a distinct and diuerse thing from bloud and from soule Ergo eyther these words be figuratiue and do not prooue that the word tooke substantially Flesh or els we must say that he tooke dead flesh without bloud soule S. Peter sayth that Christ did beare our sinnes in his body vpon the wood were he not simple that would argue as you do Body in propriety of speach is a thing distinct from the soule and from the God-head Therefore eyther the wordes are figuratiue and do not proue that Christ did truly suffer in body or els we must say that his body without soule and without his Deity suffered on the Crosse. Not so For though the body be a thing distinct and diuerse from the soule yet it is a thing vnited and ioyned with the soule when the person liueth and so the body of a liuing person cānot be giuen except the soule be giuen consequently or by concomitancy therewith Ordinary Philosophy might haue taught you this where it is cōmonly sayd that though the Body be distinct from the Soule yet cānot the body be mooued or remooued deliuered and receaued without the soule the same going from place to place per accidens cum corpore by concomitancy togeather with the body The fourth Argument pag. 397. Seing Christ as Saint Hierome Saint Chrysostome and Euthimius affirme did himselfe Sacramentally eate and drinke what he gaue to his disciples if the words be literally vnderstood then he did eate his owne body and drinke his owne bloud ANSWERE You would haue vs belieue that it is ridiculous and foolish to say that Christ did eate his owne body which yet you durst not vtter in playne words For if Christ as you affirme did eate what he gaue to his disciples eyther he did eate his owne body or else his word in rigour is false wherby he sayd of what he gaue to his disciples Take eate This is my body Hence the Fathers who affirme that Christ did eate what he gaue affirme that Christ did eate what he gaue his Apostles consequently inforced by the euidence of Gods word expressely auerre that he did eate his owne body as Saint Hierome ad Hedib q. 2. Christ in his supper was the eater the meate that was eaten Saint Chrysostome homil 83. in Matth. That the Apostles might not feare to do the same Christ himselfe first dranke his own bloud Yea S. Augustine Concion 1. in Psalm 33. sayth that Christ in his last supper carryed himselfe in his owne hands secundum literam according to the letter which Dauid neyther did nor possibly could doe The fifth Argument pag. 398. If the wordes be vnderstood literally then Christ gaue his Disciples his passible and mortall body But I trow no Iesuit will maintayne that a body mortall and passible can be in many hoasts or mouths at once nor can the same be corporally eaten without sensible touching ANSWERE You might truly haue sayd I trow no Caluinist will belieue that a mortall and passible body can be in two hoasts or mouths at once let the word of God say it neuer so expressely and euen as expressely as these words import Take eate this is my Body which shall be deliuered for many vnto death which shall be broken for you on the Crosse. If Christ gaue his body that was to suffer and dye he gaue his body that was then passible mortal in many hoasts at once vnto the mouths of the twelue Now this being the playne expresse and litterall truth of the word of
Iesus what reason could you haue to trow as you doe that no Iesuit will maintayne it What Iesuit can you name of so many that haue written of this matter that doth not expresly maintayne that Christ in his supper gaue his mortall and passible body though after an immortall and impassible manner Hence though in the hoast his body could neyther be sensibly felt nor suffer yet otherwise the same might then suffer in the place where it did exist according to the naturall and proper manner of bodyes See Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 12. Suarez Vasquez Valentia and innurable others The sixt Argument pag. 398. If our Sauiours words be litterally expounded then Infidells dogges and swine may eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man But all that eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man haue euerlasting life Iohn 6.49.50.51 ANSWERE I wonder you dare with such toyes oppose the literall truth of Gods word You may see the idlenes of this your argument in the like S. Paul sayth 1. Cor. 12.3 None can say Lord Iesus but in the Holy Ghost Should one argue that these words are not properly to be vnderstood because Parrats may be taught to say Lord Iesus so if these words None can say Lord Iesus but in the holy Ghost be properly expounded then Parrats should be inspired with the holy Ghost Were not this disputant to be laught at Are you a Doctour and do not vnderstand that externall actions vnto which diuine promises are made must be not only humane proceeding from man as he is man that is from reason and freewill which cannot be â—n dogs and swine but also Christian that is proceding from deuotion â—ayth in Christ Iesus which is wanting in Infidells The seauenth Argument pag. 398. If our Sauiours words were literall playne and regular then Papists could not be diâ—â—racted about the sense thereof but they are notoriously deuided For some say the Proâ—owne this signifyeth nothing others say it signifyeth bread some say it signifyeth â—â—e accidents of bread others it signifyeth the body of Christ c. Touching the body â—â—me say it is materia prima c. ANSWERE This argument proues nothing but your Ignorance who know not â—ow to distinguish diuision about the sense of a speach from diuision aâ—out the Logicall resolution of the single wordes of a speach All know â—hat haue any learning that learned men are deuided about the Logicall â—esolution of many propositions vulgar and plaine about the sense wherâ—f there neyther is nor can be doubt This speach Peter is a man A man â—unneth The wall is white are most playne nor are men deuided about their sense And yet he deserues not the name of a Scholler that doth not â—now there be solemne dissensions in Logicke amongst learned men aâ—out the resolution of these speaches that is about the precise and punctuâ—â—l signification of euery single word All Deuines agree in the sense of Christs speach This is my body that it imports the thing he held in his hands was in the end of the prolation of his speach essentially substantially his body as the substantiue verbe Esâ— doth import But they dispute about the Logicall and precise signification of the single words what is designed punctually by the demonstratiue Pronowne this what by Body which are meere Logicall and Philosophicall subtilties common to all propositions where the same words are vsed So that to mentioÌ„ these differeÌ„ces as matters of moment is a manifest signe that Hereticall Ignorance being out of loue with the literall sense of Gods word resolued not to belieue it seekes the vayle of euery idle pretence to hide the Infidelity of his hart The eight Argument pag. 413. If the sayd words be vnderstood literally then the body of Christ is properly brokeâ— and his blood properly shed in the Eucharist for Saint Paul sayth This is my body which is broken for you 1. Cor. 11.24 Saint Luke sayth This is the Cup the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you But the body of Christ is not properly broken nor his bloud properly shed in the holy Eucharist ANSWERE The word of God doth not say that the body of Christ is broken his bloud shed in the Eucharist but onely that the Eucharist is his body which is broken his bloud which is shed for vs for many for the remission of sinnes Caluin c. 11.1 ad Cor. doth expound broken and shed for vs on the Crosse where Christs pretious blood was properly shed his sacred body broken in the flesh and veynes therof which were there rent into peeces Besides to be broken for vs and shed for the remission of sinnes in this place signifyes to be sacrificed for vs vnto God as Caluin saith in the former place frangi interpretor immolari In which sense the body of Christ is broken properly not onely on the Crosse but also in the Sacrament this being a true Propitiatory Sacrifice as Catholicks teach Now take what part you will let the Sacrament be the body bloud of CHRIST broken and shed for vs that is sacrifyced for vs on the Crosse or broken and shed that is sacrifyced for vs in the Eucharist still it followes that the Eucharist is the true body and bloud of our Lord not bread and wine seeing Christ neyther in his Supper nor on his Crosse did sacrifice bread and wine for the remission of sinnes but his body and bloud only The ninth Argument pag. 401. Many Fathers treating of the Sacramentall signes call them figures representations memorialls antitypes of the body and bloud of Christ. But that which is a figure similitude representation of a thing is not properly the same ANSWERE First the Maior proposition of your Argument is false For not one Father of the many you cite doth say that the Eucharist is the figure of the naturall body and bloud of Christ but all they say is First that the Eucharist is a figure memoriall and antytype of Christs passion and death So S. Aug l. 3. de doctrin Christ. c. 16. Secondly that it is a figure of his mysticall body and of the vnity thereof Origen in c. 15. Matth. Aug. in Psal 3. Thirdly the bread and wine before consecration be figures of his body bloud as S. Ambros. l 4. de Sacram. c. 5. Druthmarus in c. 26. Matth. Fourthly that Christ did in the Eucharist represent his body where they take representation for the Reall exhibition of the thing promised as we commonly say that the debtour on such a day is to represent the money that is realâ—y deliuer as Tertul. cont Marci l. 1. c. 14. glossa de Consecrat d. 2. Fiftly they â—ay that the sacred vessells in the old law contayned only a figure of the body and bloud of Christ as the Authour of the Imperfect vpon S. Matâ—hew Finally for want of better testimonyes you bring some that proâ—esse agaynst you that
of bread in the very same place therwith This manner of presence is cleerly consequent vpon the precedent and that graunted this cannot be denyed For the reason vpō which Christians hold the body of Christ to be really and truly present in the Sacrament is because they cannot otherwise in proper plaine sense verify the word of Christ who sayd of bread This is my body Wherefore we must eyther put no Reall Presence at all or else put such a Reall Presence as is able to verify the foresayd speach in proper and rigorous sense But if the body of Christ be not in the same place with the consecrated bread contained vnder the formes therof it cannot be said to be verily and really the body of Christ. For though we should suppose the body of Christ to leaue heauen to be substantially present in the Church where the Sacrament is giuen yet this supposed Presence would no wayes further the verifying of the words of Christ This is my body except his body be veyled couered with the sensible accidents of bread so that it be demōstrated by them pointing vnto them one may truly say This is the body of Christ. For why should consecrated bread be tearmed truly and substantially the body of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with (*) The Ministers folly who doth in this place affirme that thinges distant may be truly really vnited is refuted in the Censure Sect. 3. §. 5. it Wherefore the Fathers affirme that Christ is so in this Sacrament as he is veiled with the semblances of bread As Saint Cyrill of Hierusalem in his booke highly commended by D. Whitaker (l) Whitakerus de sacrae Scriptura q. 6. c. 11. Cyrill Cathec 4. sayth Vnder the forme of bread is giuen thee his body Yea Mayster (m) Caluin in ep ad Cor. c. 11. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. §. 32. Caluin sayth In the supper CHRIST IESVS to wit his Body and Bloud is truly giuen vnder the signes of bread wine Whence it is also consequent that the whole body of Christ is contained vnder a consecrated hoast be the same neuer so little For in this mystery the body of Christ is demonstrable by the sensible accidences so that consecrated bread may be tearmed truly really and substantially the body of Christ not a parcell or part therof only But were not the body of Christ wholy and entyrely vnder the formes of bread consecrated bread could not truly properly be tearmed the body of Christ but a sole part and parcell therof Agayne we haue no reason to belieue that the body of CHRIST is truly and really in the Sacrament but only to the end that it may in the Supper be truly and really (n) Augustin cont aduersus Legis Prophet c. 9. Fidele corde ore suscipimus Cyprian de lapsis Tertullian lib. de resur Caro corpore Christi vescitur Iren. l. 5. c. 2. Nissen orat Cathec Chrysost homil 83. in 1. ad Cor. Leo serm 6. de ieiunio 7. mensis eaten to nourish and feed mens soules And if it be eaten only mentally by fayth we haue no ground to thinke that it is present more then mentally by fayth this presence being ordayned vnto the māducation thereof for else why did Christ institute this Sacrament vnder the elemēts of bread wine But if Christ be not present wholy and totally vnder the forme of bread he cannot be truly and really eaten why then is his body brought from heauen to be there really present Or how can the body of Christ being coextended in place according to the naturall dimensions therof enter into the mouth of the worthy receauer yea in at the mouth of the (o) When some Fathers seeme to say that the wicked eate not Christs body they meane they do not eate it fruitfully or thriue in soule by the eating therof As we commonly say of mē that thriue not by eating that they do not eate their meat as Beda super Exod. Infidelis carne Christi non vescitur S. Cyrill Hilary Chrysostome Origen and others quoted by the Minister p. 407. speake not of meere corporal eating but of eating by Fayth and thus Infidells and wicked persons do not eate the body of Christ. S. Augustin in Ioan. tract 27. saying that the wicked receaue not rem Sacramenti the thing of the Sacramēt by the thing of the Sacramēt meaneth grace not the body of Christ. And tract 59. saying that Iudas did eate panem Domini the bread of the Lord non panem Dominum not bread that was the Lord he meaneth that Iudas in his owne persuasion and fayth did not eate the bread that was the Lord yet he did eate the bread that was the Lord according to truth in the fayth of the Church Iudas sayth he Ep. 162. tooke that which the FAITHFVLL know to be the price of their Redemption wicked and vnworthy receauer as Fathers teach Wherefore seing we must of necessity graunt as I haue proued that some part of the body of Christ is vnder consecrated bread penetrating the same occupying the same place with it why shold we doubt to belieue the whole body of Christ to be wholy and totally in euery consecrated hoast For if we can belieue that two bodyes be in the same place at once we may as easily belieue the same of twenty And if we graunt that one part of Christs body doth penetrate that is doth occupy the same roome with the quantity of bread why should we not thinke that the rest of his parts may also do the like Our Sauiour sayth Matth. 19. That it is more easy for a Camell to passe through a needles eye then for a rich man to enter into the Kingdome of heauen adding though these things be impossible vnto men yet all is possible vnto God If then God can put a whole Camell into the eye of a needle is not he able to put the whole body of Christ within the bignes of a consecrated hoast The body of Christ which being mortall passible could penetrate the body of his mother come out of her wombe through the same still remayning entyre as we professe in the Creed to belieue Natum de Maria Virgine why may not the same body being now glorious immortall and as the Apostle speakes spirituall penetrate the quantity of bread and inclose it selfe wholy and entierly within the small compasse therof Christ that made heauy things not to weigh as the body of Peter walking on the water Matth. 14.16 coloured thinges not to be seene as his owne person which he so oft made inuisible to the Iewes bright thinges not to shine as his body after his Resurrection more bright then the Sunne did not shine in so many apparitions to his disciples finally a flaming furnace not to burne the bodyes of the three children cast into the midst thereof why may not he keep
a body from occupying a place or from extruding another body frō the place where it is (p) Read S. Augustine de Agone Christiano c. 24. serm 160. who by these examples proueth that a body may penetrate with another where he saith Shew me the weightines of flesh in the body that walked vpon the waues and I will shew the true massines and solidity of flesh in the body that came in the doores being shut and was borne into the world without vndoing his mothers integrity in his byrth For to occupy a place or to extrude thence another body is but an effect consequent flowing from the nature of a quantitiue substance as to weigh to be seene to shine to burne be the naturall and necessary effects of heauy coloured bright fiery things Transubstantiation belonges to the substance of Reall Presence §. 2. THIS I proue That belonges to the substance of this Mystery which being denyed and taken away the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true taken in the literal sense in which sense they are to be taken as hath been shewed But without granting Transubstātiation the words of Christ cannot be true taken in the literall sense Ergo transubstantiation belongs to the substance of this mystery of the Reall presence The minor is proued because the speach This is my body doth signify that the thing the Priest holds in his hands is truly really and substantially the body of Christ. For in the proposition This is my body the verbe Est signifyes a coniunction betweene This in the Priests hands the body of Christ and being a Verbe substantiue in his proper signification signifyes a substantiall Identity betweene This in the Priests hands and the body of Christ. But This in the Priests hands being before consecration bread a thing substantially distinct from the body of Christ cannot by consecration be made substantially the body of Christ as the Fathers teach it is without some substantiall alteration or change And what other substantiall chāge can make bread to become truly the body of Christ besides substantial conuersion of the same into his body (q) The Minister flyes vnto the figuratiue sense choosing rather to deny the truth of Gods word according to the letter thē admit Transubstantiation Against which he hath three arguments scattered in his Reply which I wil here ioyne togither and answere The first is pa. 434. the consecrated bread is tearmed very bread 1. Cor. 10.16 11.26.28 Answere This is a very vntruth For it is still in those places tearmed bread cum addito with such an addition as signifies that it is not properly bread but our Sauiours body 1. Cor. 10.16 The bread we breake that is Sacrifice vnto God is the communication of the body of our Lord. And 1. Cor. 11.26 as often as you eate THIS bread 27. Whosoeuer shall eate THIS bread vnworthily 28. So let him eate of THAT bread to wit wherof he had said before that Christ by the verity of his word doth make it his body Now he that eateth bread turned into Christs body or made his body doth not truly eate bread As the Maister of the Marriage-feast in Cana who tasted water made wine Iohn 2.9 did not tast water truly For as water made wine is not water euen so bread consecrated and made our Lords body is not bread The second is pag. 447. which he setteth out magnificently in a distinct letter and ech proposition in a seuerall line The substance is this If the words of our Sauiour This is my body chāge the substance of bread into his body then also they change the quantity accidents For our Sauiour tooke the whole bread into his handes and sayd this is my body as wel vpon the accidents as vpon the substance of bread But they proue not the conuersion of accidents For Popish Trāsubstantiatiō is only a conuersion of substance not of accidents Therefore they proue not the conuersion of the substance Answere The wordes of our Sauiour this is my body change not euery thing into his body ouer which they be spoken by way of breathing for then they should chāge the ayre into his body but only that ouer which they are so spoken by way of signification that their signification can not be true in the litteral sense except that be hi◠body Now the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the litterall sense except the substance of bread be changed into his body as the Minister doth confesse pag. 397. lin 17. But they may be true according to the letter the substāce being chāged though the accidēts remayne For if the Sacrament outwardly cloathed with the formes and accidents of bread be inwardly in nature and substance Christs body then is it truly and substantially his body and may be sayd to be his body taking the word to be in the proper sense for substantiue being euen as Iacob cloathed with the garments of Esau was truly and substantially Iacob and not Esau though in outward shew and shape he seemed Esau. Therfore the litterall truth of Christs words this is my body inforceth vs to say that the substance of bread is chāged into his body but not that the quātity of bread is so changed And thus the magnificence of your argument is marred proued to be but an empty shew The third argument is pag. 422.423 In all miraculous substantiall conuersions a new substance is produced but the body of Christ doth preexist so cannot be produced Answer The maior is false as appeareth by millions of miraculous cōuersions which partly haue beene partly shall be For in the resuscitation of the dead when carcasses are conuerted into men no new thing is produced but old things and substances which formerly had been are reproduced It is true the power of nature being limited according to time place cannot reproduce but onely produce at one time and in one place But the power of God being infinite eternall immense and independent of time and place can reproduce things that preexist according to different times and places as often and in as many places as he is pleased Hence he can and doth reproduce vpon earth the body of our Sauiour preexisting in heauen as the Fathers auerre S. Ambros. l. 4. de Sacra c. 4. When consecration is done the body of Christ is MADE of bread And S. Cyprian serm de coena Vsque hodie Diuinissimum Sanctissimum corpus CREAT S. Gauden homil tract 2. in Exod. Quia potest promisit de pane corpus suum EFFICIT S. Hierom. ep ad Heliod Sacerdotes corpus Christi proprio ore CONFICIVNT But some may obiect that as a man shewing a Leather-purse full of gold may truly say this is gold or a paper wrapped vp full of siluer may say this is siluer so the body of Christ being vnder cōsecrated bread we may truly say this is the body of Christ
a thing is fundamentally composed Hence Fire Ayre Water Earth as also the Letters of the Alphabet be tearmed Elements because both are primordiall simples and substantial parts the one of mixed substances the other of wordes and sentences Now the body and bloud of Christ as also bread wine being corporall substances the primordiall simples and substantiall principles wherof their nature is originally composed be substantiall matter forme as euery Philosopher knowes Ergo Transelementation of bread wine into Christs body and bloud doth import that bread and wine be changed into Christs body bloud according to their Elements that is matter forme Is not this Transubstantiation The second reason is because in Transelementation matter doth no more remayne then in Transubstantiation so your deuised difference betwixt them is false For as when Transelementation is partiall that is according to forme only the matter remaynes so likewise in Transubstantiation For example when wood is turned into fyre the forme being destroyed the matter remayneth As wood by this change may be sayd to be Transelemented into fire because it is changed into fire according to the forme which is one element of wood so likewise it may be sayd to be Transubstantiated into fire because it is changed into fire according to the forme which is one part of the substance of wood Though Christians do not vse so to speake because aswel the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Grecian Church as the word Transubstantiation by the latin be consecrated to signify the substantiall change in the Eucharist which is totall according to both elements substantiall parts Thirdly I thus argue The Minister grants that Transelementation doth import an essētial change or a chāge according to the essentiall forme of bread into Christs body but this cannot be according to the essentiall forme only not also according to the essentiall matter of bread else the body of Christ should be made bigger by the matter of bread changed into it as we see the fire to be made bigger by the matter of wood remayning after the conuersion therof into fire Ergo seing the Minister grants that Trāselementation imports an essentiall chāge he must if he will not be ridiculously absurd consequently grant that this change is to tall else the body of Christ shal be augmēted by the material additiō of bread vnto it Fourthly this is proued by the Fathers appropriation of this word vnto the mystery of the holy Eucharist For did not Transelementation of bread wine into Christs body blood import a substantiall change but only an accidental mystical significatiue conuersion of them I aske First why do the Fathers neuer say that the water of Baptisme is Transelemēted into Christs bloud as wel as they say that wine is Trāselemented into his bloud For thus they might haue spoken of Baptisme as well as of the Eucharist had they been of the Protestants Religion which is that water is mystically and significatiuely made Christs bloud in Baptisme as much as wine in the Eucharist Secōdly why do the Fathers neuer say that our bodyes in the day of iudgment are Transelemēted into Christs body but only as the Minister cites S. Nissen orat Catechist c. 34. transmutantur they be transmuted why this but because transmutation being a Generall tearme signifyes any mutation whether substantial or accidental whereas Transelementation cannot import but a substantial change Finally why do the Fathers neuer say that mans soule is by grace charity Transelemented into Christ into whome the same is mystically changed Theophilact indeed cited by the Minister in Ioan. c. 6. v. 56. saith that a man is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a manner Transelemented into Christ as he might no lesse truly haue sayd in a manner Transubstantiated into Christ but that men are by grace Transelemented into Christ they neuer say Which be manifest signes that the Fathers vnderstood by Transelementation according to the proper naturall signification of the word a substantiall conuersion not only an accidental much lesse a meere mysticall change III. S. Cyrill sayth the Minister by the words Conuerting bread and wine into the verity of his owne flesh vnderstandeth not Popish Transubstantiation but mysticall Sacramentall Conuersion to wit Conuersion of signification vse operation For he speaketh of bread wine according to their whole nature contayning substance accidents but the accidents are only mystically conuerted into Christ his body Answere This myst which the Minister would cast vpon this matter by the tearme of mystical cōuersion serues only to catch Woodcocks for euery man of iudgment may presently see that this sense cannot stand with the words of S. Cyrill For S. Cyrill sayth that did men see and feele what is inwardly done in consecrated bread wine men should find horrour to feed theron because they should see and feele that they eate and drinke flesh bloud Hence that this may not be perceaued he sayth the conuersion of bread wine is done inwardly by Christs penetratiue power conuerting them into the verity of his flesh and bloud But did men see what is inwardly done in bread wine by the Protestant significatiue conuersion they would feele no horrour for in their Tenet no change at all is made inwardly in bread but the whole outward substance is assumed as an Instrument to sanctify the soule If a Christian should see this conuersion of vse operation should he see I say that bread is eleuated to produce sanctifying grace in his soule why should he feele horrour to feed thereon So that it is not only willfulnes against the light of truth but also folly to expound this place of S. Cyrill of meere mysticall significatiue change IIII. Vnto this Testimony of S. Chrysostome the Minister replyeth in these words The Father sayth not that nothing of the substance is left but the cleane the cōtrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing of the substance goeth away the words which follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are falsely 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 body of Christ according to the Tenet of many Scholemen The substance of the externall elements passeth into the body of the receauer is consumed or vnited to the flesh of the receauer Answere This your Reply toucheth two points first the Translation secondly the sense of this place I will discouer your vanity about both As concerning the first you shew your selfe to be a wrangler and giuen vnto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by S. Paul labouring to make those sayings to be dissonant and contrary betwixt which there is not any difference in respect of sense What disagreement in respect of sense is there between these two sentences which you say be contrary When wax is put into the fire nothing of the substance thereof is
an act of obedience vnto Christs precept Drinke yee all of this but obedience is better then Sacrifice 1. Sam. 15. 22. His argument supposeth without proofe what the Iesuit hath shewed to be most false and so may be with more truth turned to the contrary for to receaue in one kind is an act of obedience vnto the Church whereof Christ sayth He that heareth not the Church let him be to thee as an heathen and a publican But obedience is better then Sacrifice Therefore more spirituall profit and merit is gotten by Communion in one kind Communion vnder one kind not agaynst Christ his Precept §. 4. ALTHOVGH Communion vnder both kindes pertayne not to the substance of the Sacrament yet if Christ did specially commaund the same we are boūd to that obseruance and should by communion vnder one kind sinne not agaynst his Sacrament and Institution but agaynst a speciall diuine precept Hence we may probably inferre that Christ gaue no speciall precept thereof because Christ hath commaunded no more concerning the vse of the Eucharist then what by the substance of the institution nature of the Sacrament we are bound vnto leauing accidentall circūstances belonging thereunto to be ordeyned by the Apostles and Pastours of the Church as S. Augustin noteth saying (r) Augustin ep 118. Our Lord did not appoint in what order the Sacrament of the Eucharist was to be taken afterward but left authority to make such appointments vnto his Apostles by whome he was to dispose and order his Churches So cleerly doth S. Augustine speake that Christ gaue no commaundements to his Church concerning the vse of the Sacrament besides such as are conteyned in the substance of the Institution and of the Sacrament of which kind Communion vnder both kindes cannot be as hath been proued which will further appeare by pōdering the places alleadged to prooue a Precept The words of Christ Do this in remembrance of me do no wayes inferre a Precept of both kinds First because he sayd Do this in remembrance of me absolutly only of the Sacrament in the forme of bread of the forme of wine not absolutely but conditionally Do this as often as you drinke in memory of me that the Aduersaryes of the Church might not haue any the least plausible shew to complayne of her neglecting Gods Precept (s) The Minister in this place is very bitter tearming the Iesuit Vermine infatuated Romanist and the like But in lieu of answering his argument he confirmes the same as is shewed in the Censure Sect. 4. §. 5. For this precept Do this being the only precept giuē by Christ to his Church as shal afterwards appeare and giuē absolutely of the forme of bread conditionally of the forme of wine there is no colour to accuse the Church of doing agaynst Christs precept by Communion vnder one kind Secondly suppose Christ spake these Imperatiue wordes Do this after the giuing of the Cup yet are they to be vnderstood with this restriction Do this that is all things that belong to the essence and substance of this action in memory of me For if we extend the precept Do this further then the substance of the action vnto the accidentary circumstances therof in which Christ did then institute and giue the Sacrament many absurdityes will follow For by this rule we must alwayes celebrate and receaue the Eucharist after supper as Christ did specially seeing this circumstance of after supper was chosen of Christ as being very proper mysterious For thereby is signifyed that this is the sacrifice which succeeds the Paschall Lambe that was offered in the Euening the sacrifice whereof the royall Prophet sayth (t) Psal. 140. v. 2. in the person of Christ Eleuatio manuum mearum sacrificium vespertinum The sacrifice which instituted in the euening of the world was to continue vntill the end thereof We should also by this rule be bound still to celebrate in Azime that is vnleuened bread in which Christ did celebrate and giue the Sacrament saying Do this which circumstance was also mystical and signifyes the purity of our Sauiours virginall body person which was without any Leauen of sinne And besides the Priest might not giue the Sacrament vnto any but such whose feet he had washed afore seing Christ gaue the Eucharist with this preparatiue circūstance which doubtlesse is very pertinent and mysterious to signify with what purity of conscience mē ought to approach vnto the sacred Table If to bind men to obserue these circumstances of our Sauiours action though mysterious and Sacramentall were absurd as without doubt it is most absurd then we must not extend the precept Do this to the circumstances of Christs action but acknowledge that the precept Do this only includes the doing of that which pertaines to the substance of the Sacrament and so not to the giuing of both kindes the substance thereof being entyre in one only kind as hath been proued (u) The Ministers ignorance and simplicity in answering these argumēts is discouered in the Censure Sect. 1. §. 2. The second text much vrged for the giuing of the Cup vnto all men is the wordes of our Sauiour Bibite ex hoc omnes wherein some note our Sauiours prouidence saying that he foreseeing that some would take the Cup from the Laity graunting them the consecrated bread sayd of the Cup Bibite ex hoc omnes but not of bread Manducate ex hoc omnes I answere the wordes of our Sauiour be plaine Drink ye all of this But the difficulty is to whō they are spokē who are those all Luther would haue all men for whom the bloud of Christ is shed whence it followes that as the bloud of Christ was shed for all men euen Infidells Iewes Turkes Infants the Cup also should be giuen vnto all these which to say were very absurd Others restrayne the wordes All to the faythfull come to the yeares of discretion who must drinke of the Cup all of them But what shall we say of them that are by nature Abstemij who cannot endure the tast of any wine yet are not to be excused from the Sacrament Wherfore the truth is that these words were spoken vnto all the Apostles and to them all only And though it be inough for Catholiks to say it and put their aduersaryes to prooue their pretended Precept which they call of the eternall King for the Cup and so long as they cannot cleerly conuince the contrary good reason the word of the Church defined by Councells should stand yet ex abundanti we can very probably shew out of the sacred Text that the particle all concernes all the Apostles only First what one Euangelist Mat. 26.27 sayth was commanded vnto al Bibite ex hoc omnes drinke yee all of this another relates to haue been answerably performed by them all Matth. 14.23 Biberunt ex eo omnes all dranke thereof but the second all is restrayned to all the Apostles and to
crime with which some Protestants charge vs that our receauing vnder the sole forme of bread is to iumpe in opinion with the Manichees we may as D. Morton confesseth reiect as iniurious saying That it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine but the reason of their forbearance that was iudged hereticall Morton Protestant Appeale lib. 1. cap. 4. pag. 140. (*) Agaynst this explication of the place of Gelasius it is obiected that the same doth not agree with the reason of the Canon For Gelasius sayth men are not to be permitted to receaue but in both kinds because the diuision of one and the same Sacrament cannot be done without sacriledge The whole decree is this We find that some men hauing taken the portion of our Lords body refrayne from the Cup of the holy bloud Which men because they are imbued with I know not what superstitiō let them without any question receaue the whole Sacraments or nothing at all for the diuision of one and the same mystery cannot be vsed without a great Sacriledge I Answere first Gelasius doth not say no man is to be permitted to receaue in one kinde but only no superstitious abstinent Secondly his reason is not ōly because the deuiding of the Sacramēt is Sacriledg but quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi because they are proued to be imbued with a certayne superstitious opinion to wit that the creature of wine is impure The discourse then of Gelasius is because these men are superstitiously conceyted that the creature of wine is the Diuells gall therefore by them the deuiding of the holy mystery receauing the consecrated Bread without the Cup sine grandi sacrilegio fieri non potest cannot be done without great Sacriledge Whēce he concludes proculdubio arceantur let such men be kept from Communion in one kind without any question mercy or indulgēce As if he had sayd Vnto men Orthodoxally conceited about the creature of wine Cōmunion in one kind may be granted sometimes vpon iust causes as if they be by nature abstemij that cannot endure wine But men that be superstitiously persuaded agaynst the nature of wine proculdubio arceantur let Communion in one kind be denyed vnto them without question and granted in no case because in respect of them Communion in one kind is euer Sacrilegious The Minister also in this place keepeth a styrre and would make the world belieue that the Iesuit Vasquez doth maynly oppose himselfe agaynst the Iesuit Answerer about this place of Gelasius The Iesuit sayth he is confuted by a learned and intelligent man of his owne Society to wit Vasquez who sayth that some of his party apply the place of Gelasius agaynst Manichees but this exposition agreeth not with the last clause of the Canon Answere You shew great desire to discredit your aduersary yet cannot you doe it so much as in this trifle with truth For in citing the censure of Vasquez you leaue out the principal word which being set down would haue marred your market Vasquez not only sayth that some of his side explicate the place of Gelasius of lay Manichees but also addeth his Iudgment about the same saying probabiliter explicant this their explication is probable Do not you see your falshood in citing and vanity in vrging this censure of Vasquez If this explication be probable euen by the Iudgment of Vasquez how is the Iesuit confuted by Vasquez of his owne Society as not answering your argument sufficiently Is it not sufficient that Catholicks bringe probable solutions vnto your arguments agaynst Christian customes defined in Councells and receaued in the Church before you or your Luther were borne You your selfe say pag. 11. That no man is to reiect the Doctrine and custome of the Church or the exposition of Scripture commonly and anciently receaued vpon vncertayne and probable reasons If the Iesuit hath answered your arguments probably as euen by this censure of Vasquez he hath then be your arguments at the most but probable and consequently your reuolt from the Church of Rome grounded thereon dānable Who now is condemned by Vasquez his Censure But Vasquez sayth that the Iesuits explication though it agree fitly to the rest of the decree of Gelasius yet cannot be fitted to the last branch thereof where Gelasius sayth that the diuision of the one and same mystery is Sacrilegious in it selfe and in nature Quare mihi magis placet altera explicatio Wherefore sayth Vasquez vnto me another explication seemeth more probable I Answere First Gelasius doth not say that the diuision of the mystery is in itselfe in nature a Sacriledge nor can it be very probably sayd that he did so meane For what sense is there in this discourse To deuide the Sacrament by receauing in one kind is a Sacriledge of his owne nature and absolutely in it selfe therefore let not these men be permitted in any case to receaue in one kinde quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi because they are conuinced to hold superstitious Doctrine about the impurity of the creature of wine Besides had Gelasius meant that Communion in one kind is a sacriledge absolutely in it selfe he would haue decreed that not only superstitious mē but absolutely all men should be kept frō the same proculdubio without any question Wherfore Gelasius his decree cannot be better sensed then thus Because these men are conceyted superstitiously agaynst the creature of wine their receauing in one kind without the Cup can not but be impious Therefore proculdubio arceantur let not Communion in one kind be giuen vnto them in any case though vnto Orthodoxe people vpon iust reasons the same may be granted Secondly suppose all that Vasquez would cōclude to wit that another exposition is more probable what haue you gayned Surely nothing for this other exposition better liked by Vasquez is that Gelasius spake not of laymens receauing but of Priests that celebrate and consecrate affirming that it is sacrilegious in it selfe for Priests to cōsecrate without receauing in both kinds If the Iesuit Vasquez in this exposition and doctrine seeme to you learned intelligent be it so in Gods name you are satisfyed and your Aduersary contented for he did neuer meane to say that this explication is improbable specially the same being giuen by Gratian who read that Epistle of Gelasius which now it not extant This custome was the cause that Cyprian (o) Cyprian de Coena Domini sayth that the Law forbad the eating of bloud but the Ghospell commands the same should be drunke not only because some Christians to wit Priests are bound to drinke the bloud of Christ but also because Christ in his Ghospell did institute the Sacrament of his body bloud in both kinds whence grew the Custome of the primitiue Church to receaue in both kindes by custome there grew further an obligation to drinke of the cup except there were some iust cause of abstinence as in the sicke
being not only as satisfactions but also as merits superfluous in respect of himselfe be communicable vnto other not only as satisfactory for their sinnes but also as meritorious of glory for them In the Saynts liuing vpon earth it is not so For they be not in glory nor can they in this life be so perfect but they may merit still more more glory and as they merit more and more so their reward is greater and greater Hence their workes as meritorious of heauen can neuer be superfluous nor without the effect of a full and condigne reward in their owne persons whereby it cometh also to passe that nothing of their merits superabounds to be communicated vnto others But of their workes as satisfactory for Temporall reserued payne there is not the same reason For some Saints may be preserued by speciall grace from al actual sinne as the Blessed Virgin was or from any greuous sinne as was S. Iohn Baptist Others though they committed some mortall sinnes when they repent the penalty reserued after the remission thereof being finit temporall they may by voluntary assumption or diuine infliction endure more payne then is the reserued Hence Saynts may haue satisfaction which superabouÌ„ds that is which hath not the reward of remission of temporall payne in their owne persons and consequently satisfactions that be communicable vnto others though the merit of their workes be still proper to themselues and incommunicable If the Minister will continue his rayling agaynst this reason he may but I doe not doubt could he deliuer reasons for his Protestant Doctrine so drawne out of the bowells and principles of Christian Theology as this is he would not rayle so much as he doth but yield his Reader some learned discourses in lieu of so many bitter inuectiues Minister pag. 555. Though the superabundant satisfactions want the proper fruite and reward of satisfaction yet this being recompensed by a large increase and surplasage in an other kind can be no dishonour to God As prayer though sometimes the same want the most proper fruite and effect thereof which is to obtayne the thinge requested yet is the same otherwise sufficiently rewarded ANSWERE Your Example makes agaynst your selfe for pious and Godly prayer being both meritorious of heauen and impetratory of what is requested neuer wants eyther of these two fruites For as it doth still merit new increase of glory so doth it still obtayne the thinge requested so farre as it is requested for the thinge is requested by Godly prayer so farre as it is profitable for the soule according to Gods holy will but so farre it is still impetrated And if the particular thinge requested be not for the soules greater good another thing is obtained in lieu therof that is better Hence I thus argue You grant if there be superabondant satisfactions of Saynts the same must be rewarded by the proper fruite of satisfaction as much as prayer hath still the reward of impetration But prayer is still rewarded with the fruite of impetration eyther in the person of him that prayeth or in some other person for which it is offered Ergo the superaboundant satisfactions of Saints must haue the reward of satisfactioÌ„ which seing they cannot haue in their persons they must haue it in some other partyes to whome it is applyed The Minister pag. 556. If one should affirme It is more for Christs glory to purchase to himselfe a people which in this life is perfectly innocent then to purchase a people carrying alwayes about them the remaynder of sinne he should not honour Christ but proue himselfe a lyer 1. Iohn 1.8 so likewise to affirme It is a greater honour to Christs merits to purchase Saynts that can make condigne and superabondant satisfaction for their sinnes carryeth a shew of honouring Christ but is in truth a Sacrilegious errour Answere First the power and strength of the Diuine grace is better seen in infirmityes and in men compassed about with the remaynders and incombrances of sinne as S. Paul sayth 2. Cor. 12.9 and S. Augustine That the grace of Innocency was felicior but the grace of redemption is fortior de Corr. grat c. 11. Secondly â—f Christ did purchase to himselfe some excellent Saynts that did make condigne satisfactions this is an honour to his merits But the Scripture and Fathers affirme that he hath purchased to himselfe Saynts that can and do offer vnto God condigne fruites and works of pennance satisfactions compensations Sacrifices of iustice pennance equall commeasured vnto the quantity of the sinne in respect of the reserued debt of Temporall payne as hath been shewed yea that Saynts by their works obtaine a crowne of glory so as God giueth it them proceeding as a iust iudge 2. Tim. 4.8 Ergo this is an honour to Christ in truth and to say it is a Sacrilegious errour is blasphemy The Minister pag. 357. The Communion of Saynts in respect of the liuing is compartnership in fayth c. Answere The word of the Creed Communion of Saynts is absolute without restraynt not to be limited by the brayne fancy of a Minister Hence it imports that betweene Saynts there is a Communion of all graces and perfections which superabound in the one and are needed of the other But good workes according as they are satisfactioÌ„s superabouÌ„d in some Saynts are needed of some other as hath been shewed Therfore betweene Saynts there is Communion in respect of them The Minister pag. 558. Dauid was a man full of grace according to the hart of God c. and so did not need the superabondant satisfactions of others Wherefore in respect of this Communion he did not reioyce saying Psal. 118. I am O Lord partaker of all that feare thee Answer Suppose Dauid did not need the satisfaction of other Saynts yet he might reioyce in that he was a member of the house of Saints who may participate of the superaboundaÌ„t satisfactions of others if they need them that he did not need them he knew not certaynly after he had committed the two enormous sinns To the place of S. Paul 1. Coloss. 22. I ioy in my sufferings for you and I make full the thinges that want of the sufferings of Christs in my flesh for his Body which is the Church The Minister pag. 559. Christs passions are of two kinds some personall and in his owne flesh some by simpathy and compassion of others The first are satisfactory and S. Paul supplyed not or perfected not them for then Christs sufferings were imperfect The second are Exemplare Purgatiue Probatiue and for the edifying of the Church these S. Paul did accomplish and supply Answere To shew the weakenesse of your Reply I aske whether Christs sufferings on the Crosse as exaÌ„ples were imperfect or not If you say they were imperfect perfectible by Creatures you blaspheme also you may as truly say his satisfaction was imperfect and suppliable by the addition of Saints If you