such as have the guiding and teaching of others deeper knowledg of Gods word and mysteries is given then to the common people as also to Christians generally that which was not given to the obstinate Jewes which makes nothing from a total exemption of them from ignorance if it did much more would that place of St. John 1. Ep. 2. cap. 27. where 't is said The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you and ye need not that any man teach you but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things c. Prove such an exemption for private Christians and so lay a foundation for their infallibilitie which would derogate from the Honour of his Holiness of Rome 2. It is most evident that the Disciples of Christ to whom these words were spoken had ignorance in them and that of such things as were needful to be known See Mark 9.31.32 Luk. 9.45 Joh. 12.16 viz. the Death and Resurrection of Christ c. 2. Aagainst Darkness you urge Matth. 6. but 't is Matth. 5.14 You are the light of the world Ans 1. If you mean that the Apostles and their Successors are so light that they have no darkness in them you are no better then a blasphemer for it 's said of God and cannot be spoken of any other God is light and in him is no darkness at all 1 Jâ—h 1.5 Aug. in Ps 10. 2. S. Augustine alluding to this place compares the Church to the Moon which you know hath her dark spots though the Sun to which Christ is somtimes compared be altogether transparent and bright 3. They are called a light not so much in regard of their inward qualification Lyran. in Mat. 5.14 as of their office which is to instruct and direct others in their way as Gregory Burgensis and Cyranâ—s note 4. Learned Cameron conceives that this is spoken of the Apostles as Apostles which is probable because our Saviour speak to them as related to an Apostolical or Universal charge and thus it proves nothing for your present Church Lastly I fear that whilst your men was writing for inerrability your thoughts were possessed with the Churches visibilitie which your Doctors of Rhemes would prove from hence But then why did you not bring in the next words Ro. 17.3 A City set on a Hill which would more directly with a little variation of number have pointed at your Holy Mother on her seven-headed Beast 3. Against Error and Falshood you urge Joh. 14. I will send unto you the Spirit of truth to remain with you for ever And Isa 62. Thou shalt no more be called forsaken To your former I answer it makes nothing for you for it 's one thing to have the Spirit of Truth to lead into truth and another thing to have it making us infallible I conceive there are few of your Priests or Jesuites but think themselves to have the Spirit of Truth yet are not infallible Nay private Christians may have this Spirit of truth and by it may be kept from damnable or Soul-ruining error yet who would say they are infallible It 's a groundless distinction of the Rhemists to say That the Spirit for many other causes is given to divers private men and to all good men to sanctification but to teach all truth and to preserve in truth and from error he is promised and performed only to the Church and the chief Governour and General Councils thereof The contrary to this is affirmed by themselves in another place Joh. 17.17 saying Christ prayeth that the Apostles their Successors and all that shall be of their belief may be sanctified in truth i. e. may have the Spirit of truth and be freed from error The Spirit then may be had and yet inerrability be wanting to a person To your other Text It seems to be put in to make up a number of Texts not of Proofs I believe you neither considered Text nor Context when you brought it in I profess I cannot see the least shadow of proof in it for the Churches infallibilitie it being spoken to the Jewes in regard of their desolations and therefore contains a promise of Gods returning with mercie and loving kindness which was suitable for their comfort in their low condition 4. Against Weakness you urge 1 Tim. 3. She is the Pillar and ground of truth And Mat. 16. Hell Gates shall not prevail against her To the former I answer 1. If any particular Church be here spoken of it is not the Roman but the Church of Ephesus where Timothy governed which by your own confessions might err 2. The words may be refer'd to what follows It 's not said expresly She is the Pillar c. as you abusively read it Cameron doth refer them to the next verse and gives divers reasons why they should be so refer'd Verba ista Columna c. sunt conjungenda cum sequentibus ratio 1. Alioqui erit Oratio Apostoli hiulca suspensa si legamus Domus Dei columna fundamentum veritatis sine controversia c. est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non coherent ista 2 Non solet Apostolus novi Argumenti tractionem inchoâ—re à conjunctione 3. Haec est usitatissima formula inter Judaeos quum quis profitetur se traditurum praecipua dogmata Religionis ut illud pronunciat columnam esse fundamentum veritatis vel sapientiae quod traditurus est Et solent Apostoli uti phrasibus receptis in ecclesia judaica sed accommodatis ad rem quam agunt Cameto shewing amongst other things that this was a manner of speech which the Jews did frequently use when they delivered some main and principal points of Faith And hereunto the Apostle Paul who was well versed in the customes of the Jewish Rabbies being now to deliver the main points of our Faith concerning Jesus Christ might well allude If we take it thus it 's not the Church but the truth it self especially those principal points of Religion mentioned in the next verses Thus Irenaeus saith That the Gospel which was preached by the Apostles was afterwards by the will of God delivered to us in writing Fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum that it might be a ground and Pillar of our Faith 3. Supposing it be spoken of the Church Iten advers haeres lib. 3. c. 1. init yet this is 1. In regard of the Word of God which is preached and continued in the Church if God remove his Word from a Church as from the Churches of Asia c. that Church ceaseth to be a Pillar and ground of truth 2. In regard of true Believeers who are truly the house of the living God and adhere to the Word of God others are not De compage domus they are not of the House Augustine hath a notable saying to this purpose Aug. praefat in Ps 47. he tells us the Church consists of Saints such whose names are
bread should become the body of Christ to us and that the Pascall Lamb or Manna should be so to the Jewes for Christ is called the Passover of Manna yea in these Sacraments Christ was truely and savingly received by them they did eat the same spirituall meat with us and drank the same spirituall drink for they drank of the Rock that followed them And that Rock was Christ What can be more express than these last words yet Papists will not here allow of Transubstantiation 2. That Bodies are the object of Sense yea and that the Senses cannot be deceived in judging of them whilest the Organ is rightly disposed the medium is convenient the distance equall the Sences of more then one concur in judgeing and that the phantasies be not hurt But here if the words be taken properly is a body which is not the object of Sense though the sences be rightly disposed the medium convenient the distance equall c. If you say it may be done by a miracle I answer first amongst the miracles of the Primitive Church this was never numbred by them or any others that I have read though its a greater miracle if a miracle than any others that are mentioned 2. In those miracles recorded in Scripture which were wrought by transmutation there was no deceiving of the Sense When Moses rod was turned into a Serpent as it was a true Serpent so the Senses did truely discern a Serpent When the waters were turned into blood the blood had the last colour effect of blood slaying the fish in it When by our Saviour the waters were turned into wine as it was true wine so it had sensible qualities as the last smell c. of wine It was the practice of the Sorcerers of Egypt to cause an appearance when there was no reall existance It s the practice of Papists to urge a bodily existence without the least appearance like their forefathers the Valentinians whom Irenaeus chargeth with saying of Christ Aliud erat aliud videbatur when some affirmed in the Sacrament there was no true fraction but onely in appearance Lorichius answers out of Ambrose Nihil falsum putandum in Sacramento veritatis c. We must not think of any falshood in this true Sacrament in the inchantments of Magitians the eyes are deceived that that seems to be which is not but it s otherwise in the Sacrament of Truth Gerrhard Lorich Instit Cathol de sacr Eucharist pag. 72. 2. To this I may adde that the materiall parts of Sacraments must be sensible objects such were the Sacraments of the Jewes and such without controversie is Baptisme where the materiall part is water which the Senses see feel c. Therefore it must be so in the Eucharist for there can no reason of a difference be given You cannot say that the materiall parts of it are bread and wine for you teach that in the Sacrament there is neither bread nor wine though there was before Consecration and the body of Christ cannot be it for it s not a sensible object being neither seen nor felt nor tasted and accidentall forms are distinct from matter Aquinas delivers this Conclusion Cum naturale sit homini c. Whereas its naturall for man to attain to the knowledge of intelligible objects by those which are sensible A Sacrament which signifies spirituall and intelligible good ought to be a sensible thing which how you will find it in your Sacrament I know not 3. That humane flesh is not to be eaten But if these words This is my Body be taken properly then Christs flesh should be carnally eaten which is doctrine for Cannibals not for Christians Saint Augustine upon this very ground understands those words John 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh c. figuratively and delivers this generall rule Aug. de doctr Christ l. 5. c. 16 Si aut facinus vel flagitium c. If the Scripture seem to command that which is hainous and wicked it s a figurative speech and instances in those words in S. John Papists give this reason of the invisibility of Christs body in this Sacrament because man abhors to eat humane flesh in the proper shape But what difference between one man seeing the shape of humane flesh and anothers hearing of such a thing to be humane flesh though he see it not It s the thing it self not the form or shape of it that is abominable a piece of humane flesh might be brought into such a form as it could not by the eye be distinguished from other flesh yet tell a man its humane flesh and he shall loath it upon that very report Though your seduced followers do not see flesh in thr Sacrament yet you tell and perswade them that the Host is humane flesh with its blood in it so that I must needs say they have either weak faith or strong stomacks To conclude Let me know to what end is this eating of Christs body for it s not turned into the substance of our body whereby it should nourish the body for then our bodies should consist of Christ which were a blasphemous assertion and for the soul it s not nourisht by carnal meat as flesh and blood spirits do not eat or drink nor are they capable of nutrition there is no Spirituall advantage comes by it Besides when our Saviour had been speaking so fully of eating his flesh and drinking his blood to prevent their carnall conceits of this spirituall Doctrine he addi this wholsome and seasonable doctrine that for his body it was to ascend up into Heaven where he was before and therefore his words were to be understood not carnally but Spiritually The words that I speak are Spirit John 6.63 You answer that these words do not run counter to your said truth in as much as these words were uttered to the Capernaits in answer to their question of Christs Power and not of the signification of his words Reply 1. I desire to know your ground for this Exposition I cannot finde that it is the Churches and I thought you an enemy to the private spirit 2. It s most evident that these words are uttered for explication of the words precedent for having told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood if they had life by him they question what he may mean by eating his flesh and drinking his blood and they seem to answer their own question by a carnall conceit which was as the Rhemists observe They imagined that he would kill himself and cut and mangle his flesh into parts and so give it them raw or rost to be eaten among them which could not be meant saith Augustine for that had contained an hainous and barbarous fact c. He tells them therefore they must understand his words spiritually of our abiding in him and he in us according to Augustine Tract 27. in Joan. tom 9. Lyra. in text Lyranus speaks very well to this purpose
Rome's Conviction OR A DISCOVERIE Of the unsoundness of the main Grounds of Rome's Religion in answer to a book called The right Religion evinced by L.B. Shewing 1. That the Romish Church is not the true and onely Catholick Church infallible ground and rule of Faith 2. That the main Doctrines of the Romish Church are damnable errors therefore to be deserted by such as would be saved Nos autem non moveat aut turbet haeretici istius perfidi abrupta dementia qui cum in tam ingenti dissentionis schismatis crimine constitutus ab Ecclesia seperatus sit sacrilegà temeritate non dubitet in nos sua crimina retorquere Cum sit enim à seipso nunc factus immundus sordibus sacrilegis inquinatus hoc nunc nos esse contendit c. Cyprian libell ad Novat Haeretic By WILLIAM BROWNSWORD M.A. and Minister of the Gospel at Douglas Chappell in Lancashire London Printed by J.M. for Luke Fawn at the sign of the Parrat in Pauls Churchyard 1654. Brownsword's Romes Conviction Christian Reader COnsidering the multitude of Popish as well as of other corrupt Books dispersed amongst us the greater activitie of the Romish partie in oppugning than of ours in propugning the Truth the reproaches which the true Reformed Protestant Religion by reason of the Schismes Heresies Blasphemies Perjuries Treacheries and other gross enormities of some pretended Professors thereof lies under It must needs be a work acceptable to God and good men to speak a word in season to roll away the reproach of Sion to make good her antient plea against Babylon and to manifest that we have neither lost nor left our Religion The which is the pious design of this Author in this answer As therefore upon perusall of it we have judged it to be solid as well as seasonable so we shall pray and hope that it may be serviceable to the Church of God Richard Hollinworth Edward Gee To the Worshipfull WILLIAM ASHHURST ESQUIRE SIR IF either particular favours exhibited to the Authour of any Book or publick zeal for truth in the exhibitant two of the main grounds of Dedicatory Epistles may oblige to a Dedication I know none whom I can so readily look to as your self from whom as the Church of God hath received much good especially whilest the Lord did imploy you in a publick trust so my self in particular have shared of your influences Your actings in publick seasoned with wisedome piety zeal and fidelity have made you pretious in the godlies sight both in this and our sister Nation Your seclusion from that trust hath made you less seen not less vertuous your influences are not bound up but contracted that they might be more forcible where they fall Our cold Religion hath more of warmth by your presence Whilest you are an example to some and an encouragement of others to their duty Your constancy zeal for Truth love to the Ministery diligence in frequenting Ordinances besides your Family worship and that in these fickle and cold times wherein Ministry Ordinances and Duties are every where cried down do render you a worthy example to frozen souls Your respect to the Ministers of Christ to whom your house is as Obediahs to the Prophets learned from the example of your religious father is a great incouragement of them to their duty Hereof as others so especially my self have been a witness and a large partaker receiving the greater influence by my nearness to you being for some time of your family and still owned as your Pastor As a small acknowledgement whereof I humbly offer these first fruits of my publick labours for under your wing they were sown quickned and brought to this ripeness They beg your acceptance and patronage which if the Author obtain for them He matters not the blustrings or hatred of Popish adversaries against him The weakness of the work may receive strengthâ— Cum sapimus patrâ—â—s years may teach more knowledge In the interim your favour may much strengthen it but especially Gods blessing to which I commend both your self and it and rest Yours in all Christian dutie perpetually obliged WILLIAM BROWNSWORD To the Orthodox READER AMongst all the Darts that Satan useth for the subversion of the Church there is none more dangerous nor more used then his Arrow of Division Hereby apishly imitating God himself who by dividing their tongues overthrow Babels Builders and by an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Sechem destroyed them both When Satan had endeavoured but could not hinder the Churches Resurrection in Great Constantine what hot divisions did he raise within her by Arian Hereticks what contentions did the Church groan under in the time of zealous Luther when Zion had newly delivered her selfe from the daughters of Babylon with whom she had dwelt In our own times since the Church began to ascend to more then ordinary Reformation in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government and that the Reformed Churches were drawing to the nearest union even in this juncture of time doth this old Serpent practise his ancient policy This he doth by his agents amongst whom in these last ages the Romanists first Heathen now Christian idolaters are chief These have been the usual Fomenters of Protestant differences using it as a main stratagem to divide us that so they may overcome us witness the advice of Cardinal Allen mentioned by the Cheshire Ministers in their attestation Chesh attest p. 34. And the project of the Spanish Court attested by Sheldon sometimes a Popish Priest Sheld Survey of Miracles of Antichrist pag. 179 180. and conversant in it His words because considerable I have at large transcribed Wheresoever saith he and whensoever I have heard as I have done often some no small ones of those countreys and of those Courts debate upon 88 s overthrow they ever resolved that Elizabeth living so they termed that renowned Queen's Reigne there was no such like attempt to be made but she being dead then if variety of Competitors which they hoped for did bring confusion it would be good fishing otherwise if there follow a Successour peaceably to the Crown then they resolved that all means possible were to be used that peace might be concluded which being made then by the secret endeavors of Priests and religious men who might be sent hither with more security then before we must draw said they if not wholly yet to be at least our indirect favourers and friends some of the Commanders and those who cannot be won by pretence of religion must be purchased by gifts and large promises But above all we must labour to shake hands with some of those to whom the care of the Navy the Ports and Sea-coasts is committed that if any such like attempt hereafter be thought upon by the Pope or his Catholick Majesty we may find some favourites This is their grand Project and whether they are not now acting it let the Considerate judge for my own
The thoughts and study of this Controversie may be a means to divert that heat which flye into oâ—r faces one against another We have an enemy that seeks the ruine of us all and is getting ground of us whilest we are contesting with our selves Should we not unite against him Papists are no despicable adversaries they are politick in getting and cruel in their possessing power over us Should they prevaile they would soon put a period to many of our controversies to a deal of our fury against Ministers Ordinances Truths I know it will be said this Controveâ—sie is old and very much is already learnedly written against it and there needs no more To this I answer 1. Though the Controversie is old yet it still continues We have not yet seen the expected fall of Antichrisâ— It would favour ill to perswade an Army to leave off a Siege because much powder and bullets have been shot against it Bâ—bylon is not yet stoâ—med and taken and ruined 2. I acknowledge that much hath been leaâ—nedly written against it I reverence the memory of learned Whitakers Reinolds Chamier Cameron Perkins Rivet with many others with whom Papists may cavil but shall never confute My designe is not to adde perfection to their labours nor to oppose them mainly with whom they have contested If I mention Bellarmine Baily c. it s only because they comply with or dissent from my present Adversarie my purpose is only to imitate them who opposed Popery in sâ—ch as maintained it in their times I rake not amongst the dead but meddle with a present writer If Papists will writ anew against truth it cannot be unseasonable to write anew for truth Many errours long since confuted and laid in the dust yet rising again are assaâ—lted by later Divines I had rather say much for truth then too little What I thought necessary to say against this Authour I have spoken avoiding invectives and needless digressâ—ons endeavâ—uring to prevent some charges in thy buying and some pains in thy reading of it and some rayling from my Adversary if he should reply I commit thee and this labour to Gods Blessing If thou reap benefit by it give God the praise and let the Authour have thy prayers whereby thou shalt oblige to further service Thine and the Churches Servant in the Work of Christ William Brownsword The Contents of this Book CHapter 1. Of Happiness Page 13 Chap. 2. Of the way to Happiness Page 14 Chap. 3. Of the diversities of Faiths Hopâ—s and Charities Page 23 Chap. 4. Of the Churches Power and Infaâ—ibilitie in matters of Faith Page 27 Chap. 5. Oâ— the possibilâ—tie of keeping the Commandements Page 69 Chap. 6. Of Religion Page 93 Chap. 7. Of the Vnitie of Religion Page 79 Chap. 8. Of the Spirit of Spiritists Page 103 Chap. 9. Of thâ— Spiritists rule of Faâ—th Page 113 Chap. 10. Of the Protestant Church Page 130 Shape 1. Page 132 Shape 2. Page 153 Shape 3. Page 159 Shape 4. Page 173 Shape 5. Page 182 Chap. 11. Of the Roman Church Page 231 Chap. 12. Of certain Objections made against the Roman Church Page 272 1. Objection Page 273 2. Objection Page 299 3. Objection Page 321 4. Obâ—ection Page 324 5. â—b ectiâ—n Page 340 6. Objection Page 348 7. Objection Page 363 The Epilogue Page 380 Romes Conviction OR A DISCOVERY OF The unsoundness of the maine grounds of Romes Religion WHen I look upon this book I cannot but remember what that blessed Apostle St. Peter foretold should come to pass There shall be false Teachers amongst you who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies and many shall follow their perniciouâ— ways by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make Merchandize of you c. 2 Pet. 1. What feigned words this Author useth whereby to bring in his damnable Heresies and to make Merchandize of souls besides the book it self the Epistles and Epilogue do clearly evince I shall therefore take a view of them as they lye in my way and first for the Epistles one is directed to the Catholikes of England the other to the Reader whether he intends to exclude his Catholiques from reading his Book because he distinguisheth from the Reader or that he mainly designs it for the use of others it may be the Protestants of England whilst he only calls for the Patronage of Catholikes let the Reader judg Certainly there are strong endeavours to enlarge the Popes Chair by the seduction of English Protestants as appears by those many books lately printed in London in the behalf of that Seat The former Epistle is divided betwixt murmuration and adulation There are sad complaints that truth is grown so loathsome and hateful tâ—at whosoever goeth about to tell it indangers displeasure they despise and maligne what ought most of all to be cherisht and loved of whom it is said they preferred darkness before light Joh. 3. Were it the truth indeed that you speak of I should joyn with you in complaining and rather entitle your language to a serious and sad complaint then an unjust murmuration It was once the sad language of the Prophet That truth is fallen in the streets yea truth faileth and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey Isai 59.14.15 And through the privy introduction of Heresies amongst us it hath come to pass that the way of truth is evil spoken of and the language of the Prophet is in the mouths of thousands of Gods Saints But blessed be God for this good news from Rome that Popery is grown so loathsome and hateful that whosoever goeth about to tell it indangers displeasure and let me tell you that I hope that God will raise up Governours in this Land that with other Protestant Princes shall hate the Whore and shall make her desolate and naked and shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire Apoc. 17.16 and that as God hath cast it out from being the publikely profest way in this Nation so he will root it out of the hearts of people in this Land more and more though your selves be murmurers c. 2 Pet. â— 2. Your adulation is most palpable Catholikes are renowned Catholikes the best and greatest conquerours brave champions great glorious good conquerours overcoming themselves and what not Their sufferings are many glorious * Such as blessed Saints have passed through for the truth for God and God with them in them and for them God hath just cause to reward them But alas how groundless are all these Titles 1. What great or how many sufferings have your Catholiques undergone in Englâ—nd Have you been burnt at Stakes or drawn into close inquisitions and there tortur'd rackt murdered Have your bodies been mangled and cut in pieces Have you been gathered into Companies and then burnt Have your Wives been ravisht and ript up and their children tost on Pikes Have you been whipt to death Have the
endeavour to answer them for the present I understand not what they should prove and therefore dismiss them without any answer In your third Section you go about to prove the Churches infallibility as a qualification of her for the delivery of a Rule of Faith and you urge divers Arguments which I now come to examine and answer Arg. 1. God hath endowed her with inerrability whereby to convey the truth safely and without danger of miscarrying by arming her proof against all the enemies of truth against ignorance error darkness weakness For this you urge divers Texts In these words though they seem an intention of but one argument yet there are these two viz. 1. If the Church cannot convey truth safely and without danger of miscarrying but by the gift of inerrability then Christ hath endowed her with it But she cannot convey truth safely and without danger of miscarrying but by the gift of inerrability Ergo c. 2. If Christ hath armed his Church against the enemies of truth viz. ignorance darkness error and weakness then hath he endowed her with inerrability but he hath so armed her Ergo c. To these in order Ans First to the first I answer 1. By denying the consequence of the major Proposition the reason of my denial is this Christ hath not made the Church the principal much less the only means of conveying truth safely Though yoor Pope Cardinals Jesuites Priests yea General Councils should err yet there remains a safe way of conveying truth without miscarrying that is the Scriptures 2 Pet. 1.19 Beda paraphrasing upon those words In a dark place Beda apud Lyran. hath this note In hujus saeculi nocte c. In the night of this world full of temptations vices and errors where there is hardly one to be found without error against which this light is necessary So that you see the Scriptures convey the truth safely against temptations vices errors in the judgment of this venerable Author It may be you will object that infallibility is necessary for the Church that she may safely convey these Scriptures wherein the truth is But I deny this to be true For 1. It cannot be denied but God did make use of the Jewes to preserve the Scriptures Rom. 3.2 yet by the leaven of their Doctors the Pharisees the Commandments of God were transgressed Matth. 23.5 Yea it evidenceth their errability that they mistook the sense of the Law and when Christ came Mariana tract pro edit vulgát cap. 7. p. 50. that they did generally oppose and resist him and yet I believe the Scriptures yea I had almost said the very iota's and titles of them were preserved from miscarrying Your Authors confess of the Hebrew text that there is no substantial error in it 2. The Law was by Gods providence kept safely a great while in the House of the Lord unknown to any till Hilkiah the High-Priest found it in the daies of Josiah 2 King 22.8 Now you will not ascribe infallibility to the House of the Lord. 3. You acknowledg not the Greek Church to be a true Church yet the Scriptures have been safely preserved by them whilest the error of the Chiliasts and of those who laid a necessity on Infants to receive the Eucharist remained in the Church which was for some 100. of years yet then the Scriptures were preserved from miscarrying The truth is Gods Providence is chiefly ingaged for the preservation of these books and that concurring any means that God useth may suffice though they were Turks and Heathens that had the keeping of them 2. I answer by denying your Minor and say the Church may convey the truth without the gift of inerrability bestowed on her as well as other Churches subject to errour have done Thus we confess that your Roman Church hath preserved the ancient Creeds the Commandments and Scriptures though we deny you to be sound members of the Catholike Church We admire and adore Gods providence not your inerrability had not a Divine hand overawed you I fear the Scriptures would have fared little better then the Fathers have done whose writings you have notoriously corrupted and falsified as hath beene manifested against you by our learned Writers 2. Arg. 2. To your second Argument I answer by distinction viz. a subject and particularly the Church may be armed against ignorance darkness error and weakness either in regard of hurts blows and lesser foils or in regard of total ruine or a final overthrow or if you will these may be considered either as total or only partial It 's exemption not onely from total and ruining ignorance darkness error and weakness but from inferiour degrees hereof that can prove infallibility in the subject so exempted So then if the Church be exempted from all degrees of these evils so as they cannot at all hurt her then your Argument is good but this exemption I utterly deny Christ hath only so far armed his Church whilst Militant against these that they shall not ruine or destroy her gross ignorance and obstinate error the forerunners of ruine cannot happen to the Church but lesser degrees of these may This is confessed by your own Authors of each of these 1. Ignorance Lombard saith Lomb. l. 4. dist 18. f. Deus non semper sequitur ecclesiae judicium c. God doth not alwayes concur with the judgment of the Church which judgeth somtime by stealth and ignorance 2. Darkness Ccc. Dial. p. 1. lib. 5. cap. 28. Occam saith Circa illa c. Concerning those things that are not necessary to be believed expresly it s not necessary that the Churches judgment be alwayes certain Sure uncertaintie of judgment must arise from darkness 3. Error Thus Picus saith Fieri potest c. It may be that the Vice-head may be distempered as the natural Franc Picus Theor. 23. and as this noxious humour so that may diffuse into the body unsound opinions Stapl. Relect c. 1. q. 4. Art 5. Not. 1. Stapleton confesseth That perfect holiness in regard of Doctrine is not in all times and places because great men may not only doubt but err in some points of Doctrine and yet the true Church remain with them 4. Weakness Thus Turrecrema saith Quamvìs ecclesia Turrecr sum d. Eccles 2. c. 112. c. Although the Church be supported by divine power and authority yet inasmuch as it is a Congregation of men something through humane weakness is acted by it which is not divine Thus it 's confest that the Church is not totally exempted from these enemies But because you bring Scripture to patronize your cause let us see whether it speak for you 1. Against Ignorance you urge Mat. 13. To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdome of heaven Ans 1. I wonder your Rhemists had nothing to say for the Churches infallibilitie from this Text all that they conclude from it is this That to the Apostles and
The reasons of my denial are these 1. It s the priviledg of the Word of God written or the Scripture to be the ground of Faith These things are written that ye might believe Joh. 20. ult i. e. that your Faith might have a certain foundation revelations or traditions being more uncertain and easily pretended where they have no existence or being Compare with this 2 Pet. 1.18.19 Ye have a more sure word of Prophecie that is In quo magis confirmetur auditor whereby the hearer may be more confirmed So that the word is more sure and that to us inasmuch as we are thereby more confirmed Hence it is that our Saviour sends his hearers to the Scriptures that therein they might finde what they have to believe Joh. 5.39 So doth the Prophet Isa 8.20 and Abraham in the parable Luk. 16.29 which your Lyranus comments thus upon Lyran. in Luk. 1 is 29. Habent Moysen c. they have Moyses who taught moral actions and the Prophets who delivered mysteries of Faith and these suffice to salvation therefore it follows let them hear them This was the measure of the Apostles preaching and faith Act. 26.22 Act. 17.10.11 By this the Bereans tryed the truth of the Apostles preaching and for its conformity thereto Annot. of Divines on the Text. did receive it into their belief 't is said therefore many of them believed i. e. because of the testimony of the Scriptures So that we may truly say that if the Apostles had preached any thing beside or contrary to Scripture the Bereans would not have believed their preaching and the Apostle himself would have justified them herein Gal. 1.8.9 On which Text Augustine hath this note Qui praeter greditur Aug. apud Lyran. in c. He that goes beside the rule of Faith doth not walk in the way but departs from it Neither would the Apostle himself have us found our hope on him but on that truth which he declared That which was spoken by him was better then he by whom it was spoken From whence what can be more clearly infer'd then that 1. The Word of God preached is the rule of Faith And 2. That faith is not resolved into persons preaching the truth but into the truth preached by them contrarie to both which is your minor Proposition 2. Ans Supposing it true that the Church must be the ground of Faith yet I affirme that this is not yours or any other present Church but only the Primitive Church which as I have already shewed is of greater authority then the present Church which is in a kind grounded upon the Apostolike Church or that Church which contains the Prophets Apostles c. All succeeding Churches are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets whose testimony because of their visible converse with God and Christ becomes efficax ad credendum effectual for the grounding of Faith It s observeable that whereas Abraham might have told the rich man that his Brethren had a present Church to hearken to yet he only mentions Moses and the Prophets 2. I affirm that if your Church be a foundation of Faith yet this would not be a Divine but only an humane Faith And indeed this is the very reason why your Doctors commonly held that Faith is ultimately resolved upon God himself revealing the truth as Azorius observes because Divine Faith must be resolved into a Divine testimony which the testimony of the Church is not and they prove it by divers arguments especially by foure which I have transcribed out of Azorius And though he do not altogether adhere to their opinion Ratio 1. Ecclesiae testimonium est quidem divinum sed participatione non per se sua naturâ at Dei testimonium est divinum per se suâ naturâ fides divina resolvi debet in testimonium quod sit per se non autem participatione divinum 2. Quae sunt fidei revelatione Divinâ non naturae lumine sunt patefacta at Deus est qui revelat ac pandit res fidei non ecclesia 3. In Angelis Prophetis Apostolis caeteris Librorum Cananicorum Scriptoribus fides non resolvebat in ecclesiae testimonium sed in Deum per se pro xime revelantem at fides nostra est ejusdem speciei cujus fui illa Ergo in eandem rationem credendi reducitur 4. Quamvis ecclesia sit testis non tamen Condit aliquem articulum fidei sed declarat explicat quae sunt fidei c. Azor. Instit Moral Parl. 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2. but allows somthing to the Church yet he acknowledges that it 's ex accidenti by accident that our Faith is resolved into the Churches authority Again 2. Many learned Papists believe and teach that it 's onely an humane Faith whereby we believe that this or the other Pope is Peters Successor and Christs Vicar on earth because it depends on this Proposition that this or the other Pope is orderly and Canonically chosen to the Popedome which is also objected against General Councils Now how can we believe a Popes Decrees for a Divine Faith when it s onely an humane Faith whereby we believe that he is Pope or Peters Successor Becanus clearly resolves That if any stay in the resolution of the Church and ascend not to the Scripture his assent who believes because of the authority of the Church is not an assent of Theological Faith but of an other inferiour order viz. that which Scotus calls an acquired Faith and saith is only conceived by the Churches testimony which indeed is nothing else but an human faith for its such a Faith whereby we believe one that may both be deceived himself and may deceive us although we believe that he will not deceive us Sot lib. 2. de Nat. grat c. 7. Hereupon Sotus acknowledgeth of him that he held the authoritie of the Church to be only humane than which what can be more contradictory to your assertion 3. Ans I grant that the testimony of the Church is an external motive to belief as is also consent of people conformitie of the things believed to natural light accomplishment of Prophecies Miracles Gods Judgments against the Enemies of Truth c. The testimonie of the woman of Samaria was an external motive to the Samaritanes belief not the formal cause of it so the preaching of Godly Ministers is a means whereby men are brought to believe yet you will not conclude that Faith is built on them and they infallible It is the Church by which as a means not for which as the formal ground we do believe Your fifth Argument is taken from the Churches composure and nature 5. Arg. p. 18. 16. in these words Look on the Churches composure and nature and her strength will appear yet more by reason she is framed and made up of men Gen. 22. dispersed and spread over the world Act. 1. who
rule of faith as such cannot be considered but as to us it being a relative tearm cannot be considered without relation to beleevers who are its correlative you might as well tell of a father considered in himself or in respect of his Child A father abstract from relation to his child is no father no more is the Word of God abstract from its respect to beleeve in a rule of Faith 2. You are extream quick and witty in distingishing betwixt Gods truth revealed and the same truth expressed I wonder what 's the difference doth not God when he reveales his truth expresse it to us revelation is nothing else but the expressing of some thing formerly unknown Spiritists say Gods truth revealed or expressed to us in Scripture is the rule of Faith and manners to beleevers 2. You say Their difference is about the exprâ—ssion These Spiritists holding that it is that of their private Spirit joyned to to that of Scipture only those Catholiques that it is that of the Châ—rch Scripture bearing witness to her truth Answ 1. If Spiritists for I use your own word and you agree about the rule of Faith both in it self and in respect of us that it is Gods revealed truth and the same truth expressed to us Why then do you entitle your Chapter The Spiritists rule of Faith as if we had one rule of Faith and you another whereas you assert that the difference is not about the rule but the expression of it You explain the difference thus Spiritists hold that the rule of Faith is Gods revealâ—d truth expressed to them by their private Spirit joyned to the expression of Scripture only Catholiques teach that it is God revealed truth expressed by the Church Scripture bearing wirness to her truth Ans 1. For your opinion I say 1. What mean you by Gods revealed truth I perceive you understand not the Word of God revealed by the Prophets and Apostles in Scripture for you seem to blame us for our expression of Scripture only and accordingly oppose the Scriptures sufficiency in your next section 2. How comes it that the Spirit of God hath no place with you in expressing the truth of God Must your Diana shoulder out the Scripture and the Spirit too The Spirit is much beholding to you for your opinion Are you not Antispiritists in this your doctrine and clearly destitute of the favourable effects of the Spirit of God 3. Hath the Scripture no use or imployment with you but to come in and bear witness that the Church is true Doth it not witness for Gods truth as much as for your Churches truth Is it not the testimony of the Lord Jesus But as the thing Church is the Pillar of Truth so the word Church is the very Pillar and Prop of Popish Errors and therefore you use it usque ad nauseam 4. Are not you like a turning mill-horse or like the wicked in the Psalms Impii nmbulant in circuitu You say the Scripture is the Rule of Faith at least partial as the Church expresseth that is expoundeth it and if you be asked how you know the Church expounds it right you answer by the Scripture which bears witnesse to the Churches truth The Scriptures bear witness to the Churches truth and the Church bears witness to the Scriptures truth But your tenet is so clear with you though most grosse and wicked that you add no confirmation of it but what ariseth from the opposition of ours as you have delivered it Therefore 2. I come to defend ours against you but first I will lay it down in other tearms 't is this we say that the rule of divine belief is the Word of God contained only in Scripture the means whereby we understand it is principaly the Spir t of God which enlightens our minds and eâ—abâ—es us by the use of those means God hath appointed us to use amongst wh ch we number the consent of learned men in former and in the present age for the findiâ—g out of the Scriptures meaâ—ing Now if this be tâ—e private Spirit you speak of we acknowledg it and own it and account what you say against it to be sinfull and foolish as will presently appear Against us 1. You affirm that this Spirit is false and spurious Answ 1. Is the Spirit of God in private persons false and spurious Or have they not this Spirit Take heed of blasphemy for you are at the brink of it The Spirit is promised to private Christians as well as to others and doth testifie as truly though not always so manifestly and fully in them as in publique persons convened in Council I could quote many particular Doctors of your Church preferring their own expositions of Scripture before the expositions of the Church and Fathers but for brevity to refer to Dr. Mortons learned Apeal lib. 9. c. 29. I will only say one thing for your self that in your expositions of Scripture so much as it is especially in your reading of it you follow neither Church nor Father nor honest Christian witness the Scriptures you bring for your impudent assertion 1. text 2. Pet. 1. No interpretation of Scripture by private Spirit Excellently read you have found private Spirit in expresse words yet let me tell you had you been put to read this Text instead of a Miserere mei before a Judg of Assise your reading would hardly have saved you from hanging 2. Text Math. 18.17 To belâ—eve the Churcâ— Admiâ—able Heâ—e is faith iâ— the Church in express tearms which none ever saw before 3. Text 2 Cor. 10. Where say you St. Paul wisheth to captivate the understanding to the obedience of faith Yet more falshood The Rhemists as well as we and all men that are in their right wit and have any thing of ingenuity read it to the Obedience of Christ I wonder you read it not to the obedi-of the Church And thus you would prove both faith and obedience due to the Church which in time might have procured you a Cardinalship 4. Text Luke 16. None can serve two Masters This reading is tolerable I will briefly now answer these Texts 1. To the first I say the words are these knowing this first that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interprâ—tation and they are spoken of the penmen of Scripture not of private Interpreters who did not use their own wills and counsels vers 21. but were inspired by the Holy Ghost The Rhemists reading shews that it belongs to the Prophets Vnderstanding this first that no prophesie of Scripture is Made by private interpretati n It 's spoken of the Composure not of the Exposition of Scripture 2. Your second Text I have formerly answered 3. Your third Text Chrysostom understands of bringing men from the estate of death and destruction into the estate of life and Salvation subjecting them to Christ Your gloss by All understanding conceives is meant all proud conceited persons who are made subject to the faith of
New Testament See Rom. 1.19 20. 2 Tim. 3.15 16.17 John 17.3 3. Your Conformity of Faith to the Church in a Popish sence is a novel phrase not used by the first Christians nor the Apostles of Christ in any of their writings nor did they ever bid men beleeve as the Church beleeved though that was of greater authority then the present Church is but still called their faith to the Word of God contrary to which if Paul or any other Apostles yea or Angels from Heaven did preach the people were to reject them and no doubt if Paul had preached such stuff as now Popish Sermons are filled with traditions and new decrees ungrounded on Gods Word the Beraeans had rejected him and his praying It was for want of this Conformity of Faith to the Word of God that our Saviour upbraids the two Disciples that travelled to Emaus Luk. 24.25 He saith not O flow of heart to beleeve all that the Church beleeves this as I said was no Scripture language nor known to primitive Christians but to beleeve all that the Prophets have spoken And that he may lead them to this Conformity of Faith he expounds not the Decrees and Constitutions of Scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses Chair whereof there were many but 't is said Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself vers 27. Sir I beleeve you are so dutiful a son to the Church that had you been in Christs stead you would rather have told them of Popes decretal Epistles then of Prophets writings of Traditions rather then Scripture if such things then had had a being But 4. Why could not you say a Conformity of Faith to the Truth revealed as well as a Conformity of Faith to the Church revealing the Truth The Truth revealed not the Church revealing it is the Rule of Faith as I shall shew hereafter 1. You might have done well once for all to have told us what you mean by The Church for the word is diversly attributed even by those who in general agree that it is only the Roman Church as you seem by your Epistle to the Reader to understand it 2. You urge Scripture to prove your Assertion viz. three Texts Mat. 28.19 Luke 10.16 Mat. 16. The two first do not so much as mention the word Church the last mentions the word but proves not the thing you bring it for 1. Mat. 28. Going teach ye all Nations Ans I wonder in what word the proof lies I suppose it 's not in Going and I dare say Teaching proves it not for then every Teacher should be a Rule of Faith besides the Apostles were not to teach men to hang their faith upon themselves or others whether of the Roman or any other Church but they were commanded to teach men to do whatsoever Christ had commanded vers 10. amongst which this was the principal work to believe on him whom God had sent Joh. 6.29 viz. Jesus Christ to whom they were brought by the Apostles preaching as living stones to be built upon a foundation 2. Luke 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me Ans I suppose this Text is brought to explain the other which had need of a Commentary to make it speak your language But 1. This is spoken primarily and absolutely of the Apostles who were Christs mouth in delivering the Scriptures and therefore infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost that they could not err in what they delivered to us That which Moses was to the Jews in delivering the Law the same were the Apostles to us in delivering the Gospel So that he that heareth the Apostles heareth Christ because it was the word of Christ which they did speak and this way we hear the Apostles speak yet whilest wâ— read or hear the Scriptures which they pen'd but what is this to the present Roman Church and her unwritten Traditions 2. As it 's understood of ordinary Ministers in the Church it can only be understood conditionally He that heareth you while your doctrine agreeth with the Word of God heareth me so that faith is not a conformity to any Teachers or their doctrine but so far as their doctrine is agreeable with the Scriptures which indeed are the Rule both of their preaching and our beleeving Consonantly hereunto the Apostle saith If any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesom words even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ he is proud from such withdraw thy self 1 Tim. 6.3 c. The Scribes and Pharisees who were the Church in a Popish sence were to be heard but it was whilest they sate in Moses Chair that is whilest they preached not their own traditions and phancies but Moses doctrine Arias Montanus saith Elucid in Mat. 23. Christ bids them do what the Scribes and Pharisees commanded Ex praescripto legis id est ex Cathedrâ Mosis So Origen Origen apud Lyran. Super Cathedram c. isie sermo de me est qui bona dâ—ceo contraria gero 3. The Text speaks not of the Church for particular Ministers in the Church are not the Church Now your Rhemists expound it of them in these words It is all one to despise Christ RheÌ„ Annot. on the Text. and to despise his Priests and Ministers in the Catholique Church to refuse his doctrine and theirs And indeed it must be understood of those who labour in the Word and Doctrine not of non-preaching Popes and Prelates 3. Mat. 16. you would say Mat. 18.17 which you read thus He that heareth not the Church let him be as an Heathen and a Publican Not to say any thing of your false quotation or reading a fault common throughout your Book Protestants may take notice what great cause we have to put these men into our bosoms as they expect whilest they profess we are no better then Heathens or Publicans though I am sure their usage from us hath shewed us Christians But to the Text How little it makes for your purpose the Context words themselves will shew It speaks not of Conformity of Faith to the Church but of obedience of the offending party to the admonition of the Pastors of the Church Thus Lyranus Si non aud Eccles pr ceptum praelatos contemnendo Lyr. in loc You might as well say that faith is a conformity to our selves because it 's said If he neglect to hear thee vers 15. or to two or three witnesses because it 's said If he neglect to hear them vers 17. whereby is implied that he ought to hear them Hence it might well follow that faith ought rather to be resolved upon a neighbor that is a private man then upon the Church because the offended party is first to be heard before the Church And then Sir who is guilty of the Private spirit that you anon talk of Sure your selves and not the Protestants In stead of these misapplied Scriptures for you I shall give you
one or two plain Scriptures proving the Word of God to be that whereunto a Christians faith is to be conformable The Apostle continued witnessing both to small and great saying None other things then those wâ—ich the Prophets and Moses did say should come to pass Acts 26.22 This was his teaching And for his own faith you have it Acts 24.14 This I confess unto thee that after the way which they call Heresie so worship I the God of my fathers believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets I shall put you in mind of what one of your Proselites writes about this Point I found that by consent of all Christians Dr Vane Lost Sheep return p. 5 6. this knowledg of the means to attain to happiness was not to be gotten by clear and evident sight nor by humane discourse founded on the principles of Reason nor by reliance upon Authority meerly humane but Only by Faith Grounded On The Word of GOD revealing unto men things that were otherwise only known to his infinite Wisdom seeing the Church to the worlds end must be built on the Apostles and Believe Nothing as Matter of Faith beside that which was delivered of them as St. Paul saith Ephes 2.20 Your self also when you come to the Point to speak of the Rule of Faith say that the Truth of God revealed and expressed to us is the Rule of Faith Chap. 9. If Faith be grounded on Gods Word and that this Word of God be the Rule of Faith How can the Church be it seeing there is a vast difference betwixt the Truth and the Church as betwixt a Rule and him that bears it Can you say properly that a man that keeps the standard in his house is the standard or that the post that bears it is it or that the ship that carries the compass is the compass Now you only say that the Church is the Pillar of Truth i. e. it doth but bear it If the Church be the Rule of Faith then I wonder what Rule they have sure not themselves and they being men like us they cannot be without a Rule no more then they can be Christians and yet want faith 3. You say By the first Conformity man comes to the knowledg of God as he is the Author and End of Grace by the second he relies upon his Mercy and Goodness c. Ans 1. You seem to make faith a bare knowledg distinct from reliance on Gods mercy and goodness whereby you give too little to faith whose acts are not only to discern God and divine objects but to rely upon that merciful and good promise of God whereby he offers himself and divine objects to be received by us By this receiving is faith expressed John 1.12 If faith be no more but bare knowledg then Devils yea Reprobates may have true faith yea and may hope in Gods mercy for faith is the foundation of sound hope Your Vasquez is more ingenious then most of you for he acknowledgeth that besides a dogmatical or historical faith Vasq in 1. 2. To. 2. disp 209. c. 1. 4. which he calls Catholike there is also a peculiar faith whereby a Christian believes that he is or shall be justified or saved And this faith is the foundation of that hope you mention and not much differing from it only that as hope looks at the thing promised so faith doth more directly reflect upon the promise though Vasquez saith the same of faith that you of hope Cujus generis est fides qua aliquis credit se a Deo per orationem obtenturum id quod petit c. I shall conclude this with the words of learned Rivet Ineptiunt ergo ne quid gravius dicam qui cum tribuant fideli spem fiduciam circa electionem gratiam salut m Propriam fidem tamen negant Rivet sum Cont. Tract 4. q. 16. ss 6. But as you cast faith here below it self so in the next Chapter you set up Charity above it self making it the soul of faith CHAP. III. Of the Diversities of Faiths Hopes and Charities IN this Chapter I shall only take notice of two passages 1. You say The means of habitual and actual divine Faith Hope and Charity is the Tradition of the Church Ans 1. If by the Tradition of the Church you mean the true and right Exposition of Scripture made by faithful Pastors and Teachers of the Church as Vincentius Lyrinensis understands it then I shall easily consent to you for it is no more then the Apostle himself asserts when he saith Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God Rom. 10.17 But 2. If you mean the Churches opinions distinct from Scripture or unwritten Verities as they are called by you then I affirm that these are not means for your proposed end the Scripture it self without your additions being sufficient to make the man of God perfect in all graces And this you are not altogether unconvinced of as appears by your Preachers who in their Sermons do ground their discourses upon Texts of Scriptures and I suppose their Sermons are intended to be means of faith hope c. 2. You say St Paul gives to Charity the preeminence And not undeservedly for she is the enlivening Soul of Faith and Hope c. both they being out of her company as dead bodies without life or motion c. Your assertion is grounded upon two Scriptures viz. 1 Cor. 13.13 and James 2.26 For the first I freely subscribe to the preeminence of Charity but upon the Apostles reason not yours which is the continuance of Charity when Faith and Hope fail Thus the Apostle is understood by your ordinary Gloss Primasius Augustine and the generality of Expositors In presenti tria haec Lyran. in 1 Cor. 13.13 in futuro sola charitas permanebit Majus est ergo quod semper erit quam quod aliquando cessabit But you say It 's the Soul of Faith c. This I deny For 1. Your own Authors do earnestly contend that true faith yea that faith that justifies and is joyned with hope and charity 1 Cor. 13.13 may be without charity charity therefore cannot be the soul of faith for the enlivening soul cannot be absent from its body and yet that body remain a true living humane body 2. The Apostle saith that faith without works is dead as the body without the soul yet you will not say that good works are the soul of faith whereby it hath life and motion Your Rhemists assert it that the Thief on the Cross wanted good works and thereupon conclude RheÌ„ Annot. on Luke 23.43 that Faith hope c. will be sufficient and good works not required where for want of time and opportunity they cannot be had Now can you say that his faith was without life and motion It had so much life and motion that it brought him to Heaven by your own confession Now if the
body move it hath the soul in it be its motion never so little or of so short continuance 3. Faith is before Charity and that not only by priority of nature but of agency or activity Faith is a leading grace Men first believe to righteousness and then make confession to Salvation Faith first apprehends and lays hold on the mercy and goodness of God in the promise and then for that his goodness and mercy towards us we do love him and keep his Commandments This is clearly taught by our Saviour Luke 7.47 as Salmeron Tolet Stella and others even Papists acknowledg Now in Nature the Soul precedes the body in its activity 4. If charity and good works were the soul of faith they should be intrinsecal to faith for the form is not out of the matter nor the soul out of the body but so they are not Hence 't is that some learned men call charity an external form of faith and other virtues and by spirit in the Text they understand the breath making the sence this Even as the want of breath argues a dead body so the want of works a dead faith Estius ascribes this Exposition to Cajetan Estius in Jam. 2.26 who as he saith was moved to it by this reason because works are not the form of faith but certain concomitant effects but the soul is the form of the body Azorius clearly adheres to Cajetan Azor. instit Moral lib. 9. c. 3. q. 6. denying charity to be an intrinsecal form of faith or other virtues because they have their proper fruit and produce works without charity only he calls it an extrinsecal form which will never prove it to be the soul of them Par. in loc Pareus doth well observe for this purpose that it 's not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not without soul but without spirit or breath Bernard speaks most suitably to this Exposition Sicut corporis vitam c. As we know the life of the body by motion so the life of faith by good works If this Exposition please not I shall commend to you that acute one of Mr Perkins saith he Perkins on Galat. 5.6 Here is a false composition of the words Faith that is without works is dead is true but to say Faith is dead without works as though they gave life to faith is false To conclude Though we deny charity or good works to be the enlivening soul of faith yet we assert them to be the inseparable concomitants of a true faith so that as good works cannot be without faith so neither can faith be without good works As faith looks towards the promise by beleeving it so doth it reflect upon the Will of God by obeying it these are its two vital acts that is internal this is faith's external act neither of which can a living faith not exercise CHAP. IV. Of the Churches Power and Infallibility in matters of Faith IN this Chapter you come to the Churches Infallibility as a main part of Religion and a leading Article in the Creed to whom you are so liberal that you leave little to Christ or his Father It 's the observation of one of your own men that throughout your Ladies Psalter the Name of God is changed into the Name of our Lady so the Name of God into the name of Church and the Attributes of God are predicated of the Church as here Infallibility answering herein the Apostles description of Antichrist That he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he is as God sitteth in the Temple of God shewing himself that he is God 2 Thes 2.4 But to your Chapter You might have done well seeing the Church must come in first to have defined to us what Church it is you speak of before you tell us of her Infallibility as whether it be the Church virtual or representative or essential did I know which you meant I could speedilier answer you but seeing I do not I shall shew the fallibility of each of them lest I should happen to miss of you 1. Then Infallibility is not a Jewel annexed to your Popes Crown Lyra commenting on the words of Christ Mat. 16.18 The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Lyran. ibid. A verâ fide subvertendo-scil saith Ex quo patet c. Whereby it is evident that this Church which hath this promise doth not consist in men of ecclesiastical or secular power or dignity because many Princes and Popes summi pontifices and others inferior have been found to apostatize from the Faith wherefore it consists in those persons in whom is true knowledg and confession of faith and truth Some of your Popes have been deposed for Heresie as Eugenius by the general Council of Basil Concil Basil Ses 34. apud Binnium Hart Answ to Reynolds p. 246. Honorius by the sixt general Council was condemned and that justly saith Hart in his Answer to learned Reynolds Innocentius was little better then an Heretique who held that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was necessary for children Nor was he alone in this Heresie for it continued in the Church 600 years as Maldonat observes Maldon in Joan 6. Concil Trid. ses 21. Can. 4 ap Bin. Now that it was an Heresie appears by the Curse laid upon it in the Councel of Trent If you say the Pope taught it not I answer How then durst the Church believe it and for so long a time whereas the faith of the members must be conformable to the belief of the Churches Head Or why did not the Pope hinder it when he saw it was believed in the Church as a necessary truth It cannot be imagined how the Pope should be free when the Church was so infected 2. Infallibility is not the inseparable Priviledg of the Church representative or a General Councel for according to Papists it hath no infallibility in it self but depends upon the infallibility of the Pope which I have shewed to be a Chimaera Azorius tells us Azor. iustit Moral part 2. l. 5. c. 12. q. 1. that it 's agreed upon by all Catholikes that a General Councel may err in faith and manners if it be not called and confirmed by the Authority of the Pope of Rome And he instances in the Council of Ariminum of 600 Bishops who erred with Arius The Council of Constantinople of 300 Bishops who erred with Leo the Emperor This is the meaning of Lorinus as I conceive Lorin in Act. 15.7 p. 583. Col. 2. when he saith Wise or learned men are to be consulted with but all the infallibility is in him alone Now let any Papist shew any reason why in a Council the Pope should be infallible and out of it should be as other men But Councils called and confirmed by Popes have with Papists themselves been accounted fallible The Council of Basil was called by Eugenius and had the
Durand Scotus Gabriel and Almain for concluding that the authority of the Church is the reason of our belief of the things of Faith 2. From immediate inspiration of the Spirit Thus the Apostles were immediately inspired so that in their delivering of the truth they could neither fallere nec falli neither deceive nor be deceived this is taught by the Apostles Paul and Peter 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 The later of whom perswades us to give heed to the word of God because the holy pen-men of it were inspired by the H. Ghost Again for power which you leave unexplained it may be observed that there is a twofold power in order to this effect belonging to Christ 1. Authoritative which is his designation or appointment hereunto this may be understood by that text you cite As my Father sent me c. 2. Qualitative or dispositive this is Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other is his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one is his power the other his authority Again this power is exercised two wayes 1. By discoveries of the truth revealed to him Thus it s said All things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you Joh. 15.15 This is his outward teaching 2. By commanding the heart to believe and consent to those truths he reveals this power is spoken of by the Psalmist in Psal 110. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power Christ doth command the soul to receive the truth by stamping upon it a divine authority Majesty and withall by his Spirit discovering to the soul this authority and Majesty so stamped upon it This way doth Christ exercise his power in bringing the soul to close with the Scriptures as the rule of its belief 2. I proceed now to your consequence He having communicated his said knowledg and power to the Apostles and in them to the succeeding Churches but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians Ans 1. You tell us of succeeding Churches but lest you should seem to forget your dear Mother or give other Churches liberty to claim equal priviledges with her whilst you talk of Churches you neglect construction and come in with a She may challenge 2. 'T is false that she may justly challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians as to the propounding of a rule of belief to them For 1. There is no need of another rule for them the rule that Christ propounded being suited to all Christians and fully sufficient and perfect as your self confess If that Christs teaching hath the full height and perfection of a rule i. e. be a compleat and perfect rule what needs another rule or can this other rule be higher then that which hath its full height or have greater extent then that which is perfect the perfection of Christs rule shews that nothing can be added to it If you say it was perfect as for the first Christians but not for after Christians I desire to know the ground of this distinction for I am ignorant of it 2. The succeeding Church hath not communicated to her the same knowledg and power that Christ had her knowledg is not universal there hath been in every Age since your Churches Apostacy an addition of supposed truths which the former Age believed not Your Pius 4. hath added some Articles to the ancient Creeds as necessary to be believed unto Salvation which formerly were not so imposed if once thought of sure then the Church before the Trent Council either knew not the whole revealed will of God and so could not by their preaching lay an exact rule of belief or you propound a larger object then Faith will well admit Again her knowledg is not infallible as I shewed in the beginning of this Chapter the present Church of Rome hath notoriously swerved from Primitive purity in their late Articles of Pope Pius his Creed Besides this it cannot claim either of these means of infallibility which I mentioned before the same may be said of power it s not the same with Christ they want both his power and authority as I have explained them Indeed if that which the succeeding Churches preach and teach be the same that Jesus Christ and his Apostles preached and taught then it is a rule of Faith to us but thus it s not the teaching of the Church that makes it a rule but its identity with the Scriptures the marrow of Christs and the Apostles preaching Thus the assertion is true otherwise the Churches teaching without respect to Scripture is not a Rule as I have already shewed and this is my Antagonists meaning as appears by his next words All matters of Faith as well other points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account c. 2. Consequence or rather the first consequence arising from that is in these words Whence it follows pag. 13. that all matters of belief as well other points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account and credit Ans 1. If by other points you understand other points of Faith then are contained in Scripture you take that for granted which is notoriously false viz. that there are points of Faith which the Scriptures containe not and consequently that they are imperfect and insufficient to be a rule of Faith and this is most false For 1. Whatsoever was contained in the ancient Creeds which were rules of Faith to those Christians that used them that was all contained in Scripture and more was not imposed as necessary to be believed to Salvation I deny not but your Trent Creed contains more then Scripture even many Articles which learned men say cannot be proved but out of unwritten Traditions but as it contains more then Scripture so is it much larger then any Creed that was used before it so that either their Faith was imperfect having an imperfect foundation or yours is redundant transgresseing the bounds of a right and ancient rule 2. The Scriptures testifie their own sufficiency 2 Tim. 3.15 16. I desire you to consider these two following Texts Act 26.22 with chap. 20.27 Lyran. He had declared the whole counsel of God so far as concerned Salvation and yet preached nothing but what the Scriptures did contain Ans 2. If you mean that we are to believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that other fundamental points besides this The Scriptures are the word of God are the truths of God and to be believed meerly because the Church asserts it so that the Churches affirmation of them should be the formal cause of our belief of these truths as I suppose you mean this I deny For 1. The Scriptures contain in themselves arguments that may convince a true Christian that they are the Word of God Many notes are given by Protestants which to you pulling them in pieces and viewing them singly seem weak which conjunctim or all together have
much strength in them He that reads the Scriptures with a spiritually enlightened mind cannot but confess that never meer man spake like the Holy Writers and that flesh and blood revealed not those things to them which they declare but God only 2. Upon what account was this truth taken up by the first Christians for the space of three hundred years after Christ they could not take it up upon the Churches account and credit for your Authors hold that its only in the power of Oecumenical Sinods to define which are the Scriptures and for this time there was no such a Sinod called The first Sinod that I finde delivering the Canon of Scripture was that of Laodicea held about the year 364. Afterwards the third Council of Carthage both Provincial Sinods only though afterwards confirmed in a General Council 3. Upon what account or credit doth your Church take up this truth that the Scriptures are the Word of God Sure you are so great an Enemy to Spiritists that you will not think of extraordinary Revelations or Enthusiasms I hardly think that ever the Holy Ghost fell upon your Popes or Councils in fiery Tongues or that they had either visions or dreams nor do I think that you will say that your Church propoundeth the Canon of Scripture meerly upon the supposal of former practise that former Churches did allow and believe the Scriptures now received are Canonical for this is only a testimony concerning matter of fact in which 't is confessed the Pope may erre through wrong informations There may be spurious Canons foisted into former Councils like Pope Zozimus Canon of the Nicene Council whereby he maintained his Supremacy I therefore suppose that your judgment must be that your Church assisted by the Spirit doth from internal notes of Scripture conclude the divine authority thereof Hence 't is that Councils proceed by argument and reason and there is an acknowledgment of the truth before they proceed to definition or Decree Now if the Church take up Scripture upon this account that she through the assistance of Gods Spirit discerns the notes and marks of Gods Word why may not a Christian by the same assistance discover these notes and so believe that the Scriptures are Gods Word upon the same account that the Church takes up this beliefe though withal he doth and ought to reverence and highly account of the judgment of the Church or Pastors of it as that which hath a Priority and is an occasion of Christians private judgment and a confirmation of it yet as I hinted before it must not be denied that Christians have a divine light in themselves being taught of God Joh. 6.45 which is for the discovery of divine objects as natural light or reason is for the discovery of natural This Bellarmine confesseth saying Bellar. de lumine fid Conc. 1. Quemadmodum omnes homines c. As all men are indued with a certain natural light whereby they understand the first principles to be true without labour without arguments nor is there any that demands reasons and arguments when those principles are propounded So also all Christians enlightened by God with a certain divine and supernatural light do acknowledg the first principles of our Faith though difficult and exceeding reason to be most true Origen in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he proves the Divinity of Scriptures by divers arguments Origen lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 1. as Protestants do hath a notable speech to this purpose Si quis cum omni judicio c. If any one doth judiciously and with that reverence that is meet consider of the Sacred Writ while he reads and diligently searcheth into it most certainly having his minde and senses affected with some divine inspiration he acknowledgeth that the word he reads is not the word of men but of God and of himselfe perceives ex semetipso sentiet that these books are written not by humane art or mortal eloquence but by the hand of God Thus I suppose it was with the first Christians of whom you cannot say that they believed the books of Scripture to be the Word of God meerly because the Apostles and others held them they were so but upon other account this overthrows your Position What I have said of the Scriptures may be said of other points of Faith that they are not taken up meerly or mainly upon the Churches credit and account but rather because God hath revealed them in his Word wherein they are therefore written that we might have a sure argument for our Faith But I come to your next inference 2 Consequence or Conclusion Whatsoever comes upon any other score is to be reputed Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of faith Magna Diana Romanorum Great is your Roman Goddess but its only with the Shrine-makers of Rome your conclusion is very high but notoriously false For 1. It s not the Churches definition that makes any book Apocriphal but the want of divine inspiration in those who wrote them so that whatsoever is not written by the Prophets or Apostles the Subjects of divine inspiration that is certainly Apocriphal whether the Church receive them or not Hence many of your learned men reject those books as Apocriphal which the Council of Trent declared to be Canonical the Apostle saith All Scripture is by divine inspiration 2 Tim. 3.16 the Scriptures of the Old Testament are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Pet. 1.19 read Luke 24.27 2. It was six hundred years after Christ before any General Council delivers the Canon of Scripture now will you say that till that time the books of Scripture were Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith 3. The Spirit of God may work Faith in the Soule while it is reverently reading the Word of God without the testimony of the Church the person for the present being ignorant what the Church teacheth of particular points this is clear by the place of Origen even now mentioned Lyranus speaks of a teaching of the Spirit Lyran. in 1 Joh. 2.27 Vbi deficit humana Doctrina 4. When the Thessalonians received the Apostles Doctrine not as the word of men but as the Word of God Greg. Analus fid lib. 1. c. 15. was this Doctrine no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith Your Gregory of Valence confesseth Multa sunt c. There are many points of Christian Doctrine which of themselves can procure to themselves credit and authority Lastly the Greek Church with the reformed Churches receive all the Articles of the Apostles Creed because consonant to Gods Word not because delivered by your Roman Diana are those Articles therefore to be reputed Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith Sure you cannot be so impudent as to assert it though we know Jesuitical impudency is not little For your Scriptures Sect. 2. When I see them reduced to arguments I shall
you say the Scriptures declare not that its lawfull to eat strangled meats and blood Answ 1. The Scriptures declare that every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving 1 Tim. 4.4 And that Christians are not to be judged for their eating of any meats Col. 2.16 So it be not with the offence of our brother who is weak thus Lyra on that decree of the Apostles concerning strangled meats and blood saith Those who were newly converted from Judaisme did abhor these meats Lyran. in Acts 5.20 and therâ—fore although it was meat that lawfully might be eaten yet for their sakes the Gentiles were commanded to abstain from as a man is to abstain from that meat which is hateful to his companion but afterwards the cause ceasing through the clear discovery of the Gospel the effect ceased And this Gospel light he fetcheth from Math. 15. and 1 Tim. 4. both which are Scripture 2. It may be questioned whether it be necessary to salvation to beleeve that things strangled blood may be lawful to be eaten The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink we are not justified by meat It s weaknesse to think any meat unlawful Rom. 14.2 but not heretical the eating or refusing of meats is of that kind of things quae dubium est quo animo fiant not of those quae non possunt bono animo fiâ—ri as Augustine distinguisheth Thus much for answer to your reason and its confirmation Lastly In the close of your Chapter you bring an argument to prove that Spiritists do not make the Scriptures a rule of their belief 't is this Were Scripture the rule of their belief though it contain divers truths yet those truths meeting and becoming one in revelation they wo ld all perfectly agree not only Lutherans amo g themselves Zuinglians among themselves Calvenists among themselves but likewise Lutherans with Zuinlians c. It being the property of unitie to unite and make one all that conform to the same Answ 1. You suppose that all they who acknowledg one Rule must perfectly agree amongst themselves which is evidently false an exact walking according the same rule is not attainable by any society on this side heaven For 1. All have not the same measure of knowledg whereby they should understand exactly every point in Scripture many things are Scriptural by consequence which must be found out by argument and are hardlier understood than other things Though in some places of Scripture a Lamb may wade yet in others an Elephant may swim The Apostle saith Let us as many as be perfect be thus minded if in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same rule c. Phil. 3.15.16 It s a perfection an high attainment for Christians to be perfectly one Yea it s a priviledg of another life Rhem. annot on Phil. 3.15 where knowledg becomes perfect Eph. 4.13 with 1 Cor. 13. The Rhemists acknowledg this as the judgment of Saint Paul acknowledging that in this imperfection of mens science in this life everie one cannot be free from all error or think the same that another thinketh whereupon may arise difference of understanding opinion and Judgment in certa n hard matters which God hath not revealed or the Church determined and therefore that such diversity is tollerable and agreeable to our humane condition and the state of the way that we be in 2. All have not the same measure of grace and freedome from corruption and passions which prevail to draw men from a conformity to the same rule Some are of a crosse and peevish temper subject to a spirit of contradiction maintaining errors lest they should seem to be overcome by others or not to have been so sound as others are Passion had a great influx upon the differences of our first reformers nor are you free from this evil this Spirit of contradiction You reject clear expositions of Scripture because we approve of them When Augustine comparing the Jewish and Christian Sacraments saith fuerunt c. they were divers in the signs but alike in the thing signified grounding his speech upon 1 Cor. 10.3 Maldonate answers I am perswaded if Augustine had lived in our age he would have thought otherwise especially perceiving the heretical Calvinists to be of of his opinions And he further adds I rather approve my own exposition than that of Augustin because this is more contradictory to the Calvinists Mald. in Joan. 6. 2. Your selves acknowledg one Rule the Church yet cannot truly say that all Papists do perfectly agree I shall shew the contrary hereafter 3. Though Protestants differ about particular truths yet they all agree in this that whatsoever God reveals to them in Scripture they are bound to beleeve it Herein Lutherans Zuinghans and Calvenists as you name them do fully agree 4. You falsly and ignorantly suggest to your seduced followers that the Protestant Churches are full of divisions and disagreements Calvenists differing amongst themselves and from Lutherans c. Sir I pray you read the harmonious confessions of Protestant Churches and if by them you be not convinced of error in your next give us some catalogues of those divided and sub-divided differences you generally mention till then we shall suspend our belief of you Your reason in these words It being the property of unitie to unite c. is a piece of non-sence If you had mentioned Rule instead of unity it had been most true but nothing to purpose It is the property of a rule to unite and make one all that conform to it So that to the making up of this unity there must not only be an exact rule but a perfect conformity to it in them whom it doth concern which perfect conformity canot be yeelded by any living man to the Word of God because of ignorance and corruption which remain in the very best of men The conclusion of your Argument needs no answer the Premises being overthrown What you say of our doing homage to Luther Calvin and Zuinglius's fancy is simple and false You know we abhor a blind obedience and an implicite faith The books our people read ordinarily are not Luther Calvin or Zuinglius's works but the sacred Scriptures by which we examine all writings even their 's you now mention if we meet with them We look upon Luther Calvin and Zuinglius as eminent lights in the Church of God not as Gods We say not Dominus Deus noster Calvinus c. as some of you have said of your Pope We acknowledg them indued with the Spirit but not infallibly inspired as holders forth of an old light hid under a Romish bushel not as introducers of any new one as reformers not innovators We reverence them as pious men now with the Lord but neither pray to them nor keep holidays for them our homage we
both to pray with him and to anoint him which is far from the ceremony of extream unction thus far Cajetan 3. Saint James's unction is no Sacrament it neither pretends to the name of Sacrament nor refers to any express institution of Jesus Christ which is the property of Evangelicall Sacraments but Popish unction assumeth to it self this name and that in a proper acception against both Scripture and antiquitie Scripture mentioning onely Christs institution of Baptisme and the Supper and antiquity when it speaks of proper Sacraments doing no more Rabanus Maurus who lived about 800 years ago acknowledgeth no more but Baptisme and the Lords Supper Hence I conclude that Protestants though opposite to Popish fopperies are not contrary to Apostolicall Doctrine 11. Inst The Bishop of Romes supremacie in spirituall matters Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church Feed my sheep To thee will I give the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven whatsoever thou shalt tie on earth shall be tied in Heaven Matth. 16. Answ 1. Why do you seperate the Popes Spirituall from his Temporall power for we deny both and they are alike expressed in Scripture but 2. The Popes Supremacy in Spirituall matters is not in plain and formall tearms here expressed for 1. Here is no mention of any Pope or his Supremacy in Spirituall matters here is mention of Peter but few of your Popes have had that name 2. What is commanded and promised to Peter is commanded and promised to him not as Bishop of Rome but as an Apostle and therefore the same is commanded and promised to other Apostles The other Apostles are foundations as well as Peter and I am sure he is not the corner stone The keyes are promised to them as well as to him John 20.22 23. the other Apostles are to feed Christs sheep as well as he yea it is the duty of all Pastors Act. 20.28 3. What reason can be given why Peters supremacy should descend upon his Successors at Rome rather then his successors at Antioch 4. If Peter had any supremacy it was in regard of Apostleship so as to be the prime Apostle and have power over the rest but Apostolike power is not derived by succession upon any The truth is Peter had no power over the rest from Christ for Christs gift of such a power would have prevented the Apostles contention about supremacy or would have answered the question better then those words wherewith Christ did answer He might easily have said why do you strive which should be greatest know you not that I have made Peter your Prince and have made him Supreme but Christ thought of no such matter Thus I have shewed that Protestants do not professe a Doctrine contrary to the Apostles and I further adde that the Apostles doctrine expressed in Scripture is fully received by them We believe all that the Apostles have taught so far as God reveals their Doctrine to us It s therefore a most false slander to say that Protestants refuse some points the Apostles beleeved p. 65. We hold the Catholique faith entire and inviolate in Athanasius's sence we fully believe all the Articles of its Creed It s true we deny divers points that Papists believe we dislike the new articles of your late Creed which Athanasius as well as we received not into his Creed nor were they believed by the Apostles But you object sect 5. It is evident they were there being the same ground to assure us thereof as of Scripture or any other point they believed and that without which under a miracle there would not be the least knowledg of the Apostles belief to wit the Churches constant tradition Answ 1. It s most evident that the points Protestants deny were not believed by the Apostles For 1. The Scriptures mention them not the writings of the Apostles approve not of communion in one kind private masse prayer in an unknown tongue imagined worship auricular confession pardons indulgences restraint of people from reading Scripture or Clergy-men from marriage Popes infallibility sumpreamacy of temporal and spiritual power purgatory prayer for the dead or to Saints departed c. 2. The ancient Creeds do not mention any of these points which they would certainly have done if the Apostles had beleeved them much lesse do they make them necessary articles of faith See Caranz de concil conc Nic. p. 51. Syrm. p. 89. Constant p. 102. Tollet p. 131. Ephes p. 151. Calced p. 181. Read the Creeds of the Apostles of the Nicen Fathers of Syrmium Constantinople Tolet. Ephesus which Caranza calls a summe of all Christian Doctrine of the Romans with divers others and you shall not find one of your new articles so much as hinted in any of them 2. The proof of your evident assertion contains divers falsities as 1. That the Scripture is known only by Tradition or humane testimony whereas it gives testimony to it self as I have before shewed 2. That without the Churches constant tradition there would not be the least knowledg of the Apostles belief For 1. God can make the enemies of his Church the publishers and propagators of his truth Thus Cajetan notes that by the Apostacy and obstinacy of the Jews we know which are the true books of the old Testament 2. The Scriptures might be preserved though there should be a general apostacy and these could testifie of the Apostles belief 2 Reg. 22.8 as that book found in the days of Josiah testified of Moses's commands and threatnings 3. Christians for a long time had not the Churches Tradition i. e. the testimony of a general Councill informing them what was the Apostles belief or which were the books of Scripture 3. Those points of yours I mentioned cannot be evidenced to be the Apostles belief by the Churches constant tradition you cannot name one Author in every age since the Apostles out of whose writings you can prove that the Apostles maintained those Doctrines which we reject much lesse are you able to tell us of any visible Church or national Councill that will affirm it Concil Const Sess 13. The Councill of Constance acknowledgeth that Christ administred the Sacrament under both kinds and that the Primitive Christians did receive it under both kinds Can we then think that the Apostles thought communion under both kinds unlawfull How then durst he so administer it Was his practise contrary to his belief This would be a great wickedness not to be imagined of an Apostle 4. We approve of the Churches tradition as a witness of what the Apostles believed but only in subserviency to Scripture which doth principally discover what was the Apostles belief if your Councills had told us that the Apostles administred not the Sacrament in both kinds or that they allowed of prayers in an unknown tongue we would not beleeve your Councills because the Scripture speaks contrary to them and
please God as if all the Saints of God who were married cannot please God or that of Harding that by Peters Sword is meant the Popes Civil Power or that of the Lawyers that by Cardines terrae 1 Sam. 2.8 are figured the Cardinals by whose Counsel the Church of Rome is governed See Willets third Pillar of Popish Doctrine yea and such as are grounded upon base and exorbitant passion as where they reject the Expositions of Fathers meerly in opposition to Protestants See Maldon in Joan. 9.62 and Bellarm. l. 1. de extr Vnct. c. 2. init both which reject a generally received Exposition because the Protestants entertain it 4. The Scripture it self rightly used and judged gives sufficient information of it's owne meaning especially in fundamental points which are plain and easie to him who useth discretion in searching of it If it were not thus to what purpose did holy Writers set Pen to Paper Yea and write not only to Bishops and Pastors but to private Christians also It were a vain thing to write so as that those they wrote to could understand nothing of their meaning besides it 's more then probable that the Apostles Preaching was of the same obscurity with their writing To this you give us this answer The Apostles did set Pen to Paper for a greater confirmation of the truth to bear witness to the sincerity and candor of the Churches teaching and preaching and not for every one to be his own carver and interpreter Repl. 1. Your answer is more for than against us for who are they that must have the truth confirmed to them and must have a witness to assure them that the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is sincere and candid are they not the People who are commanded to try the Spirits 1 Joh. 4.1 and are commended for searching the Scriptures to find whether what the Apostles Preached was the truth Act. 17.11.12 How can the Scriptures witness to them that the Pastors of the Church teach truth if they cannot understand the Witnesses language or what confirmation can we have of truth if we must not meddle with that which is the Rule and Touchstone of Truth The Apostle Peter commends Christians for giving heed to the Scriptures 2 Ep. 1.19 calling them a light shining in a dark place whereby he demonstrates their clearness and conspicuity even to private Christians giving heed thereto 2. Your words make much against your selves for they imply 1. That the truth is more confirmed by Scripture than by the Church therefore the Church as to confirmation of truth is inferiour to Scripture 2. That the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is not to be believed upon that account but because of it's consent with Scripture it receives its evidence of sincerity and candor from Scripture both which are certain truths but not agreeable to your Positions 3. That the Scriptures are to be translated into those Tongues People can understand else they cannot be assured of the truth by them nor can the Scriptures be a witness to them of the sincerity and candor of the Churches teaching and preaching Can an idiot know by Aristotles Greek works whether Expositors deal sincerely and candidly in their commenting on him or at his works a greater confirmation of Philosophicall truths to such a one than their Commentaries If you have any ingenuity you cannot affirm it 4. That the Scriptures are the rule of Faith whereby even the Churches teaching is to be tried 5. Whereas you say the Apostles did not set pen to paper For every one to be his own Carver and interpreter reply 1. The Apostles did therefore write that every one might hear Rev. 2.7.17.29 and give heed thereto 2 Pet. 1.19 and understand and beleeve John 20.31 yea and might teach them their children 2 Tim. 3.15 wtih 1.5 and others related to them Acts 18.24.26 Aquila and Priscilla instruct Apoâ—â—os in the way of the Lord which was done by interpreting Scripture to him concerning those points wherewith he was not well acquainted and yet Burgensis saith of them that they were simple persons persons of no great learning nor eminency in the Church excepting for piety 2 'T is true that the Apostles did not write with an intent that every one should wrest it as the Apostle saith some did 2 Pet. 3.16 which may be applied as well to Clergy men as private Christians but they intended an application of it to Christians particular use and that even by themselves privately and not onely publikely But you urge for this you have said It was ever held an effect of great improvidence and occasion of intollerable confusion for the people in any Common-wealth to have the freedom of construing the Law therefore wise Lawmakers to shew their care and foresight for the good and weal-publick as they caused their Laws to be written so they appointed certain select persons of integritie and abilitie to dispence the same If this be true as it is c. Resp. 1. It s most false that you say It was ever held c. Tholosanus tells you that Advocates are of little use in Poland Tholos syntag juris L. 49. c. 6. Sect. 29 Azor. inst Moral part 3. l. 13. cap. 29. dub 2. but every man is admitted to plead his own cause Himself and other Casuists when they tell who is prohibited from being Advocate do not exclude private men from pleading their own cause See Tholos and Ararius who are so far from holding it an effect of great improvidence c. that they allow it You finde the Apostle Paul pleading for himself Acts 24.12 13 18 19. and 25. and 10 11. in both which places the Apostle pleads for himself and that by Law which he interprets for himself Now he would never have done this had he thought it an effect of great improvidence or an occasion of intollerable confusion as you suggest it Advocates do not substantially but accidentally intervene in publick judicatories as Zorius speaks Sup. cap. 12. init Now that which onely accidentally intervenes may sometimes not intervene 2. The reason you give of Law-makers appointing certain select persons of integrity and ability to dispence the Laws it s an occasion of intellerable confusion c. Is not the proper reason of that appointment but rather the true and main reason is this All men are not able to understand the meaning and sence of Law though some may be able now a good Law maker doth consult the welfare of the meanest subject If some men should handle their own cause they would indanger it through their unskilfulness of Law and the subtilty of the adversaries So that the danger is not so much confusion and disorder as the prejudice of civil and particular rights every man not being able to deal with every adversary nor to understand every case in Law 3. All that you say makes onely against a publick pleading in Courts of Judicature which doth not take away private mens
and so many that they require strong memories to retain them 2. Law-makers are not able to comprehend all particular cases that may happen nor do they use to declare the meaning of the Law unless occasionally in some doubtfull cases for it is supposed that the Law when delivered is clear and manifest at least in the substantials of it 3. Judges do not alwayes look so far as to the Law-makers but to the practice of former Courts grounded upon right reason which is indeed the foundation of all just and good Lawes 2. You answer with respect to the Church The Church besides the Letter of Scripture which she reads assiduously with watching fasting and prayer for a right and happie understanding thereof and her own reasoning hath the help of a better and sure tradition and the assistance of the Holy Ghost Reply 1. What you mean by the Church here is hard to guess I fear your commendations will not well agree to Popes and the rest of your Ecclesiasticall Grandees their other imployments are so great and their affection to Scripture in comparison of humane Traditions so little and their devotedness to the Expositions of others so absolute that I cannot believe that they read Scripture assiduously with watching fasting Prayer and for your common people they must not take that pains about Scripture if they would so that you must either give us another definition of Church then you do page 73. or acknowledge that the Church doth not reade the Letter of Scripture assiduously with watching c. 2. What ever you speak of the Church may be as truely spoken of particular Christians they are capable of reading the Scriptures with the use of fasting watching Prayer they have reason whereby they can discern truth from errour they are also capable of using that which you call a better and surer Tradition and the assistance of the Spirit is as truely with them as with those you call Church And therefore I shall conclude with you leaving what I have said to the impartiall Reader desiring him to judge by it whether private Christians being rationall men yea men indued with Gods Spirit and thereby capable of understanding the Will of God in the Scriptures may not according to the ability given them and in their places seek for and deliver the sence of Scripture and whether this be any undervaluing of Gods Wisedome and Providence or do directly tend to absurd and extravagant impieties CHAP. XI Of the Roman Church BY the word ROMAN say you are not only comprised the inhabitants of that particular territory of Rome but likewise all Christians in the World that acknowledg the Bishop of Rome for their chief Pastor appointed by Christ to govern his flock Answ 1. It may well be doubted what acknowledgment you mean whether an acknowledgment de facto or de jure only If you mean by Roman Church are only comprised those who do actually acknowledg the Bishop of Rome for their chief Pastor you overthrow its universality It is not then Catholique for only a part of the West makes this acknowledgment The Eastern Church wholly and a great part of the Western do disclaim his supremacy and worship not the image of the beast nor receive his name in their foreheads Yea if you consult antiquity you shall find that there never was an actual acknowledgment of the Pope as chief Pastor by all Christian Churches There were other Patriarchs besides him who had their several distinct limits Azor. inst mor. p. 2. l. 3. c. 35. q. 5. viz. the Patriarchs of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem Some of whose limits were no lesse then the Roman Patriarchs and whose power did extend to the constituting ordaining and confirming Bishops Archbishops and other Ecclesiastical officers as your Azorius testifies yea so independent was the power of each of them upon other that none of them was to meddle in anothers Patriarchat as its proved out of the Councill of Constantinople Can 2. by the learned Scultetus who also clearly explains the sixt Canon of the Councill of Nice to this purpose Scult Synlag medul Theol. Patr. p. 418. and answers the objections that Papists make against it All that Azorius gives to the Pope is this Inter Patriarchas c. Amongst the Patriarchs the Pope of Rome was chief to whom as Patriarch the Western Provinces and many Ilands in the mediterranian sea towards the West were subject Here is priority of Order but no supreamacy of power over the other Patriarches the Bishop of Rome had power over all the Cities and places about Rome as the Nicen Creed hath it but not over his fellow Patriarchs or their Cities c. His power was provincial not oecumenicall 2. If you mean that by Roman are comprised those who ought to acknowledg the Pope for their chief Pastor it will remain to be resolved who those are whether some particular part of the Christian World or the whole The former you cannot grant but overthrow universality and set Roman against Catholique which you are use to conjoyn in their predication of the Church The later we cannot admit till you can effect an impossibility in proving that in the language of the Ancients the Catholique Church was couched under the word Roman It is evident that a particular Church is sometimes by the Ancients dignified with a general and common attribute and are called Catholique Churches but I never read that the universal Church is couched under a particular appellation as a proper predicate thereof I say A proper predicate For I acknowledg that the Church in Scripture is called Sion and Jerusalem but these are only figurative expressions of it it is never called the Church of Sion or the Church of Jerusalem though it might rather be called so then the Church of Rome or the Roman Church the Scripture never takes notice of Rome when it speaks of the Catholique Church except as an enemy 2. Notwithstanding I shall suppose that you mean of them that actually submit to the Pope and thus you distinguish the Roman Church from all schismatical companies of Christians whether Protestants or others This company say you together with the said Bishop compose and make up the true Catholique Church Answer 1. The truth of this will appear by your arguments which you bring for the proof of it The arguments are these which I shall consider of in the order I finde them propounded 1. Argument That company of Christians compose and make up the true Catholique Church to which the definition of the true Catholique Church doth agree but the definition of the true Catholique Church doth agree to the above mentioned company therefore they compose and make up the true Catholique Church p. 72. 73. Answ If you speak of an exact and perfect definition wherein the definition is adequate to the thing defined agreeing fully to it and not to any thing else I subscribe to your major proposition but deny
but one numericall body and the three continents are but parts of the same place 2 Nor the second for first voice or sound is no body Secondly it is a question whether it be one and the same voice that comes to thousands of ears at once or a multiplied voice or sound Magyr Physiol l. 6. c. 8. Com. ad finem see Magyrus where the contrary is asserted upon this very ground Thirdly the place of sound or its proper subject is the Aire not mens ears 3 Nor yet the third for there is not one body really in two places no more than if one man were pictured in severall frames neither of which bears any resemblance of this Phylosophy of reall bodies Fourthly you answer Should we believe onely that which we understand there would not be any belief in us of mysteries of faith they being all above the reach of humane capacity Reply 1. If knowledge or understanding were not necessary to faith why hath faith the name of knowledge given it in Scripture Isai 53.11 and John 17.3 If faith be an assent as Papists tell us then faith doeth necessarily require knowledge for we must know what is truth if we believe that it is so I confess there are some things which in some respects are not fully conceivable but for those we have an express Word of God informing us of them which is the ground of our faith but this we have not for a carnall presence in many places and therefore cannot command our belief of it Fifthly by way of answer you introduce an objection against the Polytopie of Christs body but is directly against bodily presence in any place It is taken from the strange irreverencies and absurdities which would ensue thereof as to be subject to the eating and tearing in piecs of dâ—gs cats mice and to the abuse of wicked me and miscreants to which you answer He that is of power to render a body really present in severall places at once witâ—out doubt is able to defend and keep the same from all outrages as God is pleased to do in this mystery by removing locall extension and by consequenâ—e possibility by means whereof dogs cats and mice can onely tear and destroy the accidents of bread and wine Reply first the foundation is already overthrown Secondly I believe you are not perswaded that Gods power is imployed about Christs body to keep it from irreverences if you were why is it that you dare not give the Cup to the people is not God able to prevent drops of the blood from sticking to the peoples beards or falling to the ground Why do you make an invisible body to prevent the faithfull's loathing and the profane's scorning of the Ordinance is not God able to keep the faithfull from loathing flesh and blood visibly and really appearing such as well as intellectually represented to their understandings if Gods power must support one absurdity why may it not another 3 Though you speak irrationally of tearing the species of bread and wine yet others of your fraternitie speak plainly of the body of Christ Among the penitentiall Canons in the end of the old editions of the Roman Decree Can. 39. are these words Quando muâ— corrodit aut comedit Corpus Christi c. i. e. When a mouse gnaweth or eateth the body of Christ c. he saith not the species of bread and wine but the very body of Christ And in the new Mass book t is said De defect circa Missam occurrent c. 3. Sect. 7. Si Hostia Consecrata c. If the consecrated Host vanish away by some accident as if it be carried away with the wind or by some miracle or eaten up by some beast and cannot be found then let another be consecrated I suppose your Host or Sacrifice is not the meer species of bread and wine but the body of Christ Now this Host it seemes may be blown away with the winde or be eaten of beasts sure you take calm weather and tie up your beasts when you goe in Procession Ib. c. 10. Sect. 14. What should I speak of your vomiting and against licking up the vomited Host or in case of loathing putting it up for a relique such stuff is fit for such beasts as return to their vomit or lye wallowing in the mire 2. You answer to the Objection Wicked men and miscreants offer violence to the same but not hurt or anoy the Body of Christ no more then he were of force to wrong the Godhead that surprised with a raging fit should strike at the aire with an intention to do him mischief Reply Every thing you say ads to the miracle Christ hath a body to be eaten that yet is not seen nor tasted nor passible yea is like unto God or a Spirit that cannot be hit or wounded What could Eutiches have said more Doth not this prove that Christs body is no real body but only imaginary and phantastical or if real yet it s not according to your doctrine really present Will it follow that because God or another spiritual Substance is impassible by humane force therefore a true natural body is so to It must be Popish Logick that will make this a good Consequence 3. You answer Admit these pretended inconveniences should follow that the body of Christ should be eaten and torn in pieces of dogs bats mice c. I do not conceive there could be inferr'd any other then a continuation of that ardent love of Christ which he shewed to man when he estranged himself from his Eternal Father to bear with patience and mildness hunger cold whippings spittings thorns and last of all the bitter and disgraceful death of the Cross Reply 1. This ardent Love of Christ to man cannot be from hence inferred All sufferings of Christ are not the effects of his ardent Love What Love of Christ is manifested in wicked mens crucifying to themselves afresh the Son of God Heb. 6.6 10.29 and putting him to an open shame or in their treading under foot the Son of God and accounting the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing and doing despight to the Spirit of grace What Love of Christ is manifested when his body is torn in pieces of dogs cats mâ—ce or blown away with the wind or spued out of some drunken Priests mouth and lickt up again It s a most evident truth that those sufferings of Christ only are the expressions of his love which do tend to mans redemption and salvation and without which these could not be attained Of this kind were the sufferings of Christ by the Jews and Romans in the time of his incarnation Hence are those expressions The Love of God is shed abroad in our hearts Rom. 5.5 6 7 8 Gal. 3.13 14 Isai 53.4 c. for when we were yet without strengh in due time Christ dyed for the ungodly God commendeth his love to us in that when we were yet sinners Christ dyed for
us Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a curse for us that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles Surely he hath born our griefs carried our sorrows He was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed All which refer to this state of humiliation from which we have long since passed I would have L. B. or any Papist to shew me what benefit we have by these sufferings or how they tend to our redemption and salvation When dogs cats mice eat and tare in pieces Christ's body or a weak stomackt Priest spues up the body of Christ into some filthy place are we advantaged hereby or can we glory in these sufferings in this Cross of Christ 2. There may be other things infer'd as 1. That the Priest that either through negligence suffers Christs body to be torn in pieces of dogs cats mice or that willingly deliver it to wicked men and miscreants is a Judas a betrayer of Christ and you may know him by his sop dipt in the wine which none of the people partake of 2. That the Jews and heathenish Romans were more mercifull to Christ then the present Priests and Pharisees of Rome Antichristian Those delivered him into the hands of men these give him into the mouths of dogs cats mice Those preserved him whole not breaking a bone of him these tare him in pieces by wild beasts Those gave him an honourable interment He made his grave with the rich these buried him in the bellyes of beasts or cast him into the draught 2. I come to shew the contrariety of this Doctrine to Scripture 1. Some Scriptures affirm that Christ is in Heaven and must be contained there till the restitution of all things Acts 3.21 That the Apostle Heb. 9.24 gives the reason of it He is entred into Heaven it â—elf now to appear in the presence of God for us which is the work of the High Priest within the vaile and Primasius to this purpose saith Introire autem Iesum c. We say that Jesus is entred into Heaven according to his Manhood Primas apud Lyr. in Heb. 9.12 for as God he is every where Again Joh. 16.28 I come forth from the Father and am come into the world again I leave the world and go to the Father If you ask how he left the world the Interlineary truely tells you he did it Corporali discessione non gubernatiâ—ne presentiae By a removall of his body c. He speaks of his local removing not of his lying hid in the world Indeed ver 16. he speaks of his invisibility A little while and ye shall not see me but the reason was not because he would goe up and downe hid under the forms and species of bread and wine but because he went to the Father as Theophilact from the Text doth truely note Yea further we finde the Scripture expresly denying his presence on earth and that by a weightie reason Heb. 8.4 If he were on earth he should not be a Priest is he could not perform all the rites of his Priesthood For some of them require his presence in the Holy of Holies and there he could not be if he were on earth this is clearly the Apostles Argument Christ could not be in the state of humiliation and exaltation at one and the same time if he be in that state he is not in that too 2. We finde the Scriptures expresly denying that Christs corporall presence is in divers places at once Matth. 28.6 He is not here for he is risen which were no reason if your Doctrine were good for he might be there and risen too To conclude there is not any part of Gods Word which gives the least countenance or incouragement to this Popish absurditie You answer The Word of God is plain and express for the presence of Christs body in the Sacrament and consequently in many places at once Reply You truly infer that if Christs body be really present in the Sacrament it must needs be in many places at once but this presence is not plainly and expresly delivered in Scripture The word This is my body which you mention do neither plainly nor expresly deliver it There are two things oppose your exposition of those words 1 The judgement of Fathers Tertul. lib. 4. contr Marc. c. 40. L. 3. c. 19. Theod. Dial. 1. 2. Aug. c. 12. contr Adimant Ep. 23. ad Bonif Concil Carth. 3. Can. 24. Bellarm. l. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. Vasq in 3. part Thom. disp 180. t. 5. Cajet in 3. Thom. q. 75. Schoolmen and others Tertullian Theodoret and Augustine understand the words figuratively The third Councill of Carthage saith that here is in the Sacraments no more offered to God than bread and wine mingled with water c. Scotus affirms Non exstare c. That there is not any place of Scripture so express that without the Churches Declaration it can evidently compell us to admit Transubstantiation And this saith Bellarmine is not altogether improbable Yea Vasques further tells us that Scotus affirmed That the truth of these words of Consecration may be retained although the substance of bread and wine should remain in the Eucharist and blames certain professours of Divinitie that side with him and in speciall Cardinall de Alliaio for affirming that this way is possible and neither contrary to reason nor the authority of Scriptures yea its easier to be understood and more rationall than any other of this judgement is also Cajetan 2. Reason which teacheth first that neither one desperate can predicate of another i. e. as you express it when two distinct things of different kinds are affirmed of each other which you say cannot be true nor one thing of it self in the same consideration or respect and whereas you say that the body of Christ out of the Sacrament before the words began is affirmed to be in the Sacrament after they are ended This is not plainly or expresly delivered in the words of Christ for he must either have said That which was my body before the Sacrament is now my body in the Sacrament or this was my body before the Sacrament In saying This and is he informs us that he speaks of the Subject in its present capacity and therefore some by This understand Bread which is most agreeable to the context Christ took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat This is my body That which Christ took blessed brake and gave to them was Bread 1 Cor. 10.16 Now this is predicated improperly of Christs body Thus Christ is called a Doore John 10.7 a Rocke 1 Cor. 10.4 Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17.10 The Sacramentall Cup is called the New Testament in Christs blood Luk. 22.20 I pray satisfie me what may be the reason why
Spiritus c. They are Spirit as if he should say the words I have spoken have a Spirituall sence and so they vivifie they have a Spirituall understanding the flesh of Christ is eaten in this Sacrament in a spiritual manner Your pleas for this opinion are vain 1. You say The question was not what says he that they knew would be trifling and ridiculous Christ having immediately before confirmed the signification of his first words This is my Body By other latter Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you shall have no life in you and they both heard and understood the language he spake in Reply 1. Pray where are those first words This is my Body You shut your eyes and laid aside your honesty when you brought them in as spoken by Christ before his supposed answer But suppose them there tell us next how those latter words doe confirme the signification of them 2. When you tell us they knew what he said and both heard and understood the language he spake in you will shew your self a notorious trifler Wil it follow that because they knew his words heard understood his language that therfore they understood his meaning I trow not Those that read the hard of places of Pauls Epistles did both hear understand the language he spake in yet knew not his meaning and therefore wrested them to their own perdition The Jews both heard and understood the language Christ delivered his parables in yet it was not given them to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven Nicodemus understood Christs language but not his meaning about regeneration You cannot deny but the Laity may both hear and understand the language whereinto the Scriptures are translated yet their private Spirit must not think of understanding the Scriptures meaning Thus though these Capernaits might and did understand his language yet they did remaine ignorant of their true meaning as all prudent Expositors confess and your Rhemists expresly affirm saying Their gross and carnal conceiving of his words of his flesh and the manner of eating the same was unprofitable which is plain by the sentence following where he warneth tâ—em that his words be spiri life of high mystical meaning and not vulgarly and grosly to be taken as they took them 2. You adde Therefore except you will say that Christ answered not to the purpose his scope and aime must be to declare his power to the â—nd to convince the Capernaits that he was full able to perform what he said Reply 1. If you will have it the aim of Christ to declare his power to perform what he said and that directly in answer to the Caperâ—aits question you must grant that Christ did declare his ability to give them his body cut mangled into pieces for so they understand the eating of his flesh and thereupon grounded their question How can this man give us his flesh cut and mangled into pieces for the effecting of this they expected a proof of his power if you will have it so Now this your selfe will grant impossible being contrary to the will of God the measure of his power therefore you must confess that Christ spake not to the purpose as you object against us Or grant as the truth is that they understood not Christ's meaning and therefore that he answered concerning the manner of their eating not his power of giving his flesh c. 2. We do not find how Christ declares any power in these words You answer He doth it effectually and home by saying my words are spirit A Spirit having strength and vertue to do more then all bodyes put together can either do or conceive Reply A goodly Argument and fit for your children that are content with stones in stead of bread Christ is a Spirit is he therefore able to give his flesh to be eaten then all Spirits have the same power But Sir why cannot a man a body give his flesh to be eaten carnally I see no difficulty in it nor need of any spiritual power to effect it if there be but Popish or other Cannibals that will eat it 2. How can the words of Christ be called a Spirit in your sence for you take not spirit for breath but properly Are words living and intelligent beings as Spirits are But I suppose this quaint Exposition was hammered out of your own brain and though it agrees neither with Fathers nor your elder brethren yet because it opposeth the wicked Calvinists you like it well And indeed so do I both because it shews you to be a most ingenious learned acute and reverend Expositor and also discovers the goodness of your cause that needs such Expositions Objection 2. The second Objection say you The Roman Church committeth idolatry in her adâ—ration at Mass bowing to the Name of Jesus Altars Images and Relicks You answer 1. By the Commandment Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any graven thing nor adore it Exod. 20. is neither forbid the Art of Engraving Carving Printing Painting Casting Sowing Embroydering nor yet all manner of religious honour to be given to creatures Reply 1. The Art of Engraving c. is certainly lawful yet the exercise of it hath its limitations which I conceive may be reduced to these two heads 1. That nothing be engraven c. but what ought to be engraven c. whereby is forbidden the engraving carving painting any lascivious pictures tending to excite lust but especially as to our purpose painting engraving and carving any images of the divine Persons thus Moses tells the Jews Ye heard the voice of the words but saw no similitude only ye heard a voyce Take ye therefore good heed unto your selves for ye saw no maÌ„ner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire lest ye corrupt your selves Deut. 4.14 15 16. and make you a graven image the similitude of any figure the likenesâ— of male and female c. For this reason Eusebius refused to send Constantia the Image of Christ Euseb Eccles l. 7. c. 17. and imputes the Erection of Christs Image to an heathenish Custome saying It is not any marvel at all that they which of the Gentiles were cured by our Saviour made and set up such things for the men of old of an Heathenish custome were wont to honour after this manner such as they counted Saviours Lorichius doth excellently set forth this Ger. Lorich instit Cathol in praecept fol. 95. Est praeterea abusus imaginum c. There is saith he besides an abuse of Images in that we presume to express the sacred Trinity which is truly a most pestilent heresie for what can be more contrary to the Holy Trinity then to paint the Father like a crooked old man the Son in the form of a young man and the Holy Ghost like a flying fowle What can Ideots learn from such a
fancies First prove that Christ hath communicated meritoriousness to mens actions and that this is one of his reall perfections and then we shall conclude that to acknowledge two perfections to Christ is to give more than to acknowledge one onely In the interim this may disswade us from believing you because Christ hath fully merited whatsoever is obtainable by a Christian either here or hereafter He hath purchased eternall redemption for us what need then of our purchasing that which is already fully paid for I will conclude with the speech of learned Rivet Meritum est personalis actio c. i. e. Merit is the personall action of the Son of God incommunicable to any of his members in regard of meriting which consists in the infinite vertue of the person meriting answerable to the excellent weight of glory Whereas therefore no simple creature is capable of this infinite vertue it will follow that Christ alone is the singular solitary and immediate cause of merit who hath therefore fully satisfied and merited whatsoever is necessary to us for salvation Rivet sum contra tract 4. 9. 17. Sect. 6. Object 2. It will be opposed all Actions besides Christs are duties and duties are inconsistent with merit Reply They are so without Covenant and acceptance so is obedience in a childe a servant a subject due to his Father his Master his Prince Nevertheless as a Father a Master a Prince making a compact to gratifie some particular act of his Childe his Servant his Subject innobles the same and intitles it to what was promised even so by the means of Gods Covenant 1 Tim. 4. Rom. 26. Hebr. 6. That he will reward certain actions of men though otherwise due and accept the same as worthy they become meritorious and their reward due upon this account Answ 1. It s Good sport to see what tuging there is amongst Papists about the ground of our actions meritoriousnes or whence it proceeds whether from Free-will as Aquinas Aquin. supr Dionys in Rom. 8.18 or from the Spirit the Fountain of good Actions as Dionysius Carthusiensis or from the habit of Charity as Azorius and Cajetan or from Divine Covenant as Scotus and some ancient Schoolmen or from the work it self as Soto Or lastly from the work it self together with the Divine compact as Bellarmine Bellarm. de Justif c. 5. lib. 17. This Author though first he mentioned Free-will yet he comes off to Covenant or compact Concil Senon decret 16. de fide apud Bennium and seems to lay all upon this and hereby as Vasquez acknowledgeth overthrows merit and condignitie which he hath been pleading for and indeed upon this account one of their Councels doth deny Condignity in these words Facietque tandem omnis misericordia c. At length mercy shall make way for every one according to the merit of their works not by absolute condignitie for the sufferings of this life are not condign to future glory but rather by the free and liberall promise of God c. Now if the promise of God be the foundation of our receiving Heaven and this promise be free then how can it be that because of this promise our works should be meritorious But leaving these boasters of unity to their hot disputes I answer secondly Gods Covenant doth not make our Actions cease to be duties for then it should nullifie the Law of God which doth injoyn acts of obedience as duties But we must not set Gods Covenant and his Law at variance as if contrary one to the other The truth is Gods free Covenant wherein for the sake of Jesus Christ he promiseth to believers salvation is an exciter of us unto obedience causing us to yield more freely and willingly than otherwise we should this is the Tenor of the Gospel Luke 1 68. c. Tit. 2 11. c. Here is first the purchase of Redemption salvation deliverance from the power of Satan and hereby an Obligation to duty A father promiseth a childe that he will make to him such lands freely this promise doth excite the child to do for his father what he commands him and to study in all things to please him whose love to him he is sensible of by the promise This the Apostle shews when he saith We lovâ— him because he loved us first Exod. 20. And indeed the morall Law runs thus I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt therefore thou shalt have none other gods before me Thus God said to Abraham I am the Almighty God walk before me and be thou perfect But because it may be thought that obedience is meritorious because God promiseth life upon it I further answer this will not follow For first Obedience such as the Law requires is not attainable by us since the fall and therefore the promise may refer to our obedience in the person of Christ whose obedience becomes ours whilest we apply our selves to him by Faith Or secondly if it refer to our personall obedience it doth respect our obedience onely as a disposition wrought by him in the Subject upon whom he will bestow life not as a proper cause of life As if a father should say If his childe please him be hopefull and take good wayes he will give him the inheritance this promise doth not suppose that the childs pleasing of his father or being hopefull and taking good wayes is the proper cause of his receiving the inheritance but it s his fathers good will that gives it him thus disposed and qualified thus it was with the Israelites God promiseth them Canaan onely requires that they should perform their duty to him as their God and Father Now should any one say that this promise made their obedience meritorious of Canaan the Scripture would contradict him which expresly saith Not for thy righteousness or for the uprightness of thine heart dost thou go to possess their land but for the wickedness of these Nations the Lord thy God doth drive them out before thee and that he may perform the word which the Lord sware unto thy Fathers c. Deut. 9.5 Thirdly God doth no where promise to accept of mens works as worthy of heaven or to give them a reward because their works are worthy or condignly meritorious or as your Rhemists speak Fully worthiâ— of everlasting life For if this were so there would be no room for grace for that which is fully worthy of somewhat hath an equality with the thing which is therefore due to it whether there be promise or no. The Texts you urge prove that God will give heaven to men in the way of godliness patient continuance in well doing c. But they cannot prove that godlyness or well doing are the proper cause of our enjoying heaven the reward being hundred fold more than what we do your instances are short of proof for it for if that Act required of a servant or subject be a part of