for Titius as well as for Seius I assume but many Papists allow the sense I giue This if I would follow your course I might easily proue by all those Popish writers who acknowledge those words of the Fathers which we obiect against you without mentioning any of their Answers But so doing I should shew my selfe as ridiculous and vnconscionable as your Author Thus therefore Scotus Cameracensis Caietan Roffensis Biel Occam Durand Peter Lombard with some Iesuits and the Canon Law professe some of them that they could not finde Transubstantiation in the Scriptures and some that they could not in the Fathers Their expresse words you haue in mine Answere whether I referre you for it would be too long to transcribe them If so and all these were grand Papists I haue no reason to beleeue you or your Author rather then them nay great reason haue I to cleaue the faster vnto my opinion as better according both with Scripture Fathers N. N. Your second reason There are amongst vs differences even in many essentiall and fundamentall points as namely betweene Protestants and Puritans whatsoever D. Abbat Doue Willet Powel Sr Edward Hobby Rogers others say to the contrary And this you proue by Rogers Covel Ormrode Parks Willet Powel and sundry others I. D. That there are differences and dissentions amongst vs is too true and cannot bee denied This therefore wee grant But the Consequence which you inferre therevpon Ergo you may not yeeld vnto my iudgement or any of our side I deny For to make this follow you must of necessitie hold that where there are dissentions there you may not harken to any side A dangerous and desperate Position and the very Objection of the Iewes against Christianitie We may not beleeue because of your distractions By which reason as you may not heare vs so may not we you nor Turks and Infidels any of vs all how Orthodoxe soeuer because the Christian world is still full of contentions A man would thinke that diversitie of opinions especially in matters concerning soule and Salvation should rather quicken and stirre vp the minde diligently among all to search which is the truest then to cause it sit still and forbeare assent vntill all sides be accorded Neither let any pretend inabilitie for as Chrysostome saith Seeing we acknowledge the scriptures which are so true and plaine it will be an easie matter for to iudge And tell me hast thou any wit or iudgement For it is not a mans part barely to receaue whatsoever hee heareth Say not I am a learner and may be no iudge I can condemne no opinion this is but a shift c. And Gerson rendreth the true reason hereof The triall and examination of doctrines concerning Faith belongeth not only to the Councell Pope but also to every one that is sufficiently learned in the scriptures because every man is a sufficient iudge of that hee knoweth But ô yee miserable servitude and slauery of you the common sort of Papists your eyes are puld out of your heads neither are you allowed the vse of common sense and reason The Scriptures by which you should see are wrested out of your hands as a dangerous booke If you will see it must be by another mans eyes Your Faith must depend vpon the warrant of some equivocating Priest And whatsoever is said to the contrary though never so soundly proued you may in no case harken to it for why there are dissentions among you This reason being thus fully answered I might without more adoe passe on to the next but that I see by your spinning it to such a length you make great store of it Let vs therefore bestow a word or two more vpon it There are say you dissentions amongst vs. True And was there ever or will there ever be a Church so happy as to be altogether free of them If not why doe you vpbraid them vnto vs Is it because notwithstanding them we count one another brethren members of the same Church That is an Argument of our charity and that we dare not cut off and condemne as Hereticks every one that differeth though never so little from vs in opinion whereas you presently condemne to the pit of Hell all Christians whatsoever wheresoever and how many soever that will not vaile bonnet vnto the Popes Miter and beleeue all to bee true that hee resolues vpon But what May not brethren disagree and yet continue brethren Or doth every quarrell exclude out of the Church of God I trow not For then Paul and Barnabas Peter and Paul Victor and Polycrates Cyril and Theodoret Chrysostome and Theophilus Epiphanius and Chrysostome Hierome and Ruffin and sundry others should not be brethren Nay the East and West Churches dissenting about Easter and the Roman and African about Rebaptization should be no true Churches Yea but our differences are not in pettie matters but essentiall fundamentall points And such were also in the Churches of the Corinthians and Galathians for in the one they differed about the Resurrection of the dead in the other about the necessary observation of the law of Moses together with the Gospell And yet saith Bellarmine they were true Churches and they that so erred if they were ready to learne the truth and to beleeue it being taught were true members of them also But by your leaue sir your Author overlashes when he saith we differ in points Essentiall and Fundamentall neither doe our Divines only say it as you beare vs in hand but clearely demonstrate it also And indeed all the quarrell is rather about the shell then the kernell that is the outward gouernment ceremonies of the Church rather then the Faith of the Church or at the most it is rather about some deductions and conclusions in Divinitie then the Principles themselues and those truths that are necessary vnto salvation For as for the Article of Christs descent into Hell though your Author would insinuate the contrary yet there is not one of vs but willingly subscribes vnto it and acknowledgeth that Christ hath spoiled Hell and triumphed over Principalities and Powers and all the enimies of our salvation But whether he did this by descending locally in soule into the Hell of the Damned or Virtually and by the power of his Godhead is all the Question amongst vs whereby for ought I see we neither overturne the Article nor dissolue brotherhood And your selfe must needs confesse so much vnlesse you will disclaime brotherhood with Durandus and condemne him of a Fundamentall errour together with vs. For hee held that the soule of Christ descended into Hell not in the substance thereof but by certaine effects And heare the resolution of Suares the Iesuit touching this Article If by an article of faith saith he we vnderstand a truth which all the faithfull are bound explicitly to knowe and beleeue so I doe not thinke it necessary to reckon this among the Articles
tradition of the Fathers was no more but Memoriam facite keepe the memory as we may see evidently in Cyprian Nothing of all which I trow maketh any whit for your meaning N. N. Dr Morton citeth out of Bibliander that it was a most common opinion among the Iews that at the comming of the Messias all the legall sacrifices should cease but the sacrifice of Thoda in Bread and Wine should not cease Wherevpon he is forced against Mason and his directors to say The Protestants acknowledge in the Eâ—charist a sacrifice Eucharisticall He might as well haue acknowledged with those of Basil Frankford and Stancarus what this Sacrifice should be For they cite these words of the Rabbins the sacrifice that shall be made of wine shall not only be changed into the Substance of the bloud of the Messias but also into the substance of his Body And in the sacrifice that shall be made of bread notwithstanding it be white as milke the substance shall be turned into the Substance of the body of the Messias Thus R. Cahana who liued long before Christ and so R. Iuda R. Simeon and others whose testimonies saith Dr Morton are so direct for Transubstantiation as no Romish Doctor for a 1000 yeares after Christ is so expresse yea they are more pregnant then the sayings of Transubstantiaâ—ors themselues I. D. I am very sory that I haue not Dr Mortons booke now at hand by me For I am very confident that where your Author found his Obiection there I should also meete with a full solution In the meane season till I haue procured it which I hope will be ere long briefly thus First the Passage cited out of Bibliander maketh against you not vs. For if it be Bread and Wine which is sacrificed then they remaine after Consecration which overthroweth Transubstantiation If they doe not remaine and the Body and Bloud of Christ only be offered then were those Iewes false Prophets and foretold nothing but lies Secondly the Doctor acknowledging an Eucharisticall Sacrifice neither is forced therevnto by any such testimony nor is against Mason or any other Protestant for they all acknowledge the same together with him But I thinke you knew not that Eucharist signifieth Thankesgiuing or else you would never haue thought it strange he should acknowledge a Sacrifice of Thanksgiuing Lastly I am strongly perswaded that when these testimonies of R. Cahana R. Iuda R. Simeon and the rest shall come to the ripping they will proue Hippocentaurs and meere fictions For supposing you are in the right is it likely that such fellowes as these should either know or speake more clearly of the mysteries of our Faith then any of the ancient Prophets inspired of the holy Ghost and sent of purpose to foretell to them Or is it probable that your greatest Rabbins and among them Cardinall Bellarmine searching curiously into every corner to find witnesses of all sorts would yet carelesly omit these if they were so plaine and pregnant for you as you pretend Verily when the Doctor saith that no Doctor for a 1000 yeares after Christ no nor Transubstantiator almost ever spake more plainely it is a meere flout and argues how lightly he esteemes of the authority But of this enough vntill I bee more certainly informed Only thus to alleage Iewes is not to approue your sense of the Fathers N. N. The now Archb. of Canterbury saith and with him Midleton agreeth that Berengarius was called into question for denying Transubstantiation and he yeelded once or twice to recant and abiure the Doctrine he held Ergo hee assureth vs Transubstantiation was the Doctrine of the Church constant and generall hundreds of yeares before the Lateran councell defined it yea farther hee assureth vs that to deny it was Heresy to be recanted I. D. Had not your Author wanted or forehead or braine or both he would never haue made such a shamelesse senselesse inference If he had said Ergo many beleeued Transubstantiation before the Lateran councell hee had kept his tongue within compasse but saying Ergo it was the constant and generall doctrine for hundred of yeares before his mouth overfloweth it is a lye with a latchet For be it knowne vnto you the Church of England held it not as I haue already proued out of the Homily of Abbat Aelfrick Neither did the Waldenses hold it whose number yet was very great and they dispersed through all the countries of Christendome And if you thinke that Berengarius stood single by himselfe in this point you are much deceaued for hee had as many for him as were against him and it was nothing but the tyranny of the B. of Rome that bare him down Howbeit the French Churches still resisted both him and his Synods divers meeting together in Anjow and Turon resolue against him and subscribe vnto Berengarius But to put the matter out of all doubt it is reported of Pope Hildebrand that he appointed a Fast of three daies together with a solemn Procession to entreat of God some signe from heaven whereby he might be assured what he was to determine in this businesse If at that time the head of the Church himselfe staggered and doubted which way to resolue is it credible that the rest of the body could bee so setled therein as generally constantly for hundreds of yeares to maintaine it Apellas the Iew may beleeue it if hee list not I. Breefly Transubstantiation might well be disputed of some while before the Lateran Councell but held for an Article of Faith it was not vntill then as I haue elsewhere shewed out of Tonstal and Scotus N. N. The same Bishop and Dr Field tell vs that the Greeke Church is a true Church Yet their Patriarch Ieremie saith It is the iudgement of the Church that in the holy supper after consecration and benediction the bread passeth and is changed into his Body and the Wine into his Bloud I. D. Yet the same Bishop and Doctor tell you also that a true Church may erre so that Transubstantiation might be an errour though the Grecians held it But the truth is that the Greeke Church never held it as I haue aboue shewed out of the same Ieremie the Councell of Florence which you are bound to beleeue For though the Patriarch say Bread is changed into Body yet hee addeth by and by the flesh of the Lord which he carried about him was not giuen to the Apostles to eat nor his bloud to drinke nor is now in the divine celebration of those mysteries which directly overturneth your Change by Transubstantiation But of this see more aboue And thus much in answer vnto your first reason which before I passe vnto the next I must craue leaue to retort vpon you If you may not yeeld vnto the sense I giue the Fathers because some Protestants allow your sense neither may I yeeld to the sense you giue because many Papists allow mine For there is the same law
there and how many battles haue there beene fought betweene the Iesuits and Dominicans about no meaner matters then Gods free Grace and mans free will To be breefe there is scarce any thing wherein you dissent from vs that you agree in amongst your selues as our Divines haue at large proved Hugo de sancto victore Richardus de sancto Victore Petrus Cluniacensis Liranus Dionisius Carthâ—sianus Hugo Cardinalis Thomas Aquinas Waldensis Richardus Armachanus Picus Mirandula Caietan and others reiect all those bookes as Apocryphall which wee doe Scotus Gerson Occam Cameracensis and Waldensis affirme the Scriptures to be sufficient in all matters of Faith Stapleton confesseth that the infallibility of the Popes judgement is yet no matter of Faith but of opinion only because so many famous and renowned Divines haue held the contrary as Gerson Almaine Occam almost all the Parisians with â—undry others The same Divines together with Adrian the sixt Durandus Alfonsus à Castro and many besides hold that a Councell is aboue the Pope That a man 〈◊〉 not iustified by any inherent quality but only by faith in the merits of Christ. Gerson Contarenus Albertus Pighius the Canons of Cullen the authors of the booke offered by Cesar to the Protestant Collocutors at the assembly of Ratisbon Stapulensis Peraldus Ferus and others doe justifie That wee may be assured we are in the state of Grace Alexander of Hales Iohn Bacon Ambrose Catharin Andreas Vega with others doe clearly testify That all sins are in their owne nature Mortall Gerson Almaine and Fisher B. of Rochester even by the testimony of Bellarmine doe confesse That there is any merit of Condignity Scotus Cameracensis Arminiensis and Waldensis vtterly deny That Matrimony is no Sacrament Durandus affirmes Alexander of Hales saith there are no more but foure Sacraments That one body should be locally in more places then one at once implyeth contradiction saith Thomas of Aquin. and with him agreeth Aegidius Godfrey de Font Alanus and Henricus The conversion of bread wine into Christs body bloud all of vs saith Caietan doe teach in words but in deed many deny it thinking nothing lesse Finally Peter Lombard Thomas and the other Schoolemen hold not a reall and proper Sacrifice in the Masse as now you doe as your owne Bellarmine is forced to acknowledge It were easy for me to instance in diverse points besides but this may suffice for the present to stop your mouth and to teach you this lesson that you be not so busy to vpbraid others with their warts or freckles your selues meane-while being so full of vlcers and botches For it is fowle indiscretion to obiect that to another whereof our selues are more deepely guilty as here you haue done to vs taxing vs for our petty quarrels while your selues like Amalekits are nothing but stabbing and killing one the other N. N. Your third reason D. Field saith the Church of Rome hath continued a true Church even till our time held a saving profession of truth by it converted nations and divers of that Church even learned are saved D. Covel they of Dome were and are the Church and they that liue and die in it may be saved Willet Kings and Queenes of the Roman faith are Saints in Heauen Yea saith your author Many Kings and Queenes of Great Brittaine haue forsaken their Crownes and Kingdomes to become Monkes and Nunnes I. D. That which you obiect out of D. Field D. Field him selfe hath long since at large answered I will contract it as briefly as I can The Summe is the Roman Church is not now the same it was before Luther His reasons First the then Church was the whole number of Christians subiect to the Papal tyranny of whom many desired to be free of the yoke and as soone as Luther began to oppose shooke it off but the now Church is the multitude of those that adore the plenitude of Papal power or are content to be vnder the yoke still Secondly the Roman Church then consisted of men not hauing meanes of information and so not erring pertinaciously but the now Church consisteth of those who obstinately resist the truth or at least consent in outward communion with them So that they might be saued in their simplicity and these perish in their contradiction Thirdly the Roman Church then had in it the same abuses superstitions it hath now and those that erred the same errours but it had also those that disliked them and thought right in those points wherein the rest erred These were true liuing members of the Church those a faction in the Church In regard of those it was truly a Church that is a multitude of men professing Christ and baptized in regard of these a true Church that is a multitude of men holding a sauing profession of Christ. Lastly the errours then taught in the Church were not the Doctrines of the Church but now they are the Doctrines of that Church That they were not then the Doctrines of the Church appeareth thus The Doctrines then taught were either those which all consented vnto such as are the Articles of the Creed or those errors which many then taught or the contrary truths opposed to those errors The first were absolutly the Churches Doctrine So were the third though all received them not because they were theirs who were so in the Church that they were the Church But the second were not because they were taught by the faction in the Church and not consented vnto by them that were the Church Thus farre the Doctor who at length concludeth that whatsoever it hath beene the present Romish Church is not that true Church of God whose communion wee must embrace whose directions we must follow and in whose judgement we must rest Yea but D. Covell in the name of all the rest affirmeth that it is still a true Church and Salvation may be had in it In the name of all the rest Why who gaue him that commission and how comes hee to be the mouth of vs all more then any other of his brethren Certainly your Author much wrongs the Church of England and abuses his reader to make the private sayings of this man or that man to be the common voice of all If he haue spoken more largely then can be justified hee must answere for it himselfe no reason the whole Church should bee charged with it You will not endure it amongst your selues and why should you then obtrude it vpon vs To the words themselues I answere with D. Field Some will say is the Roman Church at this day no part of the Church of God Surely as Augustine noteth that the Societies of Hereticks in that they retaine the profession of many parts of heavenly truth and the ministration of the Sacrament of Baptisme are so farre forth still conioyned with the Catholike Church of God and the Catholike Church in and by them bringeth forth children vnto God so
of his faith not onely to the satisfaction and instruction but admiration of his hearers Among the rest two things there were which he much and often insisted vpon the one that he hoped onely to be saued by the merits of Iesus Christ the other that he constantly perseuered in the faith and religion professed and maintained in the Church of England in which he was borne baptized and bred and this he many times and earnestly protested in a very serious and solemne manner pawning his soule vpon the truth thereof His glasse being now almost runne and the houre of his dissolution drawing on though his memorie and senses no way failed him he desired to be absolued after the manner prescribed by our Church and according to his desire hauing first made a briefe confession therevpon expressing a hearty contrition together with an assurance of remission by the pretious bloud of his deare Sauiour he receiued absolution froÌ„ the mouth of a lawfull minister having receiued it professed that he found great ease coÌ„fort therein withall that he was desirous likewise to haue receiued the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist if the state of his body would haue permitted him not long after imagining with himselfe that he heard some sweete Musike calling vpoÌ„ Christ Sweet Iesus kill me that I may liue with thee he sweetly fell asleepe in the Lord as did the Protomartyr who ready to yeeld vp the Ghost prayed and said Lord Iesus receiue my spirit Thus he liued and thus he dyed neere approaching the great climactericall of his age And by this time I am sure you find and feele with me that we haue all a great losse in the losse of this one man His flocke hath lost a faithfull pastor his wife a louing husband his children a tender father his seruants a good master his neighbours a freindly neighbour his freinds a trusty freind his kindred a deare kinsman this whole countrey a great ornament The king hath lost a loyall subject the kingdome a true-hearted Englishman the Cleargy a principall light the Church a dutifull sonne the Arts a zealous Patron and religion a stout Champion we haue all lost onely he hath gotten by our losse he hath made a happy exchange instead of his congregation singing of Psalmes with them here he is now ioyned to the congregation of the first borne whose names are written in heauen with whom he beares a part in the euerlasting Halleluiahs instead of the Church militant he is inrooled in the Church trivmphant hauing his palme in his hand in token of victory instead of his freinds and kinsfolke here he is become the companion of the blessed Saints and glorious Angels instead of his wife and Children and lands and goods and attendants here he now enioyes the blisfull vision of the face of God and the full fruition of Iesus Christ by meanes whereof no doubt he shines as the brightnesse of the firmament nay as the brightest starre in the firmament and â—o shall shine for euer and euer Sic mihi contingat viuere sicque mori God graunt we may so liue as with him we may dye comfortably and so dye as with him we may liue againe shine in glory euerlastingly Who so is wise will ponder these things and they shall vnderstand the loving kindnesse of the Lord Consider then what I haue said the Lord giue you vnderstanding in all things SACRAE TRINITATI GLORIA This Sermon being presented to the veiw of the Right Reverend Father in God the Lord Bishop of Exeter together with the Authors purpose of publishing these ensuing workes of his deceased friend it pleased his Lordship to returne this following answere which together with the Sermon may serue in part to let the world know his great worth though in a manner buried in obscurity Worthy Mr Dr Hakewill I Doe heartily congratulate to my dead friend and Colleagian this your so iust and noble a commemoration It is much that you haue said but in this subiect no whit more then enough I can second every word of your prayses and can hardly restraine my hand from an additionall repetition How much ingenuity how much learning and worth how much sweetnesse of conversation how much elegance of expression how much integrity and holinesse haue we lost in that man No man euer knew him but must needs say that one of the brightest Starres in our West is now set The excellent parts that were in him were a fit instance for that your learnedly defended position of the vigour of this last age wherevnto he gaue his accurate and witty astipulation I doe much reioyce yet to heare that we shall be beholden to you for some mitigation of the sorrow of his losse by preseruing aliue some of the post-hume issue of that gracious and exquisite brayne which when the world shall see they will marvell that such excellencies could lye so close and shall confesse them as much past value as recovery Besides those skillfull and rare peeces of Divinity tracts and Sermons I hope for my old loue to those studies we shall see abroad some excellent monuments of his Latine Poesie in which faculty I dare boldly say few if any in our age exceeded him In his Polemicall discourses some whereof I haue by me how easie is it for any judicious Reader to obserue the true Genius of his renowned Vncle Bishop Iewell such smoothnesse of style such sharpnesse of witt such interspersions of well-applyed reading such graue and holy vrbanity shortly for I well foresaw how apt my Pen would bee to runne after you in this pleasing track of so well deserued praise these workes shall be as the Cloake which our Prophet left behind him in his rapture into heauen What remaines but that we should looke vp after him in a care and indeauour of readinesse for our day and earnestly pray to our God that as he hath pleased to fetch him away in the Chariot of Death so that he will double his spirit on those he hath thought good to leaue yet below In the meane time I thanke you for the favour of this your graue seasonable and worthy Sermon which I desire may be prefixed as a meet preface to the published Labours of this happy Author Exon Palace Mar. 22. 1631. Fare-well from your loving friend and fellow-labourer Ios. Exon. TWO TREATISES 1 Concerning the force and efficacy of reading 2 Christs prayer for his Church OXFORD Printed by I.L. for E. F. 1633. ACT. 15.21 For Moses of old time hath in every Citty them that Preach him being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day OMitting for the present whatsoeuer else might profitably be observed out of these words I will at this time only inquire these three things The first whether preaching in this place be distinguished from Reading The second whether Reading be a kind of Preaching The third whether reading be an ordinary meanes to beget Faith and convert a soule
the preaching of the Church as touching the Proposition of things to be beleeued but not as the reason of beleeuing For they who propound the doctrine of Faith withall admonish that that doctrine is revealed from God and that God not themselues is to be beleeved And what Is not the holy Catholike Church it selfe an Article of the Creed If it bee why should the rest of the Articles need to be sustained by an higher Principle more then it For if you may be bold to question any of them vntill it be resolued by the Churches authoritie I hope I may be as bold to question the Churches authoritie vntill it be warranted by some farther Principle I demand therefore why you beleeue the Church Because forsooth her authority is infallible And how know you that it is infallible Here of necessity you must either vouch her owne testimonie or betake you to some other thing To stick vpon her testimonie without farther enquirie is absurd For seeing her voice is not the first veritie that being the Prerogatiue of him only who is from all eternity her veracity must needs bee as doubtfull as her infallible authority And indeed this as a very learned Divine exemplifieth it were as if one whose authority is questioned taking vpon him to bee a law-giuer should first make a law and thereby giue himselfe power and afterward by vertue of that power exercise authority over others But if to establish the Churches authority you seek out of her to some other thing as suppose the Scriptures for so I remember you answered me being demanded the same Question then haue I obtained what I would namely that the Church is not the first ground of Faith because by your owne confession there is a former to wit the Scripture Neither is it true that Catholike men hold the Churches authority to be the first Ground For although some pretended Catholikes those I meane who call themselues Roman catholikes may so conceaue of their Church vnderstanding by the Church the Roman church yet neither are they true Catholikes neither is the Roman church the Catholike church neither doe any true Catholikes ground their Faith so True catholikes they are not because they hold a new Faith not that which Catholikely hath beene held in all ages as appeareth by those twelue new Articles lately added to the Creed vnknown vnto the purer times of the Primitiue church Neither is the Roman church the Catholike Church Not in regard of time for Christ had his Church when Rome was not yet Christian. Nor in respect of place for Catholike is Universall Roman Particular that the Church of the whole world this of one Citie or Diocese only Nor lastly in regard of her authority ouer al other Churches for that which she challengeth is but vsurped the Church of Africk in a Councell of two hundred and seuenteene Bishops of whom S. Augustine was a principall with much indignation reiected it and the Greeke church hitherto could never be drawne to acknowledge it And as for those that are true Catholikes they build not their Faith vpon so weake a Ground but rest both it and the Church her selfe vpon the Scriptures The Apostle S. Paul buildeth the whole Houshold of God vpon no other foundation then that of the Prophets and Apostles Knowe thou saith Origen that Christ alwaies appeareth on the mountaines and hills to teach thee that thou seeke him no where but in the mountaines of the Law and Prophets And the Auhor of the imperfect worke on Mathew The Lord knowing the confusion of things that would happen in the latter daies commandeth that such Christians as will receaue assurance of faith fâ—ie to no other thing but the Scripture And Tertullian Take from Hereticks that which they haue common with the heathen that they be content to stint all questions by the scriptures only and they cannot stand And S. Hierom The church of Christ hath for her cities the Law the Prophets the Gospell Apostles she passeth not beyond her limits that is the holy scriptures S. Augustine in the scriptures we learne Christ in the scriptures we learn the Church And againe I say not if we but if an Angell froÌ„ heauen shall deliuer any thing of Christ or his Church or of faith manners besides that which ye haue receiued in the Scriptures of the Law and Gospell let him be accursed And againe he affirmeth that the Church is to be proued by the Canonical bookes of Scripure and nothing else and that they only are the Demonstration of our cause the very foundation and ground plot whereon we are to build N. N. For proofe of this ground Saint Augustine handleth this matter in a speciall booke to his friend Honoratus deceiued by the Manichees as himselfe also sometimes had bin and he entituleth his booke De vtilitate credendi His discourse is this Suppose that wee now first of all did seeke vnto what Religion we should commit our soules to bee purged and rectified Without all doubt wee must begin with the Catholike Church for that shee is the most eminent now in the world there being more Christians in her this day then in any other Church of Iewes Gentiles put together And albeit among these Christians there be Sects and Heresies and all of them would seeme to be Catholikes and doe call others besides themselues Hereticks yet all grant that if wee consider the whole Body of the World there is one Church among them more eminent then all other and more plentifull in number and as they which know her doe affirme more sincere also in the truth But as concerning truth wee shall dispute more afterward now it is sufficient for them that desire to learne that there is a Catholike Church which is one in it selfe wherevnto diverse Heretickes doe faine and devise divers names whereas they and their Sects are called by peculiar names which themselues cannot deny Whereby all men that are indifferent and not letted by passion may vnderstand vnto what Church the name Catholike which all parts desire and pretend is to bee given Thus St Augustine c. I. D. So maine a point as is the last resolution of faith ought to haue beene better warranted then by the single authority of one Father who how eminent soever hee was in his time yet is not his sole word of strength enough to beare vp such a weight Why did you not vouch the testimony of Saint Paul or Saint Peter or some other of the holy penmen of Gods booke which cannot deceiue you then Saint Augustine or any other of the antient Fathers who both haue erred themselues and may mislead you But thus it is with Papists the more the shame the bare name of a Father swayes them more then the clearest passage of holy writ Howbeit this I say not as if we feared the triall of the Fathers for be it known vnto you wee haue more
cause to bee confident vpon them then your selues but only to vindicate the honour and dignity of the Scriptures which of your side are too basely sleighted and neglected And as touching this particular place of Saint Augustine notwithstanding all the flourish you make therewith yet shall you never be able to proue what you intend thereby as I come now to demonstrate This booke de vtilitate credendi I haue now twice for your sake throughly read ouer and with the best attention I could In it I find the authority of the Catholik Church made the first motiue or meanes vnto Faith by which we doe beleeue but not the first principle and reason of faith for which wee doe beleeue The occasion of writing it was this Saint Augustine hauing lately through Gods grace escaped out of the toiles of the Manichean Heretiks in which for the space of nine yeares hee had beene entangled is very desirous to recouer from them his friend Honoratus also as yet continuing in his error and held fast by them This he doubteth not through the same grace of God soone to effect may hee but find him duly prepared and disposed For vntill hee be wrought from his hereticall pertinacy and stifnesse vnto a more Christian moderation and equability he shall with all his arguments but wash a bricke as they say and spend his oile and labour to little purpose That which made him so vntoward and hard to be wrought vpon was the faire and plausible insinuation of the Manichees that they pressed no man to beleeue vntill they had first cleared and manifested the truth whereas others terrified men with superstition and commanded Faith before they tendred any reason vnto them Wherefore to remoue this preiudice and to frame him vnto a more indifferent temper he employeth in this booke all his strength and skill labouring to demonstrate the Vtility of beleeuing and how requisite it is to yeeld to authority before with pure minds we can discerne the truth And this is the only drift and scope he aimeth at in this booke neither medleth hee therein with any of the Manichean heresies but reserueth the confutation conviction of them vntill some other time as appeareth by the very closing vp thereof where he willeth Honoratus to remember that he hath not yet begunne to refute the Manichees nor to seâ— himselfe against those toies nor hath opened any great matter touching Catholike Doctrine Whence thus I argue If S. Augustin in this booke dispute against Honoratus from the Churches authority as the last resolution of Faith then hath he opened therein the greatest point of Christian religion and confuted thereby the Manichean heresie inasmuch as the Catholike Church vtterly condemned it But S. Augustin in expresse words affirmeth that he hath not so much as begun to refute the Manichees nor opened any great matter touching Catholike doctrine Therefore he disputeth not from the Churches authority as the last resolution of Faith True it is he is much in commending authority setting forth the benefit of beleeving it But what authority What beleeuing that authority which is grounded vpon the Generall opinion fame and consent of people nations that Beleeuing which is Morall and only prepares the minde to divine illumination If so then certainly cannot St Augustins authoritie be the last Principle of Faith For this is infallibile and absolutelie necessarie as well to the wise as vnwise that but an vncertaine step or staire to raise vs vp vnto God not necessarie to them that are wise What then is it in S. Augustins iudgment Surely the first inducement or Introduction to the search of divine Mysteries For saith he it is authoritie only which moueth fooles to hasten vnto wisdome And againe to a man that is not able to discerne the truth that he may be made fit for it and suffer himselfe to be purged authority is at hand Had hee thought it to be more then so he would never haue considered it without certainty of truth Yet so doth hee even in the passage by you alledged They saith hee that know the Church affirme her to be more sincere in truth then other sects but touching her truth is another question In a word as in other arts and sciences He that will learne must beleeue his teachers so in these heavenly mysteries also would Saint Augustine haue all those that are not initiated such as his friend Honoratus was to beginne with Authority Not that it is a sufficient warranty for whatsoever we learne but for that it is the readiest and likeliest way to bring vs vnto learning N. N. Thus Saint Augustine teaching his friend how he might both know and beleeue the Catholike Church and all that she taught simply and without asking reason or proofe And as for knowing or discerning her from all other Churches that may pretend to be Catholike wee heare his marks that shee is more eminent vniversall greater in number and in possession of the name Catholike The second that shee may be beleeued securely and cannot deceiue nor bee deceiued in matters of Faith he proueth elsewhere concluding finally in this place If thou doest seeme to thy selfe now saith Augustine to haue beene sufficiently tossed vp downe among Sectaries and wouldst put an end to these labours and turmoiles follow the way of Catholike discipline which hath flowne downe vnto vs from Christ by his Apostles and is to flow from vs to our posterity I. D. Out of that passage of St Augustine you obserue two things first what be the Marks by which the Catholike Church may be discerned secondly that shee may be beleeued securely as one that can neither deceiue nor he deceiued As touching the former you say Saint Augustines Markes are these foure Eminence Vniversality Multitude and Possession of the name Catholike Wherevnto I answere first that Saint Augustine maketh none of these things Notes of the Church For three of them namely Eminencie Vniversality and Possession of the name Catholike he doth not at all mention Eminencie I confesse is foisted into your translation but no where appeares in the Originall Of the fourth to wit Multitude all that he affirmeth is this that in his time there were more Christians then of any other religion and that among all Sects of Christians there was one Church consisting of a greater number then all the rest which is not enough to establish it for a marke of the Church Where by the way giue me leaue to demand why whereas Saint Augustine saith Christians are more then Iewes and worshippers of Images put together you render it the Iewes and Gentiles put together For what the reason should bee I cannot conceiue vnlesse it be the same for which you raze out of your Catechismes the second Commandement But I answere secondly that as St Augustine maketh none of them Marks so neither are they Markes for Proper they are not nor Perpetuall and
the Church may be without them So was it for some while after Christs Ascention for then neither was the Christian Church so Eminent as that of the Iewes nor was it Vniversall as being confined within Iudea nor great in number as consisting but of a very few nor in Possession of the name Catholike it being a word of a latter date and such as could not well be giuen it vntill it was growne Catholike So will it be also if wee may beleeue your owne writers in the time of Antichrist For then the Church shall bee darkned all externall communion with it shall cease there shall be no Sacrament in publike places all the glory and dignity of Ecclesiasticall order shall lye buried none shall come vnto the solemnity of the Lambe an innumerable multitude shall cleaâ—e vnto Antichrist even all besides the elect and those whose names are written in the booke of life But lastly whether these things be Markes or no is not now much materiall for it makes little to the purpose wee haue sufficiently proued that the Church is not the last Resolution of Faith As touching the second point that the Church may be beleeved securely for that shee can neither deceiue nor bee deceiued I demand what you meane by the Church If the company of all true Beleeuers that now are and heretofore haue beene including the holy Apostles together with them then I grant it For these were so lead by the Spirit into all truth that they could not possibly erre in any matter of Faith that was either to be taught by them or knowne by vs. But if you meane the Present Church in every age successiuely after the Apostles as here Saint Austin doth referring his friend Honoratus therevnto then I distinguish Either you must vnderstand thereby the whole number of true beleeuers who for the present life in the world or the Society and Fellowship of those that in their time rule and sway most in the Church If you take it in the former sense I grant what you say to be true in Fundamentall points but not in such as are not absolutely necessary nor preiudice the Foundation of Faith If in the latter then I affirme that the Church may both deceiue and be deceiued even in Doctrines of highest consequence neither can with such security bee beleeued Witnesse the time when the whole world groaned vnder Arianisme and the greatest part of the Prelates together with Liberius Bishop of Rome subscribed therevnto Neither doth the passage you alledge out of Saint Austin inferre the contrary For although the surest course to put an end to all labours and turmoiles be to follow the way of Catholike discipline which hath flowne downe to vs from Christ by his Apostles yet the Authority that swayeth most in the Present Church doth not alwaies either follow this way her selfe or direct others vnto it as for example it did not in the time aboue mentioned of the Arian heresy And thus much in answere vnto your generall ground N. N. Now I will shew first out of the old Testament how it was prefigured and prophecied and in the new both promised againe exhibited and confirmed by the intendment interpretation of the gravest and most ancient Fathers that haue lived in the Church of God from age to age who vnderstand so the said Figures and foreshewing of the old Testament As for example the Bread and Wine mysteriously offered vnto almighty God by Melchizedek King and Priest who bare the type of our Saviour The shew-bread among the Iewes that only could bee eaten of them that were sanctified And the Bread sent miraculously by an Angell to Elias whereby he was so strengthned as hee travelled forty daies by vertue only of that Bread These three sorts of bread to haue beene expresse Figures of this Sacrament of the true flesh of Christ therein contained doe testify by one consent the ancient Fathers as Cyprian â—lemens Alexandrinus Ambrose Hierom Chrysostom Augustine Cyrill Arnobius Euseb. many others as my author fetâ—eh downe Three other figures not expressed in the forme of Bread but other things more excellent then Bread as the Paschal Lamb the blood of the testament described in Exodus and to the Hebrues and fulfilled by Christ when he said This cup is the new testament in my blood and againe this is my blood of the new testament The Manna also sent by God from heaven was an expresse figure of this Sacrament as appeareth by the words of our Saviour and of the Apostle I. D. This Argument seemeth to be of great esteeme among you for who almost vrgeth it not and that with great confidence It standeth thus Melchizedecks Bread and Wine the Shew-bread Elias his Bread the Paschal-Lambe the Bloud of the Testament and Manna bee Figureâ— of our Sacrament Ergo Christ is corporally and locally present therein by way of Transubstantiation The consequence you maintaine in the next Section the Antecedent in this Wherevnto I answer first that the Legall sacraments and ceremonies if we may beleeue Scripture directly respected Christ So saith S. Paul They are a shadow of things to come but the Body is of Christ. And again Sacrifice and offerings thou wouldest not but a Body hast thou prepared me And hence is it that he doubteth not to call Christ our Passeouer or 〈◊〉 Lambâ— and to affirm that the Rock whereof the Israelites dranke in the â—â—ldernesse was Christ. Yea our Saviour himselfe plainly professeth that the Brasen serpent did prefigure him and that he was the Bread or Manna that came downe from heauen But that those Sacraments and Ceremonies are Types Figures of ours otherwise then by representing the same Substance together with ours I suppose if you searched every corner of Scripture neuer so narrowly you should never finde it therein Adde herevnto that our SacrameÌ„ts are themselues Figures being as S Augustine saith one thing and signifying another Whence it would follow that the old Sacraments being Figures of the New they should be Figures of Figures and Sacraments of Sacraments which standeth not greatly with reason For thus the Circumcision of the foreâ—kinne should figure the Water of Baptisme and water Christ and curious heads might runne on infinitely and as Irenaeus sometime obiected vnto the Heretikes of his time might ever bee devising of types vpon types and figures vpon figures Lastly if the Sacraments of the old Testament were but Signes of ours it would follow that they were ordained rather for the benefit of the Christian then the Iewish Church which is absurd For of our Sacraments which you say is the thing signified by theirs benefit they never reaped any as neuer being partakers of them and to leaue vnto them no more but bare signes that is emptie shels without the kernell how it might availe them I cannot conceaue Certainely all Sacraments
retaining the forme of bodily substance by invisible working proueth the Presence of Gods power to be there would you from hence conclude Transubstantiation I knowe you would not No more can you from this And indeed the word species which you translate Forme yea and outward Forme too though the word outward be not in the text doth not signifie shew without substance or Accident without subiect but in the writings of the Fathers vsually it signifieth the truth nature or kinde of a thing So Ambrose I see not speciem the truth of bloud speaking of the Lords Cup but it hath the resemblance which afterward repeating I see the resemblance saith he but I see not veritatē the truth of bloud Again the word of Christ changeth the species of the Elements What is that The Formes or Accidents of the Elements No for they you say remaine What then but the Elements or things thēselues And St Augustin Their meat was the same with ours but the same in signification not in specie that is in kinde So that when your Author saith it keepeth the species of bodily substance it is not necessary to render it by Forme that is Accident or Shew void of substance for you may as well turne it thus it still retaineth the nature or truth of its bodily substance N. N. This graue Father and Martyr doth plainely shew how Mr Downe hath wrested Pope Gelasius For the Popes and the Doctors of the Church did agree alwaies in matters of Faith notwithstanding the great shew M. Downe hath made to the contrary For here S. Cyprian sheweth you that this food of immortality keepeth the outward forme of the Bodily Substance but prouing that there is present a divine power which is confessed by Gelasius And therefore when Gelasius saith the nature of Bread and Wine ceaseth not to be his meaning is the outward forme of the corporall Substance And with this agree many of the Fathers which are also wrested from their true meaning as appeareth manifestly by the manifold plaine places of the Fathers by me here set downe I. D. If to neglect the Premisses and to contradict the Conclusion by the right way of answering arguments then haue you taken the right course and made vp my mouth for ever replying vpon you For whereas M. Downe as you say hath made a great shew to proue that the Fathers disagree among themselues in some points you passing by all the proofes thinke it sufficient to affirme the contrary that the Popes and Doctors of the Church doe agree Wherevpon you farther inferre that M. Downe hath wrested Pope Gelasius For although hee haue proued by the expresse words of Gelasius that the Bread is not transubstantiated because the substance thereof stil remaineth yet is the conclusion false For Popes and Doctors Gelasius and Cyprian must needs agree But questionlesse if Cyprian for for the present wee will suppose him to bee the right Cyprian doe by Forme of bodily substance vnderstand nothing else but shew without Substance it is impossible to make him agree with Gelasius For Gelasius saith The Substance or nature of Bread and wine cease not to be and Substance cannot possibly be shew without substance So to interpret is to expound white by blacke and light by darknesse and would argue extreame either stubbornesse against the truth or brutishnesse But Cyprian by Forme vnderstandeth not as wee haue shewed Accidents miraculously subsisting without Subiect but them together with the Subiect or the verity and truth of the thing And so hee perfectly agrees with Gelasius and the rest of the Fathers and all of them against Transubstantiation For as for those manifold plaine places by you here set downe I hope by this time they appeare not so plaine vnto you but are all of them fully answered and that without wresting any one of them from his true meaning N. N. Therefore though the Fathers doe sometimes call the Sacrament a Figure or Signe Representation or Similitude of Christs Body death passion and bloud they are to bee vnderstood in the like sense as those places of St Paul are wherein Christ is called by him a Figure the substance of the Father and againe an image of God and farther yet appearing in the likenesse of man all which places as they doe not take away from Christ that he was the true substance of his Father or true God or true man indeed though out of every one of those places some heresies haue beene framed by ancient heretiks against his Divinity or Humanity so doe not the foresaid Phrases sometime vsed by the ancient Fathers calling the Sacrament a Signe Figure Representation or Similitude of Christs Body exclude the truth or Reality thereof I. D. That the Sacraments by the Fathers are called Signes Figures Representations Similitudes and the like is so cleare that you cannot deny it and I feare it greeueth you much to read it in them because it maketh so directly against you Wherefore to salue all some pretty shift or colour must be devised those tearms must bee vnderstood as St Paul meaneth when he saith Christ is the Figure of his Father the Image of God and appeared in the likenesse of man For as here they deny not either the Godhead or Man-hood of Christ so neither in the Fathers doe they exclude the Body or Blood of Christ from the Sacrament And doe they not indeed Why then when Cyprian ere while said Retaining the forme of Corporall Substance did you so hastily exclud Substance and fancy to your selfe shewes subsisting of themselues without it But let vs examine this a little farther A Symbole saith Maximus is some sensible thing assumed insteed of that which is intelligible as Bread and Wine for immateriall and divine nourishment and refection And againe These are Symbols not the truth Sacraments saith Augustine are signes of things being one thing and signifying another It were no figure saith Chrysostome if all things incident to the truth were found in it And Saint Augustine againe If Sacraments haue not a resemblance or Similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they are not Sacraments These sayings of the Fathers plainely shew that in Sacraments they never conceiued the Figure and the Truth to be one and the same thing but that the signe is one thing and the thing signified cleane another And herevpon in expresse tearms they affirme that they are two not one The Eucharist saith Irenaeus consisteth of two things an earthly and an heauenly And Saint Augustine The sacrifice of the Church is made of two and consisteth of two things the sacrament or sacred signe and the thing of the Sacrament And it is to be noted that they speake generally of all Sacraments so as in the Lords Supper the Figure is no more the same with the Truth then it is in Baptisme And indeed vnlesse you can make Sensible and Insensible Corporall and Spirituall Earthly and
it is said in expresse words that he tooke Bread and what he tooke he blessed what he blessed he brake and what he brake he gaâ—e to his Disciples and what he gaue he bid them take and eat of what they tooke and eat he said This is my body Of bread therefore he said it there being nothing before spoken of nor nothing else present whereof it could be spoken but only Bread And if our Saviour himselfe made no scruple at all to call his Body bread why should you think it strange if he vouchsafe also to call bread by the name of his body Adde herevnto the testimony of the Fathers Iustin Martyr We be taught that the sanctified food which nourisheth our flesh and bloud and what is that but Bread is the flesh and bloud of that Iesu. Irenaeus How shall it appeare to them that the bread on which they giue thankes is the body of their Lord and the cup his bloud if they grant not Christ to be the sonne of the Creator of the world Tertullian So Christ taught vs calling bread his body And againe Why doth Christ there call bread his body Cyprian Christ called bread made of many graines his body and Wine prest out of many grapes his blood Hierom Let vs learne that the bread which the Lord brake and gaue to his Disciples is the Lords body himselfe saying to them Take yee eat yee this is my body Athanasius or the Comment vnder his name What is the bread The body of Christ. Epiphanius Of that which is oblong or roule figure and senselesse in power the Lord would say by grace this is my body Cyril Christ thus avoucheth and saith of bread this is my body Theodoret In the very giuing of the mysteries he called bread his body Thus the Fathers To whom I may adde some of your owne men also as Gerson Wee must say that the article This doth demonstrate the substance of bread And Stephen Gardiner Christ manifestly saith This is my body demonstrating bread And the Canon Qui manducat bread is the body of Christ. This being so I assume but bread properly and without Figure is not Christs body The reason because Disparates cannot bee so predicated or affirmed one of another An egge is not a stone nor a stone an egg Besides if Bread properly be Christs body then is it of the seed of David conceaued of the Holy Ghost and borne of the blessed Virgin then was it also crucified and died it was buried and descended into hell it rose againe and ascended into heauen and now sitteth at the right hand of God for all these things are truely affirmed of Christ. The grosse absurdity or rather horrible impietie whereof your men well perceauing they are driuen of force to grant vs our Assumption For saith your Canon Law It is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ. Thomas of Aquin It cannot properly be said that of bread the body of Christ is made And Bellarmine It is altogether absurd and impossible for it cannot bee that bread should be the Body of Christ. Out of which Premisses thus I argue That which Christ saith is vndoubtedly true But Christ saith Bread is his body as wee haue shewed Ergo it is vndoubtedly true But it is not literally and in proper signification true as wee haue also demonstrated Ergo after some other manner What manner Let Bellarmine himselfe tell you Either saith hee it is to be vnderstood tropically that Bread is the Body of Christ significatiuely or it is altogether absurd and impossible Now certainly it is absurd and impossible that bread literally should be Christs body Ergo it is so Tropically and Significatiuely And this may yet farther appeare by that which Christ immediatly added This is my body which is broken for you Whence I thus reason As Christs body is broken in the Sacrament so is bread his body But Christs body is broken therein Sacramentally not literally Ergo so is bread Christs body It is farther added Doe this in remembrance of me If the Breaking of Bread be the Remembrance of Christ of his Death then is not bread properly Christ himselfe for nothing is the Remembrance of it selfe Figuratiuely therefore Herevnto the Fathers agree Tertullian Augustine Ambrose Hierome as is already declared With whom I could easily joyne many others but that it is needlesse seeing your selfe confesse that the Fathers call the Sacrament a Figure Signe Representation Similitude of Christs Body If any yet demand why our Saviour then did not rather chuse to say This signifieth my body I answere two things First the language in which he spake knoweth not the word Signifie but alwaies insteed of it vseth the word is as appeareth by these places The seauen fat kine and the seaven full eares of corne are seauen yeares of plenty The seaven leane kine and the seaven empty eares are seven yeares of Famine These bones are the whole house of Israell It is thou o King that art the head of Gold The tree which thou sawest is thou o King The foure great beasts are foure Kings The ten hornes are ten Kings The Ramme with two hornes are the Kings of Media Persia. The goat is the King of Grecia The like Hebraisins haue wee also in the new Testament The Rocke was Christ. Agar and Sara are two Covenants The seaven Heads are seaven hills The woman is the great citty Secondly being about to institute a Sacrament Sacramentall speech was best in which it is vsuall to call the signe by the name of the thing signified as is aboue declared To summe vp all the Article This either demonstrateth bread or doth not If not then can you not hence proue Transubstantiation thereof for that only is Transubstantiated whereof he spake If yea then is the speech Figuratiue and Bread remaines For if it be Sacramentally Christs body then it is and being it is not abolished by Transubstantiation I conclude with the determination of your owne law The Heauenly Sacrament which truly representeth the flesh of Christ is called his Body but improperly not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mystery Secondly it overturneth the Articles of Faith particularly the verity of Christs Humanity A point so materiall Fundamentall that the razing thereof draweth with it the ruine of the whole Christian Religion For this is the only ground of that great mystery of godlinesse God manifested in the flesh And if Christ be not as well true Man as true God then hath hee not suffered for vs nor redeemed vs then are wee yet in our sinnes and stand liable vnto the eternall wrath of his Father Wherefore according to the counsell of Saint Augustine Wee must carefully beware that wee doe not so maintaine the Divinity of the man Christ as to take from him the truth of his
was never either seen or heard the like Idolatrie vnto yours as your own Coster confesseth For saith he it is a more tolerable error to worship Images of silver or gold or other stuffe with the Gentiles or a red cloath on a pike with the Lieflanders or liuing creatures with the Egyptians then to adore a morsell of bread Oh therefore let me yet againe beseech you and that by the dearest name of Iesus Christ to pitty your owne soule and with all speed to retire your selfe from Babylon the mother of all spirituall whoredome Heretofore happily your ignorance might in part excuse you but now that the light hath shined vpon you if wilfully you close your eies against it you are altogether vnexcusable and these papers one day will appeare in iudgement against you Oh how glad would the blessed Angels in heaven bee might they once behold your conversion How readily and louingly would the true Church of Christ entertaine you and how humbly thankfull would my poore selfe be vnto the Divine Maiestie if through his blessing these endeauours of mine might be a meanes to reclaime you For my part I haue done what belonged vnto me that truth I haue both propounded and demonstrated vnto you To turne the heart is not in my power that I leaue vnto God whose office it is Yet will I neuer cease to addresse my vowes vnto him for you if at any time hee may bee pleased in Iesus Christ to haue compassion vpon you FINIS A DEFENCE OF THE FORmer Answer against the Reply of N.N. OXFORD Printed by I.L. for E. F. 1633. A DEFENCE OF THE FORMER ANSWERE AGAINST the reply of N. N. SIR I perceiue would I follow the tract you seeke to set me in I might travell long enough and be never the neerer my journies end All the Passages alleadged by you in maintenance of Transubstantiation I haue fully answered adding therevnto sundry arguments clearly demonstrating the impiety thereof Wherevpon I expected either that you should yeeld being convinced by the evidence of truth or particularly acquaint me wherein I had not satisfied you Now what you Forsooth neither the one nor the other But insteed thereof you send me a fardle of idle Generalities pickt out of I know not what blind author all making no more to the matter in hand then as he saith a Cypresse tree doth to a table of shipwrack In regard whereof I could not hitherto perswade my selfe to reioyne vnto it For why should I stray with him that will needs out of the Way Neverthelesse fearing least by holding my peace I might seeme either to prejudice my cause or to disable my selfe and knowing what clapping of wings and crowing there vseth to be amongst you vpon every the least shew of advantage I haue at length resolued to vouchsafe you one encounter more and then if you still persist in your outlopes and impertinences to wast no more oile or paper vpon you For it is St Pauls advice to avoid an heretike after one or two admonitions knowing that such a one is perverted and sinneth being condemned of himselfe To proceed therefore in order let vs begin with your Preamble N. N. Musing why your kinsman delivered me not your papers you suppose it was because hee conceited not well of them or thought they would not pleasure I. D. You coniecture not amisse For being demanded the reason he answered because you had written nothing to the purpose and yet continue obstinated in your errour Which how could it be welcome to either of vs But take heed I beseech you how you close your eyes any longer against the light of truth For to them that receiue not the loue of truth that they may be saved God threatneth to send them the efficacy of errour to beleeue lies N. N. The passages now sent are taken out of your Papers These againe out of your author Yet truly And all to shew you build not vpon any one mans opinion I. D. You might haue done well to name your Author that we might know his worth and whether your Papers haue wronged him and if not whether your Authors selfe haue not wronged those out of whom hee hath taken his collections But suppose neither You nor your Author faile yet is your inference ridiculous For though the writers you quote be many yet is your Author but one And alleadging them vpon his sole credit without any particular knowledge of your owne you build herein but vpon one mans opinion N. N. No nor on Lutherans Anabaptists Protestants Puritans or tearmed Papists farther then they agree with the authority of the Catholike Church I. D. Lutheran is a name not chosen by vs who in point of Faith depend vpon no man but by you thrust vpon vs. Anabaptists we detest as much as you Puritan is the auncient name of the Novatians and better fitteth you then vs. For wee hold not as you doe that we can eschew all sinne all our life and perfectly fulfill the law yea supererogate and merit heauen by our workes The name of Protestant was first given vnto the Princes and Free citties of Germany Protesting their Faith at a Diet in Spire Ann. 1529. neither doe wee disclaime it But who I pray are those tearmed Papists For relying on the Omnipotency of your Lord God the Pope you are Papists indeed and your betters approue the terme Parsons saith that it importeth no more hurt then if in a sedition they that side with the King be called Royalists Florimond Raimond that it is a name of honour and whereat none should take offence Tho. Bozius that you haue good reason to glory in it And an old Catholike as Walsingham reports that it was a most honourable thing for men to stand with their Head and to haue their denomination from him Thus they But nor Papists nor others shall moue you farther then they agree with the Catholike Church And reason if thereby you vnderstand that of all times including the Apostles For they erred not And what they Preached they left in writing ever after to be the rule and ground of Faith But if you meane as I doubt you doe the Now-Roman Church besides that it is not Catholike there will be but little salt found in your speech For it will be as if you had said you will not rely on Papists or any other farther then they agree with Papists of which only that Church consisteth N. N. Succession continuance visibility vnitie are notes of the Catholike Church and only found in her I. D. These Notes are not Proper agreeing only and alwaies to the Church Certaine therefore and infallible they are not Not Personall Succession For in the beginning of the Church it was not and in the time of Antichrist you say it shall not be It hath also beene continued in the Churches of Hierusalem Antioch Alexandria Constantinople which yet you esteeme no true Churches The consideration whereof forced from
the present Roman Church is still in some sort a part of the Visible Church of God but no otherwise then other Societies of Hereticks are in that it retaineth the profession of some parts of Heauenly truth and ministreth the true Sacrament of Baptisme to the salvation of the soules of many thousand infants that dye after they are baptized before shee haue poysoned them with her errours Thus he Wherevnto I adde that of St Hilary God in the Churches of the Arrians called many by the word and Sacraments to the knowledge of the truth whose eares were more pure then were the mouthes of their teachers The issue of all is this You are a Church but neither the Catholike Church nor a sound member thereof What then An Hereticaâ— and impure Church And if Salvation may be had therein it is only by those truths you haue common with vs and not the Papacie wherein notwithstanding there can bee no more security had thereof then of life in a pesthouse of which though there may be a possibility yet the danger is such that a thousand to one if a man escape the infection And what folly is it to leaue that Church wherein there is security and to cleaâ—e vnto that wherein there is no hope but only of a poore possibility Willet remaines for whom what better advocate then himselfe That many Kings and Queenes of this land are Saints in Heaven is not by any protestant denyed For they might be carried away with some errours of the time then not revealed yet holding the foundation through Gods mercy they might be saved It is a divers case when a man sinneth of infirmity or simplicity and when hee offendeth willingly and of obstinacy To stumble in the darke craueth pitty to grope at noone-daies is great folly I say therefore in this case as our Saviour to the Pharisees If yee were blind yee should not haue sin but now ye say we see therefore your sinne remaineth And as St Paul the time of ignorance God regarded not God therefore might shew mercy to them that erred of Simplicity which is no warrant for them that should now be seduced willingly And such are you Recusants to whom wee can promise nothing but fearfull things though of our fore-fathers wee hope all good That which your Author farther addes of himselfe let the same Willet answer Though divers saith hee of those ancient Kings became Monks yet neither was the Monasticall life so farre out of square as now it is they made it not a cloke of idlenesse and filthy liuing a nursery of idolatry and grosse supertitions but they desired that life as fittest for contemplation and free from the encumbrances of the world Neither doth this one opinion of the excellency of Monasticall life shew them to be resolute Papists for it followeth not because they were Monks that consequently they held Transubstantiation worship of images and the more grosse points of the Romish Catechisme Will you haue any more In few words thus Anciently Monks some of them were lay-men some were married they bound themselues with no vowes they made no distinction of meats they laboured with their hands and liued not in Citties but remote places By all which you may see Polydor Virgill had reason to say It is incredible how much nowadaies they are degenerated N. N. Your fourth and last reason the quarrells and bitter speeches of Luther Melancthon Zuniglius Beza Carolus Molniaeus Amsdorfius Hosiander Protestants of Zurich of England c. I. D. This reason differeth not in substance but only in quotations from the second Which quotations whether they be true or false neither will I spend time to search neither is it any whit materiall And therefore neither will I vouchsafe it any farther answer then that which already I haue given to the second The best Churches haue seldome beene without their quarrels and vsually are menaged with two much passion The malice of Satan is the cause of the one and humane infirmity of the other Which infirmity seeing wee cannot altogether put off while we liue here in the flesh Christian charity would rather pitie it then vpbraid it Neverthelesse that which is amisse may not be defended neither meane I to goe about it Only I perswade my selfe that if wee vnderstood one the other better our quarrells would never be so vehement For what was it that set Luther and Zuinglius so farre asunder but misprision And what caused such hard censures to passe vpon Hosiander but his owne inconvenient speeches and other mens mistakings These are the two principall quarrells here mentioned by you giue me leaue therefore to shew so much in them but briefly The quarrell betweene Luther and Zuinglius was about Christs presence in the Sacrament which as you hold to be by way of Transubstantiation so did Luther by way of Consubstantiation Which how it could be vnlesse the body of Christ were every where Zuinglius others could not conceiue and being pressed therewith he and his followers not being able to avoid it maintained that also But how by reason of the Hypostaticall vnion and coniunction thereof with the word For the Word being every where and the Humane Nature being no where feuered from it how can it be say they but every where And hence the distraction and therevpon all those passionate speeches Now saith Zanchy if they meane that the body of Christ is present according to his personall being they say true contradict not those who speake of his Naturall being or being of Essence D. Field thus expresseth it The humane Nature of Christ hath two kinds of being the one naturall the other personall the first limited finite the second infinite incoÌ„prehensible For seeing the nature of man is a created nature and essence it cannot be but finite and seeing it hath no Personall subsistence of it owne but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it which is infinite and without limitation it cannot be denied to haue an infinite Subsistence to subsist in an incomprehensible and illimited sort and consequently every where Thus then the body of Christ according to his Naturall being is contained in one place but according to his Personall being may rightly be said to be every where So Field whereby you may easily perceiue that the warres betwixt hony-bees are not such but the casting vp of a little dust will soone stint them For if this distinction had well beene conceiued this Vbiquitary strife had quickly beene ended If any notwithstanding haue beene so grosse as to maintaine an Vbiquity according to Essence or Naturall being which I can hardly beleeue I must professe I know no excuse for them The second quarrell is against Hosiander who seemeth to define Iustification by a transfusion of the Essentiall righteousnesse of Christ into vs and a confusion as it were and mixture of it together with vs. And against this divers haue written very