whatsoeuer it may now determine into which Error some opposers of the Church of Rome haue fallen And vpon this is grounded your Question Wherein are wee neerer to vnitie if a Councell may erre In relating the B. his Answer to this you are not so candide as you confesse him ingenuous before For his words did not sound as yours seeme to doe That wee should hold with the Councell erre or not erre till another came to reuerse it As if grounds of Faith might varie at the Racket and be cast of each side as a cunning hand might lay them You forget againe omit at least and with what mind you best know the B. his Caution For he said The determination of a Generall Councell erring was to stand in force and haue externall obedience at the least yeelded to it till euidence of Scripture or a demonstration to the contrary made the Error appeare and vntill thereupon another Councell of equall Authoritie did reuerse it Thus then the B. But indeed he might haue returned vpon you againe If a Generall Councell not confirmed by the Pope may erre which you affirme To what end then a Generall Councell And you may answere Yes for although a Generall Councell may erre yet the Pope as Head of the Church cannot An excellent meanes of vnitie to haue all in the Church as the Pope will haue it what euer Scripture say or the Church thinke And then I pray to what end a Generall Councell Will his Holinesse be so holy as to confirme a Generall Councell if it determine against him I for my part am willing a little to consider hereupon the point of Generall Councels How they may or may not erre and a little to looke into the Romane and Protestant opinion concerning them which is more agreeable to the Power and Rule which Christ hath left in his Church and which is most preseruatiue of Peace established or ablest to reduce vnitie into the Church of Christ when that poore Ship hath her Ribs dashed in 〈◊〉 by the Waues of Contention And this Consideration I will venture to the World but onely in the Nature of a 〈◊〉 and with submission to my Mother the Church of England and the Mother of vs all the Vniuersall Catholike Church of Christ. 1. First then I consider Whether all the Power that an Oecumenicall Councell hath to determine and all the Assistance it hath not to erre in that determination it hath it not all from the Catholike vniuersall Bodie of the Church or Clergie in the Church if you will whose Representatiue it is It seemes it hath For the gouernment of the Church being not Monarchicall but as Christ is Head this Principle is 〈◊〉 in nature Euerie Bodie collectiue that represents receiues Power and Priuiledges from that Bodie which is represented else a Representation might haue force without the thing it represents which cannot be So no Power in the Councell no Assistance but what is in and to the Church But yet then it may be questioned Whether the Representing Bodie hath all the power strength and priuiledge which the Represented hath And suppose it hath all the Legall power yet it hath not all the Naturall eyther of strength or wisedome that the whole hath Now because tho Representatiue hath power from the whole and the maine 〈◊〉 can meet no other way therefore the Acts 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 of the Representatiue be it Ecclesiasticall or Ciuile are binding in their strength But they are not so certaine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 as that Wisedome which resides in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Assemblies meerely Ciuile or Ecclesiasticall all 〈◊〉 men cannot be in the Bodie that represents And it is possible so many able and sufficient men for some particular businesse may be out as that they which are in may misse or mis-apply that Reason and Ground vpon which the determination is principally to rest Here for want of a cleare view of this Ground the Representatiue Bodie erres whereas the Represented by vertue of these Members may hold the Principle vnuiolated 2. Secondly I consider That since it is thus in Nature and in Ciuile Bodies if it be not so in Ecclesiasticall too some reason must be giuen why For that Bodie also consists of men Those men neyther all equall in their perfections of Knowledge and Iudgement whether acquired by Industrie or rooted in nature or infused by God Not all equall nor any one of them perfect and absolute or freed from passion and humane infirmities Nor doth their meeting together make them infallible in all things though the Act which is hammered out by many together must in reason be perfecter than that which is but the Child of one mans sufficiencie If then a Generall Councell haue no ground of not erring from the men or the meeting either it must not be at all or be by some assistance and power vpon them when they are so met together And this if it be lesse than the assistance of the Holy Ghost it cannot make them secure against Error 3. Thirdly I consider That the assistance of the Holy Ghost is without Error that 's no question and as little there is that a Councell hath it But the doubt that troubles is Whether all assistance of the Holy Ghost be affoorded in such a high manner as to cause all the Definitions of a Councell in matters fundamentall in the Faith and in remote Deductions from it to be alike infallible The Romanists to prooue there is infallible assistance produce some places of Scripture but no one of them inferres much lesse enforces an infallibilitie The places which Stapleton there rests vpon are these I will send you the Spirit of Truth which will lead you into all Truth And This Spirit shall abide with you for euer And Behold I am with you vnto the end of the World To these others adde The founding of the Church vpon the Rocke against which the Gates of Hell shall not preuaile And Christs prayer for S. Peter That his Faith faile not 1. For the first which is Leading into all Truth and that for euer All is not alwayes vniuersally taken in Scripture nor is it here simply for All Truth for then a Generall Councell could no more erre in matter of Fact than in matter of Faith in which yet your selues graunt it may erre But into All Truth is a limited All into All Truth absolutely necessarie to saluation And this when they suffer themselues to be led by the blessed Spirit by the Word of God And all Truth which Christ had before at least fundamentally deliuered vnto them Hee shall receiue of mine and shew it vnto you And againe Hee shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance which I haue told you And for this necessarie Truth too the Apostles receiued this promise not for themselues and a Councell but for themselues and the whole Catholike
1. Tim. 2 4. But without vnderstanding the qualitie of the Romane Church people may be baptised beleeue and repent and haue all the ordinarie meanes of saluation as appeareth by the Iewes Asts 2 41. and the Eunuch Acts 8 37. and Lydia Acts 16 14. and many Gentiles Acts 13 48. and the elect Ladie and her children 2. Iohn v. 1 2 4. and the Corinthians Galatians Ephesians and the seuen Churches of Asia Apoc. 2 3. c. Occham saieth that after Christs ascension many people were saued before the Roman Church had anie being and AEneas Siluius affirmeth That the first 300 yeares before the Nicene Counsell small regard was had of the Roman Church Iohannes Maior saieth It were ouer hard to affirme that the Indians and other Christans which liue in remote countries should be in the state of damnation because they were ignorant That the Bishop of Rome is head of the Church if they beleeue other necessarie Articles of Saluation And Alchasar saieth Before such time as the publique nuptials betweene the Roman and other Churches were celebrated by a common receiued custome a lesse frequent communion with that Church was sufficient Seconly It is no Article of the Apostles Creed or of any other ancient Creed neither is it delinered in any plaine text or sentence of holy Scripture That all Christian people must receiue their beleefe from the Roman Church or that the same intirely shall in all ages continue in the doctrine and faith receiued from the Apostles yea the contrarie is taught in holie Scripture Rom. 11 22. But if the doctrine aforesaid were fundamentall and of greatest importance the same must haue beene plainely deliuered either in holy Scripture or in all or some of the auncient Creedes IESVIT The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth 2. Tim. 3 15. The eminent Rocke and Mountaine filling the whole world on the top whereof standeth the Tradition of sauing Doctrine conspicuous and immooueable Ergo Jt is the most important Controuersie of all other to know whether the Roman Church be the true Church ANSVVER Foure texts of Scripture are produced to proue that it is the most important controuersie of all other to know whether the Roman Church be the true Church but neither are the places of Scripture expounded rightly neither is the Iesuits islation from them consequent or firme 1 Although it were granted that the totall certaintie of Christiantie dependeth vpon the Church yet because the Roman Church is not the whole Church but onely a part and member thereof Rom. 1 6. and such a member as may erre and proue vnsound Rom. 11 22. The knowledge of the state and qualitie of that Church cannot be simply necessarie and consequently not a matter of greatest importance to be vnderstood 2 The places of Scripture 1. Tim. 3 15. Math. 16 18. Esay 2 1. Dan. 2 35. proue not the question The first place to wit Math. 16 18. is expounded by manie interpreters of Christ himselfe and by the most of the faith which S. Peter confessed touching Christ. And our Sauiour affirmeth not in this Text that the Roman Church of euerie age is a Rocke but that the Church of right beleeuers is builded vpon a Rocke and so the Church is one thing and the Rocke another because nothing is builded vpon it selfe The second place 1. Tim. 3 15. 〈◊〉 that the Church which is the house of the liuing God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pillar and ground of Truth 1. If by the Church we vnderstand the Catholicke Church as it containeth the holie Apostles then this commendation agreeth fully and perfectly to it in respect of the Apostles who were led into all Truth Iohn 16 13. and which taught whilest they 〈◊〉 all Truth and they do at this present day in the Scripture teach the fulnesse of Truth 2. If by the Church we vnderstand the Church of Christ liuing after the Apostles the same is by office and calling the pillar and ground of Truth in all ages And some part or other thereof Truth of God 〈◊〉 to saluation But the present Church is not 〈◊〉 and simply in all things the pillar and ground of Truth but so farre onely as it teacheth the doctrine reuealed by the holie Ghost and groundeth her faith vpon the word of God and this is proued because the Church Apostolicall was free from all errour but succeeding Pastors and Doctors may erre in Ecclesiasticall censures in degrees legislatiue in sermons disputations and other tractats as our Aduersaries themselues confesse and they which propugne the infallible authoritie of the present Church restraine the same to the Pope and Councell of which S. Paul is silent 1. Tim. 3 15. And from hence I inferre That the Church wherein the Apostles taught and gouerned was the ground and pillar of Truth fully intirely and in all things But the present Church is so with limitation conditionally and so farre forth onely as it deliuereth the Apostles doctrine Lastly the Roman Church can challenge no greater priuiledge of Infallibilitie from this Scripture than the church of Ephesus of which the Apostle speaketh litterally in the said Text. But although the Church of Ephesus was by office the pillar and ground of Truth yet the same did afterwards degenerate and depart from the right Faith which argueth that particular Churches such as were the Roman Ephesine Corinthian c. are not in such sort the pillar and ground of Truth as that they are in no danger of errour The other two places Esay 2 1. Dan. 2 35. are principally vnderstood of Christ and his Apostles and they proue not the Iesuits position which is It is the most important controuersie of all other to know whether the Roman Church is the true Church for the present Church of Rome is a Molehill and not the Mountaine prophesied of Esay 2. the same filleth not the whole world but onely a small part of the world neither did the same antiently for 500 yeares at the least fill the whole world for many people both in the East and West were Christians without depending vpon it neither is the same alwaies illustrious for Vertue and Truth but sometimes notorious for Superstition and Vice If our Adnersaries will contend That there is in all ages avisible Church like vnto a great Mountaine filling the whole world vpon the top whereof standeth the Tradition of all true doctrine conspicuous and illustrious 1. The places of Esay and Daniell affirme not this concerning all times and ages of the Church 2. The Scriptures foretell a large reuolt and apostasie from heauenly trueth 3. Our Aduersaries themselues acknowledge that the outward face of the visible Church at some times hath beene and againe may be miserably polluted with foule and enormious scandals and abominations IESVIT If this Church bee ouerthrowne the totall
no Lye nor his Power any Inconstancie Because therefore Christ hath a true and perfect Bodie both in regard of substance and matter and also in respect of quantitie stature measure posture proportion c. and because euerie true humane bodie by the Ordinance of the Creator who hath formed and constituted the seuerall kinds and natures of things after a speciall manner is determined to one indiuiduall place at one instant and must also haue distinction and diuision of parts with a length latitude and thicknesse proportionall to the quantitie thereof Therefore except God himselfe had expressely reuealed and testified by his Word that the contrarie should be found in the humane bodie of Christ and that the same should haue one manner of corporall being in Heauen and another in the holy Eucharist at one and the same time a Christian cannot be compelled to beleeue this Doctrine as an Article of his Creed vpon the sole Voyce and Authoritie of the Laterane or Trident Councell Some learned Papists confesse ingeniously That secluding the Authoritie of the Church there is no written Word of God sufficient to enforce a Christian to receiue this Doctrine And moderne Pontificians are not able to confirme their present Tenet to wit That Christs humane bodie may be in many vbities or places at one time and that the whole bodie of Christ is circumscriptiuely in Heauen and according to the manner of a Spirit and of the Diuine nature it selfe without extension of parts in euerie crumme of the Sacramentall formes This Doctrine I say Papals are not able to confirme by the vnanimous Testimonie and Tradition of the antient Church Therefore because the same is grounded neither vpon Scripture nor Tradition they begge the question when they alleadge Gods omnipotent power for it must first of all and that vpon infallible Principles appeare That God will haue it thus before his omnipotencie be pleaded that he is able to make it thus But the Iesuites Sophisme whereby hee would intangle vs within the snares of fundamentall Errour when wee denie Christs bodily presence in many places at once proceedeth in this manner No bodie can be truely receiued in many places at once vnlesse the same be corporally present in many places at once The Bodie of Christ is truely receiued in many places at once to wit in euery place where the holy Eucharist is administred Ergo The Bodie of Christ is present in many places at once I answere The Maior Proposition is denyed for there is a twofold manner of true Presence and consequently of Receiuing one Naturall by the hand and mouth of the bodie Another Mysticall and Spirituall by the deliuerie of the holy Ghost and by the apprehension and action of the soule First The holy Ghost truely and verily reacheth and presenteth the Obiect which is Christs Bodie and Blood crucified and offered in Sacrifice for mans Redemption Secondly The reasonable soule being eleuated by a liuely and operatiue Faith apprehendeth and receiueth the former obiect as really verily and truely after a spirituall and supernaturall manner as the bodie receiueth any corporeall or sensible obiect after a naturall manner Iohn 1. 12. Ephes. 3. 17. Fulgentius saith Filium Dei vnicum per fidem recipiunt They receiue the onely Sonne of God by Faith Our Sauiour saith That holy Beleeuers receiue the Flesh and drinke the Blood of Christ Iohn 6. 50 53 54. Credendo by 〈◊〉 v. 35.47 Paschasius hath these words The flesh and blood of Christ c. are truely 〈◊〉 by Faith and vnderstanding It is not lawfull to eate Christ with teeth This Sacrament is truely his flesh and his blood which man eateth and drinketh spiritually 〈◊〉 saith Hold readie the mouth of thy Faith open the iawes of Hope stretchout the bowels of Loue and take the Bread of life which is the nourishment of the inward man Eusebius Emisenus When thou goest vp to the reuerend Altar to bee filled with spirituall meates by Faith behold honour and wonder at the sacred Bodie and Blood of thy God touch it with thy minde take it with the hand of thy heart and chiefly prouide that the inward man swallow the whole Saint Ambrose Comedat te cor meum panis Sancte panis viue panis munde veni in cor meum intra in animam meam Let mine heart eate thee oh holy Bread oh liuing Bread oh pure Bread come into my heart enter into my soule Saint Augustine There is another Bread which confirmeth the heart because it is the Bread of the heart And in another place Then is the Body and Blood of the Lord life to each man when that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament is in very truth spiritually eaten spiritually drunken Now from the former Testimonies it is manifest that the Bodie and Blood of Christ may truely and really bee eaten and receiued by operatiue Faith in the Sacrament And if it bee further obiected That spirituall eating and drinking of the Bodie and Blood of Christ may bee without the Sacrament I answere That the same is more effectually and perfectly accomplished in the Sacrament than out of the Sacrament because the holy Ghost directly and in speciall when the Sacrament is deliuered exhibiteth the Body and Blood of Christ as a pledge and testimonie of his particular loue towards euery worthie Receiuer and the liuely representation and commemoration of Christs death and Sacrifice by the mysticall signes and actions is an instrument of the Diuine Spirit to apply and communicate Christ crucified and to increase and confirme the Faith Charitie and pietie of Receiuers Lastly It is remarkeable that vntill the thousand yeeres and more after Christs Ascension Orthodoxall Christians beleeued that the Bodie and Blood of Christ were truely and really present and deliuered to worthie Receiuers in and by the holy Eucharist according to St. Pauls Doctrine 1. Cor. 10.16 And that the same must be spiritually receiued by Faith or else they profited nothing But the manner of Presence which some Modernes now obtrude by Consubstantiation or by Transubstantiation was not determined as an Article of Faith And to say nothing of Consubstantiation the defence whereof inuolueth them in many absurdities which vndertake for it it is apparant that Transubstantiation is a bastard plant and vpstart weed neuer planted by the heauenly Father but the same sprang vp in the declining state of the Church and it is perplexed and inuolued with so many absurdities and contradictions to Veritie formerly receiued that our Aduersarie was transported with partiall folly when he presumed to ranke the refusall of this new and prodigious Article among fundamentall Errours IESVIT EIghtly Their denying the Sacrament of Penance and Priestly Absolution the necessarie meanes for remission of finnes committed after Baptisme ANSVVER THe Obiector by Penance vnderstandeth not Repentance as it is a vertue for Protestants beleeue true
Israelites formed and worshipped a Golden Calfe they might by conceit and imagination apprehend and worship the true God but this imagination and apprehension was not sufficient to iustifie their Action Men may in their owne wisedome and intention conceiue and worship Images and other Signes as if they were one and the same thing with that which is the proper obiect of Worship but when they conioyne that which God hath diuided their foolish and erroneous fancie and imagination maketh not their Actions lawfull or pleasing to God Aristotle in the place obiected d. Memor cap. 1. in fine affirmeth not either verbally or in sense that there is the same motion of the Conceit and Affection into the externall Image and the Sampler for hee speaketh not of painted or carued Images but of the mentall Image and impression which remayneth in the memorie after the knowledge of things past And many Schoolemen denie that Aristotles testimonie is truly applyed to Aquinas his manner of worshipping Images among which are Durand Picus Mirandula 〈◊〉 Vasques c. It is also apparantly false that there is the same motion of the mind and will into the Image and the Sampler for these are euerie way two distinct Obiects and the one is a signe and the other a thing signified the one is the cause the other the thing caused and in some Images the Sampler is a nature increate the Image considered as an Image and in relation to the Prototype is a thing created the one is adored because of it selfe the other respectiuely because of the Sampler And therefore for as much as the Obiect is diuers and the manner of the Action is diuers the motion of mans heart towards the Image and the Sampler cannot be one motion but diuers euen as when I desire the meanes because of the end here are two distinct Actions and motions to wit Election and Intention IESVIT This Axiome of Philosophie that no man thinke it disauowed in Theologie the antient Fathers vniformely teach as a prime truth euident in reason S. Damascen S. Augustine S. Ambrose S. Basil S. Athanasius who writes An Image of the King is nothing else but the forme and shape of the King which could it speake would and might say J and the King are one the King is in me and I in him so that who adoreth me his Image doth therein adore the verie King Thus he shewing that the Kings Image is to be imagined and by imagination conceiued and honoured as the verie King ANSWER You affirme That the antient Fathers vniformely teach and that as a prime truth That the Image may and ought to stand for the Prototype and is by imagination to be taken as if it were the very Person and consequently that it is ioyntly to be worshipped First you say the antient Fathers teach this Doctrine vniformely secondly you adde That they teach this as a prime Truth But to prooue the first you produce onely fiue Testimonies of Fathers of which one is not very antient and touching the latter you bring nothing The Testimonies of the Fathers examined First Damascene d. Fid. lib. 4. cap. 12. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where his signe is there is Christ to wit by operation and grace First this Author liued 740 yeeres after Christ and is none of the antient Fathers Secondly it is confessed by your selues that hee was not Orthodoxall in all points For as Cardinall Bellarmine saith hee denyed the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne and in the matter of Images hee differeth from the antient which were before him Secondly Saint Augustine d. Doctr. Christ. l. 3. c. 9. saith Hee which vseth or worshippeth any profitable signe being of diuine Institution vnderstanding the vertue and signification thereof worshippeth not that which is visible and transeunt but that rather whereunto all such things are referred But Popish Images appointed for Worship are no Sacraments or Ceremonies or Signes of Diuine Institution but humane Traditions condemned by Saint Augustine both among Christians and Pagans Thirdly Saint Ambros. d. Dom. Incarn Sacram. c. 7. saith When we adore his Diuinitie and his flesh doe we diuide Christ When wee worship in him the Image of God and the Crosse doe wee diuide him This Father speaketh not of any Painted Image of God but of the inuisible Image Col. 1.15 Heb. 1.3 And by the Crosse he vnderstandeth the Passion of Christ as appeareth in his next words Etsi crucifixus est c. Saint Basil and Saint Athanasius spake by way of similitude not of all Images but of the Images of Kings which sometimes not alwayes in Ciuile vse and custome not in Religion may be taken and reuerenced for the principall But from a particular and from a similitude which halteth in many things you cannot conclude generally and absolutely Where is now the vniforme consent of Fathers which the Aduersarie glorieth in Damascene is not antient Saint Augustine speaketh of signes which haue diuine institution Saint Ambrose of Christ his Passion and not of Statues or Pictures Saint Basil and Athanasius speake by similitude obiter and by the way But which of these affirmes that Image Worship is a prime veritie But that the Reader may the better conceiue the weight of the Aduersaries Disputation for Worship of Images I will exhibit the same in a Logicall Resolution The Theme or Question is Whether artificiall Images of Christ and of the Saints are to be worshipped The first ground and Argument for the Affirmatiue is If the Samplers themselues are to be worshipped then the Images being liuely Portraitures and representations of those Samplers are to be worshipped The Consequence is denied for besides that all Images and among the rest the Images of Christ are not liuely Portraitures of Christ but dead shaddowes and imperfect and confuled delineations of his humanitie yet whatsoeuer they are artificially and by humane constitution they are not to be worshipped Religiously because no diuine Institution or Authoritie permitteth man so to doe and on the contrary part diuine Precept extant in the Morall Law prohibiteth the doing heereof OBIECTION II. If the Image represent the Sampler and stand for it and by conceit and imagination is one with it then it may and ought to bee worshipped c. But the first is true c. If the Argument be thus resolued the sequel is false for that which representeth another and standeth for another and is by imagination another partaketh not all the Rites and duties of that which it representeth but such onely as by lawfull ordination and by the nature of his kinde it is capable of but Painted and Carued Images neither by the nature of their kinde being things sencelesse liuelesse and destitute of Grace nor yet by any diuine Ordination are capable of Adoration The brasen Serpent was a figure and Image
with himselfe in adoration IESVIT Secondly whereas he saith that the Councell of Nice brought in the worship of Jmages yet forbad that any Image should be adored with diuine honor he both contradicts himselfe and vttereth another manifest falshood He contradicts himselfe in saying that the Nicene Councell forbad diuine worship of any Images Seeing in another place he thus writeth Both the Councell of Nice and the Diuines of the Church of Rome hold the Jmages of God and our Sauiour and the Crosse must be adored with diuine adoration It is apparantly false that the said Nicene Councell brought in the worship of Jmages which might be prooued by many testimonies but this only may suffice that Leo Isauricus before the Councell of Nice opposed Image worship not as then beginning but for many yeares before established in the Church boasting that he was the first Christian Emperor the rest hauing beene Idolaters because they worshipped Images so manifestly did he oppose Antiquitie and so little truth there is in M. Whites Assertion ANSWER The second Nicene Synod brought in the worship of Images not simply but by defining the same to be necessarie and by appointing the practise thereof to be receiued vniuersally otherwise M. Iohn White was not ignorant that the Israelites worshipped molten Images in Dan and Bethell and the Simonians worshipped Images Eusebius Eccles. Hist. lib. 2. ca. 13. and the Gnostickes worshipped Christ his Image Iren. lib. 2. cap. 24. And Marcellina worshipped the Images of Iefu and Paul c. Aug. d. Haer. 7. Haeres The Marsilians also or people thereabout worshipped Images in the daies of Serenus Greg. li. 7. Epist. 109. lib. 9. Epist. 9. But all these were condemned of superstition by the Catholicke Church and the second Nicene Synod was censured and the definition thereof resisted by many as I haue formerly prooued pag. 210. And because the Iesuit rehearseth a storie out of Zonaras an Author which themselues regard not I will requite him with a more certaine Historie out of Roger Houeden a natiue Historian of the affaires of Britaine his words are these Charles the French king sent a Synodal into Britaine directed vnto him from Constantinople in the which booke many things out alas inconuenient and repugnant to right Faith were found especially it was confirmed almost by the vnanimous consent of all the Easterne Doctours no lesse than three hundred or more That Images ought to be worshipped which thing the Church of God doth altogether detest Against which Synodal Booke Albinus wrote an Epistle marueilously confirmed by authoritie of diuine Scripture and carried the same to the French king together with the foresaid Booke in the name of our Bishops and Princes IESVIT Thirdly to passe yet vp higher That Images began in Gregorie the Great his time and that he forbad the worship of them containes other three falshoods First Gregorie is abused who onely commanded that none should worship Images as Gods 〈◊〉 as Gentiles did that some Godhead was affixed vnto them as he elsewhere declareth himselfe And so manifestly did he teach Image worship establishing Pilgrimages vnto them by Indulgences as Frier Bale accuseth him thereof Yea M. Symonds and M. Bale write that Leo an hundred and fortie yeares before Gregorie decreed the worship of Images ANSWER Gregories words are Imagines adorare omnibus modis deuita By all meanes shunne the worshipping of Images Aliud est Picturam adorare aliud per Picturae historiam quid sit adorandum addiscere It is one thing to worship a Picture another by the storie of the Picture to learne what is to be worshipped Non ad adorandum in Ecclesijs sed ad instruendas solummodo mentes fuit nescientium collocatum It was placed in the Church only to instruct the minds of the ignorant and not to be worshipped And in another Epistle Quatenus literarum nescij haberent vndè scientiae historiam colligerent First in these passages of S. Gregorie we find no vse of Images allowed but onely historicall Secondly he saith positiuely They are not set vp to be worship ped but onely to instruct the ignorant And although in the place obiected he saith Non vt quasi Deum colas Not that thou shouldest worship them as God yet he doth not approoue the worshipping of them any other way but addeth We do not bow downe before them as before the Dietie he saith not quasi ad Dietatem as to the Dietie sed quasi ante as before the Dietie Thirdly Cassander a learned Papist confesseth ingenuously That Gregorie the Great forbad all worship of Images But our latter Idolists vse no measure or modestie in eluding and peruerting the euident sentences of the Fathers IESVIT Secondly Polydore in this point is egregiously falsified for he saieth not as the Minister makes him speake All Fathers condemned the worship of Jmages for feare of idolatry but his words are cultum Imaginum teste Hieronimo omnes veteres Patres damnabant metu Idololatriae All the old Fathers as Hierom witnesseth did condemne worship of Images for feare of idolatrie by the old Fathers meaning the Fathers of the Old Testament not of the New which appeares because in proofe of his saying he brings not the testimonie of any Father of the New Testament but onely of the Old as of Moses Dauid Ieremie and other Prophets and the scope of the whole Chapter is to declare that the reason why in the Old Testament the Fathers misliked the worship of the Images of God was because they could not paint him aright Cum Deum nemo vidisset vnquam because then no man had seene God Afterwards God saith Polidore hauing taken flesh and being become visible to mortall eyes men flocked vnto him and did without doubt behold and reuerence his face shining with the brightnesse of diuine light and euen then they began to paint or carue his Image alreadie imprinted in their minds and those Images saith he they receiued with great worship and veneration as was reason the honour of the Image redounding to the originall as Basill writes Which custome of adoring Images the Fathers were so farre from reproouing as they did not only admit therof but also decreed and commanded the same by generall Councels in the time of Iustinian the second and Constantine his sonne What man then is there so dissolute and audatious as can dreame of the contrarie and doubt of the lawfulnesse of this worship established so long agoe by the decree of most holy Fathers Thus writeth Polidore and much more to the same purpose in the verie place where the Minister citeth him to the contrarie which shewes how notoriously his credulous Readers are abused in matters of most moment whence appeareth the third falshood that in Gregories daies Images began to be set vp in Churches which to haue beene in Churches long before the testimonies of S. Basil Paulinus Lactantius and Tertullian doe
to a soule prepared by the present Churches Tradition and Gods grace The Difficulties which are pretended against this are not many and they will easily vanish 1. First you pretend wee goe to priuate Reuelations for Light to know Scripture No wee doe not you see it is excluded out of the very state of the Question and wee goe to the Tradition of the present Church and by it as well as you Here wee differ wee vse this as the first Motiue not as the last Resolution of our Faith wee resolue onely into prime Tradition Apostolicall and Scripture it selfe 2. Secondly you pretend wee doe not nor cannot know the prime Apostolicall Tradition but by the Tradition of the present Church and that therefore if the Tradition of the present Church be not Gods vnwritten Word and Diuine we cannot yet know Scripture to be Scripture by a Diuine Authoritie First suppose I could not know the prime Tradition to be Diuine but by the present yet it doth not follow that then I cannot know Scripture to be Scripture by a Diuine Authoritie because Diuine Tradition is not the sole and onely meanes to prooue it For suppose I had not nor could haue full assurance of Apostolicall Tradition Diuine yet the morall persuasion reason and force of the present Church is ground enough to mooue any reasonable man that it is fit hee should reade the Scripture and esteeme very reuerently and highly of it And this once done the Scripture hath then In and Home Arguments enough to put a soule that hath but ordinarie Grace out of doubt That Scripture is the Word of God infallible and Diuine Secondly Next the present Tradition though not absolutely Diuine yet by the helpe of Diuine Arguments internall to the Scripture is able to prooue the very prime Tradition for so long as the present agrees both with the prime Tradition and with the Scripture it selfe deliuered by it as in this it is found and agreed vpon that it doth and Hell it selfe is not able to belch out a good Argument against it it is a sufficient testimonie of the Scriptures Authoritie not by or of it selfe because not simply Diuine but by the prime Tradition and Scripture vpon which it grounds while it deliuers And both these are absolutely Diuine 3. Thirdly you pretend that wee make the Scripture absolutely and fully to be knowne Lumine suo by the Light and Testimonie which it hath in and giues to it selfe Against this you giue reason and proofe from our selues Your reason is If there be sufficient Light in Scripture to shew it selfe then euerie man that can and doth but reade it may know it presently to be the Diuine Word of God which we see by dayly experience men neither doe nor can First it is not absolutely nor vniuersally true There is sufficient Light therefore euerie man may see it Blind men are men and cannot see it and sensuall men in the Apostles iudgement are such Nor may wee denie and put out this Light as insufficient because blind Eyes cannot and peruerse Eyes will not see it no more than we may denie meat to be sufficient for nourishment though men that are heart-sicke cannot eate it Next wee doe not say That there is such a full Light in Scripture as that euerie man vpon the first sight must yeeld to it such Light as is found in prime Principles Euerie whole is greater than a part of the same and this The same thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same respect These carrie a naturall Light with them and euident for they are no sooner vnderstood than fully knowne to the conuincing of mans vnderstanding and so they are the beginning of knowledge which where it is perfect dwells in full Light but such a full Light wee doe neyther say is nor require to be in Scripture and if any particular man doe let him answere for himselfe The Question is onely of such a Light in Scripture as is of force to breed Faith that it is the Word of God not to make a perfect Knowledge Now Faith of whatsoeuer it is this or other Principle it is an Euidence as well as a Knowledge and a firmer and surer Euidence than any Knowledge can haue because it rests vpon Diuine Authoritie which cannot deceiue whereas Knowledge or at least he that thinkes he knowes is not euer certaine in deductions from Principles I say firmer Euidence but not so cleare For it is of things not seene in regard of the Obiect and in regard of the Subiect that sees it is in aenigmate in a Glasse or darke speaking Now God doth not require a full demonstratiue Knowledge in vs that the Scripture is his Word and therefore in his prouidence kindled in it no Light for that but he requires our Faith of it and such a certaine Demonstration as may fit that And for that he hath left sufficient Light in Scripture to Reason and Grace meeting where the soule is morally prepared by the Tradition of the Church vnlesse you be of Bellarmine's opinion That to beleeue there are any Diuine Scriptures is not omninò necessarie to saluation The Authoritie which you pretend is out of Hooker Of things necessarie the verie chiefest is to know what Bookes wee are bound to esteeme holy which Point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach Of this Brierly the Store-house for all Priests that will be idle and yet seeme well read tells vs That Hooker giues a verie sensible Demonstration It is not the Word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs that we doe well to thinke it is his Word for if any one Booke of Scripture did giue testimonie to all yet still that Scripture which giueth credit to the rest would require another to giue credit vnto it Nor could wee euer come to any pause to rest our assurance this way so that vnlesse beside Scripture there were something that might assure c. And this he acknowledgeth saith Brierly is the Authoritie of Gods Church Certainely Hooker giues a true and a sensible Demonstration but Brierly wants fidelitie and integritie in citing him For in the first place Hookers speech is Scripture it selfe cannot teach this nor can the Truth say that Scripture it selfe can It must needs ordinarily haue Tradition to prepare the mind of a man to receiue it And in the next where hee speakes so sensibly That Scripture cannot beare witnesse to it selfe nor one part of it to another that is grounded vpon Nature which admits no created thing to be witnesse to it selfe and is acknowledged by our Sauiour If I beare witnesse to my selfe my witnesse is not true i. not of force to be reasonably accepted for Truth But then it is more than manifest that Hooker deliuers his Demonstration of Scripture alone For if Scripture hath another proofe to vsher it and lead it in then no
question it can both prooue and approoue it selfe His words are So that vnlesse besides Scripture there be c. Besides Scripture therefore he excludes not Scripture but calls for another proofe to lead it in namely Tradition which no man that hath braines about him denyes In the two other places Brierly falsifies shamefully for folding vp all that Hooker sayes in these words This other meanes to assure vs besides Scripture is the Authoritie of Gods Church he wrinkles that worthie Author desperately and shrinkes vp his meaning In the former place abused by Brierly no man can set a better state of the question betweene Scripture and Tradition than Hooker doth His words are these The Scripture is the ground of our Beleefe The Authoritie of man that is the name he giues to Tradition is the Key which opens the doore of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture I aske now when a man is 〈◊〉 and hath viewed a house and by viewing likes it and vpon liking resolues vnchangeably to dwell there doth he set vp his resolution vpon the Key that let him in No sure but vpon the goodnesse and commodiousnesse which he sees in the house And this is all the difference that I know betweene vs in this Point In which doe you grant as yee ought to doe that wee resolue our Faith into Scripture as the Ground and wee will neuer denie that Tradition is the Key that lets vs in In the latter place Hooker is as plaine as constant to himselfe and Truth His words are The first outward motiue leading men so to esteeme of the Scripture is the Authoritie of Gods Church c. But afterwards the more we bestow our labour in reading or learning the Mysteries thereof the more we find that the thing it selfe doth answer our receiued opinion concerning it so that the former inducement preuailing somewhat with vs before doth now much more preuaile when the verie thing hath ministred further reason Here then againe in his iudgement is Tradition the first inducement but the farther Reason and Ground is the Scripture and resolution of Faith euer settles vpon the farthest Reason it can not vpon the first inducement So that the state of this Question is firme and plaine enough to him that will not shut his eyes The last thing I shall trouble you with is That this method and manner of proouing Scripture to be the Word of God is the same which the antient Church euer held namely Tradition or Ecclesiasticall Authoritie first and then internall Arguments from the Scripture it selfe The first Church of Christ the Apostles themselues had their warrant from Christ their Tradition was euerie way Diuine both in the thing they deliuered and in the manner of their witnessing it But in after-times of the Church men prooue Scripture to be the Word of God by internall Arguments as the chiefe thing vpon which they resolue though Tradition be the first that mooues them to it This way the Church went in S. Augustine's time He was no enemie to Church-Tradition yet when he would prooue that the Author of the Scripture and so of the whole knowledge of Diuinitie as it is supernaturall is Deus in Christo God in Christ he takes this as the all-sufficient way and giues foure proofes all internall to the Scripture first The Miracles secondly That there is nothing carnall in the Doctrine thirdly That there hath beene such performance of it fourthly That by such a Doctrine of Humilitie the whole World almost hath beene conuerted And whereas ad muniendam fidem for the defending of the Faith and keeping it entire there are two things requisite Scripture and Church-Tradition Vincent Lirinensis places Authoritie of Scriptures first and then Tradition And since it is apparant that Tradition is first in order of Time it must necessarily follow that Scripture is first in order of Nature that is the chiefe vpon which Faith rests and resolues it selfe And your owne Schoole confesses this was the way euer The woman of Samaria is a knowne resemblance but allowed by your selues For quotidie dayly with them that are without Christ enters by the Woman that is the Church and they beleeue by that fame which she giues c. But when they come to heare Christ himselfe they beleeue his words before the words of the woman For when they haue once found Christ they doe more beleeue his words in Scripture than they doe the Church which testifies of him because then propterillam for the Scripture they beleeue the Church and if the Church should speake contrarie to the Scripture they would not beleeue it Thus the Schoole taught then and thus the Glosse commented then And when men haue tyred themselues hither they must come The Key that lets men in to the Scriptures euen to this knowledge of them that they are the Word of God is Tradition of the Church but when they are in they heare Christ himselfe immediately speaking in Scripture to the Faithfull And his Sheepe doe not onely heare but know his voyce To conclude then wee haue a double Diuine Testimonie altogether infallible to confirme vnto vs that Scripture is the Word of God The first is the Tradition of the Church of the Apostles themselues who deliuered immediately to the World the Word of Christ the other the Scripture it selfe but after it hath receiued this Testimonie And into these wee doe and may safely resolue our Faith As for the Tradition of after ages in and about whom Miracles and Diuine power were not so euident we beleeue them because they doe not preach other things than those former the Apostles left in scriptis certissimis in most certaine Scripture And it appeares by men in the middle ages that these Writings were vitiated in nothing by the concordant consent in them of all succeedors to our owne time And now by this time it will be no hard thing to reconcile the Fathers which seeme to speake differently in no few places both one from another and the same from themselues touching Scripture and Tradition and that as well in this Point to prooue Scripture to be the Word of God as for concordant exposition of Scripture in all things else When therefore the Fathers say Wee haue the Scripture by Tradition or the like either they meane the Tradition of the Apostles themselues deliuering it and there when it is knowne we may resolue our Faith or if they speake of the present Church then they meane that the Tradition of it is that by which wee first receiue the Scripture as by an according meanes to the prime Tradition But because it is not simply Diuine wee resolue not our Faith into it nor settle our Faith vpon it till it resolue it selfe into the prime Tradition of the Apostles or the Scripture or both and there we rest with it And you cannot shew an ordinarie consent of Fathers nay Can you or any
so plaine set downe in the Scripture If about the sense and true meaning of these or necessarie deduction out of these prime Articles of Faith Generall Councels determine any thing as they haue done in Nice and the rest there is no inconueuience that one and the same Canon of the Councell should be beleeued as it reflects vpon the Articles and Grounds indemonstrable and yet knowne to the Learned by the Meanes and Proofe by which that deduction is vouched and made good And againe the Conclusion of a Councell suppose that in Nice about the Consubstantialitie of Christ with the Father in it selfe considered is or may be indemonstrable by Reason There I beleeue and assent in Faith but the same Conclusion if you giue me the ground of Scripture and the Creed and somewhat must be supposed in all whether Faith or Knowledge is demonstrable by naturall Reason against any Arrian in the World And if it be demonstrable I may know it and haue a habit of it And what inconuenience in this For the weaker sort of Christians which cannot deduce when they haue the Principle graunted they are to rest vpon the Definition onely and their assent is meere Faith yea and the Learned too where there is not a Demonstration euident to them assent by Faith onely and not by Knowledge And what inconuenience in this Nay the necessitie of Nature is such that these Principles once giuen the vnderstanding of man cannot rest but it must be thus And the Apostle would neuer haue required a man to be able to giue a reason and an account of the Hope that is in him if he might not be able to know his account or haue lawfull interest to giue it when he knew it without preiudicing his Faith by his Knowledge And suppose exact Knowledge and meere Beleefe cannot stand together in the same person in regard of the same thing by the same meanes yet that doth not make void this Truth For where is that exact Knowledge or in whom that must not meerely in points of Faith beleeue the Article or Ground vpon which they rest But when that is once beleeued it can demonstrate many things from it And Definitions of Councels are not Principia Fidei Principles of Faith but Deductions from them 7. And now because you aske Wherein wee are neerer to Vnitie by a Councell if a Councell may erre Besides the Answer giuen I promised to consider which Opinion was most agreeable with the Church which most able to preserue or reduce Christian Peace the Romane That a Councell cannot erre orthe Protestants That it can And this I propose not as a Rule but leaue the Christian World to consider of it as I doe 1. First then I consider Whether in those places of Scripture before mentioned or other there be promised and performed to the present Church an absolute infallibilitie or whether such an infallibilitie will notserue the turne as Stapleton after much wriggling is forced to acknowledge One not euerieway exact because it is enough if the Church doe diligently insist vpon that which was once receiued and there is not need of so great certaintie to open and explicate that which lyes hid in the Seed of Faith sowne and deduce from it as to seeke out and teach that which was altogether vnknowne And if this be so then sure the Church of the Apostles required guidance by a greater degree of infallibilitie than the present Church which if it follow the Scripture is infallible enough though it hath not the same degree of certaintie which the Apostles had and the Scripture hath Nor can I tell what to make of Bellarmine that in a whole Chapter disputes 〈◊〉 Prerogatiues in certaintie of Truth that the Scripture hath aboue a Councell and at last concludes That they may be said to be equally certaine in infallible Truth 2. The next thing I consider is Suppose this not Exact but congruous infallibilitie in the Church Is it not residing according to power and right of Authoritie in the whole Church and in a Generall Councell onely by power deputed with Mandate to determine The places of Scripture with Expositions of the Fathers vpon them make me apt to beleeue this S. Peter saith S. Augustine did not receiue the Keyes of the Church but in the person of the Church Now suppose the Key of Doctrine be to let in Truth and shut out Error and suppose the Key rightly vsed infallible in this yet this infallibilitie is primely in the Church in whose person not strictly in his owne S. Peter receiued the Keyes Here Stapleton layes crosse my way againe He would thrust me out of this Consideration He graunts that S. Peter receiued these Keyes indeed and in the person of the Church but that was because he was Primate of the Church 〈◊〉 therefore the Church receiued the Keyes finally but S. Peter formally that is if I mistake him not S. Peter for himselfe and his Successors receiued the Keyes in his owne Right but to this end to benefit the Church of which he was made Pastor But I am in a Consideration and I would haue this considered where it is euer read That to receiue a thing in the person of another is onely meant finally to receiue it that is to his good and not in his right I should thinke he that receiues any thing in the person of another receiues it indeed to his good and to his vse but in his right too And that the primarie and formall right is not in the receiuer but in him whose person hee sustaines while he receiues it This stumbling-blocke then is nothing and in my Consideration it stands still That the Church in generall receiued the Keyes and all Power signified by them and by the assistance of Gods Spirit may be able to vse them and perhaps to open and shut in some things infallibly when the Pope and a Generall Councell too forgetting both her and her Rule the Scripture are to seeke how to turne these Keyes in their Wards 3. The third thing I consider is Suppose in the whole Catholike Church Militant an absolute infallibilitie in the prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessarie to saluation and that this power of not erring so is not communicable to a Generall Councell which represents it but that the Councell is subiect to error This supposition doth not onely preserue that which you desire in the Church an Infallibilitie but it meets with all inconueniences which vsually haue done and doe perplexe the Church And here is still a remedie for all things For if priuate respects if Bandies in a Faction if power and fauour of some parties if weakenesse of them which haue the managing if any mixture of State-Councels if any departure from the Rule of the Word of God if any thing else sway and wrinch the Councell the whole Church vpon euidence found in expresse Scripture or demonstration of this