because knowne by the Churches perpetuall Tradition to be from the Apostles by the Apostles miraculous authority to be of God by Gods supreme Verity who cannot deceaue nor be deceaued to be the truth THE SECOND PART About the Catholike Resolution of Fayth NO doubt but that to the end a man may belieue diuine inward illuminatiō annointing his hart is necessary The question is what is the externall infallible ground vnto which Diuine inspiration moueth men to adhere that they may be setled in the true sauing fayth The answere in few words is this The Resolution of true Religion is firmely assured about foure Principles agaynst foure Enemyes by foure Perfections belonging vnto God as he is Prima veritas Prime and Infinite Verity that cannot deceaue nor be deceaued This I declare and proue The first Principle prooued §. 1. THE first Enemy of true Christian Religion is the Pagan (a) Dicunt pagani Ben◠viuimus or Prophane (b) Fuerunt Philosophi de virtutibus vitijs sublimia multa tractantes Aug. Tract 45. in Ioan. Philosopher who is persuaded he may attayne vnto perfect felicity and Sanctity by the knowledge of sole naturall truth Against this enemy is the first principle of true Christian Religion The Doctrine of Saluation is that only which was reuealed of God vnto his Prophets About this Principle true belieuers are resolued by a perfection which in the first place belonges vnto God as he is Prime Infinite verity to wit that he cannot lye nor reueale any vntruth when he speaks immediatly himselfe by secret inspiration Hēce we thus resolue God the Prime verity cannot reueale vntruth specially about the State-matters of saluation when he speakes by secret inspiration immediatly himselfe But he reuealed in this manner by inspiration vnto his Prophets that men cannot serue him truly nor be saued without knowing supernatural truthes beyond the (c) As mans felicity the blissfull visiō of God is aboue the forces of Nature so it was conueniēt God shold bring him vnto it by belieuing truth aboue the reach of his reason reach of Reason which truthes in particular he reuealed vnto them Therfore the doctrine of saluation is supernaturall truth such as was reuealed of God vnto his Prophets and others whome he did vouchsafe to teach immediatly by himselfe and send them to be the teachers of the world This the prime and highest principle of Christian resolution Protestants not in expresse words but in deeds and by consequence reiect from being the stay of their fayth For as they that belieue the doctrine of Aristotle lastly and finally by the light and euidence therof because it sheweth it selfe to be conformable to reason do not build vpon the authority of Aristotle nor vpon his bare world euen so they that belieue the doctrine of Scripture by the light resplendent verity thereof because it shewes it selfe to be diuine and heauenly truth as Protestants pretend to doe do not build vpon the authority of God the authour and doctour of Scripture nor his bare meere pure word This is most euident for who doth not see that it is one thing to belieue the word of some Doctour by the light of the doctrine and another to belieue his word through reuerence vnto his authority as knowing him to be infallible in his word Hence the Protestant fayth is so independent of the authority of God as though God were not prime verity but fallible in his words yet their fayth might subsist as now it doth This is cleere because let one be neuer so fallible and false yet when his sayings shew themselues to be true we may yea we cannot but belieue his word in respect of the resplendent verity therof But Protestants pretend that the sayings of Scripture shew themselues to be true by the light lustre of the Doctrine belieued therin vpon this resplendēt verity they build lastly their fayth Therfore though God were fallible might be false yet their fayth that his Scripture is truth which sheweth it selfe to be truth by the resplendent verity of the doctrine might subsist Is this the true Christian fayth which depends not vpon Gods being the Prime and Infallible Verity which giues no more credit vnto God then men wil giue vnto a lyar to wit to belieue him so farre as they see him To credit the word of his teaching so farre as it sheweth it selfe to be truth by the light of the doctrine Verily this forme of Fayths resolution is grosse and vnchristian which I am persuaded Protestants would not mantayne did they well vnderstand what they say or could they find some other way of Resolution wherby they might know what doctrine is the Apostles and therfore Gods without being bound to relye vpon the Tradition of the Church The second Principle demonstrated §. 2. SOME will say God is prime Verity by whose word we cannot be deceaued But how prou◠you these pretended diuine reuelations to be truly such Here cōmeth in the second enemy of true Religion who following his blind passion labours to depriue the world of the proofes of diuine reuelations that are more euident then the Sunne This Enemy is the Iew who graūting the doctrine of saluation to be supernaturall truth reuealed of God denies the reuealed doctrine of God to be Apostolicall that is the doctrine which the Apostles preached to the whole world as the doctrine of saluation Agaynst this Enemy is the second Principle of true Religion The Doctrine of saluation reuealed of God is no other but Apostolicall that is which the Apostles published to the world About this principle true belieuers are resolued by a second perfection of the prime Verity which is That he cannot with his seale that is with miracles and workes proper to himselfe warrant or subsigne falshood deuised or vēted by any man Hence we make this resolution God being Infinite verity cannot by signe and miracle testify falshood deuised and vented by men God hath by manifest miracles testifyed the doctrine of the Apostles to be his word and message Ergo the same is not a false religion inuented of men but the doctrin of Saluation reuealed of God The miracles by which the Prime verity hath giuen testimony vnto the Apostles doctrine may be reduced vnto foure heades First the miraculous predictions of the Prophets most cleerly punctually fullfilled in Christ Iesus his B. Mother his Apostles his Church Secondly the miraculous workes in all kindes which Christ Iesus and his disciples haue wrought which are so many so manifest so wonderfull aboue nature as we cannot desire greater euidences Thirdly the miraculous conuersion of the world by twelue poore vnlearned Fisher-men the world I say which thē was in the flowre of human pride glory in the height of human erudition and learning bringing them to belieue a doctrine seemingly absurd in reason to follow a course of discipline truly repugnant vnto sensuality to imbrace a way of saluation
Christian deuided amongst themselues and notorious changers According to this notion the Church is euer visible sensible to all men euen vnto her very enemies For not only Iewes and Infidels but euen Heretickes know in their conscience and sometimes acknowledge in words that the Church is truly Catholike So long as the Church according to this notion of Catholicke is in the sight of the world the world hath sufficient meanes of saluation They that see with their eyes which Religion is Catholicke may easily find out the truth For it is cleer to common reason that the Catholike Doctrine is the Apostles cleere by common discourse that the Apostles miraculous preaching was of God and that God being the prime verity his doctrine ought to be receaued as the truth of saluation On the other side if the Church according to the notion of Catholike be hidden and the light therof lost there is no ordinary meanes left for men to know what the Apostles taught nor consequently what God by inspiration reuealed vnto them We must begin againe anew from a second fountaine of immediat reuelation from God and build vpon the new planting of Religion with miracles in the world by some recent Prophet And if this be absurd then there must euer be in the world a Church whose Tradition is illustriously Catholicke and consequently shewing it selfe to be the Apostles vnto all men that will not be obstinate visible and conspicuous For the Traditiōs of the Church must euer be famous glorious and most notoriously knowne in the world that a Christian may truly say with S. Augustine de vtilit cred c. 17. I belieue nothing but the consent of Nations and countries and most celebrious fame Now if the Church were hidden secret inuisible in any age then her Traditions could not be Doctrines euer illustriously knowne but rather obscure hidden Apocriphall Ergo the Church the mistresse pillar and foundation of truth must be alwaies visible and conspicuous which if need be may be further proued most euidently Thirdly that this Church is Apostolicall and that apparently descending from the Apostolicall Sea by succession of Bishops (d) The Church that hath a lineall succession of Bishops from the Apostles famous and illustrious whereof not one hath beene opposite in religion to his immediate predecessour proues euidently that this Church hath the doctrin of the Apostles for as in the ranke of 300. stones ranged in order if no two stones be found in that line of different colour then if the first be white the second is white so the rest vnto the last euen so if there be a succession of 300. Bishops all of the same Religion if the first haue the Religion of the Apostles and of Peter the second likewise hath the same and so the rest euen vntill the last vsque ad Confessionem generis humani euen to the acknowledgment of humane kind as S. Augustine l. de vtil Cred. cap. 17. speaketh for how could the Tradition of Christian Doctrine be eminently and notoriously Apostolicall if the Church deliuering the same hath not a (e) The Minister sayth p. 67. circa finem That this note of succession makes nothing against the Church of England because their Pastors and Bishops are able to exhibite a pedigree or deriuation both of their ministery and doctrine from the Apostles This is ridiculous For if they can really exhibite such a pedigree and deriuation of their fayth in all ages from Christ to Luther why do they still keepe vs in suspence and neuer exhibite the same which we so earnestly beg at their hands Let them but name the Church or Pastour that did commit vnto Luther the Ministery of preaching his doctrines against the Roman religion The Roman Church made him priest gaue him cōmission to preach her doctrine but to preach agaynst her Religion who gaue him order That commission to preach seeing he had it not frō any Church as is manifest he had it eyther from himselfe coyning a religion of his owne head out of Scripture vnderstood in his owne manner or from Satan with whome he conferred and vnto whose arguments he yielded as himselfe doth witnes Tom. 7. Wittenberg fol. 228. or els immediatly from God and then he ought to haue made this immediate reuelation knowne by miracles Let not Ministers therfore idly say we can exhibite a pedigree feeding vs with wordes but affoard vs present payment of so long an exacted debt If they know the pedegree of their faith the labour is not great to write the names of their Ancestours in euery age That done they may rest For if we cannot demonstrate that these their pretended Ancestours were eyther Catholike Romans or else opposite one to another in substantiall points and this by as authentike records as they do to prooue they held some points of their Religion the victory shall be theirs Is it possible they should thus delude men by saying we can exhibite and yet neuer do it manifest and conspicuous pedigree or deriuation from the Apostles Which is a conuincing argument vsed by the same S. Augustine Epist. 48. circa medium How can we thinke that we haue receiued manifestly Christ if we haue not also receiued manifestly his Church It is a principle of Philosophy Propter quod vnum quodque tale illud magis but the name of Christ his glory his vertues his miracles are to the world famously knowne frō age to age by reason of the Church her preaching who in her first Pastors saw him with their eies Ergo this Church must needes be more famous more illustrious as able to giue fame euen vnto the being and doctrine and actions of Christ. Fourthly this Church is One that is all the Pastors (f) The Minister pag. 108. lin 14. alleadgeth the differences amongst Schoolemē particularly betwixt Dominicās Iesuits about the manner of explicating the efficacy of Grace as an argument that the Roman Church wants vnity of faith as much as Protestants I answer this is Idle these differences not being in matters of faith If Scholmen should preach different doctrines as matters of fayth condemning ech other as Heretikes and the Church this notwithstanding should alow of both sides as her children then there should be in the Church disunion in fayth But the Roman Church doth not allow such dissonant Preachers only she permitteth them to differ in matters they teach as greater probability and priuate opinion If any preach their priuate probabilityes as Doctrines and as matters of fayth condemning others as heretikes except they recall their censure the Roman Church shutteth them out of her communion not permitting disunion in faith For such permittāce would vtterly discredit the authority of her preaching shew that euen in matters of faith she is a Church to be belieued no further thē seene and Preachers therof deliuer and consequently all her professors and children belieue one the same fayth For if the Preachers and Pastors
he is so silent in print about the particulars of the ConfereÌ„ces only doing his endeauour to disgrace the Iesuit in generall tearmes saying That he vanished away from before his Maiesty with foyle and disgrace his Maiesty telling him he neuer heard a Verier Meaning a Foole or Asse c. A report so false as the Minister contradicts the same himselfe elsewhere writing to the contrary In his Preface towards the end and Reply to the Iesuits Preface initio That by the second Conference his Maiesty obserued that the Aduersary was cunning and subtill in eluding Arguments For what more opposite to the Veriest Asse or Foole then one cunning and subtill If his Maiesty obserued by that Conference that the Iesuit was cunning subtill acute in answering how could he say of him I neuer heard a Verier Asse Thus men implicate themselues that speake what they would haue belieued without care of Truth But in defence of the Relation I need say no more there being extant an Apology for the same in print Now concerning the Answere it selfe to the Nine Poynts M. Fisher hauing receaued the note presently addressed himselfe to comply with his Maiestyes CoÌ„mand being encouraged thereunto by the Title shewing his Maiestyes desire of ioyning vnto the Church of Rome could he be satisfyed about some Poynts And as he imployed therein his greatest strength so likewise he was carefull to vse the expeditioÌ„ that was required atchieuing the Worke in lesse then a moneth though the same was not so soone deliuered into his Maiestyes hands This expedition was likewise the cause that he did omit the discussion of the Ninth Poynt About the Popes Authority to depose Kings For being bound by the CoÌ„mand of his Generall giuen to the whole Order not to publish any thing of that Argument without sending the same first to Rome to be reuiewed and approued his Answere to that Poynt could not haue been performed without very longe expectation delay And he was the more bold to pretermit that Controuersy in regard that sundry whole Treatises about the same written by Iesuits and others both Secular Religions had been lately printed These Authours so fresh and new he was sure were not vnknowne to his Maiesty nor was it needfull that any thinge should be added Also knowing that commonly Kings be not so willing to heare the proofes of Coerciue Authority ouer them be the same neuer so certayne he iudged by this omission the rest of his Treatise might be more gratefull and find in his Maiestyes breast lesse disaffection resistance agaynst the Doctrine thereof Nor could he thinke that his Iudicious Maiesty being persuaded of the other eight Points would haue been stayd from ioyning vnto the Church of Rome only in regard of the Nynth Of the Popes Authority ouer Kings the Doctrine of the Protestant Church about the Authority of the people and of the CoÌ„mon wealth in such cases being farre more disgracefull dangerous And this forbearance is not Reply pag. 571. as the Minister obiects against the resolution of a constant Deuine or S. Bernards rule Melius est vt scandalum oriatur quà m vt veritas relinquatur It is indeed better that scandall arise then Diuine Verity be forsaken by the deniall thereof or by not professing our Conscience therein Reply vnto the Iesuits Preface initio when we are iuridically examined by the Magistrate wherein euen the Minister giueth testimony that the Iesuit was not defectiue but did fully and cleerely declare his Fayth about the Popes Authority his Maiesty telling him he liked him the better in respect of his playnesse This notwithstanding there is no man of Learning Discretion but will acknowledge that a Constant Deuine may put off the Scholasticke TractatioÌ„ of some Poynt of Fayth that is lesse pleasing vntill the Auditours by being perswaded of Articles that do lesse distast be made more capable of the truth towardes which by disaffection they are not so prone The other articles are largely discussed and as exactly as shortnes of tyme ioyned with penury of Bookes would permit They be according to the Note but Eight yet some of them contayne diuers branches and so all togeather they amount to the number of fourteene to wit 1. The worship of Images 2. The worship of the holy Crosse Reliques 3. That Saynts Angells heare our prayers 4. That they are to be worshipped with honour super-humane or more then Ciuill 5. That we may ought to inuocate theÌ„ 6. That Repetitions of Prayers in a fixed number is pious 7. The Liturgy lawful in a language not vulgarly knowne 8. The Reall Presence of Christs body vnto the corporall mouth 9. Transubstantiation 10. Merit 11. Workes of Supererogation 12. The remaynder of temporall payne after the guilt of Sinne. 13. That holy men by Diuine grace may for the same make compensant yea superabundant Satisfaction 14. That superabundant Satiâ—factions may be applyed vnto others by the Communion of Saynts Before these is prefixed the fundamentall Controuersy of the Church That men cannot be resolued what doctrines are the Apostles but by the Tradition and Authority of the Church About the sufficiency perspicuity of the Scripture About the Churches â—isible Vnity Vniuersality Holynes Succession from the Apostles That the Roman is the visible Catholicke Church whose Tradition is to be followed So that in this Treatise a Summe of all the chiefest CoÌ„trouersies of this Age is contayned Concerning the manner of haÌ„dling these Points the Minister graunting the Iesuite sheweth himselfe well verst in Controuersy addeth In his Preface he is deficient of diuine proofe in euery Article and farre more specious including our Arguments then happy in confirming his owne What reason he may haue to giue this ceÌ„sure of the Treatise I do not see but only that he would say something agaynst it and no better exception occurred otherwise it is cleere that in euery Article the Answerer vrgeth not only the Tradition of the Church not only the consent of Fathers but also sundry Texts and Testimonyes of Scripture And he doth not only which is the Ministers tricke score Bookes Chapters Verses without so much as citing the wordes nor only doth he produce the wordes of the Text but also refuteth the Protestant Answeres by the rules of interpretation themselues commend by recourse vnto the Originalls by the consideration of the Texts Antecedent and Consequent by the drift and scope of the discourse by Conference of other places specially by the expresse Letter and proper sense of Gods word He sheweth that Protestants pretending to appeale vnto Scripture interpreted from within it selfe as vnto the supreme Iudge in very truth appeale from the expresse sentence of diuine Scripture vnto the figuratiue construction of their humane conceyte For in euery Point of these Controuersyes they are proued to leaue the litterall sense of some Text of Scripture without euident warrant from the sayd Scripture so to doe vpon Arguments at the most probable
that Religious AdoratioÌ„ is due to Ministers See the Censure Sect. 3. §. 1. Adored Selfe and with other glorious Giew-gawes in honour of your Booke and Religion Touching which I will say a word that hereby the Reader may giue a ghesse at the Truth Learning Discretion Modesty you shew in your booke A good house as sayth (*) Bona domus ex limine debet agnosci Ambros De institut Virg. S. Ambrose being knowne by the Frontispice thereof The Roman Oratour rebuketh some ancient Philosophers who made shew to contemne human Glory whereof in their harts they were insatiably greedy conuincing their Hypocrisy by this Argument (b) Cicero pro Archia Libris quos de contemnenda gloria scribunt sua nomina inscribunt Their bookes inscribed of the coÌ„tempt of glory are superscribed with their names that they may be glorious What then may we thinke of you who in the booke wherein you reiect the Image of your Lord and Sauiour as (c) Reply pag. 21â— no good nor effectuall means to breed godly memory heauenly desires in this very Booke I say eueÌ„ in the first Page thereof next after the Blankes you haue placed your owne Picture in as Liuely Louely Venerable manner as you could deuise that people gazing thereon might by the aspect thereof be moued with Loue with Veneration with Deuotion towardes you This sheweth that through a Vayne glorious Humour you feele that Truth in your hart which through want of Religious deuotion you (d) Reply pag. 214. deny in wordes to wit that Honours done to the Image are by the law and institution of Nature referred and to be taken as done to the Person And if this be so in a Minister why should not holy Images be good meanes of pious Deuotion and godly Memory towardes Christ Iesus Why should not meÌ„ be moued to Religious Deuotion by the Image of our Sauiour crucifyed aswell as by yours heere paynted with all the Ornaments of a Ministeriall Deane By the Picture I say of the Sonne of God suffering for man not sitting in a curious wrought Chayre as you doe but hanging on a Paynfull and Ignominious Crosse not with a Veluet Cap on his Head as you weare to keepe in your Witts but with a Crowne of Thornes which piercing into his sacred Temples let out his bloud not cloathed in Damaske as you be but in the Purple of his pretious Bloud not set forth with fine Ruffebâ—nds and Cuffs wherwith your wrests and necke be trimmed to make your face looke smugge and gracious to the eye of flesh but ful of rough blowes â—â—ide sores bleeding wounds which represent the (e) Credentibus vbique Sponsus pulcher occurrit pulcher ad dexteram Patris pulcher in manibus Matris pulcher in Caelo pulcher in Ligno pulcher in Miraculis pulcher in Flagellis Augustin in Psal. 44. beauty of his Charity to the eye of the Soule But herein you are pardonable in that this Irreligious Vanity comes to you by (f) The like was done by Acacius that Enemy of the Roman Sea as writeth Suidas And by the Bohemian Protestant-Rebell Zisea who hauing destroyed all holy Images caused his owne to be set vp in euery place Aeneas Syluius Histor. Bohem. kind You imitate herein the Grand propagatour of your Ministeriall Stocke Iohn Caluin He hauing reiected the images of Christ Iesus his Saynts not allowing them so much as to be fit Bookes to instruct the Ignorant (g) Caluin Instit. l. 1. c. â—◠§. 1. checking Saint Gregory for so affirming As not brought vp in the Schoole of the Holy Ghost Neuerthelesse he did dote on his owne Image and was most greedy of the tokens of Affection shewed him by the same Hence when sundry persons specially the Damsells of Geneua (i) La via de Caluin c. â—â— to shew their deuoted Loue to this their Arch-Prophet wore his Image about their necks directly vpon their harts he tooke therin singular Content so farre as vnto some zealous Ministers and Godly Brethren that with shew of dislike warned him thereof he made this charitable Answere The thinge shall be continued in despight of you if you like it not turne away your eyes otherwise let your harts breake with Enuy. Whereby it is cleere that Ministers vnderstand feele by the instinct of Nature that Images are fit instruments to kindle and conserue Affection towardes Persons Venerably represented giuing vs iust cause to suspect that their condemning the vse of Christs Image by way of Religious Deuotion towardes him proceedes not in truth as is pretended from their zeale agaynst Idolatrous Worship but because themselues alone by the meanes of their Images would take possession of mens Harts What is the reason that so many fond Images are dayly inuented and vented in England in lying formes no lesse Honorable to your Religion then Disgraceful to the Roman but that you know that Images are the Bookes of the Ignorant and weapons to expugne the harts of the simple eyther with loue affection or by auersion and contempt A Candle signifying the Light of your Ghospell is paynted with a generall Assembly of your Gospellers with great shew of Piety about it Luther Caluin Zuinglius Husse Wickliffe Melancthon Knox Bullinger Beza Zanchy some other A Diuell a Pope a Cardinall a Fryar in Vggly shapes puffing and blowing casting holy water in vayne to put it out A fabulous vanity to delude Sottes seing euery maÌ„ that is not a foole may most easily know euen by Luthers Confession (k) Luther Tom. 7. Wittemberg Anno 15â—8 lib. de Missapriuata Vnctione Sacerdotum fol. 228. that his light came not from heauen but from Hell kindled by conference with the Diuell whose (l) Halitus eius prunas ardere facit Iob 41.18 breath made your dead coales to burne so farre is he from going about to quench the fire of your Gospell As for the generall meeting of your Gospellers sitting together in such a Concordious manner they that haue read their Writings know that should they meete in truth as they are made in your fancy if their tongues be of the same temper as their pens they would not sit so demurely and peaceably as they are paynted by you but fall together by the eares and to Cuffs the one with the other that as sayth your (m) Bilson de perpetua gubernat Eccles. c. 16. Si linguae eoruÌ„ similiter se habent ac calami pluribus cerâ—è opus erit Pacis Custodibus ad pugnas praeueniendas quà m Notarijs ad decreta eoruÌ„ perscribenda Bishop Bilson without doubt there would be need of more Iustices of peace to part the frayes â—â—en of notaryes to write the decrees of that CouÌ„cell Hence the Painter not without mystery and with great foresight hath made the Minister KNOX in the midst of this imagined Assembly to signify that if euer a Generall Councell of your Reformers happ
recom Sacrae scripturae Ergo A Christian is built fundamentally on Scripture I wish that this my Discouery may make you wise vnto your eternall Saluation as is doth lay open your shamefull Ignorance vnto your temporall disgrace for here you are so grossely and togeather vnluckily ignorant as you are fallen into the very same fault in Logicke wherof without cause you charged your Aduersary as peccant to wit of making Syllogismes whereof both propositions were affirmatiue in the second figure An argument is affirmatiue in the second figure when the Meanes of proofe is affirmed in both propositions Your Meanes to prooue that a Christian is fundamentally built on Scripture is this terme Built on the rocke and this is the very thing affirmed in both your propositions In your maior Built on the rocke is affirmed of the Christian The Christian or he that is fundamētally built is built on the rocke In the minor the same is affirmed of him that is built on Scripture The Scripture is the rocke that is he that is built on the Scripture is built on the rocke Hence your conclusion Ergo The Christian or he that is fundamentally built is built on the Scripture is affirmatiue in the second figure How fond inconsequent this forme of arguing is you may feele by this of the same tenour with change of matter He that is borne in Sicily is borne in an Iland He that is borne in England is borne in an Iland Ergo He that is borne in England is borne in Sicily This is a folish Sophisme because concluding affirmatiuely in the second figure so is yours For as it is not consequent if a man be borne in an Iland that he is borne in Sicily because there be other Ilands besides Sicily so this is no good consequence A Christian is built on the Rocke Ergo on the Scripture because Scripture is not the only Rocke the word of God as deliuered by Tradition being a rock and ground of Fayth no lesse sure infallible then Scripture or Gods Word as written Abraham Isaac Iacob Ioseph and innumerable other holy persons were fundamentally built in fayth yet not built on Scripture the word of God not being then extant in writing S. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. doth write that in his dayes many Nations were Christian and did diligently obserue the true Christian Religion printed in their harts and yet had not any Scripture nor the word of God as written False then is this negatiue which your argument put into true forme doth imply No man is built fundamentally on the Rocke that is not built on the word of God as written Your third argument (k) Reply pag. 48. The seed of fayth is the roote and foundation of euery Christian But the Scripture is the seed of fayth Ioan. 20.41 for it is the word of God Luc. 8.11 Ioan. 1.18 1. Cor. 4.15 This argument is also an idle fallacy and sophististicall sillogisme for both the propositions thereof are particuler which forme as hath been said is vicious and not lawfull in any figure This you may perceaue by this argument formed punctually according to the shape of yours with chāge of matter The seed of Fayth is the roote and foundation of euery Christian. But the bloud of Martyrs is the seed of Fayth for it is the seed of the Christian Church Ergo The bloud of Martyrs is the roote and foundation of euery Christian. This argument is like yours and both are vaine because the Argument being in the first figure the Maior proposition is particuler which ought to be vniuersall in this sort Euery seed of fayth is the roote of euery Christian The Scripture or word of God as written is the seed of Fayth Ergo. The Scripture or word of God as written is the roote of euery Christian. This argument is in lawfull forme but the maior therof is false for euery seed of Fayth is not the roote of a Christian but only that seed which first breedeth fayth in him and whereon all other seedes depend Now the seed which first breedeth Fayth in Christians is not the word of God as written but the word of God as deliuered by tradition For vpon the credit of Tradition we know the written word and without this ordinarily speaking and without new immediate Reuelation we cannot know the Scripture or written word to be from the Apostles and by them of God Ergo the word of God not as writtē but as deliuered by tradition is that seed of fayth which is the roote of euery Christian. The fourth Argument (l) Reply pag. 48. The Scripture giuen by diuine inspiration is simply and without exception to be receaued and all tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be refused Hence it followes that Scripture is a rule of Tradition and not Tradition of Scripture This argument proceedeth vpon the supposal of an impossibility so is idle sophisticall inept Logitians are taught by their Mayster Aristotle if one impossibility be admitted a thousand other impossibilityes and absurdityes will be thence concuded You suppose in this argument that the word of God as deliuered by full tradition may be repugnant vnto the word of God as written Hence you inferre that Tradition is not simply to be receaued but only so far forth as it agrees with the Scripture Your supposition is blasphemous for the word of God vnwritten cannot be repugnant vnto truth being the words of the Prime VERITY that cannot deceaue nor be deceaued This impossibility supposed your cōsequence is not good Ergo Tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be reiected and Scripture to be held only simply as the rule of Fayth For if Gods vnwritten word could be repugnant vnto the written it would not follow that the vnwritten word were to be reiected and the written simply to be receaued but that neyther the written nor vnwritten were to be credited This is cleere because if God may lye and deceyue vs by his word of liuely voyce deliuered by Tradition why not also in his writings deliuered by Tradition What authority doth writing adde to Gods word that God cannot lye in writing if he may lye in speaking I hope I haue shewed apparently these your Arguments wherein you so much glory to be not only false in respect of matter but also fallacious in respect of forme The same I could shew of allmost all the rest of your Arguments of this your Reply Is not then the case of your ignorant Proselites most deplorable and desperate whome you persuade to trust these your halting consequences rather then the perpetuall Traditions of the Church You will haue them to make themselues Iudges not only of what is contayned expressely in Scripture but also of what is thence deriued by Arguments according to the rules of Logicke wherein if they chance to mistake they erre and are damned The third Example §. 3. A Third Example of Logicall Ignorance is your heaping togeather of many fond
subscribed vnto as containing (m) See the Approbation I Francis White c. nothing but what is aggreable to the publike Faith and Doctrine established in the Church of England And yet heere yow say It is certaine that the Pope is the man of sinne sonne of perditioÌ„ so shewing your selfe to be of their number whome the said Authour in that very place doth rebuke as Omnium horarum homines Halters in opinions for priuate ends I omit also your folly in exclaming at the misery of English Romists for that they adhere vnto your supposed Antichrist not marking that to cleaue to the Antichrist of your forming must euen according to your owne principles be singular happines For Antichrist according to your Tenet doth sit gouerne in the House and Temple of God and so by the same breath wherwith you make men vassals of Antichrist you make them Gods Domesticks his House his Temple Will it be misery to be found such at the day of Iudgement Yea rather the Church of Christ the Temple of God being onely one out of which no saluation is had what a misery will it be at the day of Iudgement wheÌ„ by your owne mouth you shall be conuinced to haue forsaken that company which you confesse to be the Church and Temple of God through feare of your owne shaddow and fancy For what can be more foolish then to fasten the name of Antichrist vpon the Gouernour of the ChristiaÌ„ Church who doth dayly professe to belieue in Christ Iesus the sonne of God and Sauiour of the world who by his Adherents doth more then all the world besides defend and propagate amongst Pagans his most holy Name Religion But to let these things passe marke how you coÌ„tradict your selfe in saying on the one side that that caÌ„not be the House Temple of God which now hath or in former times hath had wicked Pastours On the other side that that is the House and Temple of God in which the Man of sinne that is a succession of wicked Pastours hath a long while for many ages gouerned and doth rule and gouerne So hard is it for men blinded with passion agaynst Christian Doctrine deriued by succession from the Apostles to run in their passionate conceipts without falling into the pit of open contradiction whereby their folly comes to be manifest vnto all men The third Errour You profâ—sse Infidelity about the Blessed Sacrament §. 3. THVS you write pag. 179. To that part of the Iesuits speach that we deny the Reall Presence or else the mayne Article of the Creed that Christ is still in heaâ—en because we will not allow a body in two places at â—nce I answere We cannot graunt that one indiuiduall â—ody may be in many distant places at one and the same â—nstant of time vntill the Papalls DEMONSTRATE THE POSSIBILITY THEREOF by teâ—timony of Scripture or the ancient TraditioÌ„ of the Church â—r by apparent reason Thus you This is playne deaâ—ing and open profession of Infidelity For what â—s heretical obstinacy but to reiect the word of God â—bout the mysteries of our Fayth in the playne exâ—resse and literall sense vntill the possibility of â—hat sense be first demonstrated No Heretike was eâ—er so barbarous as to prefer his reason beyond Gods word so farre as to affirme that the word of God contrary to his reason was false Their impiety was to reiect Gods word about some mistery of fayth in the literall sense flying to morall and mysticall interpretation because they could not comprehend and therefore would not belieue the possibility of the playne and litterall sense The Arrians did not deny the word of Scripture saying (n) 1. Ioan. â— 7 of the Father Word and Holy Ghost these three are one nor the Word of Christ (o) Ioan. 10.30 I and my Father are one to be true morally and mystically in respect of vnity by singular affection and consent betwixt these three persons They were Heretikes for denying the truth of these wordes in the proper and substantiall sense because the same seemed to them impossible For seing that we might not expound the Scriptures about mysteries of fayth to an easy figuratiue sense when the same according to the letter goeth beyond the capacity of our vnderstanding God doth so often in holy Writ (p) Gen. 18.17 Numquid Deo quid est difficile Hieâ—rm 32.17 Non est difficile tibi omne verbum Et v. 27. Numquid mihi difficile erit omne verbuÌ„ Luc. 1.37 Non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbuÌ„ Et Deo omnia possibilia sunt Matt. â—9 26 Luc. 18.27 Omnia possibilia sunt credenti Mar. 9.22 assure vs that nothing is impossible or difficile vnto him and (q) Iob. 9.10 That he can do things incomprehensible without number What greater obstinacy then for Christian men to professe that they will neuer belieue his word about the mysteryes of fayth in the literall sense vntill the possibility of the sense be demonstrated vnto them that is brought within the compasse and comprehension of their wit You may perchance excuse your selfe by saying the words of Christs institution This is my body takeÌ„ in the literall sense do not inforce that Christ according to his corporall substance is in two places at once I answere this you cannot say without contradicting not only the word of Scripture as is proued in the Reioynder but also your selfe For you do plainly affirme that this our doctrine yea euen Transubstantiation is contayned in the literall sense of the words of the Institution If say you the substance of bread and wine be deliuered in the Eucharist then the wordes are figuratiue and cannot be true in the proper sense because one indiuiduall substance cannot be predicated of another properly Thus you (r) Reply pag. 3â—7 whereupon I thus argue That without which the word of Christ cannot be true in the proper and literall sense is inforced and prooued by the word of Christ taken in the literall sense But except the substance of bread be absent and Christ in lieu thereof present according to his corporall substance the word of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the literall and proper sense as you affirme Ergo Transubstantiation and the presence of Christ on earth according to his bodily substance in lieu of bread is inforced proued by the literall sense of the word of Christs institution Wherfore to professe as you â—o neuer to belieue Christs body to be in two places at once vntill it be demonstrated vnto you to be possible is to professe you will not belieue the word of God in the literall sense about mysteries of fayth further then the possibility thereof can be made euident vnto you Is not this to professe Infidelity Secondly you may say that when you require that we demonstrate by testimony of Scripture that a body may be in two places at once you meane not that we bring texts of
against the context and order of the sentences of Gods word this sentence He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer being fiue sentences or verses after this other Vnlesse you eate the flesh and drinke the bloud Yea these words he that eateth this bread liueth for euer are absolutely the very last wherewith Christ shutteth vp his discourse about Sacramentall taking his flesh and bloud Wherfore not to be forced to grant that Christ promised as much to the eating of Sacramentall bread onely as to eating and drinking both you are forced to deny the text and context of Gods word If you say our Sauiour indeed spake the wordes He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer but that he spake not of Sacramentall bread nor of Sacramentall eating I reply First why then did you not acknowledge this text aswell as this other If any eate this bread he shall liue for euer Secondly you contradict your selfe for that the seaueÌ„th Chap. of S. Iohn speaketh of Sacramentall eating drinking your selfe affirme many tymes in this Reply as pag. 395. lin 8. pag. 406. lin 13. pag. 466. lin 20. A second example of your being forced to deny or not to acknowledge the text of Gods word is found pag. 75. There the Iesuit saith that euen in the dayes of Antichrist the Church shall be visibly vniuersall referring himselfe for proofe to the Apocalips 20. v. 8. You in lieu of the eight verse cite the seauenth Then shall Satan be let loose shall goe forth and seduce nations which are vpon the foure corners of the earth Gog and Magog shall gather them into a battaile the number of whoÌ„ shall be as the sands of the sea Which text is impertinent For it proueth that the army of Antichrist shall be for multitude of men innumerable Not the vniuersall diffusion of the Christian Church in his raigne Why stopped you at the seaâ—enth verse Why would you not proceed to set â—owne the words of the eight that were vnder your â—yes vnto which the Iesuits marginall quotation reâ—erred you Verily you saw that they proued the Ieâ—uits intent so cleerly as you knew not what to reâ—ly For the text saith (a) Apoc. 8.20 of Antichrists Purseuants â—hey went ouer the breadth of the earth and compassed aâ—out the campe of Saints and thc beloued Citty By which â—lace it is euident that the campe of Saints and the beloâ—ed Citty to wit the Church persecuted by Antiâ—hrist in his raigne shall be spread ouer the face of â—he earth â—ou are forced to goe agaynst Christs expresse word §. 2. THE Iesuit pag. 409. argueth in this sort If God can put a whole Camell in the eye of a needle is he not â—ble to put the whole body of Christ in a consecrated Host â—ut God can put a Camell in a needles eye witnesse our Saâ—iour Matth. 19. v. 24.25.26 where hauing sayd It is â—ore easy for a Camell to passe through a needles eye then â—or a rich man to enter into the Kingdome of heauen wheÌ„â—is disciples did much wonder therat demanding who then can be saued He answered With men this 〈◊〉 impossible but all thinges are possible vnto God Our Answere say you pag 412. is that these words â—ll things are possible to God are referred to the latter â—art of Christs speach touching the rich mans entring into â—eauen and not to the Camells passing through the needles 〈◊〉 All things agreable to truth and which God will haue done are possible but that it is agreable to truth for a Camell retayning his quantity with the whole body to passe through a needles eye or that God will haue this to be done deserueth to be credited when the Aduersaryes prooue it by diuine Reuelation or by other demonstration Thus you forced by your aduersary to deny the expresse word of God as I demonstrate by three arguments First if our Sauiour hauing named many thingâ— as difficile hard and impossible with men conclude that not one of these things only but al are possible with God then to say that one of the things only not all are possible to God is directly to contradict our Sauiour to giue him the lye Our Sauiour hauing named many things as hard difficile and impossible vnto men to wit that Camells passe throgh a needles eye and that rich men enter into the Kingdome of heauen concludeth that not one of these things only but all are possible vnto God apud Deuâ— omnia possibilia sunt (b) Matth. 19.16 Mar. 10.27 all these hard and difficile things are possible with God Ergo you in saying that one sort of these things by him named as hard difficile are impossible vnto God to wit that Camells passe through a needles eye do directly contradict the words of our Sauiour giue him the lye Secondly to affirme that a Camells passage through the eye of a needle is impossible vnto God is more directly agaynst this speach of our Sauiour then to say that a rich mans entrance into heauen is impossible This I prooue If our Sauiour say that of the two the Camells passing through a needles eye is more easy that is lesse difficile then to deny the Camells passing through a needles eye to be possible vnto God is more directly agaynst our Sauiours â—ord then so to affirme of a rich mans entring into 〈◊〉 Kingdome of heauen For if things more easy â—â—sse difficile be impossible how much more things â—â—sse easy and more difficile If we may with truth â—ffirme that God cannot do what by the truth of his word we know to be more easy much rather may we affirme God cannot doe what by the truth of his word we belieue to be more difficile This is cleere â—ut our Sauior saith most expresly that it is more eaâ—y that is lesse difficile for a Camell to passe through â— needles eye then for a richman to enter into the Kingdome of heauen Ergo Your saying the pasâ—ing of a Camell through a needles eye to be imposâ—ible vnto God is more against this place of his word â—hen had you so affirmed of a rich mans entring inâ—o heauen Thirdly if this word of our Lord All is possible vnto God be referred directly properly and specialâ—y vnto a Camells passing through a needles eye not vnto a rich mans entring into heauen then you do directly oppose the truth of Gods word But that â—his speach All is possible vnto God is in this manner â—eferred vnto the Camels passing through a needles eye not vnto the rich mans entring into heauen â—s euident by the drift of this place For our Lord by this discourse doth directly intend to shew not a rich mans saluation to be possible but the Apostles argument which moued them to dispayre of the saluation of richmen not to be good They hearing our Sauiour say it is more easy for a Camell to passe through a needles eye then that a rich man enter in
this place by cogging in your own conceyt as it were the very Text to wit that our Sauiour by these words gaue a command to vse scriptures For it is cleere he did not by way of command say to the Iewes search the Scripturs but by way of permission in respect of their obstinacy whereby they would not without Scripture belieue in him vpon other most sufficient diuine testimonies So that search the Scriptures because in them you thinke to haue eternall life hath this sense Seing you will not be wonne to belieue vpon the testimony of Iohn nor of my miracles nor of my Fathers voyce from heauen but appeale from these testimonyes vnto Scriptures thinking that in them you haue eternall life search the Scriptures in Gods name I am content 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not superficially looke vpon theÌ„ but search deeply into them for being thus searched into they yield testimony vnto me Certainly if our Sauiour had been of the Protestants mind and would haue giuen the precept they pretend he would not haue sayd to the Iewes search the Scriptures because in them you thinke that you haue eternall life but search the scriptures because in them only eternall life is to be had or because nothing necessary vnto eternall life is to be belieued vntill it be cleerly proued by them This he doth not say but rather rebuketh the Iewes for this their Ministerial coÌ„ceite that nothing is to be belieued vpon any other testimony without Scripture He did not therfore command theÌ„ to vse the Scriptures but seing them obstinatly addicted vnto only Scripture he permitted them to proceed in their own way Euen as wheÌ„ Protestants caÌ„not be wonne to belieue neither the testimony of Iohn that is the consent of Fathers nor the testimony of Christs works that is of myracles done daily in his Church nor the Fathers liuely voyce from heauen that is Gods word vnwritten we at last say vnto them Search the Scriptures for euen they giue testimony vnto the Catholike doctrine Hence two thinges appeare First that your two assertions that Christ saying search the Scriptures did command and command euen simple people to vse Scriptures be two fancyes of your owne foysted into the Scripture not by way of interpretation but by way of Historical Relation of the sacred text which is grosse abuse thereof Secondly that if we search deepely into this text Search the Scriptures the same doth cleerly condemne the Protestant fancy that only Scripture is the rule of fayth and shewes this to haue been the ground and principle of Iewish Infidelity The text Matth. 24.24 That euen the elect be deceaued were it possible grossely applied THVS you write pag. 586. Although the Tradition and teaching of the Church be fallible yet vnlearned people where they inioy the free vse of Scripture as in ancient times all people did and if they be carefull of their saluation and desire to know the truth God blesseth his owne Ordinance and ordinarily assisteth them by grace in such sort as they shall not be seduced to damnation Math. 24.24 Thus you encourage simple people to be proud and obstinate in their priuate fancies agaynst the teaching and tradition of the Church For in this speach you assure theÌ„ that reading their vulgar Bible if they be carefull of their saluation and desire to know the truth though they will not regard the Church as the pillar ground and infallible Mistresse of truth yet God will so blesse and assist them as they shall not be seduced into daÌ„nable errour Now what is the bane of Christianity but this false and proud persuasion inserted into the heads of Sots Trinitarians Anabaptists Arians Brownists Familians do they not desire to know the truth who to that end so studiously peruse their Bible Be they not carefull of their Saluation that goe so readily to the fyre rather then abandon the doctrine which by their skill in the Vulgar Bible they iudge to be the sauing Truth In these Wretches you may see how in men desirous to know the truth God blesseth the ordinaÌ„ce of reading the vulgar Bible without regard had to the Church as an infallible Mistresse And as your doctrine is the seed springe of heresy so is the text of Scripture Matth. 24.24 most violently drawne to confirme it For what sayth the text They the false Prophets shall doe great signes wonders that euen the elect be induced into errour if it be possible By which text it is cleere that the elect people of God cannot be finally intrapped in damnable errour This is vnderstood as Deuines speake in sensu composito that is they cannot be deceaued because God ordaynes and foresees that they shall vse the meanes to know sauing Truth which meanes is to cleaue vnto the Tradition of the Church not trusting their owne skill Now then with what engines can you from this truth wrest your Paradoxe that men desyrous of the truth reading the vulgar Bible cannot be damned Are all men desirous of the truth that reade the Bible Gods elect If Heretiks dispute in this manner The Elect cannot be seduced vnto damnation Ergo If they presume on their skill in the Bible not respecting the Churches doctrine as infallible they shall not be seduced vnto damnation Why may not murderers argue in like sort The elect cannot be damned Therefore if they commit murder euery day and so perseuer vntill the end they cannot be damned This argument is as good as yours For the contemners of the Church can no more be saued theÌ„ murderers if our Sauiour say true who so heareth not the Church let him to thee as a Heathen and Publican The text Act. 17.11 about the Beroeans abused TO the same purpose of encouraging simple People to follow their fancyes gotten by reading their vulgar Bible you say pag. â—87 Vnlearnâ—d people by comparing the doctrine of the Church with the Scripture may certainly know whether it erreth or not Act. 17.11 Thus you What sayth the text that thence you may make such deductioÌ„s These were more Noble then those of Thessalonica who receaued the word with all readines of mind searching dayly whether these thinges were so Now behold your manifold abuse of this sacred Narration First the text doth not say these Beroeans were vnlearned how then can you hence conclude any thinge for the ability of vnlearned people to search the Scriptures Agayne the Text doth not say that by comparing the doctrine of Paul with Scripture they came to know certaynly that the doctrine of Paul was true but only that belieuing his doctrine they searched the Scriptures about the same without mention of the successe of their search And if they were resolued by Scripture this was only in one poynt to wit whether Iesus were the Messias about which the Scriptures are cleere and expresse How theÌ„ can you hence proue that vnlearned people may know certainly whether the doctrine of the Church be true by comparing the same
sinne euery way What is hence consequent That except you recall your Censure you must censure the Fathers as Gracelesse Dānable lyars Franticke fooles so great is your passion and so small your iudgment in rayling at the Iesuit Secondly you are to be pittyed in regard your passion is so extreme as you cannot ioyne togeather the parts of your discourse in any sensible manner You say that the Iesuit holding the Blessed Virgin was immaculate and pure from actuall sinne is like to Acesius the Nouatian who thought himselfe pure and innocent and denyed possibility of saluation vnto men that sinned after baptisme so leauing no ladder to Climbe vp to heauen but only that of Innocency What can be more inept then to lay this censure on the Iesuite in that respect If the Iesuite hold the Blessed Virgin to haue been euer free from actuall sinne doth it follow that he must also so esteeme of himselfe as did the Nouatian May he not iudge her to be an Immaculate Virgin and yet himselfe a sinfull man crauing pardon of his sinnes by her prayers And if he should be so fond also as to thinke himselfe vnspotted pure from sinne doth it follow that he must needes with Acesius exclude from saluation all penitent sinners allow no ladder vnto heauen but only that of purity taking away the other of pennance Surely you cannot but see this your Inuectiue to be not only wrongfull but also witlesse The same distemper of passion causeth you not to marke the want of coherence betwixt your Textuall assertions and Marginall proofes In your text you say The Iesuit by saying the Blessed Virgin was pure from sinne hath lost his witts by the feauer of pride In proofe hereof you cite in your margent this sentēce of S. Cyprian Quisquis se inculpatum dixerit aut superbus aut stultus est who so doth say that himselfe is without sinne is eyther proud or a foole Do you not yet perceaue the wonderfull impertinency of this proofe Let the same be put into forme then you will perchance presently feele it Whosoeuer sayth that himselfe is without sin is a proud foole The Iesuit sayth that the mother of God was without sinne Ergo The Iesuit is a proud foole Verily the Iesuit is not so great a foole as he who doth not perceaue the folly of this arguing which is iust as good as this Who so thinketh himselfe the holyest learnedst Deuine of this age is a very foole But Francis White thinketh Iohn Caluin the holyest and learnedst Deuine of this age Ergo Francis White is a very foole Suppose you were thus conceyted of Caluin and some Catholike Deuine should thus come vpon you for the same would not his folly seeme prodigious vnto all learned men Other falsifications I might yet further discouer as pag. 5. lin 8. where to shew that the Church shall not be alwayes visible Aug. de vnit Eccles. c. 16. you bring the Donatists obiection The Scriptures fortell a large reuolt from heauenly truth 2. Thessal 2.2 these words from heauēly truth are added to the Text for the Text only sayth first there shall come the defection or reuolt which most Expositours vnderstand from the Roman Empire And pag. 519. citing 1. Iohn 5.18 He that is begotten of God SINNETH NOT for the Diuine generation keepeth him and the wicked One toucheth him not you omit sinneth not that the Scripture might not seeme to auouch what you so bitterly rayle agaynst that the Saints of God by speciall grace may liue without sinne Likewise to reproue the Iesuites doctrine that Saints though they sinne venially yet doe not sinne agaynst the Diuine Law For this Law doth exact thinges of men no further then they are necessary vnto eternall life but Veniall sinne destroyeth or opposeth nothing that is necessary to eternall life Agaynst this doctrine you argue pag. 522. lin 20. If iust men haue any sinne they performe not all the Diuine law requireth for euery sinne is a transgression of the Diuine law 1. Iohn 3.4 Heere to the Text of your English Bible you adde Diuine the Text being Euery sin is a transgression of the Law or of a Law And this sentence is true for though Veniall sinns be not against the Diuine speciall law because they are not against Charity and Saluation yet they are against the law of reason which bindeth mē as much as may be not to be forgetfull inconsiderate euen in small matters And though some sentences of Scripture recōmend these small thinges vnto vs it is only to put vs in mind of what we are bound vnto by the law of reason not to lay new diuine obligations vpon vs Many such other tricks of your falshood I omit to discouer for breuityes sake Ignorance Fraud and Falshood in alleadging Fathers and all manner of Authours SECT V. IN this subiect I might be large you being copious in your quotations whereof scarce one is to be found which being examined to the originall is not eyther impertinent or wrested agaynst the Authours mind or falsifyed by mis-translation in the very text Which to discouer fully and particulerly were an hugh worke and hardly worth the labour and no wayes necessary For euen as to the end that one may know the Sea to be salt it is not needfull that he drinke vp the whole mayne two or three tasts taken heere and there may sufficiently resolue him of this truth so foure or fiue examples in euery kind may more then abundantly serue to make this your want of conscience knowne vnto your vnwary Credents that they may see whome they trust in a busines that doth so highly import These your falsifications are of two kinds some crafty and subtill some grosse and impudent Crafty falsification is when to draw Authours to your purpose in your translation of their text you eyther adde to it or detract frō it some words or particles thereby changing the sense or else cite their words truly but contrary to their meaning Grosse falsification is when you lay doctrines to the charge of Authours which they reiect euen in the places by you cyted Both these kinds of falshood S. Paul doth signify to be practised by Heretikes Ephes. 4 8. where he sayth That Christ hath left Pastours and Doctours to his Church to the end that we be not carryed away with the blasts of euery doctrine by the wylinesse of men to circumuent weakelings in errour What be the blasts of hereticall doctrine but their violent and audacious falsifyings of Scriptures and Fathers What their wylinesse to circumuent in errour but crafty corruption by stealing away or cogging in words in their producing of the monuments of Chistian Antiquity The Greeke word vsed by S. Paul is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies properly cogging of the dyce or helping the dyce craftily to cast what chāce they please Euen so Heretikes by helping the yee by cogging wordes in out of the Text make
S. Augustine the cause you Donatist pretend is nulla none at all it is an vntruth (u) Calumniarum suarum â—umos â—actantes D. Baptis l 5 c 1. Caecilian hauing cleered himselfe from that crime and byn absolued in all maner of Courtes Yea though the same were true yet by (x) Restat vâ— fateantur nulla maloruÌ„ etiam cognitorum tali communione Ecclesiam maculari 〈◊〉 cùm fassi fuerint non inuenient causam cur se ab Ecclesijs separauerinâ— your owne principles it is conuinced to be no iust cause Wherefore your separation is not only Schisme but most eminent and notorious Schisme For then is Apeâ—â—issimum autem sacrilegium eminet Schismatis cùm NVLLA fuit causa Separationis the Sacriledge of Schisme most notoriously eminent when there was NO cause of separation He doth not say When there is no iust cause of separation Schisme is coÌ„mitted as though there might be some iust cause and then Schisme is not committed but when there is no cause of all which may with any colour or shew be pretended for separation then Schisme is not only committed for it is still committed when separation is made from the whole Christian world what cause soeuer be pretended but then it is notoriously most euidently committed Behold how changing the text of S. Augustine and agaynst Iustice cogging into the same the word iust you make his speach to haue a sense iust contrary to his meaning How iustly might I charge you with obscuring out-facing of the truth by forgery which calumniously without any proofe you obiect vnto the Sacred Councell of Trent But like to like such a Religion such an Aduocate Seauen Testimonies of other Fathers falsifyed §. 2. LET vs also discouer some of your corruptions about other Fathers besides S. Augustine For the fulnes of Scripture about all poynts of fayth you cite these wordes of (*) Serm. de Bapt. S. Cyprian Christian Religion findes that from this Scripture the rules of all learning flow and that whatsoeuer is contayned in the discipline of the Church doth arise from this and is resolued into this These wordes Puritans might better then you alleadge for their Geneuian Principle that not only Church-doctrine but also Church-discipline must be contayned in Scripture proued by the cleere Texts thereof But happily they neuer saw it or if they did they durst not be so impudent as to alledge it as you do agaynst the meaning of the Authour For S. Cyprian speakes not of the whole volume of Scripture but only of twelue or thirteene wordes therof to wit this little senteÌ„ce (z) Praecipis Domine vt diligam te de proximo iubes vt ad meam eum mensuram complectar c. Legat hoc vnum verbum in hoc mandato meditetur Christiana Religio inueniet ex hac Scriptura omniuÌ„ doctrinarum regulas emanasse c. Loue thy Lord God with all thy hart thy neighbour as thy selfe This would haue appeared had you not omitted the wordes immediatly precedent in the very same sentence Let Christian Religion reade this one word and meditate on this commandment and it shall find that from this Scripture the Rules of all learning flow c. And this example may serue to make euident to the eye your perpetuall Protestant Impertinency in alleadging wordes of the Fathers in which they commend the perfection fulnes of Scripture for your fancy of only-only-only Scripture For the Fathers meaning is that all is contayned in Scripture in a generall and confuse manner not so particularly and distinctly as Scripture may be the sole rule for all necessary poynts of Fayth This is cleere for what they say of the whole Scripture they say of some principall particle thereof as of this Thou shalt loue thy Lord God with all thy hart and thy neighbour as thy selfe But no man that is in his iudgment will say what this sole sentence is a sufficient Rule of Fayth for all necessary poynts of Doctrine and Discipline Therefore their commendations of the plenitude of Scripture can inforce no more then that all is contayned in Scripture in some generall manner not so particularly but that for explication and distinctioÌ„ of many poynts the rule of Churches Tradition is necessary For the clarity of Scriptures that vnto them that know not the Tradition of the Church they are easy you (b) pag. 45 lin 10 cite S. (c) Homil. 2. de verbis Isa. Vidi Dominum Chrysostome Scriptures are not like Metalls which haue neede of workemen TO DIGGE THEM OVT but they deliuer a treasure ready at hand to them which seeke hidden riches in them It is sufficient that thou looke into them c. Here you falsify the Text of S. Chrysostome by adding vnto it to digge theÌ„ out whereby you make both the Father to contradict himselfe and his speach to be senselesse For if the Riches of the Scripture be hidden in the Text thereof as he sayth how is it a Treasure ready at hand without digging or searching How it is inough to looke into the booke to find it Had you digged deepely into the golden Mine of S. Chrysostome you would perchance haue found out his true meaning not haue imposed vpon him this false and pernicious doctrine S. Chrysostome in getting gold out of mines doth consider that a double labour is to be vndergone The one to digge out that earth wherwith Gold is mingled The other to seuer the gold froÌ„ the earth The first labour he sayth is necessary that we find out the Treasure true sense of Scripture we must sayth (d) Chrysost. Homil. 40. in Ioan. FODERE nos profundius iubet vt quae altè delitescunt inuenire possimus Idem in Gen. Homil. 37. Indagatis Profundis verum sensum veritatis percipere he not only looke into the booke not only attend to the bare reading but we are coÌ„manded to DIGGE DEEPELY that wee may find out the thinges that lye hidden in the bottome For wee digge not for a thinge that lyes open and READY AT HAND but for a treasure that is hidden in the deepe Thus S. Chrysostome How directly against his mind do you make him say that the sense of the Scripture is a treasure so ready at hand and obuious as we need not digge for it In respect of the second labour to wit of seuering drosse from Gold when the same is found this labour S. Chrysost. sayth is needlesse in regard of the Scripture In metallis difficile est inuenire quod venantur Etenim cùm metalla Terra sint Aurum non aliud quam Terra similitudo celat aspectum eorum quae quaeruntur In Scripturis non est eadem ratio Neque enim proponitur Aurum terrae commixtum sed Aurum purum c. In Mines sayth he men haue difficulty to â—ind out what they hunt for The Mines being earth and Gold also earth this
Controuersy in which all other are inuolued and by the decision therof resolued the Church (b) 2. Tim. 3.15 Math. 16. Isa. c. 2. v. 3. Dan. c. 2. v. 35. being the Pillar and Foundation of truth the eminent Rocke and Mountaine filling the whole world on the toppe wherof standeth the Tradition of sauing doctrine conspicuous and immoueable If this Church be ouerthrowne the totall certainty of Christianity cannot but with it togeather fall to the ground if it be hidden made inuisible men must needes wander in the search of the first deliuered Christian doctrine without end or hope of euer arriuing at any certayne issue And if this CoÌ„trouersy be not examined and determined in the first place disputatioÌ„ by (c) Non ad Scripturas prouocandum nec in ijs constituendum certamen in quibus aut nulla aut parùm certa victoria Tertull. in praescrip c. 19. Scripture will proue fruitlesse by the sole euidency wherof no victory can be gotten against proteruious errour or at least no victory that is very (d) The Minister pag. 8. sayth that by the Church appareÌ„t victory caÌ„not begotten more then by the Scripture which is false For apparent victory is that wherby men are forced to yield or els to disclame from the authority of the Iudge If the true Church be found out and made Iudge men may be forced by her sentence to yield vnto truth or els to disclame from the Iudge which yet we see is not done by the Scripture For men that allowe the same Scripture to be Iudge neyther are forced to yield vnto truth nor to appeale from the Scripture yea sayth Luther Tom. 2. Witt. in Concion Domin octauae post Trinit fol. 118. Neuer any Heresy was so pestilent or foolish that did not couer it selfe with the veyle of Scripture apparent neither will answeres about particular Doctrines easily satisfy a mind preoccupyed with a long continued dislike of them BECAVSE the Minister hath repeated sundry false Principles and moued many doubts about the Resolution of Fayth declared in the two ensuing Grounds of the Iesuits Answere Because also this CoÌ„trouersy is the grouÌ„d of the rest by which they are finally resolued and except it be cleered in the first place Heresy will be still hyding it selfe in the obscurity thereof Hence I haue thought necessary in this very Entry to superadde and prefixe this ensuing Treatise A SHORT TREATISE CONCERNING THE RESOLVTION OF FAITH For the more full cleering of the ensuing Controuersies about Tradition Scripture the Church THIS Treatise is deuided into two Partes In the first I will set downe and refute the Protestant forme of Resolution In the second declare and proue the Catholicke The Protestant Resolution of Fayth declared §. 1. PROTESTANTS perceaue that if they pretend to belieue Christian Religion without seing the truth thereof vpon the sole authority of God reuealing they must consequently belieue that God reuealed it vpon the word and authority of the Apostles who preached the same to the world as doctrine vnto them reuealed of God then agayne that the Apostles did thus preach publish it by (d) Quid Apostoli praedicauerint praescribam non aliter probari debere quà m per easdem Ecclesias quas ipsi condiderunt Tertull. de praescrip c. 19. the light of the Church succeeding theÌ„ deliuering it haÌ„d to hand as froÌ„ them which TraditioÌ„ if they admit as a certayne infallible rule they are (e) To this purpose they say So long as we stay vpon the Fathers we shall still continue in our old Popish errors Peter Martyr de votis pag. 476. Luther de serâ—uo Arbitrio Tom. 2. Wittemberg pag. 434. Pomeran in Ionam Napier vpon the reuelations Calius Curio alij brought into streights and mightily pressed to receaue many doctrines of Tradition which they are now resolute neuer to belieue Therefore to lay the axe to the roote they would fayne build their fayth on an higher ground then the authority of God darkely reuealing to wit (f) Iohn White defence pag. 309. None can belieue except God illuminate their hartes but such as haue this illumination do SEE MANIFESTLY the truth of thinges belieued on Diuine illumination whereby they see manifestly the truth of thinges belieued whereby they are (g) Francis White Orthodoxe pag. 108. adding that Protestants herein are like to a man that sees a farre off an obscure glimmering but coÌ„ming to the place beholds the light it selfe And the same is taught by Caluin Institut l. 1. c. 7. n. 2. and the rest conuicted in conscieÌ„ce by the euidence of the thing it selfe that their Religion is Diuine by the lustre and resplendent verity of the matter of Scripture and maiesty of the doctrine thereof sensed according vnto their manner The former Resolution confuted by six Arguments §. 2. THis pretence of Resolution so much (h) Pag. 19. lin 4. pag. 28. lin 3. ibid. lin 28. pag. 68. lin 20. The Maiesty and lustre of Heauenly doctrine is such as it appeares illustrious though propounded by meane and obscure persons as a rich Iewell doth manifest his owne worth repeated by our Minister in this Reply is refelled by 6. arguments as being extremely arrogant ignorant disorderly fond desperate the deuise of Sathan The first Argument First what more Arrogant then to challenge ordinary illuminations more high rare and excellent then the Apostles had The Apostles though they had this priuiledge that Christian Religion was to them immediatly reuealed of God yet did they not see the resplendent verity shiâ—ing truth of the Doctrine therof but saw darkely belieuing what they did not see as S. Paul doth (i) 1. Cor. 13.12 Videmus nunc in speculo in aenigmate we se through a glasse darkely that is we be sure by belieuing Gods word of what we do not see testify Therefore illuminatioÌ„ shewing manifestly the truth of things belieued challendged by Protestants is more high rare and excellent light then that the Apostles had what greater (k) Innumerabiles sunt qui se Videntes non solùm iactant sed à Christo illuminatos videri volunt Sunt autem haeretici Augustin tract 43. in Ioan. arrogancy Swenkfeldians equall themselues vnto the Apostles pretending immediate reuelation and teaching from God such as the Apostles had but Protestants pretending to see manifestly the truth of things belieued equall themselues vnto the Blessed whose happines is to see (l) Fides est credere quod nondum vides cuius Fidei merces est videre quod credis Augustin de verb. Apostol Serm. 29. what we belieue specially seing one point of the doctrine Protestants pretend to see is the blessed Trinity the true light and resplendent verity whereof a man caÌ„not see manifestly without being blessed The second Argument Secondly what greater Ignorance against the Rudiments of Christian Religion then to resolue Christian fayth by the euidence and resplendent verity of the
doctrine matter and of things belieued What is Diuine fayth but to belieue things we do (m) Argumentum non appareÌ„tium Hebr. 11.1 Fide credimus ea quae non videmus Aug. de Gen. ad lit l. 12. c. 31. Et Enchirid. c. 8. Fides quam diuina eloquia docent est earum rerum quae non videntur not see vpon the word of God reuealing them whom we know to be worthy of all credit so that howsoeuer some learned men may otherwise see some doctrines reuealed by the light of reason yet neuer by the light of fayth for fayth is that vertue wherby we (n) Fides inchoat meritum Aug. l. 1. retrac c. 23. Et epist. 106. Fides meretur gratiam bene operandi merit and please God by shewing reuerence to his word but what merit or God-a-mercy is it to belieue what we see manifestly (o) Augustin tract 79. in Ioan. Laus fidei est si quod creditur non videtur Gregor hom 26. in Euang. Cyprian Serm. de Natiu Christi Haec fides non habet meritum conuicted by the euidence therof What pious affection to Gods word doth a man shew by seing it to be the truth The third Argument Thirdly it is extreamest Disorder as S. Augustine sayth (p) August de vtilit credendi c. 14. Priâ—s videre velle vt animum purges peruersum atque prae posterum est first to see that we may belieue wheras we ought first firmely to belieue what we do not se that so we may (q) See this Ministers reply pag. 16. The matter and forme of the Bookes shew themselues to be Diuine merit to see what wee haue belieued But Protestants pretend first to see the resplendent verity of Scriptures doctrine thence concluding (q) See this Ministers reply pag. 16. The matter and forme of the Bookes shew themselues to be Diuine that the Scripture being so high and diuine truth as they forsooth see it to be cannot but be reuealed of God and if (r) If Diuine then Apostolicall Reply pag. 19. reuealed of God then preached by the Apostles if preached by the Apostles then the full publike tradition of the Church in all subsequent ages (s) Pag. 105. the Minister sayth If we can demonstrate we mantayne the Religion which the holy Apostles taught this alone is sufficient to proue we are the true Church though we could not nominate any visible Church of our Religion out of History though the Preachers Professors therof were neuer seene nor can be named Thus disorderly they place the Cart before the Horse they know that their Religion is supernaturall truth before they be sure that it is either the doctrine of the Church or of the Apostles or of God The fourth Argument Fourthly it is great blindenes and (t) Field appendix part 2. pag. 20. doth acknowledge that they who see not this light of Scripture and yet pretend it must be brayne sicke and franticke want of common sense for men that digladiate amongst themselues about Scripture and the doctrine therof which is diuine and heauenly and which not to pretend that they are enabled by the spirit to discerne heauenly writings doctrines and senses from humane by the euidence of the thing as easily as men distinguish light from darknes hony from gall Protestants disagree and contend bitterly about the very Scriptures they dayly peruse see and behold which text and sense is diuine and heauenly which not as to omit many other Examples about (t) Luther praefat in Epist. Iacobi edit Ienensi Chemnitius Enchyrid pag. 63. The Epistle of Iames the second of Peter the second and third of Iohn the Epistle of Iude the Apocalyps of Iohn are Apocryphall the Epistle of Iames and about the sense of these words This is my body and yet they (u) Iohn White sayth they know the senses of Scriptures to be diuine by their owne light shyning and by their owne shewing it selfe in them as sweetnes is knowne by it owne tast Caluin lib. 1. Institut c. 7. §. 2. in fine Non obscuriorem veritatis suae seipsum scriptura vltâ—ò praese fert quà m coloris suires albae nigrae saporis res suaues amarae challenge resolution in these matters by the light of the spirit making them to see manifestly the truth of the thinge and to discerne true scripture in text and sense from false as easily as the light of the Sunne from darknes what can be more fond and ridiculous The fifth Argument Fifthly if no man be saued without diuine and supernaturall fayth and if supernaturall fayth be resolued not by the authority of the Church of God but by the resplendent verity of the Doctrine what hope of saluation can wise and prudent men expect in the Protestant Church Without diuine illuminatioÌ„ making them to see the truth of things belieued they cannot haue supernaturall fayth nor be saued if Protestants say true Wise prudent men cannot be so fond as to belieue that they see manifestly the truth of the things they belieue by Christian fayth as the truth of the Trinity of the Incarnation of the Reall presence of the Resurrection of the dead and other like articles belieued What (x) Protestants are forced by this argument to contradict themselues For sometymes they teach that fayth builded on the authority of the Church is but human and acquisite not sufficient vnto Saluation Thus our Minister pag. 14. And yet at other tymes they teach that Nouices and weakelings haue fayth sufficient vnto saluatioÌ„ whose sayth is built vpon the authority of the Church this also is taught by the Minister pag. 22. saying Nouices in fayth ground their historicall fayth vpon the authority of the Church then can they expect but most certaine damnation in the Protestant Church if this Protestant way to resolue supernaturall fayth be the truth The sixt Argument Finally no deuise more proper of Satan to entrap simple soules then the promise of cleare and manifest Truth this being the very (y) Timeo ne sicut Serpens Heuam seduxit astutiâ suâ ita corrumpantur sensus vestri excidaÌ„t simplicitate quae est in Christo. 2. Cor. 11.3 meanes of delusion wherby he deceyued our first parent Eue and (z) Gen. 3.4 wonne her to tast the forbidden fruite for what more gratefull vnto men that grone vnder the (a) Augustin de vtil cred c. 9. Vera Religio sine quodam graui authoritatis imperio iniri rectè nullo pacto potest yoke of Christian authority pressing them to belieue what they do not see theÌ„ this (b) Haeretici non se iugum credendi imponere sed docendi fontem aperire gloriantur Augustin Ibid. promise of Heresy Follow vs you shal be like vnto God seeing the truth you shall by following vs not darkly belieue but know good from bad truth from falshood in matters of Religion by euidence
resplendant verity of the thing With these promises sayth S. Augustine (c) Quâ promissâ animâ— naturaliter gaudet humana sanorum escas appetendo irruit in vâ—nena fallentium Augustin Ibid. the soules of men are naturally ouerioyed whilest they gape after the promised sight of diuine truth whereof as yet they be not capable the cosening promisers cast into their mouth make them deuoure the poysoned morsells of their falshood Concerning the light of Scripture §. 3. CONCERNING the light of Scripture two thinges are euident First some arguments of probability may be drawne from the Scriptures to proue they are of God which serue for the comfort of Belieuers and may somewhat incline Infidels to belieue vpoÌ„ other greater motiues to wit the authority of God his Church This probable euidence euident probability is al which the testimonies of Scholemen brought by the Minister affirme Secondly the Scripture hath not light to shew it selfe with euident certainty to be the word of God but is belieued to be such without being seene as much as any other point and mystery of fayth to wit vpon the word of God so reuealing deliuered by tradition This is demonstrated because to be the word of God and the rule of fayth is to be true and certayne not only in some partâ— but also in al euery part particle therof so that as sayth our (e) Pag. 16. lin 2. Minister no lyer can speake therein and if (f) Augustin epist. 9. Si ad scripturas admittatur meÌ„dacium quid eis authoritatis remanebit one sentence of Scripture be prooued false the credit of the whole is lost But it is impossible that any man should know by the light euidence of the sense and doctrine of Scripture that the Scripture according to euery booke chapter leafe and line is certayne and assured truth and that no lye or falshood is contayned therein as these seauen Arguments euince The first Argument First because the (g) Hieron epist. ad Aug. 19. inter epist. Aug. Scripturae obscurissimae sunt Iren. l. 2. c. 47. Origen lib. 7. contra Celsum Reuerà multis locis obscurae Vide Bellarm. de Script l. 3. c. 1. Fathers teach and (h) Field Church l. 4. c. 15. No question but there be manifold obscurityes in Scripture Protestants euen our (i) Reply pag. 35. Minister acknowledge that there be many darke and obscure passages of Scripture that the Scripture is full of innumerable difficultyes that sometimes one (k) Quid vel falsò suspicentur non inueniunt Aug. l. 2. de doctr Christ. c. â— Whitaker de Eccles. pag. 220. Quaedam loca de quibus nihil certo statui potest can hardly so much as giue a probable guesse at their meaning but these texts and places cannot be knowne to containe diuine truth no falshood by the euideÌ„ce of the doctrine Therefore we cannot know the Scripture to be the word of God that is nothing but truth by the euidence of the doctrine HeÌ„ce appeareth that Protestants teaching that â—he Scripture is known to be the word of God and that no lye is contayned therein by the euidence and light of the doctrine coÌ„tradict themselues in saying that in many places it is difficill and darke as they cannot assuredly vnderstand it For how can they know by the light of the sense or doctrine that the texts not vnderstood containe nothing but truth The second Argument Secondly the Scriptures are pretended to be known by the maiesty (l) Reply pag. 16. Internall matter maiesty of the bookes Item pag. 30. 68. Field appendix 34. Caluin Instit. l. 1. c. 7. purity of the doctrine but though some mysteries of the Scriptures carry a maiesty in respect of naturall reason and a shew of sublimity aboue it as the Blessed Trinity yet (m) Sunt quaedaÌ„ in sacris litteris quae quia suboffendunt animos ignaros negligentes sui quae maxima turba populariter accusari defendi autem populariter propter mysteria quae in illis coÌ„tinentur non à multis admodum possunt Aug. de vtil cred c. 1. other points of Scripture seeme vnto reason ridiculous and childish As that the serpent did speake to the woman that Adam and Eue were naked without perceiuing themselues to be so that there was day and night before the sunne was created the like Therfore we must haue some other surer ground then this maiesty of the doctrine to be certayne that the Scripture is nothing but truth Gods infallible word The third Argument Thirdly wheras the (n) Reply pag. 19. Minister much vrgeth the harmony of Scripture to proue the same to be of God Though this harmony appeare in diuers thinges yet who doth not know that innumerable seeming contradictions are obiected against Scripture (o) This is euident vnto al that haue read the coÌ„meÌ„taryes of the Fathers many of which are only probably answered by the Fathers many answered by thinges assumed without proofe only because otherwise we must admit contradiction in Scripture (p) This appeareth particularly in the foure first chapters of Genesis and in the Genealogy of our Sauiour And in concording the Chronologyes of the Booke of Kings some places not fully answered but the Fathers were forced to fly from literall vnto allegoricall senses how then could the ancient Fathers know the harmony of Scripture by the euidence of the thing thereon ground their faith that the Scripture is of God Or if they could not how can we For what the Minister boastingly affirmeth (q) Reply pag. 24. lin 15. of himselfe and his fellowes we find at this day a perfect harmony of all the parts of the Gospell among themselues and a perfect agreement of the same with the Scriptures of the old Testament This Ministeriall bragge I say of their finding the harmony of all Scriptures at this day aboue all the Ancients by the euidence of the thing is incredible for men cannot be more sure of the perfect harmony of Scriptures then they are sure that all contradictions laid to the charge of Scripture haue true solutions But no man liuing euer was or is sure by euidence that all the solutions and answeres vsed to reconcile Scriptures be the truth no not Protestants For did they vnderstand assuredly euery text of Scripture and euery seeming contradiction is reconciled could there be amoÌ„gst theÌ„ such different and aduerse exposition of Scripture Therefore no man euer did or doth know the perfect harmony of all Scriptures by the euidence of the thing nor consequently the Scripture to be of God by the euidence of this harmony The fourth Argument Fourthly wheras the Minister pretends the Scripture to be known by the style affirming that seeing God hath bestowed tongues and voyces on men by which they may be known the Iesuite cannot persuade any reasonable man that God so speaketh in Scripture as men eleuated
by grace cannot discerne the same to be his voyce and word This is spoken with more confidence then consideration God hath an (s) Ioan. 1. Eternall Increate manner of speaking to wit the production of the Eternall Word by which the Blessed discerne him from all other speakers by the euidence of blisse-full learning but no created manner of speaking (t) This is also true wheÌ„ God speaketh inwardly to the soule For in that speaking he vseth the natiue intellectuall tongue that is the vnderstanding Faculty of the soule his diuine inspirations being apprehensions of vnderstanding of the will and affections Hence this inward speaking is not by the meere souÌ„d knowne to be Diuine but by the coniecture of some effects or by speciall reuelation is so proper to God as it can be knowne to be his speaking by the meere sound of the voyce without speciall reuelation or els some consequent miraculous effect Which I declare and proue by this argument If there were a man that had no proper sound and accent of voyce but could and did exactly vse the voyce of euery man as he pleased this man could not be known by his voyce Likewise if a man had no proper stile in writing but could perfectly write the stile of any authour as he should thinke good he could not be knowne from other writers by his phrase But God hath no proper external sound or accent of voyce nor any proper stile or phrase in writing but vseth the propeâ— tongue of those men whome it pleaseth him to inspire folding vp his heauenly coÌ„ceites in the Prophets naturall language whence ariseth (u) The differeÌ„ce of stile betwixt the Apocalyps and the Ghospell of S. Iohn is noted by Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Euseb. l. 7. c. 10. And Caluin Institut l. 1. c. 8. noteth variety of stile amongst the Euangelists Prophets Dauidi Isaiae â—ucunda suauis fluit oratio Apud Amos Pastorem Ieremiam ZachariaÌ„ asperior sermorusticitatem sapit such difference of stiles amongst the sacred writers So that it is great want of discretioÌ„ to thinke to know a book to be of God by the stile abstracting from the matter Now the matter is such as it doth not with euidence certainly shew it selfe to be nothing but truth as hath beene prooued Learned men as hath been sayd may from within Scripture gather arguments that probably perswade that the same is the word of God but euident probability cannot be the ground of persuasion certayne and ineuident it may be a comfortable coÌ„firmation not an assured foundation of Fayth The fifth Argument If Scriptures be not cleere and euident but only to such as haue the light and faculty of fayth they cannot be the prime principles of Fayth euident in themselues not prooued by the principles of faith This is cleere because euery faculty supposeth her principles by the light of them which the student bringes with him she sheweth truths pertineÌ„t vnto her skill that were hidden But the Scriptures are not cleere and euident but to such only as haue aforehand the light and faculty of fayth yea they be dark obscure vnto Infidels as not only the (x) Verbum eius infidelibus nox est Hilarius in cap. 10. Matth. 2. Caluin l. 1. Iustit c. 8. n. 9. Fathers teach but also Protestants graunt Therefore the Scriptures be not the prime principles of fayth supposed before fayth which Infidells seeing to be true resolue to belieue the mysteryes of Fayth but only are secondary truths darke and obscure in themselues belieued vpon the prime principles of fayth The sixt Argument Hence ariseth the sixt argument which is à priori If Scriptures may be prooued by the light of a superiour principle of Fayth they are not the prime principles of sayth euident in themselues and indemonstrable But Scripture is prooued by a superiour more euident principle of faith For the doctrine of the Scripture is proued to be true because God the prime verity authour of Scripture cannot deceaue nor be deceaued Now that prime verity cannot deceaue nor be deceaued is a principle of fayth superiour and more euident then that the Scriptures be of God and diuine Therfore Scripture is not the supreme indemonstrable principle of Fayth but is proued to be truth by the authority of God reuealing it to be of God by the miracles of the Apostles publishing it to be the Apostles by the tradition of the Church deliuering it as such euen as all as other mysteryes of Fayth are proued The seauenth Argument Finally Protestants for this their fancy of finall resolution of fayth by the resplendeÌ„t verity of the doctrine haue not any argument worth a rush Their chiefe Argument are two First Scripture is a principle of fayth but principles are to be euident in themselues and to be knowne by their own light This argument much often vrged by you your (a) Way pag. 37. Defence cap. 20. Brother is seely because al principles must not be euideÌ„t in theÌ„selues but only the first prime principles of euery faculty or hability of knowledge as all know But Scriptures are not as hath been shewed the prime principles of fayth but are secondary principles which being known we by the light of them may know many other things The second argument (b) This argument is vrged by the Minister pag. 16. and often elswhere The Scripture is light for the word of God is light and Scripture is the word of God But euery light is euident in it selfe and knowne by the euidence it hath in it selfe Therefore the Scriptures must of themselues appearâ— and shew that they are diuine truth I Answere the Minor of this Argument is false the whole argument grounded vpon ignorance in not discerning a difference betwixt corporall spirituall light True it is that euery corporal light that doth enlighten the eye of body must be euident in it selfe primely originally cleere but not so euery truth that illustrates mans vnderstaÌ„ding The reason is because the eye of body cannot by thinges seene inferre conclude things that are hidden but only can appreheÌ„d what doth directly and immediatly shew it selfe But mans Vnderstanding not only apprehends what sheweth it selfe but by things knowne inferreth breedeth in it selfe knowledge of thinges hidden Hence vnto Vnderstanding though things shewing themselues directly and by their owne light be her prime principles and meanes to know other thinges yet also things hidden in themselues being formerly knowne by the light of authority may thereby become lights that is meanes to know yet further of things hidden So that speaking of spirituall and intellectuall lights it is false that all lights enlightening mans Vnderstanding to know other thinges are euident in themselues yea some secondary Principles and Lights there are which must be shewed by superior light before they become lights In which kind is the Scripture being a Light vnto the faythfull
so contemptible in the eye of men that verily the worke of the worlds creation doth not more cleerly discouer God the Authour of Nature then this of the worlds Conuersion doth shew it selfe to proceed from the Authour of grace Fourthly the miraculous coÌ„tinuance of a Christian Catholike Church spread ouer the world foretold by our Sauiour notwithstanding so many persecusecutions by the Iewes Heathens Heretikes Polititians and dissolute Christians Against this Principle of ResolutioÌ„ Ministers (d) Chalenour in his Credo Ecclesiam Catholicam p. 1. c. 6. Field l. 3. cap. 15. and our Minister (e) Reply pag. â—16 citing in particular obiect that miracles are only probable not sufficient testimonies of diuine doctrine yea (f) Bellarm. l. 4. de Eccl. cap. 14. Bellarmine sayth we cannot know euideÌ„tly that miracles are true for if we did we should know euidently that our fayth is true so it should not be faith I Answer that such euideÌ„ce as doth exclude the necessity of pious reuerence affection vnto Gods word euidence I say enforcing men to belieue cannot stand with true fayth If we knew by Mathematicall or Metaphysicall euidence that the miracles of Christ and his Apostles were true perchance this euidence would compell men to belieue and ouercome the naturall obscurity and seeming impossibility of the Christian doctrine And therefore as Bellarmine sayth we cannot be mathematically and altogeather infallibly sure by the light of nature that miracles are true Notwithstanding we must not deny what Scriptures affirme (g) Ioan. 5â— 36. that miracles are a sufficient testimony binding men to belieue and consequently that we may know them to be true (h) Suarez de fide disput 4. sect 3. n. 9. Videntibus coÌ„stare poterat euideÌ„tia naturali vera esse quae agebantur by Physicall euidence as we are sure of things we see with our eyes or of such as being once euident to the world are by the worlds full report declared vnto vs. Neyther doth this Physicall euidence of miracles take away the merit of Fayth The reason is because this euidence not being altogeather and in the highest deâ—ree infallible by it selfe for our senses may sometymes be deceaued is not sufficient to ouercome the naturall obscurity darknes seeming falshood of things to be belieued vpon the testimony of those miracles For the mystery of the Trinity of the Incarnation of the Reall Presence and the like seeme to reason as impossible as any miracle can seeme euident vnto sense Hence when fayth is proposed by miracles ariseth a conflict betwixt the seeming euidence of the miracles and the seeming darkenes and falshood of the Christian doctrine Agaynst which obscurity a man cannot get the victory by the sole eâ—idence of miracles except he be inwardly holpen by the light of Gods spirit mouing him by pious affection to cleaue to the doctrine which is by so cleere testimonyes proued his word As a man shut vp in â— chamber with two lights wherof the one maketh â—he wall seeme white the other blew caÌ„not be firmly â—esolued what to think till day light enter obscuring both those lights discouer the truth Euen so a man looking vpon Christian doctrines by the light of Christian miracles done to proue them will be mooued to iudge them to be truth but looking vpon â—hem through the euidence of their seeming impossibilities vnto reason they will seeme false nor will he be able firmely to resolue for the side of faith vntill the light of diuine grace enter into his hart making him to preferre through pious reuerence towards God the so proposed authority of his word before the seeming impossibility of mans reason The third Principle demonstrated §. 3. BEING resolued that the doctrine of God is sauing truth the Apostles doctrine the doctrine of God we meete with a third Enemy who labours to driue vs out of the beateÌ„ high way to know what doctrine is the Apostles This Enemy is the Heretike a domestike Enemy and therfore more dangerous These men graunt the doctrine of Saluation to be supernaturall and reuealed the reuealed to be the Apostolicall and no other but they will haue the rule of knowing what doctrine the Apostles taught to be speciall illumination of the spirit not Catholike Tradition For there is a double kind of Tradition from the Apostles that may be pretended The one publicke by the vniforme perpetuall teaching of Pastours The other secret by the teaching of some priuate men pretending to haue been taught more singularly and highly then other men by the Apostles The second kind of Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles by the secret teaching of an inuisible Church Heretikes haue pretended but neuer the first of publike and Catholike Tradition The cause why Heretikes prescribe the course to resolue by illuminations is because an Heretike will not admit doctrines deliuered vnto him by the consent of his Christian Ancestors but with choyce receaue some and reiect others as he findeth good Whence he hath the (d) Tertull. de praescript cap. 6. Haereses dictae Graeca voce exinterpretatione Electionis Name Heretike that is one who is his owne caruer and chooser in matters of Religion still (e) Augustin l. 7. de Gen. ad lit c. 9. Neque enim non omnes Haeretici Scripturas Catholicas legunt pretending for all his fancyes Scripture vnderstood by the light of the spirit If Catholike Tradition were by him admitted as a rule infallible to know what doctrine the Apostles preached he could not haue liberty to choose according to his best liking but would be bound (f) Nobis nostro arbitrio non licet indulgere sed ê— Apostoli fideliter consignarunt accipere to receaue the forme of Religion made vnto him by Tradition of Ancestours Hence agaynst this way of Catholike Tradition he bandeth with might and mayne charging the same to be fallible that errours may secretly creep into it teaching men to retyre vnto the inward teaching of the spirit as the only secure meanes to know which be the Apostolicall Scripturs which the Apostolicall interpretation of them Agaynst this Enemy is the third principle of true Christian Religion The Apostolicall doctrine is the Catholike to wit the doctrine that is deliuered from the Apostles by the Tradition of whole ChristiaÌ„ worlds of Fathers vnto whole ChristiaÌ„ worlds of ChildreÌ„ that in matters of ChristiaÌ„ Religion Heresy that is priuate election and choyce may haue no place About this principle faith is resolued and assured by a third perfection belonging to God as he is Prime Verity This is that he cannot so much as conniue vnto falshood whereby he become any way accessory of deceauing then that simply readily religiously belieue what they haue iust reason to thinke to be his word But there is iust and sufficient reason to belieue that doctrine deliuered by ful and perpetuall Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles is verily their doctrine and therefore
Gods Ergo God being the prime verity cannot permit Catholicke Christian Tradition to be falsifyed How the Churches Tradition is proued infallible independently of Scripture §. 4. HENCE is answered the common Obiection which Protestants make that Tradition of doctrine from hand to hand made by men is fallible subiect to errour for they may deceaue or be deceaued If We answere that Christian Catholicke Tradition of doctrines is infallible through Gods speciall assistance They reply this infallibility of traditioÌ„ through diuine assistaÌ„ce cannot be knowne but by the Scripture and so before we can build our fayth on Tradition as infallible we must know the Scripture to be the word of God and consequently we cannot build our persuasion of the Scriptures being Apostolicall and diuine on Tradition except we comit a Circle I Answere First that Catholicke Tradition is proued to be (m) Est suÌ„mus gradus certitudinis humanae de qua SIMPLICITER dici potest noÌ„ posse illi falsum subesse Suarez de gratia l. 9. c. 11. n. 11. Et hoc ibid. probat simply infallible by the very nature thereof For TraditioÌ„ being full report about what was euident vnto sense to wit what doctrines and Scriptures the Apostles publickly deliuered vnto the world it is impossible it should be false Worlds of men cannot be vniformely mistaken and deceaued about a matter euident to sense and not being deceaued being so many in number so deuided in place of so different affectious and conditious it is impossible they (n) Neglexerit officiuÌ„ suum Villicus Christi c. Quî verisimile vt tot tantae Ecclesiae in vnam fidem errauerint variasse debuerat error EcclesiaruÌ„ Caeterùm quod apud multos vnuÌ„ inuenitur non est erratuÌ„ sed traditum Tertullian de praescript c. 28. should so haue agreed in their tale had they maliciously resolued to deceaue the world Wherefore it is impossible that what is deliuered by full Catholicke tradition from the Apostles should be a thing by the traditioners first deuised Secondly I say that how soeuer human Tradition may be by nature fallible yet the Christian Catholicke is assisted of God that no errour can creep into the same Which diuine assistance to be due vnto it is demonstrated by the perfection of Diuine verity by the nature of tradition precedently independently of Scripture and therefore without any Circle by two Arguments The first is the same we before touched God beâ—ng Prime Verity cannot conniue that the meanes of conueying the Apostles doctrine vnto posterity which bindeth Religious belieuers to receaue the same as his word should secretly be infected with damnable Errour For being Infinit Verity in his knowledg this cannot be done without his priuity Knowing thereof being infinit veracity in his teaching the truth he cannot yield that the meanes of conueying his truth obliging men to belieue should â—mperceptibly be poysoned whereby men for their deuotion vnto his Verity incurre damnation This being so I assume But the Catholicke tradition of doctrine from the Apostles bindeth Christians to whome it is deliuered to belieue the same as Gods word This I proue When doctrine is sufficiently proposed as Gods word men are bound to belieue it But that is sufficiently proposed as Gods word vnto Christians which is vnto them sufficiently proposed â—s Doctrine of the Apostles Now that Catholicke Tradition of doctrine from the Apostles is sufficient proposition and proofe that that Doctrine is the Apostles is proued first because Catholicke tradition of doctrine is by nature simply infallible as hath bin shewed but proposition knowne simply to be infallible is sufficient to bind men to belieue Secondly Catholicke tradition that is the report of a world of Ancestors coÌ„cerning sensible matters of fact is so pregnant and obligatory as it were insolent madnes to deny it In so much as euen (o) Caluin Institut l. 1. c. 8. n. 9. Quaerunt quis nos certiores fecerit à Moyse aliis Prophetis haec fuisse scripta quae sub eorum nominibus leguÌ„tur c. quis non colaphis flagellis castistandum illum insanum dicat Certô certiùs est ipso rum scripta non aliter peruenisse ad posteros quà m de manu in manuÌ„ TRADITA Caluin sayth that such as deny the tradition of Ancestors concerning the authors of the Canonicall bookes are rather to be reformed with a Cudgell then refuted by Argument Thirdly God himselfe sendeth children vnto the tradition of their Ancestors to learne of them the sensible workes of his miraculous power done in former ages (p) Deuteron 32.7 Aske thy Father and he will tell thee thyne Auncestors and they will certifye thee Fourthly the proofe of tradition is so full and sufficient as it conuinceth infidels For though they be blind not to see the doctrine of the Apostles to be Diuine yet are they not so voyd of common sense impudent and obstinate as they will deny the doctrine of Christian Catholicke tradition to be truly Christian Apostolical Whence two thinges are euident First that Catholicke tradition from the Apostles is an externall sufficient proposition and a conuincing argument that the doctrin so deliuered is Apostolicall consequently Diuine reuealed Doctrine Secondly that Heresy which stands agaynst this tradition 〈◊〉 willfull obstinacy and madnes and worse then Paganisme The second argument God being Prime verity binding all men that will be saued to know and firmely belieue the Apostles doctrine euen vntill the worlds end cannot conniue that the only Meanes to know this doctrin perpetually and euer after the â—postles decease be secretly insensibly poysoned with errours agaynst the truth of Saluation This is â—eere The only meanes whereby men succeeding â—he Apostles may know assuredly what Scriptures â—nd doctrins they deliuered to the Primitiue Cathoâ—icke Church is the Catholicke tradition by worlds â—f ChristiaÌ„ Fathers Pastors vnto worlds of Chriâ—tian children and faythfull people Ergo Catholike Tradition is by God the Prime verity so defended â—reserued assisted as no errour agaynst Saluation â—an be deliuered by the same consequently it apâ—eareth by the very notion of prime Verity indepenâ—ently of Scripture that Catholicke tradition is â—roued to be infallible through Gods speciall assiâ—tance â—he difference between Propheticall and ordinary Diuine Illumination by which Protestants Cauills are answered §. 5. AGAYNST the Minor of the former argument Protestants obiect first that though the testiâ—ony of tradition be a good (q) Reply pa. 15. lin 32. morall human and proâ—able proofe that these Scriptures were by the Apoâ—tles deliuered yet the chiefe ground of fayth in â—his poynt is inward illumination the testimony â—f the spirit speaking within our hart and assuring 〈◊〉 of the truth I answere God may assure men of â—ruth by inward inspiration two wayes first by the â—â—ght of inward teaching and inspiration without â—he mediation and concourse of any externall inâ—allible ground of assurance Secondly by the light
be so adorned with the markes of the true as the true become indiscernable from it But if the Roman be not the true Catholicke Tradition the true Catholicke Church and Tradition is hidden yea a false Church hath so cleerly the markes of Catholicke that no other can with any colour pretend to be rather Catholicke then it that is to haue doctrin deliuered from the Apostles by whole worlds of Christian Fathers vnto whole worlds of Christian Children Hence eyther there is no meanes left to know assuredly the sauing truth or else the meanes is immediat reuelatiō that is inward teaching of the spirit without any externall infallible meanes or else Scripture knowne to be the word of God and truly sensed by the light lustre and euidēce of the things which wayes of teaching it is certayne God doth not vse towards his militant Church succeeding the Apostles For teaching of diuine and supernaturall truth by the light lustre and shining of the thing or doctrin is proper vnto the Church triumphant Inward assurance without any externall infallible ground to assure men of truth is proper vnto the Prophets and the first publishers of Christian Religion Hence I conclude that if God be the Prime Verity teaching Christian Religion darkely without making men see the light and lustre of thinges belieued and mediatly by some externall infallible meanes vpon which inward assurance must rely then he must euer conserue the Catholicke tradition and Church visible and conspicuous that the same may without immediat reuelation and otherwise thē by the lustre of doctrin be discerned to wit by sensible markes If any obiect that the senses of mē in this search may be deceaued through naturall inuincible fallibility of their organs and so no ground of fayth that is altogether infallible I Answere that euidence had by sense being but the priuate of one man is naturally and physically infallible but when the same is also publicke and Catholicke that is when a whole world of men concurre with him then his euidence is altogether infallible Besides seing God hath resolued not to teach men immediatly but will haue them to cleaue vnto an externall infallible meanes to find out this meanes by the sensible euidence of the thinge he is bound by the perfection of his Veracity to assist mens senses with his prouidence that therein they be not deceaued when they vse such diligence as men ordinarily vse that they be not deceaued by their senses Now what greater euidence cā one haue that he is not deceaued in this matter of sense that the Romā Doctrine is the Catholicke that is Doctrine deliuered from the Apostles by worlds of Christian Ancestors spread ouer the world vnanimous amongst themselues in all matters they belieue as Fayth what greater assurance I say can one haue that herein he seeth aright then a whole world of men professing to see the same that he doth Some may agayne obiect I belieue the Catholicke Church is an Article of Fayth set downe in the Creed but Fayth is resolution about thinges that are not seene I Answere An article of Fayth may be visible according to the substāce of the thing yet inuisible according to the manner it is belieued in the Creed The third article He suffered vnder Pontius Pilate was crucifyed dead and buried according to the substance of the thinge was euident vnto sense and seen euen of the Iewes and is now belieued of their posterity But according to the manner as it is belieued in the Creed to wit that herein the Word of God by his auncient Prophets was fulfilled that this was done in charity for the saluation of Man in this manner I say that visible Article is inuisible and belieued in the Creed In like māner that there is in the world a Catholicke Church and that the Roman is the Catholicke Church Pagans Iewes Heretikes if they shut not their eyes agaynst the light do cleerly behold But that herein the word of God about the perpetuall amplitude of his Church is accomplished that this is an effect of Gods Veracity to the end that the meanes to learne sauing truth may not be hidden this is a thing inuisible according to this notiō the Catholicke Church is proposed in the Creed Secondly propositiōs of fayth must be inuisible according to the Predicate or thinge belieued but not euer according to the subiect or thing wherof we belieue The thinges the Apostles belieued of Christ to wit that he was the Sauiour of the world the Son of God were thinges inuisible but the subiect and person of whome they did belieue was to them visible seen yea God did of purpose by his Prophets fortell certayne tokens whereby that subiect might by sense be seen and discerned from all other that might pretend the name of Christ or els his coming into the world to teach the truth had been to no purpose In this sort the Predicate or thing belieued in this article the holy Catholicke Church to wit Holy is inuisible but the Subiect to wit the Catholicke Church which we affirme and belieue to be holy in her doctrine is visible and conspicuous vnto all Yea God hath of purpose foretold signes and tokens whereby the same by sense may be cleerly discernable from all other that may pretend the title of Catholicke For were not this subiect the Catholicke Church we belieue to be holy and infallible in her teaching visible and discernable from all other that pretend the name of what vse were it to belieue that there is such an infallible teaching Church in the world hidden we know not where as a needle in a bottle of hay The End of the Resolution of Fayth THESE thinges supposed the Reader will haue no difficulty to discerne how friuolous the Ministers exceptions are agaynst the resolutiō of fayth in respect of belieuing doctrines to be the Apostles into Perpetuall Tradition and how solide the Iesuits discourse was which here ensueth THE FIRST GROVND That a Christian resolution of Fayth is builded vpon perpetuall Tradition deriued by succession from the Apostles §. 1. BEFORE I come to the proofe of this principle some things are to be presupposed which I thinke Protestants will not deny First that no man can be saued or attayne to the blissefull vision of God without firme and assured apprehension of diuine supernaturall truth concerning his last end and the meanes to arriue thereunto Secondly that this assured apprehension is not had by a (e) The Minister heere graunteth that Fayth is not had by cleere euident sight but afterward he sayth the same is resolued by the resplendent verity of the doctrine cleare and euident sight nor gotten by demonstration or humane discourse by the principles of reason nor can be sufficiently had by credit giuen to meerly humane authority but only by Fayth grounded on the word of God reuealing vnto men things that otherwise are knowne only to his Infinite wisdome Thirdly that God
reuealed all these verityes to Christs Iesus and he (f) Omnia quae audiui à Patre nota feci vobis Ioan. 15. v. 15. agayne to his Apostles partly by word of mouth but principally by the immediate teaching of his holy spirit to the end that they should deliuer (g) Docete omnes gentes Math. 28.20 them vnto mankind to be receiued and belieued euery where ouer the world euen to the consummation thereof Fourthly that the (h) Illi profecti praedicauerunt vbique Marc. vlt. 20. Apostles did accordingly preach to all nations deliuer vnto them partly by wryting partly by word of mouth the (i) O Timothee depositum custodi 1. Tim. 6.20 whole entyre doctrine of saluation planting an vniuersall Christian company charging them to keep inuiolably and to deliuer (k) Haec commenda fidelibus hominibus qui possunt alios instruere 2. Tim. 1.2 vnto their posterityes what they had of them the first messengers of the Ghospell Fiftly though the Apostles be departed their primitiue Hearers deceased yet there still remaynes a meanes in the world by which all men may assuredly know what the Apostles preached and the primitiue Church receyued of them seing the Church euen to the worlds end must be (l) Ephes. 2.20 c. 4.5.11 founded on the Apostles and belieue nothing as matter of Fayth besides that which was deliuered of them These things being supposed the question is What this meanes is and how men may now adayes so many ages after their death know certainly what the Apostles taught originally preached To which question I answere that the last and finall resolution (m) Note that the Minister many tymes doth falsify the Iesuits Tenet specially pag. 34. saying That the last and finall resolution is into vnwritten Tradition not into Scripture This he doth not say but that the persuasion that our Fayth is true is finally resolued into the authority of God reuealing and that it is Diuine into the Apostles miraculous preaching But what doctrine was taught by the Apostles we know only by Tradition therof is not into Scripture but into the perpetuall tradition of the Church succeeding (n) All from this place vnto the first argument the Minister leaueth out being the substance of the whole discourse yet he sayth he hath set down the booke verbatim See his Preface the Apostles according to the principle set downe by Tertullian in the beginning of his golden by Protestants commended Booke (o) Tertull. de praescript 1.61.21 Quid Apostoli pâ—â—dicauerint praescribam non aliter probari debere quà m per easdem Ecclesias quas ipsi condiderunt that is I set down this principle what the Apostles taught is to be proued NO OTHERVVISE then by the TRADITION of the Churches which they planted By which Prescription ioyned with the other fiue suppositions is raysed the Ladder for true Catholike resolution about Faith set down by the sayd Tertullian on which a Christian by degrees mounts vnto God or as S. Augustine (p) August de vtilitate credendi cap. 10. sayth ducitur pedetentim quibusdam gradibus ad summâ penetralia veritatis the Ladder is this the ascending by it in this sort What (q) Tertull. de praescrip c. 21. 37. Nos ab Ecclesijs Ecclesiae ab Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus à Deo I belieue I receaued from the present Church the present from the primitiue Church the primitiue Church from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God God the prime verity from no other fountayne different from his owne infallible knowledge So that who so cleaueth not to the present Church firmely belieuing the tradition thereof as being come downe by succession is not so much as on the lowest step of the Ladder that leads vnto God the reuealer of sauing truth successiue tradition vnwritten being the last and finall ground whereon we belieue that the substantiall points of our beliefe (r) Note the Iesuit doth not say Tradition is the last ground on which we belieue our Fayth to be sauing truth or the word of God but only that it came froÌ„ the Apostles so mounting vp by the Church vnto the Apostles by the Apostles vnto God and by him vnto all necessary truth came from the Apostles This I proue by these foure (*) These arguments as they coÌ„uince there is no meanes to know what the Apostles taught but Christian Tradition so they consequently conuince that if the Christian Religion be sauing truth God must assist this perpetual Catholike Tradition therof that no Errors creep into it arguments The first Argument IF the mayne and substantiall points of our fayth be belieued to be Apostolicall because writteÌ„ in the Scripture of the new Testament and the Scriptures of the new Testament are belieued to come from the Apostles vpon the voyce of perpetuall tradition vnwritten then our ResolutioÌ„ that our fayth is Apostolicall stayeth lastly and finally vpon Tradition vnwritten But so it is that the Scriptures of the new TestameÌ„t cannot be prooued to haue been deliuered vnto the Church by the Apostles but by the perpetual Tradition vnwritten conserued in the Church succeeding the Apostles For what other proofe can be imagined except one would prooue it by the (a) The Minister pag. 19. to Titles addeth inscription of some Epistles subscription insertion of names in the body of the bookes but neither is this true of all books nor of all Epistles nor it is inough to satisfy a man For may not a counterfayte write a Gospell for example in the name of Peter repeating the name of Peter the Apostle in the booke twenty tymes So it is childish to meÌ„tion this as the last stay of persuasion For what more childish then to prooue a thinge vnknowne by another as much vnknowne Titles of the bookes which were absurd seing doubt may be made whether those Titles were set on the Books by the Apostles themselues of which doubt only Tradition can resolue vs. Besides the Ghospell of S. Marke S. Luke as also the Acts of the Apostles were not written by any Apostles but were by their liuely voyce and suffrages recommended vnto Christians as Sacred Diuine otherwise as also (b) Bilson de perpetua gubernatione Ecclesiae pag. 85. Historiae illae à Marco Luca exaratae Canonicam authoritatem ex Apostolorum suffragiâ—s nactae sunt qui eas lectas approbârunt M. Bilson noteth they should neuer haue obtayned such eminent authority in the Church neyther should they be now so esteemed but vpon the supposall of Apostolicall approbation But how shall we know that the Apostles saw these writings and recommended the same vnto Christian Churches but by Tradition Ergo the last and highest ground on which we belieue what doctrine was deliuered by the Apostles is the tradition of the Church suceceding them For we may distinguish three properties of doctrine of faith
is granted on both sides The only question is by what rule these Doctrines inuolued are vnfolded and made knowne vnto vs as articles of fayth ProtestaÌ„ts say by Scripture and the rules of Logicke and Reason Wotton Triall of the Romish c. pag 88. lin 29. and by other things besides Scripture euident in the light of nature Feild pag 281. lin 20. Catholikes hold that the rule to expound Scripture binding all men to belieue deductions as matters of fayth is not Logicke but the Tradition and definition of the Church And this Catholicke doctrin is proued First because the rule of faith must be for the capacity of vnlearned men aswell as of learned But men vnlearned cannot be sure of the virtualityes of Scripture by the rules of Logicke or Logicall deduction for they cannot vnderstand when an argument is good by the rules of Logicke Secondly the Scripture it selfe to supply her wants sendeth vs not to the rules of Logicke but vnto traditions saying 2. Thessal 2.15 Hold fast the Traditions ye haue receaued by word or our epistle They send men to the Church as to the pillar and ground of truth 1. Tim. 3.15 which whosoeuer doth not heare is as a heaâ—hen and a publican Matth. 13.5.7 Therfore by the rule of Church-Tradition not by the rules of Logicke do we learne autheÌ„tically the confessed virtualities obscurities and inuolutions of Scripture about matters of fayth Thirdly the Fathers about matters inuolued in Scripture send men not vnto Logicke but vnto Tradition auouching the same to be a rule as certaine no lesse estimable then Scripture S. Chrysostome homil 4 in 2. ad Thessal The Apostles did not deliuer all things in Scripture but some things without writing and these are as much to be credited as the written It is a Tradition this is inough seeke no more The same is taught by S. Dionysius Eccles. Hierar c. 1. Iren. l. 2. c. 2.3 4. Eusebius lib. 1. de demonst Euang. c. 8. by S. Basill de Spirit sanct c. 27. Epiphan haeres 55. 61. Aug. de Baptis li. 2. c. 7. lib. 5. c. 23. and the rest Finally we dislike the Protestant manner of controlling the Church by Scripture For on the one side they contradict the vniuersall custome and Tradition of the Church at the least and as they grant of many ages saying The Popish doctrine during the space of nine hundred yeares hath spread it selfe ouer the whole world so that an vniuersall Apostacy was ouer the whole face of the earth for many hundred yeares Perkins Exposit. of the Creed pag. 307. 400. On the other side their Arguments out of Scripture are at the most but probable and they sometimes challenge no more homini non prorsus alienato probabilior apparet Whitak contr 1. q. 5. c 8. circa finem Others alledge Scripture not with as probable colour as we doe Iohn White defence pag. 321. Yea this Minister in his Reply doth acknowledge pag. 581. That by Sophistry we giue vnto their Scripturall arguments seeming and appearing solutions Now we Catholikes thinke it to be Hereticall as S. Augustine sayth insolent madnes vpon probabilities vpon Arguments froÌ„ Scripture that receaue seeming solutions to contradict the Christian vniuersall Tradition of many hundred yeares For what the Minister saith this to be done by Sophistry is ridiculous For if to giue seeming plausible and probable solutions vnto Scripturall arguments against the full Tradition of Christianity be Sophistry what is true Theology On the other side if for men to stand against the Tradition of so many whole Christian ages vpon arguments they confesse to be probably and seemingly answered be Christianity what is hereticall Obstinacy Fifthly whereas you obiect that pag. 199. lin 6. the Fathers disputed from Scripture negatiuely agaynst Heretikes in this sort Doctrine is not cleerly deliuered in Scripture therefore it is not to be receaued as Fayth You must know that the Fathers proceed vpon a supposition that was knowne vnto all and granted by the Heretickes themselues to wit that the doctrins they disputed agaynst were not the full and publicke Tradition of the Catholike Church For seing Scripture as we haue shewed doth necessarily suppose Tradition that we may know the true text and sense thereof so likewise the Fathers when they vrge that all doctrine is to be reiected which is not in Scripture still suppose that that doctrine is not the publicke Tradition of the Church Where we must also note that the Fathers did not only require of Heretikes proofe from Scripture by way of deduction Logicall inference for such all heretiks did pretend and herewith deluded seely sots as now Protestants doe but they required of Heretikes to shew their doctrine in Scripture ipsis dictionibus sayth Irenaeus l. 2. c. 36. expressely and in tearmes and proue it not by texts sayth S. Augustine de vnitat Eccles. c. 3. which require sharpenes of wit in the auditors to iudge who doth more probably interprete them not by places quae vel interpretem quaerunt which require an interpreter and an arguer making Logicall inferences vpon the text so concluding for his purpose but by places playne manifest cleere which leaue no place to contrary exposition and that no Sophystry can wrest them to other sense to the end that Controuersyes which concerne the Saluation of soules be defined by Gods formall word and not by deductions from it according to Logicall forme For sayth S. Augustine what more vniust then Ingeniorum contentionibus causam populorum committere Hence the Fathers negatiue argument from Scripture ouerthroweth Protestant Religion for thus I argue Nothing is matter of Fayth and of necessity which is not formally and expressely reuealed by the word of God eyther written or vnwritten deliuered by full Ecclesiasticall Tradition But no Heretikes euer did nor our Protestants now do or can pretend perpetuall publicke Tradition vnwritten for their doctrins agaynst the Catholicke and Roman Church nor can they proue their Tenets ipsis dictionibus ex scriptura by Scripture auerring them in expresse tearmes Only they clayme texts which as themselues confesse receaue seeming appearing solutioÌ„s agaynst which they haue nothing to say but that this is done by Sophistry so bringing the busines of the Saluation of the world to be decided by contentioÌ„ of wit Therefore their doctrins are to be reiected as vnchristiaÌ„ Finally it is great vanity in you to thinke that the Traditions vnwritten mentioned by Fathers are conforme to your Doctrine writing as you doe pag. 46. By Tradition the Fathers vnderstand not the Fabulous dreames and inuentions of Papals who like Pharisees corrupt the right sense of Scripture by their vnwritten Tradition and affirme those thinges to be Apostolicall which agree with the confessed doctrine of the Apostles like darkenesse with light Thus you with much bitternesse and no lesse falshood For what Gerson de signis ruinae Eccles. sig 5. sayth of the heresyes of his age to wit
of the Church disagree about maters which they preach as necessary poynts of Fayth how can their Tradition and Testimony be of credit therin or haue any authority to perswade Who will or can firmely belieue disagreeing witnesses vpon their wordes And this (g) By this Note Protestants are conuinced not to be the true Church for the Protestant Church allowes that dissonant doctrines be preached as her doctrine as the word of God as the truth of saluation she permitteth that her preachers condemne ech other as heretikes without disclayming from the communion of eyther side For she imbraceth in her communion both Lutherans who preach as an article of faith the carnall manducation of Christs true body by the wicked Luther tom 3. Germ. fol. 264. and Caluinists who detest this carnall manducation as blasphemous and impious Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalum But it is euident that the Church that allowes of dissonant preaching in matters of fayth cannot be the true Church For how can she be the one true Church which allowes that doctrine she knowes to be false be preached as her Religion the truth of faith The Protestant Church knoweth that of contrary doctrines the one side must needs be false Therefore consenting that both sides be preached as her fayth as sauing truth she yields that doctrine knownely false be preached as her doctrine and sauing truth and so is Mistresse of falshood as much as of truth consent must be conspicuous and euident For if in outward apparence and shew preachers dissent one from another in mayne materiall doctrines their authority is crazed and their testimony of no esteeme howsoeuer perchāce their dissentions may be by some distinctions so coloured that one cannot (h) One cānot conuince an obstinate gaynsayer wrester of words but still he wil wrangle yet may he be conuinced that he doth falsify and wronge authors in his interpretations and this euidently in the iudgement of euery indifferent Reader conuince him that would boldly vndertake to defend as (i) D. Field lib. 3. of the Church cap. 42 Doctour Field vndertakes for Protestants that their dissensions be but verball But what is this to the purpose Do the accused dissentioners allow this Doctors reconciliation do they giue ouer contention thereupon No but professe that such reconcilers misse of their meaning that they disagree substantially about the very Prime articles of faith How can these men be witnesses of credit for substantiall articles cōcerning which there is open confessed professed dissention amongst them Fiftly I inferre that this Church is vniuersal spread ouer all nations that she may be sayd to be euery where (k) Morally that is according vnto common humane reputation by which a thing diffused ouer a great part of the world famously knowne is said to be euery where In this māner the Apostle said that the fayth of the Romās was renowned in the whole world Rom. 1.12 In this sort the Church is still vniuersall and euery where By this is answered all the Minister brings vpō mistaking of morally morally speaking being so diffused that the whole knowne world may take notice of her as of a worthy and credible witnes of Christian Tradition howsoeuer her outward glory and splendour peace and tranquillity be sometymes obscured in some places more or lesse and not euer in all places at once A truth so cleere that it may be euidently proued out of (l) The text Apocalyps 20.8 sayth They the Purseuāts of Antichrist went vpon the breadth of the earth and compassed about the campe of Saints beloued Citty which place proues cleerly that the Church and campe of God shall be spread ouer the whole bredth of the earth in the dayes of Antichrist This verse the Minister mistaketh of purpose and in lieu thereof citeth the seauenth and very absurdly sayth that Antichrist shall persecute Christians that is put them in prison kill them where they were not And Protestants themselues affirme that euen all the dayes of Antichrist the Church shall be right famous continew dispersed ouer the world Bullinger in Apocal. 20. Fulke against the Rhem. in Thess. 2. sect 5. Whitaker answer to M. Reynols preface p 34.37 Scripture Apoc. 20. v. 8. that euen in Antichrists dayes the Church shall be visibly vniuersall For she shall thē be euery where persecuted which could not be except she were euery where visible conspicuous euen to the wicked The reason of this perpetuall visible Vniuersality is because the Tradition of the Church is as I haue proued the sole ordinary meanes on which we ground fayth for substantiall points Wherfore this Tradition must be so deliuered as it may be knowne to all men seeing God (m) The Minister sayth p. 78. l. 22. That God will haue all men saued according to his antecedent will citing Schoolmē that say that Gods antecedent will is only a velleity a wish a complacence thence cōcluding that though God haue antecedent wil that all be saued yet this doth not inferre that he alwais prouides sufficient meanes for the saluation of all I answer That God by his antecedent will of mans saluation wisheth two things First the saluation of all men Secondly the meanes of their saluation In respect of the meanes the will of God is absolute that all men in some sort or other haue sufficient meanes of saluation In respect of the end to wit the saluation of all men the will of God is not absolute but as Schoolmen say virtually conditional that is God hath a will that al men be saued as much as lyeth in him if the course of his prouidence be not stopped and men will cooperate with his grace Whence I thus argue If God did not prouide sufficient meanes for all men it could not be sayd that on his part he wisheth the saluation of all But euen our Minister pag. 78. lin 38. grants that God wisheth the saluation of all men and of euery indiuiduall person Therefore God still makes his Church visibly vniuersal vt neminem lateat as saith S. Augustine that no man perish through the hiddennes and inuisibility thereof will haue all men without exception of any nation to be saued come to the knowledge of the truth 1. Tim. 2.4 But if the Church were not still so diffused in the world that all knowne (n) The Answerer wryting to his Maiesty knowing the Prouerbe sapienti verbū did intēd by this word to insinuate how God prouided means of saluation for the world wherof one part was many ages vnknowne The solution of this difficulty much vrged by the Minister pag. 78 consisteth in these points first God our Sauiour being borne and dying in this knowne world prouided that his Church should be still visibly spread ouer the same famously known Secondly Nations be not so vnknown but by nauigation and other such naturall meanes they may be discoueuered vnto this world where our
old Fathers meaning the Fathers oâ— the Old Testament not of the New whiâ—â— appeares because in proofe of his saying 〈◊〉 brings not the Testimony of (i) The Minister saith pag. 250. lin 11. that Polidore nameth Gregory amongst the old Fathers that condemned the worship of Images for feare of Idolatry as Hierome doth witnes Answere This is false and impossible For Gregory liuing all most two hundred yeares after the death of S. Hierome how could he be one of the old Fathers whom S. Hierome witnesseth to haue condemned Image-worship for feare of Idolatry Gregory theÌ„ is named by Polidore not amongst the old Fathers but as one of the new Fathers that is Fathers of the new Testament as seeming to speake against Image-worship but in truth doth not as hath bene said any Father of the New Testament but onely of the old as of Moyses Dauid Hieremy and other Prophets And the scope of the whole chapter is to declare that the reason why in the old Testament the Fathers misliked the worship of Images of God was because they could not paint him aright Cùm Deum nemo vidisset vnquam because then no man had seen God (k) The Minister saith that the Iewes at least might haue adored the Images of Prophets if such adoration had bene lawfull as the Papists hold Answer In the same manner I argue The Iewes might haue made the Images of their holy Prophets if the making of them had bene lawfull as Protestants hold Let the Minister proue by Gods word they made them I will proue they worshipped theÌ„ Let him I say shew that Images of Prophets were set in the beginning of their Prophesies as his is set in the frontispice of this his Reply and I promise him to proue the same were honoured This is the thinge wherof we require example in Scripture and wherin the Minister is as dumbe as a fish not able to shew one proper Image of an adored person lawfully made that might not lawfully be adored Afterwards God saith Polidore hauing taken flesh and being become visible to mortall eyes men flocked to him and did without doubt behold and reuerence his face shining with the brightnes of Diuine light and euen then they began to paint or carue his image already imprinted in their mindes And these Images they receiued with great worship and veneration as was reason the honour of the Image redounding to the original as Basill writes which custome of adoring Images the Fathers were so farre from reprouing as they did not onely admit therof but also decreed and commanded the same by Generall Councells in the time of Constantine the fourth and Iustinian the second his sonne And therfore what man is there so dissolute audacious as can dreame of the contrary and doubt of the Lawfulnes of this Worship established so long ago by decree of most holy Fathers Thus writeth Polidore and much more to the same purpose in the very place where the Minister Citeth him to the contrary which shewes how notoriously his credulous readers are abused in matters of most moment Hence appeareth the third falshood that in Gregoryes dayes images began to be set vp in Churches which to haue bene in the Churches longe before the Testimonyes of S. Basill Paulinus Lactantius and Tertullian do sufficiently witnes Neither can our Aduersary bringe any cleere testimony of antiquity against this custome For the decree of the Councell (l) The Minister sayth that some Pontificians grant that this Councel forbad the making of images so cleer is their decree agaynst them I Answere such Authors had no reason in the world to be so persuaded of this CouÌ„cell but only the wordes of the decree Now the wordes of the decree be not cleere yea they cannot admit that sense being compared with the wordes that immediatly follow as the Iesuit doth demonstrate In so much as the Minister to frame an argument out of this decree is forced ridiculously to curtall the text take some few wordes leauing the rest Such is his obstinacy agaynst the light of truth of Eliberis that no Picture should be made in the Church least that which is worshipped or adored be painted on walls which the Minister way pag. 345. much vrgeth cleerly signifyeth the contrary For may not Images painted on tables be in Churches and yet neither made in the Church nor painted on walls which kind of Images the Councell doth not forbid And why doth the Councel forbid Images to be made in the Church as pertinent to the fabricke therof or to be painted on Walls but out of reuerence vnto Images for they being holy things and so to be honoured for their prototypes sake the Councel thought it vnworthy of their dignity that they should be made on walls where they may easily be defaced and deformed and by Persecutours for that Councell was held in time of persecution abused He doth also Way pag. 345. much insist vpon Epiphanius epist. ad Ioan. Hicrosol but relates according to his fashion both his fact words vnsincerely Epiphanius sayth he finding an Image painted on a cloath hanging in a Church rent it downe and said it was against the authority of the Scripturs that any Image should be in the Church Thus he vnsincerely as I said not expressinge what kind of Image that was that Epiphanius rent in peeces For Epiphanius saith Cùm inuenissem imaginem hominis pendentem in Eâ—cl sit tanquam Christi aut alicuius Sancti nâ—scio enim cuius erat when I had found an Image of a man hanging in the Church as Christs or some Saints for I know not of whom the Image was Epiphanius (m) Here the Minister rayleth most intolerably crying that the testimonyes are cleere but not so much as endeauours to answer the Iesuits arguments that are demonstratiue as much as any can be in this kind of matter The Ministers arguments on the other side haue no force at all being two proposed in a double interrogation If sayth he pag. 254. lin 2. Epiphanius himselfe did not remember whose Image it was whether of Christ or of a Saint or of some prophane man how knowes this Iesuite that it was the Image of a prophane person I Answere That Epiphanius did know that it was not Christs image nor any Saints but some prophan persoÌ„s thogh he knew not determinately what prophane persons the same was For Epiphanius would not haue vrged the vnlawfulnes of hanging that image in the Church in regard it was a mans Image had he not vnderstood a prophane mans Hence his second interrogation is answered why was Epiphanius silent and did not say it was some prophane mans Answere Epiphanius was not silent that the image he tore in peeces was the image of a prophane man seeing he tearmeth it the Image of a man hanging in the Church as Christs or some Saints And this the complayners knew well inough for if this picture had been Christs or some
to some Godhead affixed vnto it not absolutely not to worship it which exposition is true for matter though not so conforme to the letter Now that these Authours do not vnderstaÌ„d that all honouring of Images is here forbiden but only adoratioÌ„ of images as Gods or as if some Godhead or diuine intellectuall vertue were affixed vnto them is euident by their wordes For the Authors are Gerson Caietan Castro Oleaster Stella Turrecremata Ferus Aquinas but nothing more notorious then that some of these held worship of Images the same might be demonstrated of euery one Let the first to wit Gerson speake for the rest in his exposition of the ten Commandments fol. 173. We must sayth he worship the Images of Christ his Blessed mother Saynts not for themselues but by seing theÌ„ to giue honour vnto the Holy Person represented by them Catholiks to defend froÌ„ note of impiety a coÌ„tinued Christian custome to Gods word Thou shalt not adore any image add by way of explication as God or with diuine worship resting in it How can they truly boast they bringe Gods cleere word for themselues and against vs which is no lesse cleer and expresse against their image-making then against our image-worship If the place be difficill why build they their fayth vpon it against vs If it be cleere why be they forced in their defence to depart from the expresse text Secondly their exposition is not onely violent against the text but also incongruous against the sense For Gods prohibition of a thing doth also forbid the intention therof In the precept Thou shalt not kill the intention of murther is sufficiently forbidden so that he who makes a sword with purpose to murther his enemy sinnes against the precept thou shalt not kill Wherfore if Gods precept had bene this Thoâ—â—â— all not weare about thee any weapon Thou shalt not kill the prohibition of wearing weapons should haue bene absolute and not onely with purpose of murther In like manner Gods precept Thou shalt not adore Images doth sufficiently forbid intention to adore them and consequenly forbids the making of Images with such an intention so that if the precept not to make Images be nothing else then not to haue purpose to adore them a whole longe sentence in the Decalogue is superfluous without any speciall sense Besides as to make an Image to adore it is Idolatry so likewise to take it in hand or looke on it to that purpose why then was not such looking or touching with purpose of adoration expressely forbidden aswell as making Or if looking on them with intention to adore be so included in the precept Thou shalt not adore as there needes not that expression what need was there that making of images with purpose of adoration should be so largely and particularly expressed Wherfore whosoeuer is a religious follower of Gods pure word must either without explication condemne the makinge of images together with their worshippe or els allow the worship of Images if the Prototypes be adorable the making wherof he approues Hence I gather that the most naturall and truest exposition of that precept is that it forbids not onely the worshippe but also the making of any Grauen image But how to wit of false Gods or to represent God accordinge to his Diuine Substance (l) This exposition is shewed to be good by the two rules of exposition which ProtestaÌ„ts theÌ„selues appoynt The first is that wheÌ„ a word is ambiguous and difficill we are to looke to the antecedent and declare the same with reference to them This text thou shalt not make any image is difficil as sounding ouer vniuersally euen in Protestants iudgements By lookinge vnto the words immediatly precedent this vniuersality is restrained to a true sense For the words immediatly precedent are Thou shalt not haue false Gods before me Now if we expound what followeth thou shalt not make any Image by refereÌ„ce vnto this to wit Thou shalt not make any image of false Gods the sense is cleer truth The second rule is when a place is difficil we must expound the same by another speaking of the same matter that is cleere but the Scripture treating of this precept doth in the same Chapter Exod. 10.13 cleerly declare these forbiddeÌ„ images to be the images of false Gods saying Non facietis Deos argenteos nec Deos aureos facietis vobis you shall not make to your selues Gods of gold or of siluer Behold what is meant by grauen Images This sense is gathered out of the words precedent Thou shalt not haue strange Gods before me which is explicated in the consequent verse Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image to wit of false Gods for he that makes to himselfe the image of any thinge as apt to represent God according to his Diuine substance and to conuey our Imaginations directly to him doth make and hath false Gods because the true God is not imaginable nor is truely apprehended by imagination conformable vnto any Image Wherfore the pictures of the Holy Ghost in forme of a Doue and of God the Father in forme of an Old Man be not proper direct Images of the two diuine persons but onely of the Doue that desceÌ„ded on Christ and of the Old Man seene by Daniel in a vision in which the perfections of these persons are not liuely represented but a farre off and imperfectly shadowed Nor do Catholiks vse them as proper images standinge for their prototypes conueyinge our actions by imagination vnto them for no Catholike doth kisse the feete of the Doue or lye prostrate at them referring by imagination that outward subiection to the feete of the holy Ghost who hath no feet but metaphoricall not imaginable nor such as can be represented by Image Wherfore seing this text is thus cleerly explicable and not being explicated at all doth make no lesse against Protestants then against vs I see no reason why they should be so much out of loue with the worshippe of the Image of Christ Iesus their Lord to which Nature Christianity binds them Inconueniences which may come by occasion of images easily preuented and their vtilityes very great §. 4. ANOTHER argument against images Protestants much vrge That they be stumbling-blockes for simple People who easily take an image to be the very God euen as the PagaÌ„s did in former time (o) The Minister sayth pag. 268. that Papists themselues complaine that People did comnit Idolatry in the worship of imags to which purpose he cites Viues Gerson Cornelius Agrippa DuraÌ„dus Mimatensis Gabriel Biel. Cassander Polidore Answere First the Minister hath by some tricke or other abused the words of almost euery one of these seauen which were ouer long here to discouer SecoÌ„dly the witnesses are of no credit or speake not to the purpose Cassander is no Papist but a Protestant put by the Romane Church amongst heretikes of the first ranke Cornelius Agrippa a Necromant
the Creed and prime Principles of Christianity in plaine and Catechisticall manner Besides it is easy for the RomaÌ„ Church to keepe her children from belieuing that Images be Gods or true liuing things or that any diuinity or diuine vertue resides in them as may be proued conuincingly in my Iudgement by experience had of her power in this kind about a point more difficill For what may seeme more euident then that a consecrated Hoast is bread of which foure senses sight feeling smel tast giue in euidence as of bread no lesse verily theÌ„ any other so farre as they can discerne And yet so potent is the word doctrine of the Church grounded on General CouÌ„cells declaring the word of God for TransubstaÌ„tiation as Catholikes denying their senses belieue assuredly that what seemeth bread is not bread but the true body of our Sauiour vnder the formes of accidents of bread Now caÌ„ any man with any shew of the least probability in the world thinke that it is difficill for this Church to perswade her childreÌ„ that the image of Christ is not a liuing thing nor hath any godhead or liuing diuine power lodged in it as plaine Scriptures shew and Generall Catholicke Councells particularly the Tridentine sess 25. and the Nicene act 7. define which doctrine neyther reason nor sense can mislike Or shall the sole similitude of members correspondent vnto humane liuing meÌ„bers which images haue so much preuayle in catholike minds so to bow down their thought to base Idolatry as to thinke a stocke or a stone to be a God and that the Church shall not be able by her teaching to direct them to a more high diuine apprehension being able to make them firmly belieue a consecrated hoast is not bread agaynst the Iudgement that they would otherwise frame vpon most notorious euidency of sense The ProtestaÌ„ts Church on the other side may seeme to haue no great vigour by preaching to perswade commoÌ„ people agaynst the Errour of the Anthropomorphits seing their Principle is that a world of preachers is not to be belieued agaynst the euident Scripture yea (r) Heere the Minister is bitter saying p. 277. lin 30. That it is impossible for Papists to deale sincerely That his Brother M. Iohn doth not speake of euery priuate man nor any company of people but that one Michaia one Stephen one Athanasius with the word of truth in mouth is to be preferred agaynst 4. hundred Baalites I answere The Minister denying his Brother spake of euery particular man shall receaue his doome by the breath of his Brothers owne mouth telling him the coÌ„trary who thus writeth in the place cited by the Iesuite to wit Way pag. 126. lin 12. It is lawfull and necessary for EVERY PARTICVLAR MAN to try all thinges and by the SCRIPTVRE to EXAMINE and to IVDGE of the things the CHVRCH teacheth him And when A MAN in this manner reiects the teaching of a Church as great and good as the Roman Catholike his iudgement therin is not PRIVATE as Priuate is opposed to SPIRITVAL Nor sayth he pag. 128. lin 2. is it impossible for a PRIVATE MAN to espy an errour in the best Church that is And pa. 150. lin 18. Whereas the Catholiks answer That the text of Scripture try the Spirits doth not allow EVERY MAN to doe this but only Pastours The Minister replyeth this is all false for the Epistle of S. Iohn speakes indiffereÌ„tly of ALL MEN Euery man by the Rule of Scripture is to try spirits that Epistle being directed not to the CLEARGY but to the PEOPLE And the reason added shewes that the PEOPLE are they that must try spirits for they must try the spirits that are in danger to be seduced by false Prophets and such are the PEOPLE and therefore they must examine theÌ„ All these are his brother Iohns words Now let the Reader iudge whether Iohn White doth not hold that not only extraordinary Prophets as Michaeas Stephen not only chiefe Patriarkes as Athanasius but that euery particular man of the people may iudge of the teaching of the whole Church and condemne as great a Church as the Protestants if by his spirituall exposition or by the spirit he be moued so to do What reason then had our Minister in respect of this allegation to be so bitter as to say it is impossible â—or Papists to deale sincerely Verily M. Francis had you as much natural vnderstanding togeather with knowledge of the Protestant Religion as had your Brother Iohn you wold see this doctrine that euery Priuate man is by diuine Order and InstitutioÌ„ to iudge of the Church how absurd soeuer to be necessarily consequent of the Protestant Principle That euery man must finally resolue his fayth into the light of the Scripture yea I could shew how your selfe euen in this reply haue giueÌ„ this authority of iudging the Church vnto euery priuate MaÌ„ as may partly appeare by the Censure sect 4. that a common ordinary man by Scripture may oppose as great and greater Church then is the whole Protestant Doctour White in his way pag. 59. Which principle being layd how will they conuince people that God is a pure spirit whome the Scripture doth so perpetually set forth as hauing humane members I may conclude therefore that their translating Scriptures into their vulgar languages breeds more danger vnto common people then our making of images But they will say the Translation of Scriptures into vulgar languages is commanded in Scripture and the Apostolicall Church practised it whereas we cannot proue by Scripture that the Apostles did warraÌ„t or practise the setting vp of images This they say with great confidence but any substantial proofe of this their saying I could neuer read or heare The testimonyes they bring in this behalfe Search the Scriptures Let his word dwell plentifully among you c. are insufficient to proue a direct and expresse precept or practise of traÌ„slating Scriptures into the vulgar tongue Catholikes on the coÌ„trary side though they boast not of Scriptures as knowing that nothing is so cleerly set downe in it but malapert errour may contend agaynst it with some shew of probability yet haue Scriptures much more cleere and expresse then any that ProtestaÌ„ts can bring for themselues euen about the vse of the image of Christ crucifyed in the first Apostolicall Church S. Paul to the Galatians c. 3. v. 1. sayth O yee foolish Galathians who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth before whose eyes Christ Iesus is liuely set forth Crucifyed among you The greeke word correspoÌ„ding to the English liuely set forth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to paint forth a thing In so much as eueÌ„ Beza traÌ„slates Iesus Christus depictus Câ—ucifixus Iesus Christ painted or pictured crucifyed before your eyes So that we haue in plaine and expresse tearmes that christ was pictured as Crucified in the Apostolical churches which the Apostle doth
deceased many yeares before was the Authour of SALVATION vnto them that had lost theÌ„selues by their slouth (*) Homil. 2. in Psal. 50. Dauid mortuus est sed merita eius vigent homo mortuus viuo Patrocinatur Dauid is dead but his merits liue the dead man is the patron of the liuing (m) Serm. de virtute vitio Ad mortuos confugieÌ„s propter eos peccata remittit for their sake that are dead God forgiueth sinne S. Ephrem (n) Ephem serm de Lau. SS Martyrum Vt vestris precibus saluari merear Assist me o holy Martyrs before the throne of the diuine Maiesty that by your PRAYERS I may be SAVED S. Augustine (o) August lib. qq in Exod q. 108. SignificaÌ„tur Martyres sancti quoruÌ„ orationibus propitiatur Deus peccatis populi sui By the red skins of the wheathers wherwith God would haue the vâ—yles of the Tabernacle couered we presently vnderstaÌ„d our Sauiour made red and purpled with his bloud in his passion But they likewise signify the holy Martyrs by whose prayers God is propitiated and appeased for the sinnes of his people S. Maximus sayth (p) Maximus serm de martyr Tauric Euadimus inferni tenebras propriis eorum meritis attamen consocii sanctitate By deuotioÌ„ vnto Saints we auoyd the paines of hell by their very merits being their fellowes in sanctity S. Euthymius (q) S. Euthym Monachâ—â— in encomio ad beatam Virginem Mariam Dum hic manemus nos protegas supplicamus vt nobis parcat filius tuus Deus perennibus tuis precibus O vnspoted virgin mother thy Sonne and God pardon vs our sinnes by the incessancy of thy praying for vs. And could the holy Fathers thinke worship and inuocation of Saints with confidence in their merits not to be a matter of fayth which they so constantly teach and commend to be a meanes of saluation and remission of sinne The fifth Demonstration That which the Fathers did practise in their greatest needes and in the chiefe acts of Religion when the vse of true ChristiaÌ„ deuotion was most necessary that they hold as assured and certayne deuotion exercise of diuine fayth and Christian piety Such is the worship and Inuocation of Saints with confidence in their merits vnto which the Saints of God did fly in their greatest distresses S. Iustina Virgin and Martyr being strongly assaulted with fleshly temptations caused by magicke incantation fled as S. Nazianzen writeth (r) Nazian orat in S. Cyprian Mariam VirgineÌ„ rogauit vt periclitanti Virgini opem ferret vnto the protection of the B. Virgin intreating her to assist a Virgin that was in that danger wherby she got the victory S. Nazianzen himselfe being in the like affliction with great humility openly in the Church prayeth vnto S. Basil (s) Idem orat in S. Basil. O Sacrum Diuinum caput carnis stimulum c. tuis siste precibus c. O deare Saint looke downe on vs from heauen and eyther stay with thy prayers this sting of the flesh giuen me of God for my instruction or else encourage me manfully to resist it Theodosius (t) Ruffin l. 2. Histor. c. 33. Emperour being to go in expedition agaynst Eugenius the Pagan Tyrant made togeather with the Bishops Clergy and people solemne Letanyes processions vnto the Tombes of the Apostles and Martyrs where prostrate on the ground before their shrines auxilia sibi fida intercessione SaÌ„ctorum poscebat craued assured assistance by the intercession of Saints Generall Councells being to decide controuersies about the highest mysteries of ReligioÌ„ (*) Concil Chalcedon can 11. the whole councell prayed vnto Saints as that most holy Councell of Chalcedon Holy Flauian liueth with God the Blessed Martyr pray for vs. As also did S. Augustine (u) Augustine lib. 5. de Baptism contr Donatist cap. 2. Adiunet nos Cyprianê° orationibus suis. entring into the discussion of a most difficill controuersy prefixeth this Deuotion Holy Cyprian help vs with his prayers In the very act of Martyrdome when they were presently to goe out of this world they did Inuocate Saints as did Saint Acyndimus Finally the whole Christian Church at the sacrifice of the Masse still hath vsed the same as appeareth by all ancient (*) The Roman that of Ierusalem the Aethiopian Anaphora Syriaca that of Millan S. Basill S. Chrysostome Lyturgies that are extant for though the Priest in the act of sacrifice doe not inuocate Saints by direct and formall prayer as sayth S. Augustine (x) August l. 8. De ciuit c. 27. Quis audiuit stantem sacerdotem ad altare c. dicere in precibus Offero tibi sacrificium Petre Who euer heard the Priest being at the Altar to say I offer sacrifice to thee Peter or to thee Paul yet the same (z) Idem tract 8. in Ioan. Sic eos commemoramus vt magis orent ipsi pro nobis vt eorum vestigiis inhaereamus serm 27. de verbis Apostol S. Augustine doth witnes that at the holy table commemoration is made of Martyrs that they will pray for vs that we may follow their stepps And S Cyrill of Ierusalem before S. Augustine (a) Cyrill Hierosol Cathec 5. Cùm hoc sacrificium offerimus memoriam facimus c. primùm PatriarcharuÌ„ Prophetarum Martyrum vt Deus orationibus illorum deprecationibus suscipiat preces nostras When we offer sacrifice we make coÌ„memoration of Patriarkes Prophets Apostles Martyrs c. that God by their prayers and supplications will admit of our petitions Wherfore seing the most holy and ancient Fathers in their owne most grieuous distresse in the greatest necessityes of the Church in businesses of highest vniuersall importance in the tyme of the most dread Christian sacrifice did vse prayers and Inuocation of Saints with assured coÌ„fidence in their merits who can doubt but they held the same as a point of Christian Religion wherof they were assured by fayth Gods expresse word deliuered by Tradition The sixt Demonstration What the Fathers held as a Christian custome and doctrine confirmed by most certayne and euident miracles that they held as a diuine and supernaturall truth The Fathers held worship and Inuocation of Saints with confidence in their merits as a Christian deuotion coÌ„firmed by most manifest and certayne miracles as (b) August lib. 22. de ciuitat c. 9. c. 10. S. Augustine sayth Miracles are done by the intercession and impetration if not also by the immediate operation of Saints And againe Martyrs do Miracles or rather God for the prayers intercessions of Martyrs In confirmation whereof the testimonyes of S. Basill Nazianzen Nissen Chrysostome Ambrose Hierome Augustine Prudentius Paulinus Gregory the Great Gregory Turonensis and others might be plentifully alleadged The seauenth Demonstration What the Fathers taught as a necessary supernaturall duty of Christian humility they taught as a matter of fayth The Fathers
Sauiour vnder the Sacramentall signes and that the words of our Sauiour This is my body be true in their proper and litteral sense This was the reason that the Answerer omitted to proue largely this Catholicke Doctrine Now the Minister finding himselfe vnable vpon this supposition of his Maiesty to answere the Iesuits argumēts for Transubstantiation yea Pag. 397. affirmeth that vnlesse Transubstantiation be granted the wordes of our Sauiour cannot be true in their proper and litterall sense Hence he denyes the presence of the body of Christ Substantially within the sacred signe laboureth to proue that the words of the Supper are figuratiuely and not properly to be vnderstood He grants a Reall and True Presence of Christs body in words but so obscurely as no man is able to vnderstand his meaning Wherfore to cleere this matter wherein Ministers desire to be darke that men may not see the grosse infidelity of their hart agaynst Gods expresse word I shall shew 3. things First what Zuinglians and Caluinists hold in this point Secondly how the Doctrine both of Zuinglius Caluin is against Gods word Thirdly that their reasons not to admit of the literall truth of Christs word be vaine and idle The Zuinglian and Caluinian Religion about the Sacrament §. 1. A Three-fold presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is confessed on all sides The first Figuratiue or in a Sacramentall signe bread signifying his body and wine his bloud The second Imaginatiue or by the pious apprehension of the faithfull receauer who for more deuotions sake doth or may imagine as if he saw the body of our Lord in the Eucharist truly really and bleedingly present vnder the signes of bread and wine The third Effectuall or according to the Spirituall effects of grace purchased by the Body and Bloud of our Sauiour and giuen by vertue of this Sacrament vnto the soule to nourish the ghostly life therof As all proceed thus farre so Zuinglians will proceed no further They grant the body and bloud of Christ to be present in the Sacrament figuratiuely in a signe imaginatiuely by fayth effectually by grace but deny them to be present according to their corporall substance or further then in the outward signe to the mouth and in the inward effect to the soule So that they grant the Sacramentall signe to be bare and empty in respect of contayning the body of Christ though full and effectuall in respect of affoarding soule-nourishing grace Caluinists seeme in their words to maintaine a more reall presence For though they maintayne the substance of the body of Christ in respect of place to be in heauen only and not in the Sacrament yet they teach that the same body without being present vpon earth is giuen vs on earth not only by the apprehension of fayth Non solùm dum fide amplectimur Iesum Christum pro nobis crucifixum à mortuis excitatum Not only in the inward spirituall effects of soule-nourishing grace purchased by the death of his body Non solùm dum bonis eius omnibus quae nobis acquisiuit corpore suo efficaciter communicamus but realiter really truly Dum habitat in nobis dum vnum fit nobiscum dum eius membra sumus de carne eius dum in vnam vt ita loquar cum ipso substantiam coalescimus Caluin in cap. 11.1 ad Cor. Hence we may discouer the Caluinian iugling and playing fast loose about this Mystery when they so often say that the body of Christ is really present but Spiritually for the word Spirituall may be vsed in this Mystery for two ends First to expresse the substance of the thing present to signify the reall Presence not of the corporall substance of our Lords body but only of the spiritual effect therof to wit of soule-feeding grace This sense is false as shall be proued and the very same which Caluin doth condemne in the Zwinglians as execrable blasphemy opusculo de Coena Domini Secondly to expresse the manner of the Presence and to signify that the corporall substance of our Lord is present truly yet in a spirituall that is secret inuisible indiuisible manner this doctrine is true and herein not differing from the Catholike In like manner their Phrase of Presence by Fayth is equiuocall and may haue a threefold sense First Presence by Fayth may signify Presence by pious imagination of Fayth the Receauer conceauing the body of our Lord as if he saw the same corporally and bleedingly present If by Presence by fayth Caluinists meane no more then this then they doe not differ from the Zwinglians nor do they put any more reall presence then imaginatiue that is presence of things according to pious representation and apprehension though not really in truth Secondly Presence by Fayth may signify that Fayth doth dispose and prepare the soule and that then vnto the soule prepared by Fayth our Sauiour is vnited really and truly not according to the corporall substance of his body but only according to the spirituall effect of his grace This sense is also Zuinglian and condemned by Caluin as hath been shewed Thirdly Presence by Fayth may signify presence according to the iudgment of Fayth or a presence which only Fayth can find out feele behold This sense is true and Catholike and doth suppose the body of Christ to be present absolutely and independently of Fayth For were not the body of Christ afore hand present Fayth should not be true that iudgeth his body to be present Whether our Minister be Zuinglian or Caluinist in this point God only knowes he speakes obscurely of purpose He neuer sayth as Caluin doth li. 4. Institut c. 17. n. 7. That by substantiall communication the body and blood of Christ are vnder the signes of the supper deliuered vnto the fayth full yet he sayth and often repeates that the body of Christ is truly really effectually communicated These words sauour more of the Caluinian then of the Zuinglian phrase Notwithstanding his adding effectually after truly and really may draw the speach to be Zuinglian in sense to wit that the body of Christ is giuen truly really effectually that is really accordinge to the truth and reality of the Spirituall effect not really according to the truth and reality of the corporall substance The Zuinglian and Caluinian Presence confuted §. 2. THE Zuinglian doctrine that the body of Christ is present only in an effectuall signe of grace not in substance is against the plaine expresse words of our Sauiour For he did not say this is the signe or figure of my body nor this is the benefit or effect of my body but this is my body and consequently it is his body in substance and essence if the substantiall Verbe Est do signify substance and essence Hence Luther Epist. ad Argent sayth that the words are nimis clara toto cleer and much more cleere then he could haue wished Caluin also in cap.
a body from occupying a place or from extruding another body frō the place where it is (p) Read S. Augustine de Agone Christiano c. 24. serm 160. who by these examples proueth that a body may penetrate with another where he saith Shew me the weightines of flesh in the body that walked vpon the waues and I will shew the true massines and solidity of flesh in the body that came in the doores being shut and was borne into the world without vndoing his mothers integrity in his byrth For to occupy a place or to extrude thence another body is but an effect consequent flowing from the nature of a quantitiue substance as to weigh to be seene to shine to burne be the naturall and necessary effects of heauy coloured bright fiery things Transubstantiation belonges to the substance of Reall Presence §. 2. THIS I proue That belonges to the substance of this Mystery which being denyed and taken away the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true taken in the literal sense in which sense they are to be taken as hath been shewed But without granting Transubstātiation the words of Christ cannot be true taken in the literall sense Ergo transubstantiation belongs to the substance of this mystery of the Reall presence The minor is proued because the speach This is my body doth signify that the thing the Priest holds in his hands is truly really and substantially the body of Christ. For in the proposition This is my body the verbe Est signifyes a coniunction betweene This in the Priests hands the body of Christ and being a Verbe substantiue in his proper signification signifyes a substantiall Identity betweene This in the Priests hands and the body of Christ. But This in the Priests hands being before consecration bread a thing substantially distinct from the body of Christ cannot by consecration be made substantially the body of Christ as the Fathers teach it is without some substantiall alteration or change And what other substantiall chāge can make bread to become truly the body of Christ besides substantial conuersion of the same into his body (q) The Minister flyes vnto the figuratiue sense choosing rather to deny the truth of Gods word according to the letter thē admit Transubstantiation Against which he hath three arguments scattered in his Reply which I wil here ioyne togither and answere The first is pa. 434. the consecrated bread is tearmed very bread 1. Cor. 10.16 11.26.28 Answere This is a very vntruth For it is still in those places tearmed bread cum addito with such an addition as signifies that it is not properly bread but our Sauiours body 1. Cor. 10.16 The bread we breake that is Sacrifice vnto God is the communication of the body of our Lord. And 1. Cor. 11.26 as often as you eate THIS bread 27. Whosoeuer shall eate THIS bread vnworthily 28. So let him eate of THAT bread to wit wherof he had said before that Christ by the verity of his word doth make it his body Now he that eateth bread turned into Christs body or made his body doth not truly eate bread As the Maister of the Marriage-feast in Cana who tasted water made wine Iohn 2.9 did not tast water truly For as water made wine is not water euen so bread consecrated and made our Lords body is not bread The second is pag. 447. which he setteth out magnificently in a distinct letter and ech proposition in a seuerall line The substance is this If the words of our Sauiour This is my body chāge the substance of bread into his body then also they change the quantity accidents For our Sauiour tooke the whole bread into his handes and sayd this is my body as wel vpon the accidents as vpon the substance of bread But they proue not the conuersion of accidents For Popish Trāsubstantiatiō is only a conuersion of substance not of accidents Therefore they proue not the conuersion of the substance Answere The wordes of our Sauiour this is my body change not euery thing into his body ouer which they be spoken by way of breathing for then they should chāge the ayre into his body but only that ouer which they are so spoken by way of signification that their signification can not be true in the litteral sense except that be hi◠body Now the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the litterall sense except the substance of bread be changed into his body as the Minister doth confesse pag. 397. lin 17. But they may be true according to the letter the substāce being chāged though the accidēts remayne For if the Sacrament outwardly cloathed with the formes and accidents of bread be inwardly in nature and substance Christs body then is it truly and substantially his body and may be sayd to be his body taking the word to be in the proper sense for substantiue being euen as Iacob cloathed with the garments of Esau was truly and substantially Iacob and not Esau though in outward shew and shape he seemed Esau. Therfore the litterall truth of Christs words this is my body inforceth vs to say that the substance of bread is chāged into his body but not that the quātity of bread is so changed And thus the magnificence of your argument is marred proued to be but an empty shew The third argument is pag. 422.423 In all miraculous substantiall conuersions a new substance is produced but the body of Christ doth preexist so cannot be produced Answer The maior is false as appeareth by millions of miraculous cōuersions which partly haue beene partly shall be For in the resuscitation of the dead when carcasses are conuerted into men no new thing is produced but old things and substances which formerly had been are reproduced It is true the power of nature being limited according to time place cannot reproduce but onely produce at one time and in one place But the power of God being infinite eternall immense and independent of time and place can reproduce things that preexist according to different times and places as often and in as many places as he is pleased Hence he can and doth reproduce vpon earth the body of our Sauiour preexisting in heauen as the Fathers auerre S. Ambros. l. 4. de Sacra c. 4. When consecration is done the body of Christ is MADE of bread And S. Cyprian serm de coena Vsque hodie Diuinissimum Sanctissimum corpus CREAT S. Gauden homil tract 2. in Exod. Quia potest promisit de pane corpus suum EFFICIT S. Hierom. ep ad Heliod Sacerdotes corpus Christi proprio ore CONFICIVNT But some may obiect that as a man shewing a Leather-purse full of gold may truly say this is gold or a paper wrapped vp full of siluer may say this is siluer so the body of Christ being vnder cōsecrated bread we may truly say this is the body of Christ
mysterijs initiantur cap. â— Moyses his word changed the waters of Aegypt into bloud agayne turned them from bloud into water If so great was the benediction of man what may we thinke of diuine consecration where the very words of our Sauiour worke The word of Elias had power to bring downe fire from heauen shall not the words of Christ haue force to change the kinds of the elements Againe (i) Ambros. lib. 4. de Sâ—cram cap. 4. Thou seest how working efficacious is the word of Christ. If therfore such vertue is in his word that therby things that are not receaue being how much more hath it power that the things that are still remayne in the general latitude of being according to the sensible accidents and be conuerted into another substance VIII Fourthly the effect of this transmutatioÌ„ taught by the Fathers is the presence of the substance of Christs body the absence of the substance of bread binding vs to abnegate our senses and not to belieue what we seeme to see with our eyes IX Theophilact (k) Theophilact c. 4. 26. Matth. Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable operation although to vs it seeme bread because we are weake and haue horrour to eate raw flesh especially the flesh of man for this reason bread appeareth but in essence and substance it is not bread Saint Cyrill (l) Cyrill Hieros Catech. mystagog 4. Come not therfore as vnto simple bread and wine for it is the body and bloud of Christ according to the affirmation of our Lord for although sense suggest the contrary yet let fayth confirme thee Iudge not of the thing by tast but indubitably with full fayth belieue that thou art made partaker of the body bloud of Christ. And againe Know this with full certitude belieue that the bread seene is not bread though it so seeme to the tast but the body of Christ that wine seene is not wine though tast iudge it to be wine but the bloud of Christ. X. Finally that the Fathers held Transubstantiation is prooued by the continuancy which they taught of Christs body in the Sacrament so long as the accidents of bread last as appeareth by their reseruing of the same For reseruation to haue been the custome of the primitiue Church Protestants grant That (m) Habent veteris Ecclesiae exemplum fateor Caluin Instit. l. 9. c. 17. sect 39. the Sacrament was of some reserued in the elder dayes of the Church is not sayth (n) Fulke agaynst Heskins Saunders p. 77. M. Fulke so great a questioÌ„ as whether it ought to be reserued And Chemnitius (o) Chemnit in exam Con. Trid. p. 2. p. 102. granteth that in this point on our side stands Antiquitas consuetudinis latè patentis diu propagatae And whereas he addeth haec tamen veritati praescribere non debet he accuseth the Primitiue Church opposeth no lesse agaynst them then vs. And I am sure your Maiesty knowes that the primitiue Fathers did vse to send the Sacrament vnto them that were lawfully absent from Church as doth witnesse S. Iustine (p) Iustin. Apol. 2. fine vnto the sicke as (q) Dionys. Alexand ep ad Fab. apud Euseb. l. 6. cap. 36. Chrysost. Ep. 1. ad Innocent Dionysius Alexandrinus writes of Serapion That Christians carryed the same to their priuate houses to take in the morning before other meate as testifyeth Tertullian (r) Tertul. l. 2. ad vxorem Gregor Nazian orat de Gorgon That many tymes they did weare the same about them for protection as (s) Ambros. orat in obitâ—â— fratris Satyri Satyrus brother to Saint Ambrose going to sea carryed it in a stole by vertue whereof he was saued in shipwracke That Martyrs had the same frequently for their Viaticum as (t) SimeoÌ„ Metaphrast vitae S. Stephani Papae Martyris cap. 17. Vsuard in martyrolog Guitmund de corp sanguine l. 2. Tharsilius a most glorious Martyr who being taken with the Sacrament about him permitted himselfe rather to be bruized with stones to death then disclose it vnto the Persecutours whome when they had crowned thy searching curiously for the Sacrament in his clothes and about his dead body found nothing God by miracle keeping the same out of their impious hands Saint (u) Cyprian serm de Lapsis Cyprian records diuers miracles done in the confirmation of this our Sauiours permanent presence in the SacrameÌ„t namely of a woman vnworthily approaching to the chest where the same was kept that was frighted backe with fire that thence flashed out tanta est Domini potentia sayth Saint Cyprian taÌ„ta maiestas And so fully were they perswaded in this opinion that Christs body is permanently in the Sacrament that Cyrill (x) Cyrill Alex. ep ad Calosyr dareth say Insaniunt qui dicunt benedictionem à sanctificatione cessare siquae reliquiae remanserunt eius in sequentem diem Non enim mutabitur Sacrosanctum corpus Christi sed virtus benedictionis viuificatiua gratia iugis in eo est They be mad with hereticall folly who say that the blessed Sanctification of the Sacrament ceaseth if the same be reserued vntill the next day For thereby the sacred body of Christ is not changed but the grace of benediction viuification is perpetuall in it Now what reason could the Fathers haue thus constantly to defend this continuation of our Sauiour in the SacrameÌ„t but that they belieued bread to be changed into his body remayning demonstrable by the formes accidences thereof so long as they remayned entyre and were not changed into the accidences of some other substances XI A Refutation of the Ministers Shifts to elude the former Testimonies of the Fathers according to the reference of the precedent Numbers I. NO words of Scripture or Christian Antiquity can be so cleere euident which Hereticall obstinacy will not wrest against the truth yea racke till they rent them in peeces by violent interpretations as saith S. Ambrose Ep. 17. In which kind be the Ministers Replyes vnto these expresse pregnant testimonies of the Fathers for Transubstantiation as wil appeare by the confutation which heere ensueth II. Transelementing The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TranselemeÌ„tation saith the Minister pag. 421. proueth not Transubstantiation For in Transubstantiation the matter is destroyed the quantity and accidents remayne in Transelementation the matter remayneth the essentiall accidentall formes are altered Answere The falshood and inanity of this Shift is conuinced by these foure arguments which shew Transelementation to import the same as Transubstantiation The First is drawne from the notion of the word Elements Transelementation For Transelementation of bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord signifyes that there is a change betwixt them according to their elemeÌ„ts Elements import the primordiall simples the original principles the substantiall parts of which
an act of obedience vnto Christs precept Drinke yee all of this but obedience is better then Sacrifice 1. Sam. 15. 22. His argument supposeth without proofe what the Iesuit hath shewed to be most false and so may be with more truth turned to the contrary for to receaue in one kind is an act of obedience vnto the Church whereof Christ sayth He that heareth not the Church let him be to thee as an heathen and a publican But obedience is better then Sacrifice Therefore more spirituall profit and merit is gotten by Communion in one kind Communion vnder one kind not agaynst Christ his Precept §. 4. ALTHOVGH Communion vnder both kindes pertayne not to the substance of the Sacrament yet if Christ did specially commaund the same we are boūd to that obseruance and should by communion vnder one kind sinne not agaynst his Sacrament and Institution but agaynst a speciall diuine precept Hence we may probably inferre that Christ gaue no speciall precept thereof because Christ hath commaunded no more concerning the vse of the Eucharist then what by the substance of the institution nature of the Sacrament we are bound vnto leauing accidentall circūstances belonging thereunto to be ordeyned by the Apostles and Pastours of the Church as S. Augustin noteth saying (r) Augustin ep 118. Our Lord did not appoint in what order the Sacrament of the Eucharist was to be taken afterward but left authority to make such appointments vnto his Apostles by whome he was to dispose and order his Churches So cleerly doth S. Augustine speake that Christ gaue no commaundements to his Church concerning the vse of the Sacrament besides such as are conteyned in the substance of the Institution and of the Sacrament of which kind Communion vnder both kindes cannot be as hath been proued which will further appeare by pōdering the places alleadged to prooue a Precept The words of Christ Do this in remembrance of me do no wayes inferre a Precept of both kinds First because he sayd Do this in remembrance of me absolutly only of the Sacrament in the forme of bread of the forme of wine not absolutely but conditionally Do this as often as you drinke in memory of me that the Aduersaryes of the Church might not haue any the least plausible shew to complayne of her neglecting Gods Precept (s) The Minister in this place is very bitter tearming the Iesuit Vermine infatuated Romanist and the like But in lieu of answering his argument he confirmes the same as is shewed in the Censure Sect. 4. §. 5. For this precept Do this being the only precept giuē by Christ to his Church as shal afterwards appeare and giuē absolutely of the forme of bread conditionally of the forme of wine there is no colour to accuse the Church of doing agaynst Christs precept by Communion vnder one kind Secondly suppose Christ spake these Imperatiue wordes Do this after the giuing of the Cup yet are they to be vnderstood with this restriction Do this that is all things that belong to the essence and substance of this action in memory of me For if we extend the precept Do this further then the substance of the action vnto the accidentary circumstances therof in which Christ did then institute and giue the Sacrament many absurdityes will follow For by this rule we must alwayes celebrate and receaue the Eucharist after supper as Christ did specially seeing this circumstance of after supper was chosen of Christ as being very proper mysterious For thereby is signifyed that this is the sacrifice which succeeds the Paschall Lambe that was offered in the Euening the sacrifice whereof the royall Prophet sayth (t) Psal. 140. v. 2. in the person of Christ Eleuatio manuum mearum sacrificium vespertinum The sacrifice which instituted in the euening of the world was to continue vntill the end thereof We should also by this rule be bound still to celebrate in Azime that is vnleuened bread in which Christ did celebrate and giue the Sacrament saying Do this which circumstance was also mystical and signifyes the purity of our Sauiours virginall body person which was without any Leauen of sinne And besides the Priest might not giue the Sacrament vnto any but such whose feet he had washed afore seing Christ gaue the Eucharist with this preparatiue circūstance which doubtlesse is very pertinent and mysterious to signify with what purity of conscience mē ought to approach vnto the sacred Table If to bind men to obserue these circumstances of our Sauiours action though mysterious and Sacramentall were absurd as without doubt it is most absurd then we must not extend the precept Do this to the circumstances of Christs action but acknowledge that the precept Do this only includes the doing of that which pertaines to the substance of the Sacrament and so not to the giuing of both kindes the substance thereof being entyre in one only kind as hath been proued (u) The Ministers ignorance and simplicity in answering these argumēts is discouered in the Censure Sect. 1. §. 2. The second text much vrged for the giuing of the Cup vnto all men is the wordes of our Sauiour Bibite ex hoc omnes wherein some note our Sauiours prouidence saying that he foreseeing that some would take the Cup from the Laity graunting them the consecrated bread sayd of the Cup Bibite ex hoc omnes but not of bread Manducate ex hoc omnes I answere the wordes of our Sauiour be plaine Drink ye all of this But the difficulty is to whō they are spokē who are those all Luther would haue all men for whom the bloud of Christ is shed whence it followes that as the bloud of Christ was shed for all men euen Infidells Iewes Turkes Infants the Cup also should be giuen vnto all these which to say were very absurd Others restrayne the wordes All to the faythfull come to the yeares of discretion who must drinke of the Cup all of them But what shall we say of them that are by nature Abstemij who cannot endure the tast of any wine yet are not to be excused from the Sacrament Wherfore the truth is that these words were spoken vnto all the Apostles and to them all only And though it be inough for Catholiks to say it and put their aduersaryes to prooue their pretended Precept which they call of the eternall King for the Cup and so long as they cannot cleerly conuince the contrary good reason the word of the Church defined by Councells should stand yet ex abundanti we can very probably shew out of the sacred Text that the particle all concernes all the Apostles only First what one Euangelist Mat. 26.27 sayth was commanded vnto al Bibite ex hoc omnes drinke yee all of this another relates to haue been answerably performed by them all Matth. 14.23 Biberunt ex eo omnes all dranke thereof but the second all is restrayned to all the Apostles and to
straight giuen after Baptisme And yet there is no mention of wine So that Protestants if they will haue these Christians to haue wine they must out of their owne liberality by way of interpretation bestow it vpon them seeing the wordes of the text do not affoard it them (*) The Minister pag. 507. obiects That sundry Fathers and Authours do not vnderstād these places about Christ the Apostles mentioning the receauing of bread without wine of Sacred Communiō I Answere Diuers Fathers as the Iesuit sheweth vnderstād these places mētioning Communion of bread without wine of Sacramental Communiō and consequently they hold Communion in one kind to be conformable to the example of Christ and the Apostles And though some Fathers hold that these mentioned Communions of bread without wine were not sacred yet their reason is not because Communion in one kind is vnlawfull which reason yet they would haue alleadged had the same been the doctrine of the Christian Church To this Apostolicall practise we may adde the example of Christ who gaue to his two disciples in Emaus the Sacrament vnder the sole forme of bread (l) Luc. 24. Accepit panem benedixit fregit That the bread Christ gaue was Eucharisticall and consecrated the wordes of the text insinuate some learned Fathers (m) Aug. lib. 3. de consens Euangel c. 25. affirme and the miraculous effect of opening their eyes to know Christ and to returne to Hierusalem the Church of the Apostles in all hast confirmes it That they receaued at the hands of Christ the Sacrament vnder one only kind of bread is euidēt by the context of the Holy narratiō which sayth that vpon our Sauiours breaking and giuing them bread they knew him and he straight vanished out of their sight So that heere also if Protestants will haue wine giuen to these Disciples they must by the superabundance thereof in their expositions supply the want thereof in Scripture yea the Scripture in this place is hardly capable of that Exposition the Apostles acknowledging of Christ in the very fraction giuing of bread and our Sauiours departure in the same moment leaues no tyme for him to giue them wine after the bread (n) Beda Theophil in Lucam Hier. in Epitaph Paulae Isych l. 2. in Leuit. cap. 9. These be the warrants that Communion vnder one kind hath being the greatest that may be whereby appeares that the Roman Church is furnisht with all kind of proofe in this point in which she doth seeme to her Aduersaryes to be most forsaken by Antiquity which with all humblenes I submit to your Maiestyes Iudgement For supposing Communion vnder one kind to be good and lawfull that the Church could prescribe it and that she had iust reasons to prescribe it I will let passe without proofe as a thing not doubted of by your Maiestyes Excellent Wisdome THE EIGHT POINT VVorks of Supererogation specially vvith reference to the treasure of the Church IT is hard if not impossible to giue satisfaction in this point vnto any that is not aforehand perswaded of the Catholique Doctrine of Merit THE Minister thogh he speake raylingly against our doctrine of merit yet not knowing what he sayth teacheth as much Merit as we do He graunts a Merit of Congruity in wordes and Merit of Condignity in truth For a work may be Congruous vnto the Reward two wayes First meerly of Gods mercy and goodnes not out of any intrinsecall worthynes thereof This the Deuines tearme Merit of Cōgruity or of meere Impetration Secondly the worke may be congruous in respect of intrinsecall honour and dignity regarded of God and moouing him to recōpence the work according to the measure quantity of this goodnes This is properly the merit of Condignity or which is all one of inward Congruity of the Worke with the Reward Now that the Minister grāts this merit of inherent Congruity and worthynes vnto good workes his wordes manyfest First he sayth p. 169. lin 26. That the merit of Christ doth by grace giue true INHERENT sanctity and purity vnto mens soules and actions Secondly pag. 170. lin 26. That good workes are an ACCEPTABLE sacrifice vnto God and the same are TRVLY good not only comparatiuely but according to the rule of vertue Thirdly pag. 174. lin 25. That in all good works there is a DIGNITY of grace Diuine similitude goodnes and honour Fourthly pag. 174. lin 40. That the reward of good workes is called a Crowne of righteousnes 2. Tim. 4.8 because it is bestowed on them that exercise righteousnes in REGARD of their righteousnes Fiftly pag. 174. lin 18. That God in giuing the reward considereth the mind and quality of the Doer the integrity MEASVRE and QVANTITY of the worke Thus much the Minister grantes Now is this the merit of meer impetration extrinsecall congruity in respect of Gods goodnes and not the merit of INHERENT RIGHTEOVSNES Sanctity purity dignity of workes God hauing promised to reward them with regard had euen vnto the MEASVRE and quantity of that their inherent goodnes Surly M. White no iudicious Protestāt wil grant thus much as you haue done or if he do he will neuer deny merit of condignity or inherēt iustice to be found in good workes And if you grant vnto Good workes the merit of inherent Iustice you grant the thing of merit condigne which granted it is idle to contend about the name specially seing the title of Merit of condignity is not defined by the Church of Rome The Doctrine of Merit declared §. 1. THIS doctrine is much misliked by Protestants as (p) Concerning Merit proud and arrogant yet not so much misliked as misunderstood their dislike growing from misconstruction thereof For Catholiques hold that no worke is meritorious with God of it owne nature but to make the same meritorious many graces are required those most diuine excellent particularly these seauen The first grace is diuine Preordination because God out of his owne goodnes ordeyned man and his actions vnto a supernaturall last end aboue that he might attayne vnto by meere nature without which ordination no worke would haue reference or correspondency with heauenly glory The second is the grace of Redemption by Christ Iesus without whome we and our workes are defiled we being by nature the children of wrath should be so still had not he by his passion and death appeased God giuing vs the inestimable treasure of his merits so that In illo benedixit nos Deus omni benedictione spirituali in caelestibus in quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem eius secundum diuitias gratiae suae quae superabundauit in nobis Ephes. 1.3 The third is grace of Adoption in Baptisme wherby soules are supernaturally beautifyed by participation of the diuine Nature Whence a tryple dignity redounds vnto workes one by the grace of adoption from God the Father who in respect of this Adoption regardes good workes as the workes