from no other Church but the Roman is equiualent or equipollent vnto this Euery Church deliuering scriptures vnto Protestants is Roman Wherefore to reduce the Iesuits argument in true forme vnto the first Figure you should haue made the maior (d) For as Logicke teaches In prima Figura maior semper est vniuersalis Vniuersall in this sort Euery Chuch that deliuered vnto Protestants the scriptures is the Catholike The Roman deliuered the Scriptures vnto Protestants Ergo the Roman Church is the Catholike Church If you say the Meanes of proofe in the Iesuits argumeÌ„t is Indiuiduall and so the Syllogisme Expository not according to the ordinary forme why then do you reprehend his argument as being affirmatiue in the second figure seing Expository Syllogismes may be affirmatiue in any figure Are yow a Doctour a Deane a Maister in Israell and know not these things Being so ignorant of Logicke were yow so destitute likewise of discretioÌ„ as yow could not keepe your selfe from carping at the Iesuit as peccant in Logicke Could you not at least haue been silent about figures and formes of arguing concerning which yow speake no more assuredly then a blind man of colours Some may say that though yow be ignorant of Logicke yow do not greatly care because this your Ignorance howsoeuer euident vnto the learned cannot be made palpable vnto the Ladyes who esteeme yow and are lead away by yow I answere Although your Ignorance in Logicke cannot by this discourse be made palpable vnto Ladyes yet the falshood of your Religion euen about your ground and rule of fayth may be made palpable vnto them Yow make the rule of Fayth to be not expresse scripture affirming a thing in so many words for then the Ladyes that can read might straight discouer the falshood of your Religion wherof not one article against vs is expressely deliuered in scripture You therefore I say make the rule of Fayth to be not only Scripture but also (e) The doctrine of fayth is eyther expressely or deriuatiuely coÌ„tayned in Scripture Fran. white pag. 300. What is deduced by necessary consequence according to the rules of Logicke VVottâ—n Triaâ—l pag. 88. what doctrine soeuer is by Principles of reason and Rules of Logicke deduced from the Scripture Now wheÌ„ a thing is deduced from scripture by good consequence by true art and not by Sophistry Ladyes except they haue diligently studyed Logicke cannot possibly know This is euident For nothing is deduced by good consequence from scripture which is not deduced by discourse in lawfull figure forme not by Sophistry or a fallacious shew But the Ladyes cannot possibly know when an argument is in true moode and figure nor consequently discerne Syllogismes from Sophismes which their insufficiency they must needes feele in themselues if they be in their senses Therfore they cannot possibly be assured by the ground and rule of Fayth you prescribe them nor consequeÌ„tly can they groundedly belieue Christian Religion nor be saued They must trust ignorant Ministers who crye Sophistry Sophistry agaynst argumeÌ„ts in lawfull forme as now you haue done not so much out of malice but as I am persuaded out of meere Ignorance of such Rudiments of discourse as men are taught in their childhood The second Example §. 2. YOv not only accuse the Iesuits Arguments of Sophistry when they are lawfull but also pretende to bring inuincible Demonstrations when your Arguments be childish knowne Sophismes Behold hereof notorious Examples Your aduersary to proue the traditioÌ„ of the Church to be more Prime and Originall then the scripture bringes 4. Arguments Yow on the contrary side to requite him in the same number haue set downe other 4. to proue that a Christian is built originally and fundamentally on the word of God not as deliuered by tradition but as written In these Arguments yow glory (f) Reply pag. 47. and 48. saying That the Iesuits are but funiculus vanitatis a bundle of vanity and a potsheard couered ouer with the drosse of siluer Now these your arguments in comparison of which you so debase the Iesuits are all and euery one of them idle triuiall fallacyes as I will particulerly and cleerely demonstrate The first (g) Reply pag. 48 is That which is most excellent in euery kind is the modell of the rest but I trow yow will grant the Scripture to be the most excellent part of Gods word 2. Pet. 19. August l. 17. cont Faust. c. 5. Ergo the scripture is the modell and patterne of the rest This Argument is constans ex quatuor terminis that is hath foure different termes whereas all true forme of arguing ought to haue only three Scripture is one terme Modell and patterne of the rest a second Most excellent in euery kind a third the most excellent part a fourth for it is not all one to say the excellent thing in euery kind the most excellent part of many partes Amongst whole and totall things the most excelleÌ„t in euery kind may in some sort be said to be the patterne of the rest but amoÌ„gst parts the most excellent is not the ground of the rest In substantuall Compounds the substantiall forme is more excellent then the substantiall matter yet the substantiall forme is not the ground of the matter yea rather the matter is the ground of the forme being the fundamentall radicall cause out of which materiall formes are produced Who sees not that Walles Chambers and Galleryes are more excellents parts of the house and more beautifull then the fundations Yet the fundations are more prime originall and wheron the Walls and Chambers depend and are kept in being In this manner the word of God as written is more excellent in respect of deep and profound learning then Tradition yet the word as deliuered by Tradition is more prime originall fundamentall because it is the sole ground and foundation by which wee know which is the word of God the Apostles deliuered in writing Hence yow are such a Bungler in Logicke as yow vndertake to proue one thing and conclude another Yow vndertake (h) Reply 47. lin 28. to proue that the foundation of Christian Religion is the word of God not as deliuered by tradition but as written yow conclude that the written word is the patterne and modell of all other kinds of Diuine Reuelations Now to be the ground of the rest is different from to be the patterne of the rest yea the ground of thinges is seldome or neuer the patterne of them The grape by common consent is held the most excellent of all kind of fruite and so by your rule the modell and patterne of the rest yet the grape is not the ground the roote and seed of all other fruite nor do all other fruite spring and proceed from it Your second Argument (i) Ibid. pag. 48. A Christian is built fundamentally on the Rocke but the scripture is the rocke Cardinalis Cameracensis quaest vespert
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
of Waldo Wickliffe and Husse Fabulae sunt they are Fables you turne as by him spoken of perpetuall Traditions of the Catholicke and Roman Church The Pharisees did indeed corrupt Scripture But how By Logicall deductions out of the same according to your Protestant and the common Hereticall fashion pretending greater skill then all their Ancestors That they did affirme that their speciall obseruations were Traditions vnwritten from Moyses the Scripture hath not a word yea the thing they most of all obiected agaynst our Sauiour was the written Tradition of Moyses about keeping the Sabboth Day Ioan. 7. From which precept not by Tradition vnwritten but by Logicall inference they concluded that our Lord brake the Sabboth-Day by healing diseased persons thereon So that Pharasaicall Traditions were neuer so much as pretended to be doctrines vnwritten as you imagine but to be doctrines concluded from the text of Scripture by the rules of Reason and Logicke iust according to your Protestant pretence Also what you say that the Fathers Traditions vnwritten be not our doctrines but yours is spoken because you would haue men so thinke though they erre not because you can thinke the same to be so in truth For thus I argue agaynst this your seely Shift The Fathers as appeareth by their wordes vnderstand by Tradition Apostolical vnwritten Dogmata quae peti non possunt è Sacra Scriptura Doctrines of fayth that cannot be gathered froÌ„ the holy Scriptures with such certitude as they may therevpon be belieued as articles of fayth But you pretend and glory that all your Doctrines of Fayth be ex sacris Scripturis petitae so drawne and gathered from holy Scriptures as they are belieued as Fayth only vpon this rule Ergo it is great vanity for you to say that the Fathers by Apostolical Tradition vnwritten vnderstood the Doctrine not of the Roman Church but of your Protestant Separation And if from generality vpon which Ministers whose drift is to deceyue do willingly dwell we descend to particulars we shall find that you reiect those Doctrines customes of the Roman Church as Fabulous dreames and human inuentions which the Fathers expressely and in tearmes affirme to be Apostolicall Traditions To pray for the reliefe of the Soules of the faythfull deceased Protestants esteeme fabulous the (1) (1) Chrys. Homil 69. ad Pop. Fathers affirme it was ab Apostolis sancitum ordayned by the Apostles The binding of the Cleargy-men and those that are in the holy Ministery to single life and from woing wiuing do not Protestants detest as impious (2) (2) Concil Carthag Can. 2. yet the fathers say haec docuâ—runt Apostoli haec seruauit antiquitas this the Apostles taught this was kept by the Ancients That it is damnable Sin for Votaries to marry after their vowes do not Protestants contemne as a fabulous inuention yet (3) (3) Epiphan haeres 61. the Fathers say tradiderunt Sancti Dei Apostoli this is the Tradition of the holy Apostles of God The custome of making the signe of the Crosse on the forhead ProtestaÌ„ts deride as foolish (4) (4) Basil. de Spirit Sanct. c. 27. yet the Fathers affirme hoc tradiderunt Patres nostri in silentio sine literis it was taught by our Fathers the Apostles in silent Tradition without writing The Fast of Lent is it not in neglect and derision with Protestants yet the (5) (5) Hieron Epist. ad Marcell de erroribus Montan. Fathers sayd as we do QuadragesimaÌ„ semel in anno ex Apostolica traditione ieiunamus we fast one Lent a yeare by the tradition of the Apostles Do not Protestants also scorne the feast of Ember-weeke foure tymes in the yeare And yet the (6) (6) Leo de ieiunio sexti mensis Serm. 6. de Pentecost Fathers say ex Apostolica traditione seruantur they are receyued by Apostolical Tradition To fast one fryday or the sixt Day of the weeke in memory of our Sauiours passion Protestants condemne as superstitious yet (7) (7) Epiphan haeres 75. the Fathers say hoc decreuerunt Apostoli the Apostles made this decree and the Church by Tradition from them hath perpetually obserued it The making and blessing of holy water do not ProtestaÌ„ts reiect as magicall Yet the (8) (8) Basil. de spir san c. 27. Fathers say expressely it is a Tradition of the Apostles To mingle water with Wine in the Chalice of the holy Eucharist is thought by Protestants to be fabulous But by the Fathers (9) (9) Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. Dominica institutio the institution of our Lord by Tradition vnwritten deriued to vs. Luther dareth to cast off with a iest the commandement not to receiue the holy Eucharist but fasting that so the body of our Lord may enter in at our mouth before other meates (10) (10) Aug. Ep. 118 ad Ianuar c. 6. yet the Fathers say hoc placuit Spiritu sancto hoc Christus per Apostolos disposuit it pleased the holy ghost it should be so and by his inspiration the Apostles did so appoint What shall I say of (11) (11) Aug. lib. 4. in Iulian. Leo primus Ep. 14. Exorcizandi sunt secundum ApostolicaÌ„ regulam Exorcismes ExsufflatioÌ„s vsed in Baptisme the (12) (12) Origen Homil. 5. in Num. A magno Pontifice Christo eius filiis Apostolis traditam forme of interrogations answeres and other ceremonies That (13) (13) Fabian Ep. 2. ad Oriental Christus instituit they that be baptized be afterwards Chrismed with the oyle of balme (14) (14) Tertul. li. 1. ad vx Apostolica praescriptio Epiphan haer 50. Propter eminentiam celebrationis traditam That they who haue beene maried more then once be not promoted vnto Priesthood out of reuerence vnto that dignity (15) (15) Aug. lib. 17. de Ciuit. c. 4. Hoc votum illi potentissimi vouerant That the Apostles made the vow of Religions perfection That (16) (16) Chrys. homil 17. ad Paph Antiochen A Christo introducta Casian Coenobitarum disciplina tempore praedicationis Apostolorum sumpserat exordium Monasticall profession began by their institution (17) (17) Tertul. de Corona Militis Anniuersarios dies colimus the keeping festiuall Dayes in the honour of Saints deceased (18) (18) Concil Antioc Apostol citat in 7. Synod act 1. The placing the Images of Christ and his Saints in the Church (19) (19) Damascen orat 4. de Imagin Synod Nicen 2. act 7. Their Worship (20) (20) Aug. Serm. 17. de verbis Apost Cyril cathec 5. Mystagog To commend our selues vnto the prayers of Saintes deceased in the holy Sacrifice of Masse These things Protestants detest as Superstitions all which yet the Fathers mantayne to be Apostolicall Traditions metamorphize the word Profitable as to make it signify the same with the word Sufficient which is very hard yet were the text much ouer-short to proue their intent that Scripture alone
ad com Philip. in 1. ad Corinth This may conuince our Minister that his allegations be of no credit and that Iudgement of the Sanctity of a Church is not to be made by the report of zealous complaint but by the euidence of sight ruled by vnpartiall search By which rule one may find in the Catholike Cleargy thousands and thousands that shew admirable charity specially in conuerting Infidells yea that winne the glorious crowne of Angelicall Chastity for which they would neuer haue striuen had not the Church bound them thereunto So that if human infirmity by occasiō of this law make some men impure that otherwise perchance in marriage would haue beene chast so the Grace of God by the same occasiō worketh in innumerable Angelical Saints who had neuer beene such but for the Churches exaction And this haruest makes full recompence for that losse specially seing also many of such delinquents be not lost but saued by Pennance yea become more excellent Saints then they had beene had they neuer fallen Chastity Obedience Charity in vndergoing labours for the help of soules Fortitude in suffering of heroycall Martyrdomes Zeale and Patience in the rough and rigorous treaty of their bodyes by miraculous fasting another austerityes This sanctity shineth not in all children of the Church but in her more eminent preachers professours Which kind of sanctity togeather with miracles if the Church did want she could not be a sufficiēt witnes of the truth vnto Infidells who commonly neuer begin to affect admire Christianity but vpon the sight of such wōders of Sanctity other extraordinary works Holy for doctrine in regard her Traditions be diuine and holy without any mixture of errour For if the Church could deliuer by consent of Ancestours togeather with truth some Errours her Traditions euen about truth were questionable could not be belieued vpon the warrāt of her traditions for who can without danger and securely feed on that dish that may aswell containe poyson as wholsome sustenance And whereas some Protestants affirme that the Church cannot erre in fundamentall points but only in thinges of lesse moment the truth is that in perpetuall Traditions she cannot erre at all If the Tradition of the Church deliuering a small thing as receyued from the Apostles may be false one may call into question her Traditions of moment For like as if we admit in the Scripture errours in small matters we cannot be sure of its infallibility in substātial matters So likewise if we graunt Traditions perpetuall to be false in things of lesse importance we haue no solide ground to defend her Traditions as assured in others of moment Wherfore as he that should say Gods written word is false in some lesse matters as when it sayes S. Paul left his Cloake at Troas erreth fundamentally by reason of the consequence which giues occasion to doubt of euery thing in Scripture euen so he that graunteth that some part of Traditions or of the word of God vnwritten may be false erreth substantially because he giueth cause to doubt of any Tradition which yet as I haue shewed is the prime and originalll ground of Faith more (q) The Minister heere rayleth largely lustily tearming this assertion impudent Antichristian prophane bastardly c. yet the assertion is euident truth his reasons agaynst it are of no force For they goe not agaynst the assertion but proue another thing to wit the excellency of Scripture which none denyes For Tradition Scripture according to different cōparisons are equall superiour the one to the other Compare them in respect of certainty of truth they are equal as the Councell of Trent defineth sess 4. both being the word of God the one Written the other Vnwritten and so both infinitly certayne Compare them in respect of depth sublimity and variety of doctrine the Scripture is farre superiour vnto Tradition Tradition being playne and easy doctrine concerning the common capitall and practicall articles of Christianity wheras the Scripture is full of high hidden senses and furnisht with great variety of examples discourses and all manner of erudition Aug. Epist. 3. Compare them in respect of priority and euidence of being the Apostles the Scripture is posteriour vnto Tradition in tyme and knowledge and cannot be proued directly to be the Apostles therfore Gods but by Tradition as sometime not only Fathers but euen Protestants afffirme As Philosophy is more perfect then Logicke and Rhetoricke then Grammer in respect of high excellēt knowledge yet Logike is more prime originall fundamentall then Philosophy Grammer then Rhetoricke without the rules and principles wherof they cannot be learned Euen so Tradition is more prime and originall then Scripture though Scripture in respect of depth and sublimity of discourse be more excellent then Tradition fundamentall then the very Scripture which is not knowne to be Apostolicall but by Tradition wheras a perpetuall Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by its owne light For what more euident thē that that is from the Apostles which is deliuered as Apostolicall by perpetuall succession of Bishops consenting therein The Propertyes of the Church proued by Matth. 28.20 §. 4. ALL this may be cleerly prooued to omit other pregnant testimonyes by the words of our Sauiour in the last of S. Matthew Going into the world teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to keepe all that I haue commanded you and behold I am with you all dayes euen to the consummation of the world A (r) The Minister pag. 195. lin 4. sayth that this promise is conditionall in repect of Pastours succeeding the Apostles to wit that Christ will assist them conditionally whē they teach and baptize as he hath commanded but that they shall so still teach he doth not promise p. 24. lin 28. This exposition is false first because our Sauiour here promiseth his Presence vnto the Apostles and their successours to baptize and teach vntill the worlds end by one and the same forme of speach and indiuiduall breath so that the promise cannot be conditionall in respect of the successors except it be also conditionall in respect of the Apostles But in respect of the Apostles the promise is absolute as the Minister grants pag. 94. lin 23. Therefore it is also absolute in respect of their successors Not that this or that Pastour may not be deceaued but that they shall neuer deliuer by ioynt consent any falshood as the Apostles doctrine Secondly if the promise be conditionall then the sense is this I will alwayes assist you to teach Christen aright when you teach christen according to my commandement as the Minister expounds pag. 94. lin 22. But this sense is idle and iust nothing as if Christ had sayd Behold I will assist you to teach aright when you teach aright for what is to teach Christian Religion aright but to
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
great confidence auouch that it is a diuine ordinance that all ignorant Laymen read Scripture in the vulgar A strong argument The Scripture doth not say the Beroeans read the Scripture in their vulgar tongue nor doth it tearme them Noble for their reading of Scripture but for their receauing the word of Paul with alacrity and ioy Yea the tearme of The more noble is not giuen them in prayse of their Religion but to declare the quality of their Gentry and so Fulke his Bible hath the Noblest for byrth But suppose the Beroeans read in their vulgar and be therfore called Noble is not this inference ridiculous Ergo it is a diuine Precept that euery man read Scripture Doth not this arguing deserue rather to be laughed at then answered The third (a) Apoc. 1.3 Blessed is he that readeth and heareth Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that all meÌ„ read the Scripture that the Church giue theÌ„ the Scripture translated into all vulgar tongues Here you not only argue impertinently but also detruncate curtall the text of Gods Word leauing out words without which the text hath a false and foolish sense For if all be blessed that read and heare without mention or care of what then they be blessed who read or heare Tully Virgill or the bookes of Knighthood Why doe you not let the Scripture expresse the thing which being read or heard maketh men blessed The Scripture fully and truly cited sayth Blessed is he that heareth and readeth the wordes of this Prophesy to wit of the Apocalyps Which place eyther proueth nothing for your purpose or else proueth a necessity that euery man read the Apocalyps vnder penalty of otherwise not to be blessed This perchance for very shame you dare not auerre If you do what shall we or may we thinke of Luther who did neyther read nor heare nor belieue the Apocalyps as a Prophesy or as the word of (b) Nec Apostolicum nec PropheticuÌ„ esse puto hunc libelluÌ„ similem reputo Quarto Esdrâ—â— nec vllo modo deprendere possum quod a Spiritus Sancto confectus sit Lutherus praefat in Apocalip God And what an idle inference is this He is blessed who readeth the Apocalyps Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that euery man read Scriptures S. Paul sayth (c) 1. Cor. 7. Bonum est homini mulierem non tangere vers 1. Bonum est illis si sic permaneant vers 7. Beatior erit si sic permanserit vers 40. he is blessed that doth not marry Is it consequent Ergo euery man is bound not to marry or Ergo men cannot be blessed but only such as do not marry Surely your wife wil see this inference to be foolish yet it is as good as yours Blessed is he that readeth or heareth the Apocalyps Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that none be blessed but such as read Scripture The fourth argument The Galathians read the Scripture Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that ignorant laymen read them and that they be translated into euery vulgar Dialect That the Galathians read the Scriptures you prooue by the cypher of Galat. 4.24 where the Apostle sayth you that will be vnder the Law haue you not read the Law For it is written Abraham had two Sonnes This proofe is very poore For the Apostle doth not affirme they read but doubtingly demaunds whether they had not read one particle of Scripture Also the question was mooued without doubt only to the learned Galathians But suppose they read the Scripture is it lawfull thence to conclude Ergo they read it in their vulgar If they read it in their vulgar is it thence consequent Ergo euery man is bound by diuine ordinance to read and this so strictly as the Church may not forbid translations vnto such as abuse them The fifth place The Ephesians read the Scripture Ergo it is a diuine precept that ignorant Laymen read the Scripture in their vulgar tongue The antecedent you shew by the cypher Ephes. 3.4 where the Apostle sayth Reading you may vnderctand my wisdome in the Mistery of Christ A seely proofe Saint Paul doth not say that the Ephesians read but only that by reading his Epistle they might vnderstand his wisâ—ome about the mysteries of grace and Christian Religion But suppose they read S Pauls Epistle sent vnto theÌ„ doth it follow Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that Laymen promiscuously read Scripture and that the Church must translate Scripture to that end This inference as euen as good as this By reading the Epistles of Saint Peter one may vnderstand the great knowledge he had of Christ Ergo Euery man is bound to read S. Peters Epistles The sixt The Colossians read the Scripture Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that all ignorant Laymen read the Scripture The antecedent is by you proued by the cypher Coloss. 4.16 which sayth When this Epistle hath been read amongst you cause it also to be read in the Church of Loadicea This place doth not proue your intent that they read so much as that Epistle priuatly by theÌ„selues but only that the same was publikely read in the Church by the Bishop or the Priest or some Church officer in the same laÌ„guage wherin it was written originally But suppose the Colossians read this Epistle priuately by theÌ„selues what a wooden inference is this Ergo euery Christian is bouÌ„d by diuine ordinance to read Scripture Or Ergo the Church is obliged by diuine precept to prouide that the Scripture be translated into vulgar tongues The seauenth Argument The Thessalonians read the Scripture Ergo the reading thereof by ignorant Laymen is a diuine ordinance The antecedent you prooue by the cypher 1. Thess. 5.25 which sayth I adiure you that this Epistle be read vnto all holy brethren Neyther doth this text prooue priuate reading of Scripture by Laymen but only publik reading therof in the Church But suppose they priuately read this Epistle sent them by the Apostle is it consequeÌ„t Ergo all Laymen are bound to read Scripture and the Church to translate the same into euery tongue Truly this argument is euen as good as this God created heauen and earth of nothing Ergo Ministers may make arguments of nothing or make argumeÌ„ts good that haue nothing in them Or as this In the beginning was the word the word was with God Ergo euery godly person is bound to read the Scripture word by word from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalyps Or Ergo Godly persons do nothing els but read Scripture Grosse Ignorance of Theology SECTION III. BESIDES the manifold Errours which you maintaine in coÌ„mon with other Ministers you haue diuers proper peculiar to your selfe and exceeding grosse wherby you declare how ignorant how are of Theology I will only discouer some few of them but those fundamentall by which you so shake the fabrike of your Reply as no piece thereof remayneth â—ound The first
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
errour and so fallible that euery particuler man of the people for feare of being deceaued (o) Iohn white way pag. 116. must examine her teaching yea your selfe affirme (p) Reply pag. 136. lin 20. c. that not whosoeuer contradicteth the whole Church is to be held as an Heathen and Publican but only such as oppose the whole Church rashly without cause or inordinatly Ergo Protestants acknowledge the authority giuen to the Church by the word of God and consequently her lawfull authority Pag. 169. The Iesuit doth charge you to extenuate the value of our Lords passion in saying that the same doth not purchase and merit true inward purity and sanctity to mens soules and actions Against this you say (q) Reply pag. 169. lin 20. No Christian Church euer prized the oblation and merits more highly and religiously then we Great prayse or rather pride euen the Church of the Apostles were not more religiously deuout vnto nor more highly conceyted of Christ Iesus his passion then you are Well how proue you it Heb. 10.14 it is written with one oblation he did consummate his sanctifyed for euer Iohn 1.29 Behold the Lambe that taketh away the sinns of the world This is euen iust as if an Arian should argue in this sort It is written Iohn 10.30 I and and my Father are one Ergo Neuer Christian Church prized the diuinity of Christ nor thought more highly or religiously of his Equality with his Father then we Would not this argument should an Arian vse it proue him to be more ridiculous then religious And the same force hath this your argument as will appeare if we put togeather into forme the propositions thereof the one Scriptures the other your Assertion It is written that Christ is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world who by his one oblation on the Crosse did consummate the sanctifyed for euer Protestants (r) Caluin Antidot Trident in sess 5 Permaneâ— verè peccatuÌ„ in nobis neque per BaptismuÌ„ vno die extinguitur lib. 3. Institut c. 14. §. 9. NulluÌ„ à sanctis exire potest opus quod non mereatur iustaÌ„ opprobrij mercedem say that Christ taketh not away the sinnes of the world but that the same doth truly and properly remayne in iustifyed persons and is only hidden and not imputed yea your selfe affirme pag. 170. and 171. That sinne is still adiacent vnto all the vertuous actions of iust men and that this imperfection sinfulnes is only couered by Christ his merits and purity that it be not imputed Ergo Protestants prize the value of Christs passion for the effectuall and perfect sanctification cleansing and consummation of saints and their actions as highly and religiously as euer did any Christian Church Scriptures abused and falsifyed §. 9. I Will conclude this section with some few Examples of fraud and falshood in your citing of Scriptures where you help the dice by addition or subtraction of some particle or word to make the Scripture found on your side Although I do not doubt but your scoring vp in cyphers of so many impertinent Texts though being discouered it be ridiculous was also not without fraud by you vsed that you might make shew of Scriptures for such articles of your doctrine for which you know in coÌ„science that no true proofe from Scripture can be produced The text Iohn 5.39 abused Search the Scriptures To begin with the Scriptures themselues with a falshood more then once repeated in your Booke you would shew that the sacred Scripture is so easy as Vnlearned people may vnderstand the sense thereof without relying on the Churches Tradition Exposition To this purpose you say Pag. 9. lin 9. Our Sauiour commanded euen simple people to vse the Scripture Ioan. 5.39 One would according to this your citation thinke that the sacred Text did expresly say that Search the Scriptures was spoken vnto simple people And yet this is a fancy by you cunningly foysted into the text against the playne euidence therof which sheweth that Search the Scriptures was sayd not to the simple people but to the Church-magistracy of the Iewes as these three arguments euince First the word Iewes in the Ghospel of S. Iohn doth signify the Magistracy of the Iewes excluding the simple people This might be proued by forty exaÌ„ples but this may suffice Iohn 7.13 Ioan. 1.9 2.18.20 5.15.16.18 7.1.11.35 8.22.48 9.18.22 There was much muttering about him our Sauiour amongst the coÌ„mon people yet none durst speake openly of him for feare of the Iewes Behold the Iewes opposed coÌ„distinguished against coÌ„mon people feared of them wherby it is manifest that by the Iewes the Gospel of S. Iohn doth vnderstand the Magistracy of the Iewes But certayne it is that our Sauiour sayd search the Scriptures to the Iewes according to the signification of that word in the Gospell of S. Iohn Dixit Iesus Iudaeis Scrutamini Scripturas c. Iohn 5.32 Therefore the wordes were sayd to the Magistracy of the Iewes the common people being excluded Secondly our Sauiour doth testify that he sayd search the Scriptures vnto them that sent the Embassage vnto Iohn to know what he was Iohn 5.34 vos misistis ad Ioannem But cleere it is that the authours of this Embassage were not the simple people but the Church-magistracy of the Iewes Ergo Not vnto simple people but vnto Church-men and Church-magistrates did our Sauiour say search the Scriptures Thirdly our Sauiour sayd search the Scriptures vnto men highly persuaded of the sole-sufficieÌ„cy of the Scripture thinking in them to haue eternall life This appeareth by the text Ibid. vers 33. TestimoniuÌ„ perâ—ibuit veritati Ibid. vers 36. opera quae facio testimonium perhibent Ibid vers 37. Pater qui misit me testimonium perhibuit mihi search the Scriptures because in them you thinke to haue eternall life Hence they would not belieue in our Sauiour neyther vpon the testimony of Iohn nor vpon the testimony of his workes and miracles nor vpon the testimony of his Fathers voyce from heauen Now that the simple people were thus conceyted of Scriptures agaynst the miracles of our Sauiour we haue no grouÌ„d to think whereas that the Church-magistracy of the Iewes was thus conceyted the Gospell doth expressely declare There we reade how they appealed from his miracles to Moyses his bookes bidding such as were lead away by his workes Ioan. 7 52.5â— Scrutare Scripturas vide quia à Galilaea Propheta non surgit to search the Scriptures see that our Sauiour could not be the Prophet Therfore to these men standing vpon the testimony of Scripture sole-sufficiency therof vnto eternal life not to simple People did our Sauiour say Search the Scriptures because in them you thinke that you haue eternall life without me wheras euen these giue testimony of me Hence appeareth another falsificatioÌ„ of
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
Scriptures Fathers speak as they please This your cogging in Scripture is already discouered Now about the Fathers Seauen Testimonies of S. Augustine about Scripture and Tradition falsifyed §. 1. TO note some few of the many Pag. 22. lin 5. to make S. Augustine seeme to fauour your Protestant fancy that men are resolued in fayth by the resplendent Verity and euidence of the Christian Doctrine you cite him as saying (*) Cont. Ep. Fund c. 4. Manifest Verity is to be prâ—fered before all other thinges wherby I am hâ—ld in the Catholike Church In this quotation the word other is cogged into the text to change the sense as if S. Augustine had sayd I haue many motiues to belieue the Catholike Doctrine amongst other the manifest verity of the things reuealed this is the chiefest of all S. Augustines true text is manifest verity so cleerly shewed as no doubt therof can be made praeponenda est omnibus is to be preferred before all these thinges whereby I am held in the Catholike Church Hence it is cleere that the manifest Verity was not the stay and motiue of S. Augustines fayth For what is preferred before all the motiues that stayed him in the Catholike Church was none of his motiues But he saith that manâ—fâ—st verity so cleerly shining as no doubt thereof can be made is to be preferred before all his motiues Ergo S Augustin was not befooled with this foppery that Fayth is resolued finally into the manifest resplendeÌ„t verity of the doctrine and thinges reuealed in Scripture Neere to the same (a) Pag. 21. lin â—2 and in marg lit b. c. place you cite S. Augustine (b) Aug. l. 2. de Baptis c. 3. saying That former councells are corrected by latter Whence you inferre that the Tradition of the Church is fallible For what sentence of the Church is infallible if that of Councells be fallible In which say you some Papists place the soueraignty of Ecclesiasticall authority Heere you shew Ignorance and Falshood Ignorance about the doctrine of Catholikes For though some preferre the Councell before the Pope others the Pope before the Councell in case the whole Councel should be opposite to the Pope in matters of Fayth to be defined which case yet neuer happened yet all preferre perpetual Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles before both Pope and Councell For how can we know that Church definitions made by Pope Councell be infallible but by Tradition Some may say that is cleerly proued by Scripture It is true but how shall we know the texts assumed in this proofe to be the Apostles Scripture but by Tradition How should we be so sure that we truly expound the Texts aright did we not see the Tradition and practise of the Church to haue been still conformable to the sense we giue of those Scriptures Your Falshood is in that you conceale the words that immediatly follow in S. Augustines sentence which had you set down Aug. lib. 2. de Baptis c. 3. Ipsa plenaria Concilia saepe priora posterioribus emeÌ„dari cùm EXPERIMENTO â—erum aperitur quod clausum erat it would haue been euideÌ„t that he doth attribute fallibility and corrigibility vnto Councells only in matters of fact or Ecclesiasticall Lawes about manners For the whole sentence is Amongst plenary Councells the former are corrected by the latter cùm experimento rerum c. when by EXPERIMENT of thinges something is brought to light which before was hidden Now the truth of matters and mysteries of Fayth is not brought to light by tyme and experience but the truth of matters of fact is of which One sayth Quicquid sub terra est in apricum proferet aetas Therefore S. Augustine speakes not of matters of Fayth but of matters of fact or of Ecclesiasticall Lawes about manners which in some cases tyme and experience doth discouer to be inconuenient therefore to be recalled In the same place to prooue S. Augustine (d) Pag. 21. in lit b. c. held that the Church in her perpetuall Traditions may be deceaued you cite him saying (e) Aug. l. 2. cont Crescon c. 21. Eâ—clesiastici Iudices sicut homines plerumque falluntur Ecclesiasticall Iudges as men may be deceaued and (f) Lib 2. de Baptism c. 3. EpiscoporuÌ„ litteras quae post confirmatum Canonem Scriptae sunt c. licere reprehendi Non debet Ecclesia se Christo praeponere vt putet à se iudicatos baptizare non posse ab Illo autem iudicatos posse cùm Ille semper veraciter iudicet Ecclesiastici autem Iudices sicut homines plerumque falluntur the writings of any Bishops since the Apostles may be questioned and called into doubt I do not doubt but you know in your conscience that S. Augustine in both the places is alleadged oppositely to his meaning In the first place he speaketh not about Church-errours in matters of fayth but about errors in matters of fact or Church iudgments concerning criminall causes For this is his whole sentence The Church ought not to preferre herselfe before Christ as to say that men condemned by him as wicked may validely baptize but such as she doth condemne may not seeing He in his iudgements neuer erreth whereas Ecclesiasticall Iudges as being men are often deceaued Who doth not see that you wrong Saint Augustine to bring this his testimony for his holding the perpetuall Tradition of the Catholicke Church hand to hand from the Apostles by the succession of Bishops to be fallible And no lesse iniuriously you produce him in the second testimony For he speaketh of single Bishops considered ech of them by themselues that their writings are obnoxious vnto errour and so may be questioned and examined by Scripture thence inferring that the Donatists should not wonder that he did examine the Epistle of S. Cyprian agaynst the Baptisme of Heretikes so cleere it is he speakes of single Bishops not of Tradition by the full consent of Bishops Pag. 37. lin 33. For only Scripture you cite the same S. August as thus writing (g) August in epist· 1. IoaÌ„ tract 3. The Church hath only two breasts wherwith she feedeth her Children the Scriptures of the Old New TestameÌ„t You corrupt this place by addition false translation First by adding to the text the word only to make men belieue S. Aug. held that no doctrine of Fayth is to be belieued which is not cleerly contayned in Scripture whereas (h) l. 4. de Baptis c. 6. 24. l. 5. c. 22. he hath an expresse principle to the contrary many tymes repeated in his workes Sundry thinges to wit of fayth such as was the doctrine that Baptisme giuen by Heretiks is valide are most iustly belieued to be the Apostles though they be no where written in the Scriptures Secondly S. August sayth not as you traÌ„slate that the Churches two breasts are the Scriptures of the Old New TestameÌ„t
for theÌ„ it would follow that she hath no milke in her two breasts but written doctrine but he sayth her two breasts are the two Testaments of Diuine Scriptures Hence you may gather that in ech of her breasts in ech of the Testaments the milke of Scripture is contayned but that only the milke of writteÌ„ doctrine is in them contayned you cannot from this text truly cited inferre therefore both by addition and transposition of wordes you help the dyce To proue That the Tradition of the Church hath no credit or authority but from Scripture and that though this Tradition might be false yet Fayth would subsist because there remayneth allwayes an higher and more soueraigne Iudge to wit God speaking in the Scripture To proue this I say you (i) Pag. 90. in margin lit c cite this text of (k) Augustin lib. 11. 〈◊〉 Faust. c. â— Tanquam in sede quâ—dam in sublimi collocata est cui seruiâ—t omnis Fidelis pius intellectus S. Augustine It is placed as it were in an high throne of authority vnto which euery faythfull and pious vnderstanding must be subiect What is this Why doe you not name it Because you durst not set downe the wordes that immediatly precede which make cleerly agaynst you to wit these (l) Excellentia Canonicâ—â— authoritatis Veteris Noui Testamenti Apoâ—stoloruÌ„ confirmata temporibus per SVCCESSIONES EpiscoporuÌ„ Propagationes Ecclesiarum tanquam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est c. The Canonicall authority of the Scriptures confirmed in the Apostles dayes is by SVCCESSIONS of Bishops propagations of Churches placed in an high throne of authority c. How directly is this testimony of S. Augustine agaynst that which you would proue thereby How hath Tradition no credit or authority but from Scripture if the Scripture by successiue tradition of Bishops hand so hand froÌ„ the Apostles hath gotten quoad nos in the persuasion of the Christian world the high seate of Diuine authority to be honoured as Gods word vnto which euery maÌ„ must yield If this successiue Tradition on which as S. Augustine teacheth our persuasion about the authority of Scripture dependes be made weake fallible by Protestants how shall the Scripture be able to keepe her credit and authority in our Fayth Verily it cannot except Christians will cease to rely on the authority of God reuealing and on doctrine deliuered by the succession of Bishops hunt after Diuine and Apostolicall Scripture by the sent and smell of the doctrines deliuered therein as you doe Likewise by addition of the Particle Only you falsify the saying of (*) Pag. 95. lin 31. in Marg. lit Paschasius For whereas he (m) Paschas in Matth. c. 28. Cum electis semper adfuturum se promittit sayth Christ promised to be with his Elect all dayes vntill the consummation of the world you cite him as saying Only with the elect More grossely in the same place you falsify Druthmarus for whereas (n) In cap. 28. Matth. he sayth Christ is with the Reprobate by the presence of his Godhead but with the Elect in another manner you make him say Christ promiseth to be only with the elect contrary to his meaning who teacheth that the presence and perpetuall assistance of our Sauiour are so vnited vnto his Church her Pastors that they may not erre but still teach all that he coÌ„manded but that presence whereof that Text properly speaketh is not only affoarded vnto the Elect but vnto wicked men for the Saluation of all worthy Communicants as your selfe (o) Pag. 52. lin 14. affirme You (q) See pag. 105. rayle bitterly against the Iesuit for prouing that your Protestant Church cannot be the true Church nor part thereof because you seuered your selues from the Roman Church and did not ioyne vnto any preexistent Christian Society of Pastors but aparted your selues froÌ„ the Communion of the whole world For this his argument you rayle agaynst the Roman Church for a whole leafe pag. 106. and 107. Where thus you conclude your foule Foliall Inuectiue They since their Synode of TreÌ„t haue proceeded from euill to worse (s) The Minister in proofe of all this bringes nothing only in the Margent he nameth the Massacre of Paris Was that done by the Fathers of the Councell of Trent Doth that proue obscuring and out-facing of Truth Had not the Protestants then slayne been Traytors agaynst their king Was not the king informed of their plot to murdâ—r him his mother his brethren the cheiefest of his Nobles If to preuent his owne instant death the king did by martiall law without Iuridicall forme proceed agaynst knowne Rebells iâ— this such a thing as yow may say It surpasseth all perfidious Stratagems and immane Cruelty of Infidels what idle Eloquence is this obscuring outfacing the truth with forgery and sophistry They haue conspired agaynst Kingdomes and States they haue surpassed professed Infidells in perfidious stratagems and immane cruelty And whereas they expelled vs by Excommunication and chased vs away from them by persecution yet this Roman Aduocate taxeth vs with Schisme Apostasy neuer remembring what (*) lib. 5. de Baptism c. 1. S. Augustine long since deliuered The Sacriledge of Schisme is then committed when there is no iust cause of Separation Thus by long continued fierce bitter blasts of false reproach you diriue your vnwary Reader vpoÌ„ the hidden rocke of a falsifyed sentence of S. Aug. as though this most Diuine Doctour had insinuated the lawfullnes of reuolt separatioÌ„ from all ChristiaÌ„ Churches What can be more false He disputeth agaynst the Donatists who had seuered themselues from the Christian world pretending that CaeciliaÌ„ Bishop of Carthage other Catholikes had giuen vp the Holy Bibles to the fire S. Aug. doth conuince them of Schisme two wayes First because this pretence were it true is not iust for there can be no iust cause of separation from the whole world and of beginning a new distinct Christian Church These be his wordes (t) Augustin ep 48. ad Vincent Fieri non potest vt aliqui iustam causam habeant qua communionem suam separent à coÌ„munione Orbis terrarum eamue appellent Ecclesiam Christi quòd se iuste ab omnium geÌ„tium communione separauerint Ibid. Nos ideo certi sumus neminem se à coÌ„munione omnium Gentium iuâ—â—è separare potuisse c. We are certayne that none could iustly separate themselues from the Communion of the whole world And againe It is no way possible that any should haue reason to separate themselues from the coÌ„munion of the whole World and so tearme themselues the Church because vpoÌ„ iust cause they haue deuided theÌ„selues from the Society of all nations Thus S. Aug. What can be more direct agaynst that doctrine for which you cite him Or more efficacious to conclude that you Protestants are guilty of damnable Schisme Secondly sayth
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
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
inough to know actually some doctrine which is in Scripture but he must know that it is in Scripture and belieue the Scripture â—o be the word of God but ignorant persons cannot know infallibly Scriptures to be the word of God truly translated further then they find them conforme to the doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of the Church Therfore they build their Fayth finally vpon Tradition not vpon Scripture truly translated light of the doctrine shining in true Translations to wit by the light of the doctrine receiued by Tradition of Ancestors and thereupon so firmely belieued as they will acknowledge Scriptures to be truly translated so far and no further then they perceyue them consonant with the fayth deliuered vnto them so that their last and finall resolution for substantiall points is not into Scriptures truly translated into their vulgar tongue but into Tradition by the light whereof they discerne that the Translations are true more or lesse according to the measure of knowledge they haue by Tradition The third Argument IF all the mayne and substantiall poynts of Christian Fayth must be knowne and firmely belieued before we can securely read and truly vnderstand the Holy Scripture then the mayne and substaÌ„tiall points of fayth are belieued not vpon Scripture but vpon TraditioÌ„ precedently vnto Scripture This is cleare because true fayth is not built but vpon Scripture truely vnderstood neyther can Scripture before it be truly vnderstood of a man be to him a ground of assured persuasion But we cannot vnderstand the Scripture securely and aright before we know the substantiall articles of fayth which all are bound expressely to belieue the (i) The Minister here laboureth to proue that the rule of fayth is contained in Scripture and therfore cannot be Tradition vnwritteÌ„ Which discourse is impertinent and the inference false For himselfe grants pag. 150. lin 16. that the rule of fayth is both written Tradition and vnwritten The Doctrine then of TraditioÌ„ is tearmed vnwritten not because it is no waies written but because as the Answerer sayth it is knowne by preaching precedently and independently of Scripture summary comprehensioÌ„ of which poynts is tearmed the Rule (*) Tertul. de Praescr c. 13. of fayth This is (k) The Answerer here brings three ArgumeÌ„ts that coÌ„uince that none can vnderstand Scripture securely and without danger of damnable errour that are not aforehand grounded in the substantiall articles of fayth The Minister though he professe to haue set downe the Answere Verbatim leaueth all this out and then cryeth thus agaynst the Iesuite pag. 34. circa finem That men must be first instructed in the necessary poynts of fayth before they can securedly read and interprete Scriptures is affirmed by the Iesuite but not proued Thus he What not proued The Iesuit bringes three large coÌ„uictiue proofes thereof which you because you cannot answere omit and then cry the Iesuit doth say and not proue This dealing is grosse proued by the acknowledgement of Protestans in whose name (l) D. Feild l. 3. of the Church cap. 4. D. Feild writeth in this sort We hold with the Papists that neither conference of places nor consideration of antecedentia and consequentia nor the knowledge of tongues and lookinge into the originalls â—s of any force vnlesse we find the things which we conceiue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant vnto the rule of fayth (m) D. Feild l. 4. of the Church cap. 14. 19. For who can be able to vnderstand the Scriptures but he that is setled in those things which the Apostles presupposed in their deliuery of Scripture Secondly by the experience both of all former ages and this present prouing by too many examples that such as come to reade expound Scripture without being aforehand setled by Tradition in the rule of fayth do fall into errours most damnable against the maynest articles of the Creed as the Creation of the world the blessed Trinity and the Incarnation Baptisme and other So that reading interpretation of Scripture makes not men Christians but supposeth them to be made by Tradition at the least for substantiall poynts such as euery one is bound expressely to know Thirdly we are not more able to vnderstand Scripture then were our Forefathers the auncient Doctors of the Church neither is there reason that we should so thinke of our selues but they thought themselues vnable to interprete Scripture precisely of it selfe by conference of places without the light of ChristiaÌ„ Doctrine aforehand knowne and firmely belieued vpon the Churches perpetuall Tradition from the Apostles witnes (n) Ruffinus Eccles. hist. l. 2. c. 9. S. Basill and S. Gregory Nazianzen the two grande Doctors of the Grecian Church and Origen who thus writes (o) Orig. tract in Matth. cap. 29. In our vnderstandinge of Scriptures we must not depart from the first Ecclesiasticall Tradition nor belieue otherwise but as the Church of God hath by succession deliuered to vs. Ergo no man is able to read interprete Scripture without (p) Protestants affirme as Whitaker contr 1. q. 4. c. 2. and others that no man can vnderstand Scripture that bringes not with him the light of fayth and Christian piety puras sanctas mentes which doth most euidently demonstrate that fayth about substaÌ„tial poynts is grounded on Gods word precedently vnto Scripture That persuasion which is precedent vnto the knowledg of Scripture and is the rule guiding vs in our knowledge of Scripture cannot be grounded vpon knowledge of Scripture But Christian fayth piety as they grant is precedent vnto knowledge of Scripture yea must be brought vnto the reading thereof and direct vs in it Ergo fayth is not originally grounded on Scripture the light assistance of firme Christian fayth aforehand conceiued by the voyce of the Church deliuering what by Tradition from Auncestors she receiued Whence I also conclude that it is exceeding dangerous boldnes in men of this age so to presume on their interpretations of Scriptures gotten by diligent reading and conferring of places as they care not though a (q) Luther de captiu Babyl Tom. 2. Wittenberg pag. 344. thousand of Cyprians Augustins Churches Traditions should stand against them The fourth Argument THOSE that vnderstand the Scriptures aright must be such as they were to whom the Apostles writ and deliuered the Scriptures and whose instruction they intended by their writing but the Apostles as D. (r) Lib. 4. of the Church c. 4. in the margent Feild acknowledgeth wrote to them they had formerly taught more at large that were instructed and grounded in all substantiall and necessary poynts of fayth that knew the coÌ„mon necessary obseruations of Christianity Ergo they that reade and presume to interprete the Scriptures without first knowing and firmely belieuing by tradition at the least all necessary and substantiall poynts of fayth (s) The Minister pag. 34. lin 34. chargeth the
firmely any Minister of the Catholicke CHVRCH affirming a booke to be Scripture vntill we see cleerly that he deliuers therein the consent of the Catholike Church which then is euident vnto vs when we see him preach it freely and openly and no Pastour to contradict him therein may deceyue And if it may deceiue how can they be certaine that they are not deceiued seeing they thēselues liued not in the Apostles dayes nor saw with their owne eyes what coppyes the Apostles deliuered But Protestants as they pretend be certaine that they haue the true incorrupt Apostolicall text of Scripture Ergo they haue it vpon the authority of the holy Catholike Apostolicall Church Now the Minor that they haue the Scripture from the Romane is apparant for what other Church did deliuer vnto Luther the text of the Bible assuring him that they had it by Tradition from Auncestors tyme out of mind as giuen originally by the Apostles Which is accordingly acknowledged by (*) Whitaker l. 3. de Ecclesia p. 369. M. Whitaker (d) M. Doue in his persuasion others but particularly by (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word Luther himselfe Ergo the Roman Church is the one holy Catholik Apostolical Church whose Tradition doth deliuer infallibly vnto vs the text of Scripture And if the true Apostolicall Text then also (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word the true Apostolicell sense This I prooue if the Apostles did not deliuer the bare Text but togeather with the Text the true (f) We doe not say that the Apostles did deliuer the true sense of all their Scriptures making a large and entire commentary of all difficil texts as the Minister cauilleth pa. 121. but only that togeather with the text they deliuered the sense about the mayne and most principall points this sense thus deliuered by Traditiō with the text is to be admitted as religiously and reuerently as the text sense of Scripture to be deliuered perpetually vnto posterity then they who by Tradition rereiue from the Apostles the true Text must togeather receiue the true sense But as (g) Chemnit in exam Cōcil Trid. part 1. fol. 74. D. Bancroft in the Suruay pag. 379. principall Protestants affirme No mā doubteth but the Primitiue Church receyued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not only the text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sēse Which is agreable to the doctrin of (h) Vincentius Lyrinen cap 2. the Fathers that from the Apostles togeather with the text descends the line of Apostolicall interpretation squared according to the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense Whereupō S (i) Aug. de vtilit Creden c. 14. Augustine argueth that they that deliuer the text of Christs Ghospell must also deliuer the exposition affirming that he would sooner refuse to belieue Christ then admit any interpretation contrary to them by whome he was brought to belieue in Christ. For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense why may they not also deliuer a false text as receyued frō the Apostles An argument conuincing and (k) Though the Minister pag. 123. storme at this confidence of his Aduersary in tearming it vnanswerable yet by deeds he confirmes the saying to be true in not answering but chāging the force thereof quite another way saying It is this The text of the Scripture may be as easily corrupted as the sense Ergo All they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense may also deliuer a false text In this argument he denyeth the antecedent or assumption I answere First as I sayd the argument is peruerted and the medium or meanes of proofe changed for there is great difference betwixt Being as easy Being as possible seing a thing may be as possible as another and yet not so easy That ten men should conspire to deceaue me is not so easy as that three should so conspire as is euident Yet it is as possible as the other because no reason can be brought to proue that three may so conspire that proues not that also ten may do the like In the same manner though we should grant the sense may be more easily mistaken by the Church then the text yet it is as possible that the Church be mistaken in the sense Because no reason proues that vniforme Tradition can be mistaken in the sense that proues not that it is possible that the Church may be mistaken in the text though perchance not so easily Now if the Church in her vniforme Tradition may be mistaken about the text then is not Traditiō a sufficient ground of infallible perswasion that the text is the Apostles and so fayth is ouerthrowne which hath no other ground to know assuredly the incorrupt Scriptures deliuered by the Apostles but Traditiō as hath been prooued Secondly it is false that the sense and doctrine of Scripture concerning mayne and substantiall articles of fayth may be sooner corrupted and a false sense persuaded to the Church then a false text The reason is manifest because millions of Christians know by Tradition the doctrine of Scripture about mayne points that know not all the texts by which the same is proued yea perchance truly certainly not so much as one For example the doctrine that there are Three Diuine Persons and One God is so ingrauen in the harts of all euen simple Christians as you may sooner pull out their harts then make them belieue that this is not the Christian fayth whence no man can deny the Trinity but he is presently noted by al. On the other side this text 1. Ioan. 5.7 wherby the Trinity is proued There be three that giue testimony in heauen the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one millions do not know and so it is more easy to take from Christians this text then the doctrine therof And the same reason is of any other text the texts being stil commonly farre more vnknowne then the doctrine of the Creed such substantiall points vnanswerable The fourth Argument MY fourth proofe I grōnd vpō a Principle most certayne and set downe by (*) In the summe of the Conference before his Maiesty p. 75. your Gracious Maiesty That the Romane Church was once the mother Church and consequently the one holy Catholike Apostolicall Church all other Churches being her daughters and that she is not to be forsaken further then it can
Catalogue of Doctours in his Epistle to the Reader sayth In the yeare 605. more then a thousand yeares agoe falshood preuayled and then was the whole world ouerwhelmed in the dreggs of Antichristian filthines abominable Traditions and superstitions of the Pope M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed pag. 307. 400. sayth During the space of Nine hundred yeares the Popish Heresy hath spread it selfe ouer the whole world and for many hundred yeares an vniuersall Apostacy ouerspread the whole face of the earth so that our Protestant Church was not then visible to the world M. Fulke treatise agaynst Stapleton and Martiall pag. 25. The Pope hath blinded the world these many hundred yeares some say 900. some 1000. some 1200. Mayster Napier Reuelat. pag. 64. 101. The Antichristian and Papisticall raygne beganne about the yeare 316. after Christ raigning vniuersally without debatable contradiction Gods true Church abiding certainly bidden and latent confessed by the Proteâ—tants whose testimonies plentifull in this behalfe if need require shall be brought First that the doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestants refuse haue byn vniuersally receyued for many ages a thousand yeares at least euer since Boniface the third Secondly that Protestants cannot tell the tyme when the Church of Rome began to change and deuiate from the Apostolicall doctrine deliuered by succession Ergo the Roman Church neuer changed her fayth so that her doctrines are to be receaued as Apostolicall if the Maior of the first argument be true to wit that (n) The Minister pag. 15. sayth The Iesuite conueyeth into S. Augustins proposition certayne wordes to wit doctrines vniuersally receiued c. which are not found in S. Augustine for this Father did neuer allow that the vniuersall Church belieue any doctrin of faith not coÌ„maÌ„ded in Scripture I answere The wordes of S. Augustine will discouer the Minister what he is for these they are formally in the place cited by the Iesuite l. 5. de baptis c. 23. Many things are Held by the Vniuersall Church therefore are TRVLY belieued to haue beene COMMANDED by the Apostles though they be NOT WRITTEN Thus he And though there be no doctrine which may not be in some sort proued by Scripture and deriued from thence by coÌ„sequence yet this Logicall Deduction doth not suffice to make doctrines to be vniuersally matters of fayth except they be also deliuered expresly by Tradition or the word of God vnwritten as hath been often shewed in this Reioynder doctrines vniuersally receyued whose beginning are not knowne are to be belieued as Apostolicall And what more true this being a principle set downe by S. Augustine lib. 4. de Baptism cont Donat. c. 6. lib. 5. cap. 23. allowed by Doctour Whitguift late Archbishop of Canterbury Defence pag. 351. 352. who in his booke written by publike authority agaynst Puritans citing diuers Protestants as concurring in opinion with him sayth Whatsoeuer opinions are not known to haue begunne since the Apostles tyme the same are not new or secundary but receyued their originall from the Apostles But because this principle of Christian Diuinity brings in as M. Cartwright there alleadged speaketh all Popery in the Iudgment of all men I will further demonstrate the same though of it selfe cleere inough The spirit of Christ or Christ by his spirit being still with the Church cannot permit errours in fayth so to creepe into the church as they grow irreformable eueÌ„ by the principles of christianity but if errours could so creepe into the church as their beginning could not be known since the Apostles and neuer be espyed till they be vniuersally receaued then errour could so creepe into the Church preuayle that by the principles of christianity they are irreformable This I prooue because errors 〈◊〉 (o) The Minister sayth that the errours of the Pharisees were vniuersally receaued in the Iewish Church and yet reformed by our Sauiour I answere First his desire to make our ReligioÌ„ like the Pharisees makes him fashion vnto the Pharisees a Religion of his owne head as if he had neuer read the Ghospell For the Traditions of the Pharisies were certaine practises of piety inuented by themselues deducted by their skill from Scripture wherby they would seeme singularly religious non sicut caeteri hominum Secondly Christ Iesus prouing himselfe to be true God might reforme errours vniuersally receaued the Church of the Iewes falling erect a new Church of Christians as he did But this is lawfull for no man eyther before or since For Christian Religion must continue vntill the worlds end by vertue of the first Tradition therof neuer interrupted without extraordinary and Propheticall beginning by immediate reuelation miracles and so if errours be deliuered by the full consent of Christian Tradition they are irreformable irreformable by the Principles of â—hristianity when whosoeuer vndertakes 〈◊〉 reforme them is by the Principles of â—hristianity to be condemned as an Hereâ—â—ke But he that will vndertake to reâ—orme doctrines vniuersally receaued by â—he church opposeth agaynst the whole Church and therfore is by the most receaâ—ed and knowne principle of Christianity and Christs owne direct precept to be accounted as an (p) The Minister sayth that one man may oppose the whole Church and oppugne her errours by Scripture and not be as an Heathen or Heretike For not euery one that opposeth the Church is to be accounted an Heathen but only such as in ordinatly and without iust cause oppugne it Thus he pag. 136. I answere By this doctrine euery particular man is made examiner of the whole Church and her iudge and Hellish Confusion brought into Christendome If agaynst the sentence of perpetuall vniuersall Tradition a priuate maÌ„ may without Heresy pretende Scripture stand stifly therin and though the Church giue seeming appearing answeres vnto his Scriptures yet coÌ„demne her saying these answeres are sophisticall as our Minister doth p. 581. what can be more disorderly or what is hereticall obstinacy if this be not Wherfore S. August epist. 48. sayth absolutly it is impossible men should haue iust cause to depart and impugne the whole ChristiaÌ„ Church adding nos cerâ—ò scimus herof we Christians are sure And why but because it is a ruled Christian case He that heareth not the Church is an Heretike Heathen and Publican Matth. 18. vers 17. And as S. Augustine â—ayth Epist. 118. to dispute agaynst the whole Church is most insolent madnes specially wheÌ„ the doctrin is ancient without any known beginning as are the supposed erroneous customes doctrins of the RomaÌ„ Church For then the vndertaking Reformer must striue agaynst not only the whole present Church but also the whole streame of the visible Church tyme out of mind since the Apostles Et quis ad haec idoneus who is able to beginne a new course of Christianity and to ouerthrow that doctrine which is vniuersally receyued cannot be prooued by any Traditions of Ancestours
fled for feare of punishmēt vnto the Protestants of France there professed what he was Polidore Viues Gerson are noted as full of mistaking in their complaints and rash in Iudginge and censuring Durandus speaks against indiscreet excessiue vse of images that the same may be dangerous which no man denyes Gabriell Biel derides the simplicitye of some people that rather worshippe fayre imags and such as are trimmed thē other Which simplicity is no more Idolatry then it is to heare the sermon of a Minister trimmed in his Ruff◠and Cuffs more willingly then of another more simply attyred to this purpose bringinge some testimonyes of S Augustine epist. 19. and in Psal. 113. To this I answere first that this may seeme a great wrong not onely to the Christiā Church but also to Christ himselfe to thinke that men indued with his knowledge fayth and made partakers of the light wherby they belieue most high diuine and incomprehensible mysteries which he reuealed to the world should so easily be carried away into such blockish Errours as to thinke a stocke or a stone to be God a blindnes scarce incident vnto men except they be wholy destitute of all heauenly conceipts and nuzzelled vp from their cradles in that persuasion as Paynims were of whō onely S. Augustine speaks for they did not onely want this light of Christian instructiō but also were taught by their Auncestors that in their Idolls a kind of Diuine vertue or Godhead was lodged and affixed vnto them wheras Catholik Doctrine teacheth the contrary that our Images are bare resemblances of holy persons no Diuinity no Vertue no Dignity no Sanctity that makes them venerable being in them but in the Prototype Secondly such Idolls as the Paynims adored many of them did by Diuels meanes ordinarily speake giue answeres moue and exercise other actions of life so that their speaking was not accounted miraculous and extraordinary but rather their silence which speakings were very potente to perswade men to belieue what their Auncestours told them that those very stocks and stones were Gods or had a Godhead affixed vnto them Now these kind of things seldome happen in our images scarce once in a age and when they happē they are takē as Miracles wrought not by the images or any vertue residing in them but by Gods infinite power nor are they brought to proue any excellency affixed vnto the image but onely that God liketh that we should honour our Sauiour and his Saints in their images Finally I dare say vulgar ordinary Protestants in England by reading (p) The Minister sayth pag. 272. that the Creed is as dangerous in this respect as the Scripture because it names the right hand of God Answer The Creed cā import dāger neither vnto Catholicks nor vnto Protestants Not vnto Catholicks because with the text of the Creed they receaue the Churches explication therof which still preuents mistaking of that word Not vnto Protestants because they must belieue the Creed no further then they see the same conforme vnto Scripture and so the Scripture attributing Humane shape vnto God is only dangerous vnto them For the Scripture perpetually attributes humane shape vnto God and their common people reade it by themselues without any guide whom they be bound to belieue further then by their skill in Scripture they shall find reason the Bible in their mother tongue are in greater danger to belieue that God is a body and hath all the parts therof euen as hath a man then any the simplest Catholike is to thinke an image to be God This is proued to be likely because it is impossible to conceiue God otherwise then in the forme of a corporall thinge and as the Oratour sayth We easily flatter our selues to thinke our shape the fayrest and so the fittest for God Wherfore it is easy for men to assent to this errour vnto which the best and greatest wits that euer were Tertullian apud August heres 86. and S. Augustine himselfe whilest he was a Manichee did assent l. 3. Confess c. 7. Much more easily therfore may ignorant (q) The Minister sayth pag. 272. lin vlt. That the reading of Scripture by the vulgar is lawfull and holy but the worship of images is alwaies condemned and censured by holy writ Answer This is easily said but can neuer be proued For Protestāts cānot bring one text of Scripture that approues Scripture to be read by the vulgar as Protestants pretend to wit with authority to Censure out of their skill in Scripture the most Catholick best Church in the world Nor will he or any of his progeny be able to bringe one example or one texte that shewes that images of adored persons lawfully made may not lawfully be adored which is the Controuersy betwixt them and vs. people be deceiued therin through weaknes of conceipt and inclination of nature when they read the Scripture describinge God as hauing the forme and shape of man with head face eyes eares hands and feet On the contrary side neuer any Christian did teach that the image of Christ is truly Christ or a liuing thinge nor euer did any man or woman except some few and those very simple and senseles if such historyes be true fall into such foolish imagination Moreouer children and ignorant people are in the Catholicke Church often and plentifully instructed against such errours as by our Catechismes appeare and particularly by Iesuits who make a solemne vow to keepe their Institute especially about teaching the Rudimēts of fayth vnto common and ignorant people Hence it is that in Townes where they dwell and Villages about on Sundayes holy dayes besides their sermons for people more intelligent they teach without fayle vnto children and men of ruder sort the forme of Christian doctrine and vse all industry by giuing rewards vnto children and by bestowing almes on poore people to make them willing diligent in this learning In the English Church what is done for the instruction of ignorant in their rudiments of fayth by Ministers and Pastours as I know not much so will I say nothing but only that tyme they spēd in the praises of sole Fayth (*) The Minister here sayth that the Iesuit doth depresse the English Church accusing their Pastours of negligence For which cause he tearmeth him One Cui verbosa lingua cor verò obtenebratum speaking much in praise of his Church and of the liuely sole Fayth they preach All which is idle and ridiculous And as for their sole Fayth if it be the same Luther preached it is so liuely and liue-like as it maks a man to liue and not to dye though he commit the deadest workes that may be Whoredome and Murther a thousand tymes aday Luther Tom. 1. Epist. Latin fol. 334. and about the secrets of Predestinatiō in long bitter Inuectiues agaynst our doctrines misunderstood if not purposely misrelated might in my opinion more profitably be spent in declaring
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
Theodos. Nor as the sanctifyer of our soule dwelling in the same by grace Hierom in Prouerb c. 2. Nullum inuocare idâ—â— intus orando vocare nisi Deum debemus Thirdly that the Preist doth not inuocate Saints by direct prayer in the Lyturgy of the Masse which being a sacrifice the deuotion therof is to be directed to God onely Augustine lib. 22. de ciuit c. 10. Carthag 4. c. 23. Fourthly that our friends that are deceased do not now heare vs in the familiar manner they were wont conuersing with vs. Hierom. ad Heliodor de obitu Nepotiam whatsoeuer I write seemeth to be dead 〈◊〉 because Nepotian doth not heare it to wit iâ— visible manner delighting therein and applauding the same as he was accustomed to doe in his life-time (c) HeÌ„ce appeareth the impertineÌ„cy of the Minister that so often vrgeth this place of S. Hierome pag. 29.2 lin 22. Orthodoxe pa. 54. li. 6. Fiftly that they do not know what is done in this world by their natural forces Augustine de cura pro mortuis c. 16. Per diuinam potentiam Martyres viuorum rebus intersunt quoniam defuncti per naturam propriam viuorum rebus interesse non possunt Sixthly speaking vnto some deceased persons they make an If whether they heare them or not because they speake vnto such as they knew not certainly to be Saints Nazianzen orat 3. in Iulian. (d) The Minister here sayth Did not the Fathers reckon Constantine to be in ioy and glory and yet Gregory Nazianzen vsing an Apostrophe to him sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heare o thou Spirit of Great Constantine if thou hast any notion of these thinges I Answere you falsify the text of Nazianzen both in the Greeke in your English translatioÌ„ For his words are Heare o thou Spirit of Great Constantius if thou haue any notion of these thinges Yea that we might see you corrupt the text wilâ—â—lly against your conscience euen in this very Reply in this poynt â—f controuersy you cite the same pag. 359. lit a. in this manner Audi etiam 〈◊〉 Constantij magni anima siquis mortuus sensus est Heare o thou Spirit of â—reat Constantius c. Now Constantius was an Arian and a persecutour of Catholickes vnto his dying day though on his death bed it was sayd â—e made some kind of repentance Hence S. Gregory NazianzeÌ„ might doubt â—f his being in Glory and say Heare if thou haue any notion of these â—â—inges The same Father in his funerall Oration for his sister Gorgonia where he sayth Sister admit of this oration in lieu of many funerall offeâ—â—ngs If this reward be giuen to holy soules to feele these things he doth not doubt of her hearing his prayers but only whether she receaued an humane naturall content in that his affectuous Panigyricall made in her prayse THIS truth supposed I cannot but coÌ„ceaue that your Maiesty professing so much loue to the first primitiue ages may â—eceaue satisfaction about this point the causes of Protestants dislikes being weake and not to be opposed against the strength of so long continued authority as I shall endeauour to demonstrate in their eight usuall Exceptions Inuocation of Saints not to be disliked because not expressed in Scripture §. 2. AND first I must satisfy the transcendeÌ„tall cause of their dislike (a) Confess August art 12. Fulke against Rhem. which is that worship and Inuocation of Saints deceased is no where expressely set downe in Scripture without expresse warrant wherof nothing may lawfully be done that belongs to Religion But this though carrying a shew of deuotion in the conceit of common people is altogether vnworthy of the erudition of any learned Protestant For howsoeuer in the beginning of their separation they did (b) Luther l de seruo arb serm de Cruce siue expresso Dei mandato cry for expresse Scripture expresse Commands oâ— the Written Word yet now they are 〈◊〉 gone (c) Wotton in his Tryall pag. 89. from that principle as they are exceeding angry (d) Iohn White in his defence pag. 228. with vs that wâ— should thinke that any of theirs were 〈◊〉 any time broachers of such an absurdity Wherfore in their written bookes whâ—â— they teach in Pulpits I know not they (e) D. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 20. Whitaker de sacra Scrip. cont 1. q. 6. disclaime from expresse Scripture and thinke it a sufficient warrant of a Christâ—â—â— custome that the same be (f) Note that it is one thing to be expressed in Scripture and another to be grouÌ„ded on Scripture All Christian doctrine is not expressed in Scripture yet euery Christian doctrin is so grouÌ„ded on Scripture that it may in some sort or other be proued from Scripture grounded â—â— Scripture that is may be deduced by good discourse from truthes reuealed therin 〈◊〉 be proued consonant to the rules principles therof according to which ample extent of Scriptures vnto things deducible from them or consonant vnto them there is no Catholike custome that hath not warrant in Gods word as we are able to shew This onely we require that ignorant people be not Iudges of such inferences an office so farre aboue their capacity as I am perswaded no vnlearned man that hath in him any sparke of humility or any mediocrity of Iudgement will vndertake it For no man is competent to iudge assuredly of argumeÌ„ts by deduction froÌ„ Scripture that hath not exact skill of Scripture to know the false sense from the true as of Logicke to distinguish Syllogismes from Paralogismes being able to giue sentence of the truth of principles by the one and of the inferences by the other A thing so hard as euen learned Deuines do much suspect their owne sufficiency to iudge of deductions dare not absolutely pronounce their sentence but referre the same to definitions of authority which besides skill of Scripture Logicke hath the promise of Gods perpetuall assistance in teaching the Christian Church Wherfore if Protestants will bind vs to bring expresse Scripture for the worship of Imags Adoration of the Sacrament Inuocation of Saintes they must themselues likewise be bound to bring expresse Scripture against Anabaptists for (g) D. Field l. 4. of the Church c. 20. saith It is no where expressely deliuered in Scripture christening of Infants and for the keeping of the Sunday in lieu of the ancient Sabboath Day for their dedicating of (h) CoÌ„cerning the Protestants keeping festiuall daies of Saints with religious solemnity the Minister saith not a word which is tacitely to grant that this duty of ReligioÌ„ is vsed piously by the English Church although the same waÌ„t the warrant of Scripture why then may not Catholicks pray vnto Saintes though there were no warrant in Scripture for such practise Dayes in memory of the Apostles with religious solemnity for the (i) Concerning the Crosse in baptisme the Minister saith pag. 302. that it is
prooue that of necessity they are seen and so the Minister might haue spared the paper in citing the opinions of SchoolemeÌ„ coÌ„cerning the doctrin of the VoluÌ„tary glasse glasse of diamant so cleere and excellent that whatsoeuer is done in London in secretest corners should therein particularly and distinctly appeare surely he that hath eyes to see that glasse may likewise discerne what is done ouer the Citty Now most certayne it is that in God all creatures all actions done in the world and all the most secret thoughts of harts so perspicuously and distinctly shine as they are in themselues So that the Saints hauing light to see the diuine Essence may in him cleerly discerne whatsoeuer is done in the world beloÌ„ging to their state though neuer so secret according to the saying of S. (t) Basil. lib. de Virgin Basil There is not any Saint which doth not see all thinges that are done any where in the world And of S. (u) Greg. hom 40. Qui creatoris sui claritatem vident nihil in creatura agitur quod videre non possint Gregory Nothing is done about any creature which they cannot see who see the clarity of their Creatour And agayne (x) Lib. 12. Moral c. 13. We must belieue that they who see the clarity of the omnipotent God within themselues are not ignorant of any thing that is done without Which doctrine of the Fathers that Protestants may the lesse dislike I proue to be grounded on the Scriptures First if Saints by reason of their blissefull state do so participate of the diuine nature and wisdome About the first Argument as they communicate with him in the power of gouerning the nations of the world This argument is strong and you by strugling make the strength thereof more appeare You haue deuised 3. solutions First you say pag. 311. lin 10. That the Iesuits exposition is nouell and neuer heard of in the ancient Church Answer It is ridiculous when you are pressed with the cleere text of Scripture to call vpon the ancieÌ„t Church you I say who still specially in this question appeale from the ancient Fathers vnto the Scripture as pag. 302. and 298. you say that it is not iust to make ancient custome a law rule of right doctrine And if you will stand to the rule of antiquity I can produce more then fifty ancient Fathers that in expresse tearmes teach the doctrine the Iesuit doth establish by the literall sense of Gods word to wit that saints deceased are rulers and gouernours of mens actions liues Secondly you say pag. 309. that the text of the Apocalyps To him that shall haue conquered I will giue him power c. is not vnderstood of Saints deceased but of liuing Saints Answere This to be false is apparent by the very words which are these Apoc. 226. He that shall haue conquered kept my words VNTIL THE END to him I will giue power ouer nations c. But it is cleer that liuing Saints caÌ„not be said to haue conquered much lesse to haue kept the word of God vntil â—he end Therfore these words are violently wrested vnto liuing Saints Thirdly you say pag. 320. lin 3. That the promise I will giue them power ouer â—ations is vnderstood only of iudiciary power in the day of iudgement Answer This â—o be false is proued by the rule of interpretation of Scriptures which â—rotestants commend and praise aboue all other to wit when a text is â—oubtfull the same must be expounded by another which speakes of the â—â—me matter specially when the darke text doth expressely allude vnto â—he cleerer This place of the Apocalips about Saints I will giue them power â—uer nations and they shall rule them in a rod of iron they shall be broken in peeces â—â—ke pots of clay seemeth darke vnto Protestants and the question is wheâ—her this be spoken of Saints power in the militant Church or onely of â—he day of Iudgment To cleer this doubt there is another text of Scripture vttered in the same words to wit the second Psalme which saith of Christ That his father shall giue him nations to be his inheritance and he shall 〈◊〉 them in a rod of iron and shall breake them as pots of clay To this text of the Psalme the place of the Apocalips doth allude For our Lord in the Apocalips promiseth that he will giue to Saints power to gouerne in a rod of iron nations countryes as his father promised gaue the same power vnto him to wit in the aforesaid Psalme But that place of the Psalme is without doubt to be vnderstood of Christs power of gouernement in this world and of his ruling in the militant Church as Protestants grant it appeareth by the wordes precedent I will giue thee nations to be thine inheritance and thou shalt rule them in a rod of yron Ergo the power of gouerning iâ— a rod of yron promised to Saints must be vnderstood of gouernement in this world and in the militant Church then Saints haue knowledge of things that are done in this world else how could they be able to gouerne and rule it But Scripture in playne and expresse tearmes make Saints participate with Christ in the rule and gouernement of the world according to his promise (y) Because the Minister doth so much insult that the Iesuit hath not proued any thinge by Scripture I will that his folly may appeare examine particularly his answere vnto these texts Apocalip 2.26 To him that conquereth I will giue power ouer nations and he shall rule them with a rod of iron that is with power of inflexible equity And Apocal. 3. v. 12. I will make him a pillar in the TeÌ„ple of my God And the blessed say of themselues Apoc. 5.10 that they were chosen out of countreys and nations to be Priests of God that they should rule with him vpon the earth Therfore they know what is done vpon earth so far forth at least as the affayres of earth doe specially appertaine vnto them and such without doubt are our deuotions towardes them Secondly S. Paul Cor. 14.26 sayth Now we know but in part we prophesy but in part but when that of perfection shall come that of part shall be euacuated I know now but in part theÌ„ I shall know as I am known By which words the Apostle signifyes that all knowledge both humane diuine particularly the gift of Prophesy is contayned eminently in the beatificall â—ight so that the blessed Saints haue the gift of Prophesy in a more excellent degree theÌ„ had the Prophets in this world But by the light of Prophesy holy men vnited with God could see the secrets of harts as S. Paul sayth 1. Cor. 14.15 By the gift of Prophesy the secrets of harts are manyfested and also see things absent being present by light of vnderstaÌ„ding froÌ„ whence they were absent according to their substance (z) The Minister seketh two wayes
though the substance of bread remayne I answer that when substances are apt of their nature and ordayned by vse to contayne other substances then shewing the substance which containes we may signify the substance contained as in the former examples The reason is because their naturall aptitude to contayne other things being vulgarly knowne mans vnderstanding straight passeth from the consideration of the substances contayning to thinke of the thing contayned therein But when substances are not by nature and custome ordayned to contayne others we cannot by shewing them demonstrate another because their outward forme signifyes immediatly the substance contained in them For exāple one puts a piece of Gold in an apple shewing it cryes this is Gold in rigour of speach he sayth not true because the sense of his words is that the thing demonstrated immediatly by the formes and accidēts of that apple is Gold yea put case that one should say this is gold shewing a peece of paper vnfolded in a manner not apt to contayne any thing in it he should not say true though by some deuise he had put secretly into it a peece of gold Because when the paper is shewed displayed and not as contayning something in it and yet is tearmed Gold the proper sense of that speach is that the substance immediatly contayned vnder the accidents of paper is gold although it be couered with other accidents then those that vsually accompany the nature of gold Wherefore the proposition of Christ This is my body being spoken of a thing that naturally is not apt nor by custome ordained to contayne an humane body it cannot be vnderstood literally but of the subiect immediatly contayned vnder and demonstrated by the accidents and outward semblance of bread Now the thing that lyes hidden immediatly vnder the accidents of bread which was once substantially bread cannot become substantially the body of Christ except it be substātially cōuerted into his body or personally assumed by the same body And seeing this second manner of vnion between bread Christs body is impossible and reiected by Protestants aswell as by Catholiks we may conclude that the mystery of Christs Real presence cannot be belieued in truth by them that deny Transubstantiation Specially seing our Sauiour did not say Heere is my body which speach may be verifyed by the Presence of his body locally within the bread but This is my body which imports that not only his body is truly and substantially present but also that it is the substance contayned immediatly vnder the accidents of bread If any man say that by this argument it appeares that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture but from the wordes of the Institution subtilly deduced and so may perchance be numbred inter scita Scholae not inter dogmata Fidei I answere that the cōsequēce of this argument is not good as is euident in the example of the Incarnation The doctrine that the vnion of natures in Christ is proper not metaphoricall substantiall not accidentall personall not essentiall is no where expressely set downe in the Scripture but by subtill deduction inferred from the mystery which Scripture and Tradition deliuer Notwithstanding because these subtill deductions are proposed by the Church as pertinent vnto the substance of the aforesayd mystery they cannot be denyed without preiudice of fayth In this sort the doctrine of Transubstantiation though not in tearmes deliuered by the Scripture but deduced by subtile and speculatiue inference may not be denyed by them that wil be perfect Belieuers because the Church hath declared the same to pertayne to the proper sense of Christ his wordes and substance of the mystery Concil Romanum sub Nicolao 1. Lateranense sub Innocentio 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers §. 3. IT is certayne the Fathers acknowledge a transmutation of bread into the body of Christ that they meant Transubstantiation that is not only a mysticall significatiue but also a Reall and substantiall change appeares by these 5. circumstances of their doctrine in this point First [I.] ¶ The Marginall Annotations corresponding to these ensuing Numbers follow afterwards togeather by the expressenesse of their words for there can be no words more significant and expressiue of a substantiall change betweene bread our Sauiours body then those the Fathers vse Saint (s) Orat. Cathechis c. 34. Nissen That the word made flesh is inserted within euery faythful mā by his flesh taking his consistance of bread and wine Consecration II. transelementing the nature of things appearing into the same flesh S. Cyrill (t) Cyrill Ep. ad Calosyrium Influit oblatis vim vitae conuertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis sayth That we might not feele horrour seing flesh and bloud on the sacred Altars the Sonne of God condescending to our infirmityes doth penetrate with the power of life into the things offered to wit bread and wine III. Conuerting them into the verity of his owne flesh that the body of life as it were a certaine seede of viuification might be found in vs. Saint (u) Chrysost. hom de Euchar in Encoen Nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit Chrysostome When wax is put into the fire nothing of the substance therof is left nothing remaynes vnconsumed IIII. so likewise do thou thinke that the mysteryes are consumed by the substance of the body of Christ (x) Ambros. de initian myster c. 9. Non hoc quod natura formauit sed quod benedictio cōsecrauit Benedictione enim ipsa natura mutatur S. Ambrose What arguments shall we bring to prooue that in the Sacrament is not the thing which nature hath framed but that thing which benediction hath consecrated and that greater is the force of benediction then of nature seing by the benediction euen Nature is changed V. Secondly they require that the Authour that changeth bread into Christ his body be VI. Omnipotent consequently the change not meerely significatiue but substantiall VII Saint Cyprian (z) Cyprian de coena Domini Panis non effigie non natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro This bread changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh S. Cyrill (f) Cyrill orat 4. mystagog He that in the marriage of Cana changed water into wine by his only will is not he worthy that we belieue him that he hath changed wine into his bloud S. (g) Gaudent tract 2. in Exod. Gaudent The Lord Creatour of natures that of earth made bread agayne because he can do it and hath promised to do it makes of bread his owne body and he that of water made wine now of wine hath made his bloud Thirdly the instrument by which God workes this Transubstantiatiō is by them acknowledged the most efficacious that may be to wit the word not of man but of God S. Ambrose (h) Ambros. de ijs qui
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Speach and Discourse shew the true shape figure of a man according to the mind This is true Hence a Philosopher when a Lad was brought vnto him to be his Scholler sayd Speake Child that I may see thee If one desire to know what stuffe a (i) Similes estis sepulchris dealâ—atis quae aforis parent hominibus speciosa intus vero plena sunt omni spurcitia Matth. â—3 27 Sepulcher WHITE PAINTED without coÌ„taines within the way is to marke what sauour commes out when the same is opened Wherfore according to the (k) Luc. 19.22 Gospel ex ore tuo te iudico I wil iudge you by your own mouth by the the words therof delineate the Feature of your mind Qualityes of mind may be reduced vnto two heads Learning and Honesty the one being the ornament of the Vnderstanding the other of the Will Hence this your Picture or Censure of your Booke containing fiue Sections in the last of them your Honesty in citing of all sorts of Authours is discouered The other foure are imployed to set forth the quality of your Learning in euery kind of Science that belongs to a Deuine Wherby wil appeare what great reason you had to set this Inscription about your Picture Effigies (l) The title of Doctissimus was giuen to Luther by the Diuell in his nights Conference with him as Luther vbi supra doth reâ—ord Doctissimi Viri D. ni Francisci White c. The Picture of the most Learned man M. Francis White taking to your selfe the Title of Learned in the superlatiue degree aboue other men This Censure with the Reioynder will also make manyfest how iudiciously by way of preueÌ„tion the Iesuit in his Answere conuinced your future Reply your rude quaxing therein agaynst the Catholike Truth that whereas you haue made the Iesuits Arme holding a net with a frogge in it if your Painter will in lieu of the Frogge paint a Minister he shall not need to change the Motto Piscatoris rete habet Ranam the Fisher hath caught in his net a Frogge Ignorance of Latin and Grammer or els wilfull going agaynst knowne Truth SECTION I. TO begin with that kind of learning which Children are taught in the first place and which is the key vnto all other knowledge I shall make manifest your grosse Ignorance therin by foure Examples The first Example §. 1. THERE is a controuersy betwixt you and your Aduersary about the fact of S. Epiphanius who writes of himselfe (a) Epiphan epist. ad Ioan. Hierosolym quae est 6. inter Epistolas Hieron I found in the entry of a certain Church in the Village of Anablatha in the Countrey of Bethel the image of a Man pendentem quasi Christi aut alicuius Sancti nescio enim cuius erat hanging as Christs or some Saintes for I know not whose is was when then I saw the Image of a Man to hang in the Church of Christ agaynst the authority of Scripture I cut the same 〈◊〉 peeces c. The question is whether this Image was Christs 〈◊〉 some Saints and not rather some prophane mans â—anging as Christs or some Saints The Iesuit (b) Iesuit in the Reply p. 251. â—5â— â—aintaynes that it was a vulgar prophane image not any sacred Picture This he prooues first because Epiphanius vrgeth the vnlawfulnes of this fact because it was the image of a man When sayth he â—â—gaynst the authority of the Scripture I saw in the Churâ—â— the image of a man But there was no reason why 〈◊〉 should vrge the vnlawfulnes of this fact in respeâ—â— the image was of a man had he not vnderstood meere ordinary man For otherwise it is so far froâ— being against Scripture to set vp in Churches the Iâ—mage of a man as by Gods expresse order (c) Ezod 25.34 thâ— Cherubims were figured in the Temple vnder thâ— shape of Men. Secondly it is a principle in Philosophy Nulluâ— simile est idem what is like to a thing is not the samâ— thing without distinction Epiphanius sayth the â—â—mage of this man did hang as Christ or some Saint that is in like manner as such sacred images did 〈◊〉 to hange Ergo that image was not Christs or somâ— Saints but the image of some prophane man haÌ„ginâ— in the Church as Christs or some Saints You comming to answere your aduersary 〈◊〉 according to your custome you enter into a comâ—mon place and rayle pag. 251. No testimony can be cleere which Sophisters will not labour to peruert and 〈◊〉 otherwise what is cleerer agaynst Imageworship then 〈◊〉 words of Epiphanius It is lost labour to contend with meâ— qui sola pertinacia pugnaces neruos contra perspâ—â—cuam veritatem intendunt which vpon sole pertiâ— bend their vttermost force to gainsay perspicuous verity After this (d) Semotiâ— NVGIS locorum communiuÌ„ causa cum causa res cum re ratio cum ratione confligat Augustin de vtil crâ—d c. 1. childish declamation comminâ— to answere the Iesuites argumeÌ„ts you skip ouer thâ— first without any Reply at all Vnto the seconâ— grounded vpon the word quasi Christi aut 〈◊〉 Sancti you shape this solution Epiphanius writing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated by 〈◊〉 ad verbum quasi is to be construed not by a note of â—â—â—parison but of coniecture or guessing in things we doe perfectly remember or know as vidi gregem ouium quasi 〈◊〉 or I saw a troope of horse put case an 100. Thus you shewing what an excellent GraÌ„marian you are For I beseech you in what Grammer or Dictionary did you euer read that quasi doth signify put case And your English example I saw a troope of horse put case an 100. if it be brought with reference vnto the Latin vidi gregem ouium quasi mille as a true translation thereof as it ought to be for otherwise why is it brought what Grammer-maister would endure a boy that should so interprete I vrge not your translating mille an hundred nor gregem ouium a troope of horse for this I know doth not much import but your translating quasi put case which quasi doth no more signify then mille doth an hundred or ouis a horse If a GraÌ„mer-boy hauing this English to be put into Latin Behold a troope of twenty horse put case they 〈…〉 hundred let vs set vpon them should thus translate Ecce turmam viginti equitum quasi centum irruamâ—â— were not this senseles and ridiculous Latine And yet the Latine were true and ad verbum if quasi did signify put case as you say it doth Wherefore quasi is still a note of similitude which sometymes doth togeather imply doubting or coniecturing when the similitude is so perfect as we can 〈◊〉 no distinction As in your example vid◠〈◊〉 ouium quasi mille we signify that the number of 〈◊〉 sheepe is so neere a thousand as we cannot 〈◊〉
alwayes directeth in their publike doctrine But wicked persons sayth S. Augustine retayne the figure or outward shape of a member but they are not in truth the body of Christ Non sunt de compage domus Dei they are not of the frame of the house of Christ. Ergo. Thus you How false and absurd this your Doctrine is I will not stand to shew by Scriptures and Fathers which are cleere and plentifull in this point For though Christ as he is the head and fountaine of sanctifying Grace cannot haue wicked and damnable members that receiue influence from him yet as he is the head and fountaine of all spirituall gouernement and authority he may haue damnable subiects and members and from him power and authority may flow vnto them But omitting this I will make your Folly and Ignorance apparent by prouing that this your argument is inept in respect of forme in the matter so absurd as you contradict your selfe you ouerthrow your owne Church you crosse the maine streame of Protestant Doctrine First your argumeÌ„t eueÌ„ in respect of form is fond for you change the medium or means of proofe arguing from the time preterite to the present (i) Reply pag. â—00 in fine Wolues hypocrites impious Persons BE NOT the true Church Romish Prelats HAVE BEEN Hypocrites Wolues and impious Persons Ergo. The Romish Prelates be not the true Church Who doth not feele this manner of arguing to be inept as good no better then this A sucking Child is not a Preacher and Minister of the word Francis White hath been a sucking Child Ergo. He is not a Preacher or Minister of the word Hence though your paradoxe that the Church which hath a wicked man for Pastor cannot be the true Church were true your tale that some Popes haue been wicked were also graunted yet it is not hence consequent that the Romane Church is not now the true Church but at the most that it was not the true Church for the tyme that it had some wicked Pope for supreme Pastour Secondly you contradict your selfe about the doctrine that wicked Pastours cannot faithfully preserue and deliuer the true word of saluation for pag. 52. you thus write to the contrary The promises of Christ made to the Church concerning his presence assistance to his Sacraments preached and administred according to his commandement are fulfilled when WICKED Persons execute the office and performe the worke of outward Ministry For although the wicked like the CarpeÌ„ters of Noahs arke reape no benefit to theÌ„selues yet God almighty CONCVRRETH with their ministery being his owne Ordinance for the saluation of all deuout Communicants Thus you If this be true as it is most certaine then may wicked persons faythfully and constantly deliuer Apostolicall Traditions about matter of Saluation This sequele I proue They with whose ministery God doth concurre for the saluation of all deuout worthy coÌ„municants being bound so to do by his promise doe constantly and faithfully deliuer Apostolicall Traditions concerning the doctrine of saluation and are infallibly directed so to do This is euident because when God concurreth with his Ministers to teach the truth they neuer erre nor deliuer in matter of fayth and saluation false doctrine But God doth still and infallibly concurre with them with whom to concurre he hath bound himselfe by promise euer and alwayes euen to the consummation of the world Wherfore if God hath bound himselfe to his Church that he will concurre euen with the wicked Ministers of his word in their teaching for the saluation of all deuout worthy communicants as you affirme pag 52 lin 18. then wicked persons may deliuer faithfully constantly Apostolicall traditions concerning fayth and saluation and are infallibly directed so to do which you deny pag. 54 lin 6. manifestly contradicting your selfe within lesse then a leafe Thirdly you ouerthrow your owne protestant Church For if that caÌ„not be the true Church directed by God according to his infallible promise wherin wicked men haue sitten as visible rulers gouernours then Protestants and all of their communion cannot be the true Church out of which saluation is not had For I hope they will not be so impudent as to deny but they haue had some wicked meÌ„ for their rulers and Pastours Was not King Henry the eight ruler Gouernour of the Protestant Church and yet their owne Historyes paint him forth as a monster for beastlines cruelty and impiety Was not Cranmer a most wicked persecutour and murtherer of diuers Saints not only of Catholikes but of sundry Foxian martyrs who were by him sent to the fire And yet he was a ruler gouernour in the Protestant Church Wherfore the argument which you set in distinct letters lines as of speciall weight may be with the same force forme applied against your Protestant Church in so many words only by placing the words Protestant in lieu of Romish Wolues Hypocrites impious Persons are not the holy Catholike Church Protestant Prelates and Visible Rulers haue been Wolues Hypocrites impious persons Ergo. Protestants are not the Holy Catholike church out of which there is no saluation Fourthly what more opposite to the common streame euen of the Protestant Doctrine then that that Church cannot be the temple house of God in which wicked and impious men sit or haue sitten as visible rulers Commonly all Ministers foolishly I confesse yet earnestly endeauour to proue that the Pope is Antichrist because he sitteth in the Temple and Church of God as Christs Vicar and as her supreme Visible Head Ruler vnder Christ which Doctrine you your selfe suppose as certaine pag. 588. were you make this Exclamation What a misery will it be if it fall out as it is certaine it will that at the Day of Iudgement the greatest part of English Romistes be found to haue followed the man of sinne the sonne of perdition who exalteth himselfe aboue all that is called God so that he sit in the temple of God shewing himselfe as if he were God Thus you I vrge not the folly of this your Exclamation in that it is a fond supposition of the Question yea a taking of that as certaine which not onely Catholiks but also learned Protestants deny Your selfe haue you not lately since the writing of this Reply approued (k) The Appeale vnto Caesar of Richard Montague a Booke by Order of his Maiesty in which that Authour doth often and earnestly (l) Second part c. 5. pag. 141. professe not to beleeue the Pope to be that Antichrist further affirming that Protestants out of affection haue been to violently forward to pronounce the Pope is that man of sinne sonne of perdition yea that some out of violent and transported passion no doubt make it an Article of their Creed wheras their arguments be so far from the force of demonstratiue as they are not persuasiue Thus this Authour in that Booke which you haue
〈◊〉 Tradition vnwritten that this is the prime ground of â—ayth more fundamentall then Scripture you most larâ—ely labour to refell and tearme it pag. 91. an Anti-â—hristian and impudent assertion to depresse the written â—ord of God exalt the prophane bastardly Apocriphal â—â—aditions of the Pope This is bitter inough yet cerâ—â—ynly you teach that there be traditions maintayâ—ing and vpholding the Scripture in authority or 〈◊〉 you speake ineptly not knowing what you affirâ—e For some two pages before this your reprochfull words to wit pag. 89. you thus distinguish about Traditions The Church hath no perpetuall Traditions but such as are EYTHER contayned in Scripture OR which are subseruient to MAINTAINE the Fayth Verity and AVTHORITY of the Scripture the doctrine thereof Thus you I demand of you These subseruient Traditious about fayth and doctrine be they contayned in Scripture or not If they be your distinction is senselesse one member thereof not being condistinct agaynst the other for if subseruient traditions be traditions coÌ„tayned in Scripture what more inept then to say traditions eyther contayned in Scripture or subseruient If they be not contayned in Scripture but condistinct from them then according to your distinction there be some traditions not contayned in Scripture which maintayne and vphold the authority of Scripture and the verity and doctrine thereof If you grant this as you must vnlesse you will grant your distinction be voyd of iudgment then must you also grant tradition to be more fundamentall then Scripture For thus I argue That which is the ground of the authority of Scripture is more fundameÌ„tall then Scripture That which doth mantayne and vphold the authority of Scripture is the ground and foundation of the authority of Scripture Ergo That which doth vphold and mantayne the authority of Scripture is more fundamentall then Scripture Now your selfe ascribe vnto Tradition subseruient condistinct agaynst written Tradition the office of mantayning the authority of Scripture So that eyther you know not what you doe write or else by your owne distinctions you are conuinced to establish that very doctrine which elsewhere you so sharpely censure as Antichristian impudeÌ„t prophane bastardly Certainly you are a seely Disputant about matters of Theodogy No more sense or iudgement is there in the distinctioÌ„ you make of holy Belieuers into triumphant militant pag. 49. The tearme Church say you is taken in the holy Scripture for the vniuersall number of holy belieuers in all ages and more strictly for the whole number of holy belieuers vnder the new Testament Hebr. 12.23 Apoc. 5.9 Ephes. 5.25.27 And thus it comprehendeth both the Church militant triumphant Thus you distinguishing the Church of belieuers into militant and Triumphant whence it is consequent that the Triumphant Saynts in heauen are belieuers What more ridiculous and agaynst the prime and knowne Notion of Triumphant Saynts It may be God permitted you to stumble vpon this grosse simplicity through want of reflexion that you might thereby be warned to reflect vpon the foulenes of another doctrine which wittingly willfully you mantayne though being no lesse exorbitant then this The doctrine is that your Protestant Militant Church is a multitude who (a) Iohn White in his Defence pag. 309. by diuine illumination see manifestly the truth of thinges belieued of the Blessed Trinity and other mysteryes that you are like not vnto men (b) Francis White Orthodoxe pag. 108. which see a farre off a certayne obscure glimmering of the light but vnto men that coming to the place where the light is behold the sayd light in it selfe Verily to tearme the Church militant a multitude of BEHOLDERS resolued of truth by manifest light euidence is as Exoticall and as idle Gibberish in Christian Theology as to call the Church triuÌ„phant a multitude of BELEEVERS that warre and walke by Fayth As for your Protestant triuÌ„phant Church if they did not formerly belieue in this life the word of God without seing the light lustre and resplendant verity of the doctrine thereof as you pretend they did not I do not doubt but they are belieuers in the next world to wit in the number of them of whom the Apostle writeth Ioan. 2.9 credunt contremiscunt Ignorance in Scripture SECT IV. CONCERNING Holy Scripture you brag intollerably in euery page of your Reply how the same standeth cleerly on your side and that the Iesuit hath not been able to proue any of the Nine Poynts by Scripture How vaine this your vant is doth appear by the Reioynder wherin you are proued almost in euery controuersy to forsake the litterall and plaine sense of Scripture and to deuise now figuratiue typicall and mysticall interpretations How idlely also you dispute out of Scriptures for matters of greatest moment which you most confidently maintayne in your Religion is made euident by what hath been shewed concerning your arguing for the preteÌ„ded Diuine Ordinance binding ignorant Laymen to read the Scripture Notwithstanding that your ignorance herin may more indeniably appeare I will add here some other arguments and tokens of the same to wit vnto what shamefull shifts you are forced to answere Scriptuâ—es brought by your Aduersary in the behalfe of Caâ—holicke doctrine You deny the Text and Context of Scripture §. 1. FIRST many times you are enforced by your aduersary when you cannot answere to deny the â—ext context of Scripture wherof I alleadge two â—xamples The Iesuit pag. 480. to proue that Christ â—romised eternall life vnto the worthy participant â—f the sacrament vnder the forme of bread bringeth â—he words of our Sauiour Iohn 6. Qui manducat hunc â—anem viuet in aeternum he that eateth this bread shall â—ue for euer You in the place quoted answere The â—cripture Iohn 6.51 saith not whosoeuer eateth sacraâ—entall bread without wine shall liue for euer but if any â—â—te this bread which came downe from heaueÌ„ to wit Christ â—â—sus incarnate shall liue for euer And then it followeth â—nlesse you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke 〈◊〉 blood you shall not haue life in you Iohn 5.53 Thus 〈◊〉 Now marke vnto what straytes maugre your â—â—agging you are brought by the Iesuite First you are not acknowledge these words cited by the Ieâ—â—ite he that eateth this bread liueth for euer to be our â—â—uiours but onely those If any shall eate c. Wherâ—â— they be our Sauiours the expresse text of Scripâ—â—re in so many words syllables Iohn 6.59 which â—â—yth He that eateth this bread liueth for euer Seâ—â—ndly you are compelled to answere that Christ â—â—ter he had said he that eateth this bread liueth for â—â—er said Vnlesse you eate the flesh and drinke the â—â—oud of the sonne of man you shall not haue life in â—ou By which ensuing senteÌ„ce he did as you thinke â—eclare the former If any eate this bread c. that it must not be vnderstood of Sacramentall bread without wine This is
against the context and order of the sentences of Gods word this sentence He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer being fiue sentences or verses after this other Vnlesse you eate the flesh and drinke the bloud Yea these words he that eateth this bread liueth for euer are absolutely the very last wherewith Christ shutteth vp his discourse about Sacramentall taking his flesh and bloud Wherfore not to be forced to grant that Christ promised as much to the eating of Sacramentall bread onely as to eating and drinking both you are forced to deny the text and context of Gods word If you say our Sauiour indeed spake the wordes He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer but that he spake not of Sacramentall bread nor of Sacramentall eating I reply First why then did you not acknowledge this text aswell as this other If any eate this bread he shall liue for euer Secondly you contradict your selfe for that the seaueÌ„th Chap. of S. Iohn speaketh of Sacramentall eating drinking your selfe affirme many tymes in this Reply as pag. 395. lin 8. pag. 406. lin 13. pag. 466. lin 20. A second example of your being forced to deny or not to acknowledge the text of Gods word is found pag. 75. There the Iesuit saith that euen in the dayes of Antichrist the Church shall be visibly vniuersall referring himselfe for proofe to the Apocalips 20. v. 8. You in lieu of the eight verse cite the seauenth Then shall Satan be let loose shall goe forth and seduce nations which are vpon the foure corners of the earth Gog and Magog shall gather them into a battaile the number of whoÌ„ shall be as the sands of the sea Which text is impertinent For it proueth that the army of Antichrist shall be for multitude of men innumerable Not the vniuersall diffusion of the Christian Church in his raigne Why stopped you at the seaâ—enth verse Why would you not proceed to set â—owne the words of the eight that were vnder your â—yes vnto which the Iesuits marginall quotation reâ—erred you Verily you saw that they proued the Ieâ—uits intent so cleerly as you knew not what to reâ—ly For the text saith (a) Apoc. 8.20 of Antichrists Purseuants â—hey went ouer the breadth of the earth and compassed aâ—out the campe of Saints and thc beloued Citty By which â—lace it is euident that the campe of Saints and the beloâ—ed Citty to wit the Church persecuted by Antiâ—hrist in his raigne shall be spread ouer the face of â—he earth â—ou are forced to goe agaynst Christs expresse word §. 2. THE Iesuit pag. 409. argueth in this sort If God can put a whole Camell in the eye of a needle is he not â—ble to put the whole body of Christ in a consecrated Host â—ut God can put a Camell in a needles eye witnesse our Saâ—iour Matth. 19. v. 24.25.26 where hauing sayd It is â—ore easy for a Camell to passe through a needles eye then â—or a rich man to enter into the Kingdome of heauen wheÌ„â—is disciples did much wonder therat demanding who then can be saued He answered With men this 〈◊〉 impossible but all thinges are possible vnto God Our Answere say you pag 412. is that these words â—ll things are possible to God are referred to the latter â—art of Christs speach touching the rich mans entring into â—eauen and not to the Camells passing through the needles 〈◊〉 All things agreable to truth and which God will haue done are possible but that it is agreable to truth for a Camell retayning his quantity with the whole body to passe through a needles eye or that God will haue this to be done deserueth to be credited when the Aduersaryes prooue it by diuine Reuelation or by other demonstration Thus you forced by your aduersary to deny the expresse word of God as I demonstrate by three arguments First if our Sauiour hauing named many thingâ— as difficile hard and impossible with men conclude that not one of these things only but al are possible with God then to say that one of the things only not all are possible to God is directly to contradict our Sauiour to giue him the lye Our Sauiour hauing named many things as hard difficile and impossible vnto men to wit that Camells passe throgh a needles eye and that rich men enter into the Kingdome of heauen concludeth that not one of these things only but all are possible vnto God apud Deuâ— omnia possibilia sunt (b) Matth. 19.16 Mar. 10.27 all these hard and difficile things are possible with God Ergo you in saying that one sort of these things by him named as hard difficile are impossible vnto God to wit that Camells passe through a needles eye do directly contradict the words of our Sauiour giue him the lye Secondly to affirme that a Camells passage through the eye of a needle is impossible vnto God is more directly agaynst this speach of our Sauiour then to say that a rich mans entrance into heauen is impossible This I prooue If our Sauiour say that of the two the Camells passing through a needles eye is more easy that is lesse difficile then to deny the Camells passing through a needles eye to be possible vnto God is more directly agaynst our Sauiours â—ord then so to affirme of a rich mans entring into 〈◊〉 Kingdome of heauen For if things more easy â—â—sse difficile be impossible how much more things â—â—sse easy and more difficile If we may with truth â—ffirme that God cannot do what by the truth of his word we know to be more easy much rather may we affirme God cannot doe what by the truth of his word we belieue to be more difficile This is cleere â—ut our Sauior saith most expresly that it is more eaâ—y that is lesse difficile for a Camell to passe through â— needles eye then for a richman to enter into the Kingdome of heauen Ergo Your saying the pasâ—ing of a Camell through a needles eye to be imposâ—ible vnto God is more against this place of his word â—hen had you so affirmed of a rich mans entring inâ—o heauen Thirdly if this word of our Lord All is possible vnto God be referred directly properly and specialâ—y vnto a Camells passing through a needles eye not vnto a rich mans entring into heauen then you do directly oppose the truth of Gods word But that â—his speach All is possible vnto God is in this manner â—eferred vnto the Camels passing through a needles eye not vnto the rich mans entring into heauen â—s euident by the drift of this place For our Lord by this discourse doth directly intend to shew not a rich mans saluation to be possible but the Apostles argument which moued them to dispayre of the saluation of richmen not to be good They hearing our Sauiour say it is more easy for a Camell to passe through a needles eye then that a rich man enter in
â—each that Blessed Mary was an entyre Virgin only vntill â—er Childbirth But according to the CATHOLICKE FAYTH he came forth of the Virgins woÌ„be the same still resting entyre and as a Bride-grome out of his Bride-Chamber Now you may crow and crake crowne your Booke as you do in your Picture when you are so pressed by your Aduersary that you are forced to defend your Errour by holding ancient Heresyes and by laying the tearme of Sophisticall Inference vpon the Catholicke Fayth of the Creed and of the whole Christian Church In answering Scriptures you contradict your selfe and grant the Iesuit the Question §. 4. THE vanity of your former brag that the Iesuit hath proued nothing by Scripture is further made apparent in that he doth so vrge you with Scripture as you are sometimes forced to contradict your selfe sometimes to grant as much as he doth require against your selfe The Iesuit pag. 98. proueth that the Church of Christian pastours succeeding the Apostles is infallible in her Tradition because our Sauiour saith Matth. 28. Behold I am with you all dayes vntill the consummation of the world You answere pag. 100. That which is promised vpon condition is not absolute vntill the condition be fulfilled The presence of Christ is promised to the Apostles successours conditionally and as they were one with the Apostles by imitation subordinatioÌ„ that is so farre as they walked in their stepps conformed their doctrine and ministery to the patterne receiued from them Thus you in this place But pag. 174. lin 21. speaking of the absolute perpetuity and duration of the Church you say that the place Matth. 28.20 Behold I am with you all daies vntill the end of the world proueth that the Church is vniuersall in respect of time and that it continueth successiuely in all ages This your saying ouerthrowes what you said that the presence of Christ is promised vpon condition wherin the successors of the Apostles might faile For this place Behold I am with you all dayes vntill the worlds end doth shew the Church to be alwaies in the world no other wayes then because Christ according to his promise is alwaies and all dayes to the worlds end with his Church he caÌ„ not be still in the world with his Church except his Church haue still a being in the world So that according to the truth of this place we may aswell or better say the Church shall not be alwaies in the world then that it shall be in the world without Christ or his Diuine assistance to teach men infallibly the truth Wherfore if by this place we cannot as you say we cannot proue that the Church shall be euer absolutely assisted of Christ much lesse doth this place conuince that the Church shall be alwaies in the world or further then conditionally if it walke in â—he Apostles doctrine Contrariwise if this place â—roue that the Church is absolutely alwaies in the world vntill the consummation therof then à forâ—iori more strongely and more directly doth it proue â—hat Christ is absolutely not onely conditionally â—reseÌ„t with his Church all dayes to the worlds end â—o that to answere the Iesuits proofes of his Religion â—y Scripture you coÌ„tradict your selfe yea somtimes â—rant agaynst your selfe as much as he would proue For to proue the same infallibility of the Church â—e bringeth pag. 3. the place of S. Paul (g) 1. Tim. 3.15 that the â—hurch is the grouÌ„d pillar of truth but the ground of â—ertaine infallible Truth such as the Christian is â—ust be certaine infallible You answere pag. 4. lin â— If by the Church wee vnderstand the Church of Christ â—â—uing afâ—er the Apostles the same is by office and calling â—he pillar and ground of truth in all ages This your anâ—were alloweth vnto the Iesuit asmuch as he desires 〈◊〉 can desire to shew the Church to be alwaies infalâ—â—ble For that which is by office and diuine vocation the â—â—llar and ground of infallible truth hath by diuine â—rdination and assistance sufficiency for the perforâ—ance of that office as is most euident The Church â—hich is fallible may erre is not a sufficient pillar 〈◊〉 ground that is hath not sufficieÌ„cy to be the grouÌ„d 〈◊〉 Christian truth which is infallible For how can 〈◊〉 building sure immoueable stand founded vpon 〈◊〉 vncertaine ruinous and tottering foundation â—herfore seing you grant the church succeeding the â—postles to be in all ages the ground of truth by diuine vocation vnto that office you do consequently allow vnto the Iesuit as much as he would proue to wit that the Church succeeding the Apostles is iâ— all ages vntill the worlds end certaine and infallible in her teaching In lieu of answering you confirme the Iesuits Arguments §. 5. THE Iesuit pag. 38. accuseth Ministers of abusing the word of God who to proue the sole sufficiency of Scripture in respect of all men cite the text of S. Paul 2. Tim. 3.15 The Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto saluation For the words of the Apostle are directed particulerly to Timothy saying they are able to make THEE wise vnto saluation whence it is consequent that the Scriptures were sufficient for Timothy and are sufficient for such men as Tymothy was to wit for men learned and aforehand instructed by word of mouth and therupon firmely beleeuing all the most maine and necessary points of Christian doctrine and discipline That the Scriptures for men in this manner taught and grounded in fayth are aboundantly sufficient who will deny Thus the Iesuit Vnto whom you shape this answere pag. 39. Although sentences of holy Scripture are sometimes restrayned to the personall and particular subiect of which they are first spoken yet this is not generall and when the same hapneth it must be proued by better arguments then by the bare Emphasis of a word For God said 〈◊〉 Iosuah a man qualifyed aboue the ordinary ranke I will not leaue nor forsake thee Iosuah 1.5 Yet the promise implyed in this text is generall and common to all 〈◊〉 persons Hebr. 13.5 Thus you confirming the Iesuitâ— â—olution in lieu of confuting therof For as the proâ—ise I will not leaue thee made particularly vnto Ioâ—ue in regard he was a iust man doth not agree vnto â—ll men but onely vnto such as Iosue was to wit â—nto iust men and such as seeke God as he did So the â—ext of S. Paul they are able to make THEE wise vnto â—aluation spoken particulerly vnto Timothy in reâ—ard he was learned iudicious aforehand instruâ—ted grounded in Christian tradition doth agree â—nely to Timothy and such men as Timothy was to wit men aforehand taught and grounded in the â—ayth of tradition On the other side as the promise â—ade to Iosue in regard he was a Iust man cannot â—e challenged of other men that be not iust as he was if they rely theron they deceaue themselues â—o the promise the Scriptures are able to make
THEE â—ise vnto saluation made vnto Timothy in regard he was aforehand taught and grounded in the fayth of Tradition cannot be challenged of them that are â—f a differrent stampe from Timothy to wit men â—hat were neuer taught the fayth of Tradition or â—lse so vngrounded therein as vpon a seeming euiâ—ence of Scripture they be ready to chaÌ„ge their fâ—rst â—eceiued fayth Hence it is manifest that the Iesuit â—ad reason to say Ministers abuse Gods word when â—hey cite it the Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto â—aluation making that common to all men which was spoken onely to Timothy and vnto such as he was Will you haue another example of the same kind The Iesuit saith the words of Christ Do this in remembrance of mee was spoken of the Sacrament in the forme of bread not vnder the forme of wine For our Sauiour speaking of the SacrameÌ„t vnder the forme of 〈◊〉 saith (h) 1. Cor. 11. not absolutely doe this as he did of bread 〈◊〉 conditionally do this as ofteÌ„ as you drinke in memorâ—â— of me that the Aduersary of the Church might not haue 〈◊〉 much as a plausible shew to condeÌ„ne coÌ„munâ—o in one kind 〈◊〉 against Gods word You after much bitter rayling calling the Iesuit infatuated Romanist vermine for 〈◊〉 vrging you beyond your learning answere thus 〈◊〉 the end Touching the fancy of this obiection I furtheâ— say that euen as when S. Paul said 1. Cor. 10.31 whetheâ— yee eat or drinke or whatsoeuer else you do do all to the glory of God If these wordâ— should be resolued 〈◊〉 this manner As often as yee eate or drinke or do any thing else do all to the glory of God the placing 〈◊〉 this word as often restrayneth not the speach froÌ„ being a precept so likewise when S. Paul saith As often as yeâ— drinke do this in remembrance of me this manneâ— altereth not his words from being a commandement Thus you confirming the Iesuits answere For no example could haue been deuised or imagined more fit to shew that Christs words as ofteÌ„ as you drinke import not an absolute but onely a conditionall precept Which thus I demoÌ„strate You grant that the words of Christ Do this as often as you drinke in remembrance of me be preceptiue in the same manner as no more then these of S. Paul as often as yee eate or drinke or walke abroad or do any thing else do all to the glory of God But no man that hath his right senses will say that this speach doth absolutely command Christians to eate or drinke or sleepe or ride or walke or to do any of the like actioÌ„s of human life but onely doth conditionally command or direct men that when they will eate or drinke or sleepe or â—â—de or walke that they do all to Gods glory Ergo 〈◊〉 words of Christ saying do this as ofteÌ„ as yee drinke 〈◊〉 â—emembrance of me do not imply an absolute precept of â—â—â—nking of the cup but onely a conditionall direction that â—â—en men drinke they do that Sacramentall action in â—emory of his Passion So that in lieu of soluing the 〈◊〉 of the Iesuits argumeÌ„t you intangle your selfe 〈◊〉 tye the same more fast You send the Iesuite to God for an Answere §. 6. THE Iesuit (i) See the Reply pag. 256. chargeth the Protestant doctrine that holy Images may be lawfully made not â—â—wfully honored to be destitute of all shew of Scripâ—â—re For the (k) Exod. 20.4.5.6 Deuter 5.6.7 text of the Law is no lesse cleer aâ—â—inst the making of such Images then against their â—eing adored Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any image â—â—ou shalt not worship nor adore them HeÌ„ce he argueth â—he images which by this precept we are forbidden 〈◊〉 adore be such as by the same we are forbidden to â—ake But the Images of Christ be not such Images 〈◊〉 we are forbidden by this precept to make Ergo â—â—ey are not the Images we are forbidden by this â—â—ecept to adore And wheras Protestants expound 〈◊〉 first part of the precept Thou shalt not make â—â—em to wit with purpose and intention to adore â—his exposition saith the Iesuit is not onely violent â—â—ainst the text but also incongruous against sense For 〈◊〉 (l) Some may obiect that God doth forbid Adultery in the 6. Commandment Non â—oechaberis and yet in the ninth he forbids by speciall commandment the purpose and intention of adultry Non concupisâ—es vxorem proximi tui I Answere that the ninth Precept doth not forbid the doing of â—â—â—nges with purpose and intention of Adultery for this was sufficiently forâ—â—â—den in the sixâ— precept but this supposed forbiddeth inward desires lusts 〈◊〉 Adultery though without doing any thing with purpose and intention thereâ—â—â— And so our Sauiours Praecept Matth. 5.28 Not to looke vpon a woman to lust 〈◊〉 her supposeth the doing of things with intention of Adultery to be vnlawâ—â—â— and forbiddeth the looking vpon a woman with lustfull delight desire 〈◊〉 without intention of doing the act of Adultery prohibition of things doth likewise forbid the doing thinges with intention to doe agaynst the Preceâ—â— Hence I argue The Precept thou shalt not adore Images doth forbid the making of them with intentioâ— to adore as much as the precept Thou shalt not kill doth forbid the making of weapons with intention to kill But the precept thou shalt not kill doth so fully and sufficiently forbid the doing of any thing with intention of murther that it had been superfluoâ—â— to haue set downe that precept in this forme Thou shalt not make or weare weapons with intention to kill thou shalt not kill Therfore without sense weâ—â— the precept Thou shalt not make any Images Thoâ— shalt not adore them had the first part no more sensâ— then you giue it to wit Thou shalt not make Imaâ—ges with intention to adore Besides as to make an image to adore is Idolatry 〈◊〉 to take it in hand to looke on it to that purpose whâ—â— theÌ„ was not such looking on or taking in hand witâ— purpose of adoratioÌ„ forbidden aswell as making 〈◊〉 if looking on theÌ„ with intention to adore them is 〈◊〉 cleerly forbiddeÌ„ in the precept Thou shalt not adoâ—re theÌ„ as there needed not further expression whâ—â— need was there or reasoÌ„ that making of images with intention to adore should be more largly or fully expressed You answere As for the Iesuites interrogâ—â—tions Why then What need was there we refeâ—â— him to the Lawgiuer to challeÌ„ge or demand reasons of him And as for our selues we rest vpoÌ„ the reuealed will of God not daring to question or demand reason of his actionâ— Thus you Wherby it is manifest that you grant thâ— Iesuites arguments against your expositioÌ„ of Scripture to be so cleere as you cannot answer them 〈◊〉 must send him to God to aske an answere of hiâ— â—ndeed if Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any images with â—â—tention to adore them
likenes and similitude confoundeth â—he sight not to discerne the one from the other In scriptuâ—es it is not so the doctrine proposed therein being not gold mingled with earth but pure Gold the word of God is pure syluer refined wilth fire so that the Scriptures be not mettals that require workemeÌ„ to seuer in their doctrine Drosse from Gold they offer a ready and refined treasure to them that seeke the riches hidden in them Thus S. Chrysostome and he doth there largely discourse how euery thinge in Scriptures euen the Chronologies and proper Names of men do affoard wholesome and profitable doctrine to the Reader but to find this treasure we must not as he there sayth nudam tantùm scripturam aspicere sed insistere cum studio repositas scrutari opes not only looke vpon the Scripture but insist with study search out the riches hoarded vp therein Haue you not theÌ„ notoriously falsifyed the sense of his discourse by the insertion of words of your owne In the behalfe of your Protestant sole-sufficiency of Scripture you cite (d) Pag. 50. in Marg. lit E. pag. 3. lin 6. in marg lit E. alibi saepe this sentence of Durand tearming him A famous Scholeman Ecclesia licèt Dei Dominationem habeat in terris illa tamen non excedit limitationem Scripturae Although the Church haue the power authority of God vpon earth yet that authority doth not exceed the limitation of the Scripture This place is by you alleadged many tymes in this your Reply but most impertinently For his meaning is that the Church though it haue the authority of God vpon earth (e) Matth. 16. v 20. Quicquid solueris quicquid ligaueris super terram erit solutum ligatum in caelis yet the same power is in some cases restrayned and limited by the Scripture In which respect the Church cannot dispense in many thinges wherein God might dispense In (f) Ecclesia licèt habeat authoritateÌ„ Dei in tertio illa tamen non excedit limitationeÌ„ Scripturae Scriptura autem docet expresse seruos conuersos ad fidem adhuc manere Dominis suis prioribus licet illi maneant infideles particuler she cannot saith he exempt slaues that be made Christians from their subiection vnto their old Maâ—sters because that the Scripture doth expressely teach that Slaues conuerted vnto the Fayth are to be still subiect to their former Maisters though their Maisters be Infidels Thus Durand Now what is this to the purpose of prouing that men are bound to belieue nothing but what is cleerly contayned in Scripture Except according to your skill in Logicke you will argue in this sort The Church cannot do the thinges forbidden her in Scripture because her power is not beyond the restraynt thereof giuen in the Scripture Ergo she cannot belieue teach doctrines proposed vnto her by the rule of Tradition without Scripture which is a thinge commended vnto her in Scripture Hold the Traditions you haue whether by speach or by Epistle 2. Thessal 2.15 How many tymes in this your Reply haue you cited this testimony of the Maister of the Sentences (g) Lombard l. 4. sent d. 18. lit f. God doth not still follow the iudgment of the Church which sometimes through ignorance and surreption iudgeth not according to truth This I say you cite (h) See pag. 89. in lit â— p. 93. lit d alibi to proue that the Church may erre in fayth at the least about secondary articles And yet it is most certayne and euident that he speakerh of iudgment in criminall causes For hence he inferretth (i) Soluere noxios vel damnare se putant innoxios cùm apud Deum non sententia Sacerdotum sed reorum vita queratur Et ita apertè ostenditur quòd non semper sequitur Deus iudicium Ecclesiae quae per ignorantiam surreptionem interdum iudicat the Church-meÌ„ must not thinke because Christ said vnto them whatsoeuer you bind or loose vpon earth shall be bound loosed in Heauen that therefore they may condemne the Innocent and absolue the Nocent For God in such case doth not follow their sentence but iudgeth according to the life of the accused To prooue that the Roman Bishop was not anciently acknowledged the supreme Pastour of the Catholike Church you say pag. 161. lin 15. Pope Stephen was sleighted by S. Cyprian and other Bishops of Africa In proofe whereof you cite in your margent (g) Ibid. lit D. these wordes of Firmilian (h) Firmil apud Cyprian epist. 75. Atque ego in â—ac parte iuste indignor in tam manifestam apertam Steâ—hani stultitiam quòd qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloriaâ—ur se successionem Petri tenere contendit And indeed I am iustly grieued against the open manifest folâ—y of Stephen that he so much glorieth of the dignity of his Bishopricke and standeth vpon his hauing the succession of Peter Thus you Now behold your falshood for I omit your ignoraÌ„ce in naming Firmiâ—ian as a Bishop of Africa whereas he was a Bishop â—f the East to wit of (i) Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. Caesareae Capadocensis Episcopus Caesarea in Cappadocia Your Legier-de-maine I say and falshood is twofold First you omit to let your Reader know that this Firmilian when he wrote this Epistle was a Quartaâ—eciman and also addicted to the Errour of Rebaptiâ—ing theÌ„ that had been baptized by Heretiks And because S. Stephen a most (k) Vincent Lyrinensis aduersus Haeres cap. 9. Holy Pope Martyr had made a decree against their Nouelty (l) Cyprian epist. 74. Nihil innouaÌ„dum praeâ—erquam quod traditum Let no nouelty be admitted â—ut let the ancient Tradition be kept this Firmilian wrote against him an Epistle full of sharpe contumelious speach Had you mentioned this quality of Firmilian which I do not doubt but you knew your impertinency would haue been apparent For this supposed your Argument goeth thus Some Bishops specially Firmilian erring against Fayth and blasted for the tyme with the spirit of Heresy wrote a coÌ„temptuous Epistle against the Sea of Peter Ergo the Sea of Peter is not by diuine Institution the Rocke of the Church agaynst which the gates of hell all Heresyes should rage but neuer preuayle Secondly you notoriously falsify the sentence of Firmilian in making him to rayle against the Roman Bishops being the successour of Peter For this euen in that his Hereticall passion wherof he afterward was (m) This is testifyed by Dionysius Alexandrinus who then liued in his Epistle to Xistus the Successour of S. Stephen apud Euseb. l. 7. Histor. c. 3. Niceph l. 6. c 7. penitent he neuer did yea he doth rather acknowledge the Roman Bishops succession froÌ„ Peter and thence argueth that seeing to Peter only Christ said To thee I will giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen c.
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
â—f his spirit inwardly mouing the heart of man to â—dhere vnto an infallible externall ground of assurance proposed vnto him God by the helpe of his grace making him apprehend diuinely of the authority thereof This second manner of inward assurance is ordinarily giuen vnto euery ChristiaÌ„ without (r) Triden sess 6. Can. 3. Arausican 2. Can. 6. which no man is able to belieue supernaturally and as he ought vnto Saluation The first manner of assurance is extraordinary and immediate reuelation such as the Prophets had Wherfore Protestants if they callenge this first manner of inward teaching assurance they approue Enthusiasme immediat reuelatioÌ„ which in the Swenkfeldians they seeme to condemne If they challenge only the second manner of inward teaching and assurance then besides inward light they must assigne an externall sufficieÌ„t ground why they belieue these Scriptures to be the Apostles then I aske what ground this is besides Tradition Secondly they wil obiect that though they haue no infallible ground besides the teaching of the Spirit yet they are not taught immediatly in Propheticall maÌ„ner because they are also taught by an external probable motiue to wit the Churches tradition I Answere that except they assigne an externall infallible meanes besides Gods inward teaching they cannot auoyde but they challenge immediate reuelation For whosoeuer knoweth thinges assuredly by the inward teaching of the spirit without an external infallible motiue vnto which he doth adhere is assured prophetically though he haue some externall probable motiues so to thinke S. Peter had some coniecturall signes of Simon Magus his peruersity incorrigible malice yet seing (s) Act. 8.32 In felle amaritudinis obligatione peccati video te esse he knew it assuredly we belieue he knew it by the light of prophesy because besides inward assurance he had no externall infallible ground If one see a man giue publickly almes though he perceaue probable tokeÌ„s signes that he doth it out of a Vayne-glorious intention yet cannot he be sure therof but by the light of immediat reuelation because the other tokens are not grounds sufficient to make him sure For if a man be sure haue no ground of this assurance in any thinge out of his owne hart it is cleere that he is assured immediatly only by Gods inward speaking Wherfore ProtestaÌ„ts if they will disclayme in truth and not in wordes only from immediate reuelation and teaching they must eyther grant tradition to be infallible or else assigne some externall infallible ground besides Tradition whereby they are taught what Scriptures the Apostles deliuered Thirdly they will say they know the Scriptures to be from the Apostles by an externall infallible ground besides Tradition to wit by certayne lights lustres euidences of truth which they see to blaze emane from the thinges reuealed in Scripture by which they are sure that the doctrin thereof is heauenly I Answere If they did see such lustres and lights that cleerly not only probably conuince the doctrine of Scripture to be heauenly truth they be not indeed assured by immediate darke reuelation but by an higher degree of heauenly knowledge to wit by the supernaturall light and euidence of the thinge belieued which is a paradox and pretence farre more false and sensibly absurd then is the challenge of immediate reuelation or Enthusiasme as hath beene shewed Wherefore seing that God hath chosen no externall meanes besides Catholicke Tradition to make men know perpetually vntill the consummation of the world what doctrins Scriptures the Apostles published it is cleere vnto euery Christian that this is the meanes by him chosen which he doth assist that it cannot be obnoxious vnto errour so that precedently and independently of Scripture the Catholicke tradition of Christian pastors fathers is proued to be infallible through Diuine speciall assistance and therefore a sufficient ground for Fayths infallible assurance The Fourth Principle proued §. 6. IF we be resolued that sauing truth is that which God reuealed that he reuealed that which the Apostles published the doctrine published by then the Catholicke Christian Tradition our search is ended when we haue found the Christian Catholicke Church Heere the fourth Enemy of true Christian Religion offers himselfe to wit the Willfull Ignorant These kind of men not only hold agaynst Pagans the doctrine of saluation to be that only which was reuealed of God agaynst Iewes the reuealed of God to be only the Apostles but also in wordes they condemne the Heretikes professe that no doctrine is truly Apostolicall but the Catholick yet in resoluing what doctrin is the Catholicke they follow the partiality of their affections These are tearmed by (t) De vtil cred c. 1. S. Augustine Credentes haereticorum Belieuers of Heretikes building vpon the seeming learning and sanctity of some men being therein so willfull as to venture their soules that such doctrine is Catholike not caring nor knowing what they say nor what the word Catholicke put into the Creed by the Apostles doth import Some be so ignorant as to thinke that the word Catholicke doth signify the same as conforme vnto Scripture And so what doctrine is Catholicke they resolue by the light and lustre of the doctrine or by the in ward teaching of the spirit whereby they fall vpon the principle of Heresy and become not so much belieuers of Heretikes as Heretikes Some vnderstand by the word Catholicke Doctrine truly Catholicke that is deliuered froÌ„ the Apostles by Christian worlds of Fathers vnto Christian worlds of children yet are so blind as to giue this Title vnto Sects lately sprung vp which through pretended singular Illuminations gotten by perusing the Scripture haue chosen formes of fayth opposite one agaynst another reformed agaynst the forme to them deliuered by their Ancestors These Sects I say they tearme Catholicke which not to be Catholicke in this sense is as euident as that night is not day Some through willfull ignorance no lesse grossely deuide the name of Catholicke according to the diuision of Countryes naming the Catholicke doctrin of the Church of France of the Church of England c. Which speach hath no more sense then this A fashion euer since Christ vniuersally ouer the world newly begun and proper vnto England Agaynst this Enemy true Religion is resolued in this fourth principle The Catholicke Tradition of doctrine from the Apostles is the Roman By Roman we vnderstand not only the Religion professed within the Citty Diocesse of Rome but ouer the whole world by them that any where acknowledg the primacy of Peter and his successours which now is the Roman Bishop About this principle fayth is assured by a fourth perfection belonging vnto God as he is prime Verity reuealing truth which is that he cannot permit that the knowing of sauing doctrine be impossible Hence I argue God being Prime Verity reuealing cannot permit the meanes of knowing his sauing truth to be hidden nor a false meanes to
be so adorned with the markes of the true as the true become indiscernable from it But if the Roman be not the true Catholicke Tradition the true Catholicke Church and Tradition is hidden yea a false Church hath so cleerly the markes of Catholicke that no other can with any colour pretend to be rather Catholicke then it that is to haue doctrin deliuered from the Apostles by whole worlds of Christian Fathers vnto whole worlds of Christian Children Hence eyther there is no meanes left to know assuredly the sauing truth or else the meanes is immediat reuelatiō that is inward teaching of the spirit without any externall infallible meanes or else Scripture knowne to be the word of God and truly sensed by the light lustre and euidēce of the things which wayes of teaching it is certayne God doth not vse towards his militant Church succeeding the Apostles For teaching of diuine and supernaturall truth by the light lustre and shining of the thing or doctrin is proper vnto the Church triumphant Inward assurance without any externall infallible ground to assure men of truth is proper vnto the Prophets and the first publishers of Christian Religion Hence I conclude that if God be the Prime Verity teaching Christian Religion darkely without making men see the light and lustre of thinges belieued and mediatly by some externall infallible meanes vpon which inward assurance must rely then he must euer conserue the Catholicke tradition and Church visible and conspicuous that the same may without immediat reuelation and otherwise thē by the lustre of doctrin be discerned to wit by sensible markes If any obiect that the senses of mē in this search may be deceaued through naturall inuincible fallibility of their organs and so no ground of fayth that is altogether infallible I Answere that euidence had by sense being but the priuate of one man is naturally and physically infallible but when the same is also publicke and Catholicke that is when a whole world of men concurre with him then his euidence is altogether infallible Besides seing God hath resolued not to teach men immediatly but will haue them to cleaue vnto an externall infallible meanes to find out this meanes by the sensible euidence of the thinge he is bound by the perfection of his Veracity to assist mens senses with his prouidence that therein they be not deceaued when they vse such diligence as men ordinarily vse that they be not deceaued by their senses Now what greater euidence cā one haue that he is not deceaued in this matter of sense that the Romā Doctrine is the Catholicke that is Doctrine deliuered from the Apostles by worlds of Christian Ancestors spread ouer the world vnanimous amongst themselues in all matters they belieue as Fayth what greater assurance I say can one haue that herein he seeth aright then a whole world of men professing to see the same that he doth Some may agayne obiect I belieue the Catholicke Church is an Article of Fayth set downe in the Creed but Fayth is resolution about thinges that are not seene I Answere An article of Fayth may be visible according to the substāce of the thing yet inuisible according to the manner it is belieued in the Creed The third article He suffered vnder Pontius Pilate was crucifyed dead and buried according to the substance of the thinge was euident vnto sense and seen euen of the Iewes and is now belieued of their posterity But according to the manner as it is belieued in the Creed to wit that herein the Word of God by his auncient Prophets was fulfilled that this was done in charity for the saluation of Man in this manner I say that visible Article is inuisible and belieued in the Creed In like māner that there is in the world a Catholicke Church and that the Roman is the Catholicke Church Pagans Iewes Heretikes if they shut not their eyes agaynst the light do cleerly behold But that herein the word of God about the perpetuall amplitude of his Church is accomplished that this is an effect of Gods Veracity to the end that the meanes to learne sauing truth may not be hidden this is a thing inuisible according to this notiō the Catholicke Church is proposed in the Creed Secondly propositiōs of fayth must be inuisible according to the Predicate or thinge belieued but not euer according to the subiect or thing wherof we belieue The thinges the Apostles belieued of Christ to wit that he was the Sauiour of the world the Son of God were thinges inuisible but the subiect and person of whome they did belieue was to them visible seen yea God did of purpose by his Prophets fortell certayne tokens whereby that subiect might by sense be seen and discerned from all other that might pretend the name of Christ or els his coming into the world to teach the truth had been to no purpose In this sort the Predicate or thing belieued in this article the holy Catholicke Church to wit Holy is inuisible but the Subiect to wit the Catholicke Church which we affirme and belieue to be holy in her doctrine is visible and conspicuous vnto all Yea God hath of purpose foretold signes and tokens whereby the same by sense may be cleerly discernable from all other that may pretend the title of Catholicke For were not this subiect the Catholicke Church we belieue to be holy and infallible in her teaching visible and discernable from all other that pretend the name of what vse were it to belieue that there is such an infallible teaching Church in the world hidden we know not where as a needle in a bottle of hay The End of the Resolution of Fayth THESE thinges supposed the Reader will haue no difficulty to discerne how friuolous the Ministers exceptions are agaynst the resolutiō of fayth in respect of belieuing doctrines to be the Apostles into Perpetuall Tradition and how solide the Iesuits discourse was which here ensueth THE FIRST GROVND That a Christian resolution of Fayth is builded vpon perpetuall Tradition deriued by succession from the Apostles §. 1. BEFORE I come to the proofe of this principle some things are to be presupposed which I thinke Protestants will not deny First that no man can be saued or attayne to the blissefull vision of God without firme and assured apprehension of diuine supernaturall truth concerning his last end and the meanes to arriue thereunto Secondly that this assured apprehension is not had by a (e) The Minister heere graunteth that Fayth is not had by cleere euident sight but afterward he sayth the same is resolued by the resplendent verity of the doctrine cleare and euident sight nor gotten by demonstration or humane discourse by the principles of reason nor can be sufficiently had by credit giuen to meerly humane authority but only by Fayth grounded on the word of God reuealing vnto men things that otherwise are knowne only to his Infinite wisdome Thirdly that God
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
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
teach it as Christ commanded deliuered the same Thirdly if this Promise were conditionall not absolute then by this place the Church could not be proued to last absolutly for euer but only so long as she Christeneth aright teacheth the truth wherin according to this ProtestaÌ„t exposition she may fayle But the Fathers from this text gather agaynst the Donatists that the Church shal neuer fayle to be in all Nations of the world vntill the end therof as S. Aug. in Psalm 101. conc 2. Leo Epist. 3. ad Pulcheriam and others hence proue Therfore the sense is absolute his Church shal be still in the world he still assisting his Church by his spirit to teach and baptize aright promise of wonderfull comfort vnto them that pawne their soules saluation vpon Gods word deliuered by perpetuall Tradition for in this sentence appeares the six thinges I before set downe First that there is still A ChristiaÌ„ Church all dayes not wanting in the world so much as one day till the consummation of the world SecoÌ„dly this Church is euer visible and conspicuous For the Church that alwayes teacheth Christeneth all Nations must needs be visible But this Church alwaies teacheth and Christeneth all Nations I am alwayes with you not with you sitting in Corners or hidden vnder ground but with you exercising the office enioyned you in the words precedent Docete omnes gentes baptizantes Thirdly this Church is euer Apostolicall for to his Apostles Christ said I am alwaies with you to the coÌ„summation of the world not with you in your owne persons but with you in your successours in whome you shal continue vntill the worlds end Ergo a lawfull company of Bishops Pastours Doctors succeeding the Apostles must be perpetually in the world Forthly this Church is Vniuersal Ite in muÌ„dum vniuersum where I will be alwayes with you Fifthly this Church is One not diuided into parts because it teacheth and belieueth vniformely all that Christ deliuered and commanded without Factions Sects or Parts about matters of fayth Sixtly this Church is alwayes holy for doctrine neuer deliuering or teaching any falshood I who am the Truth am alwayes with you teaching all nations Holy also for life Christ the holy of holyes assisting and making her able to conuert Infidels which she could not well doe (s) The Minister p. 85. 86.102 alleadgeth diuers Fathers scholmeÌ„ to proue that now miracles are ceased not necessary Answere The Minister shold distinguish as the fathers doe who make two manner of beings of Miracles to wit ordinary extraordinary and affirme three things First that in the primitiue Church miracles were absolutly necessary for the plaÌ„ting of the Ghospell in the world Ioan. 5.24 Act. 4.29.30 and then the gift of miracles was ordinarily annexed vnto the Ministery of Preaching yea so that euery Christian coÌ„monly had that gift in some kind or other 1. Cor. 12.28 Act. 8.17 10. 4.6 Secondly that since the planting of the Gospell by twelue Fishermen this being the miracle of miracles no further miracle is absolutly necessary for meÌ„ vnto whoÌ„ this is known and therfore the gift of miracles is ceased to be ordinarily annexed to the office of preaching or common to al Christians as before it was Aug. de Ciuit. l. 22. c. 8. Gregor 27. moral c. 1. Thirdly notwithstaÌ„ding in all ages there were are and shal euer be some speciall places and persons extraordinarily indued with the gift of miracles for the comfort of Christians Conuersion of some remote Nations that know not the first miraculous planting of our Religion by certayne celebrious fame of miracles in this kind the writings of the Fathers all ChristiaÌ„ histories are full See S. Aug. l. 22. de Ciuit. c. 8. Gregory in his Dialogues THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH not before Luther without miracles and tokens of wonderfull sanctity at the least in her more eminent Preachers That the Romane is the One Holy Catholike Apostolical Church from by which we are to receyue the Tradition of Christian Doctrine §. 5. THIS Ground being laid it is apparent that the Romane Church that is the multitude of Christians spread ouer the world cleauing to the doctrine and Tradition of the Church of Rome is the only holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church The first Argument THERE must alwayes be in the world one holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church That is a Church deliuering doctrines vniformely thereby making them credible vniuersally thereby making them famously knowne to mankind holyly so making them certayne such as on them we may securely rely Apostolically so making theÌ„ perpetually flow without change vnto the present Christianity in the channell of a neuer-interrupted Succession of Bishopps from the Apostles And this Church (t) Vnto this Argument the Minister pag. 104. makes answere that his Protestant Church was before Luther in essence kind though it began in Luther touching the Name and some things accidental In proofe whereof he thus wryteth In all ages before Luther some persons held the substantiall articles of our Religion both in the Roman Grecian Church And by name the Grecians maintained with vs that the Roman Church hath no primacy of Iurisdiction aboue or ouer all other Churches neyther is the same infallible in fayth They deny Purgatory Priuate Masses Sacrifice for the dead and they propugne the Marriage of Priests In this Westerne part of the world the Waldenses Thaborites of Bohemia Wickliffiâ—ts maÌ„tayned the same doctrine in substance as appeareth by their confession of fayth and by the testimony of some learned Pontificians This being the substance of all the Minister hath sayd or can say for his Church before Luther the same is insufficient false more for Anabaptists then Protestants This I proue In generall this pedegree is insufficient for two reasons First because it is not for all ages The Grecians were vnited with the Romane Church vntill the yeare 1060. the Waldensians began about the yeare 1160. Now there remaynes six or seauen ages since the pretended Apostacy of the Roman Church for which the Minister doth not name any professours that were Protestants for essence and kind Secondly because Protestants teach that the most substantiall article of their Religion is Iustification by speciall fayth only and not by workes and merits of grace as all know But these pretended professours namely the Waldenses Wickliffists held rigorously the merit of works In so much as Wickliffe sayd Let euery man confide in his merits for which saying he is refuted by the Catholike authour Thomas Waldensis Tom. 3. c. 7.8.9 Graecians no Protestants in Essence In particular the Pedigree is notoriously false in respect of the Graecians who cannot without impudency be named as Protestants according to essence and kind First they hold damnable heresyes and substantiall errours in the Iudgement of Protestants so wit Inuocation of Saints Adoration of Images as they professe in their Censure
the first place For as Protestants acknowledge the particular examination of doctrines is tedious and long not for the capacity of all whereas the finding out of the true Church endeth all controuersyes seeing we may securely follow her directions and rest in her Iudgement Field Epist. dedicat Secondly what more idle and vayne then to appeale from Scripture setting downe matters cleerly vnto Scripture teaching thinges obscurely or not so cleerly what is this but to appeale from light to darkenes or at the least from noone day to twy-light But no particular point of doctrin is in holy Scripture so manifestly set down as is the Church the marks whereby the same may be knowne no matter about which the Scripturs are more copious and cleere then about visibility perpetuity amplitude the Church was to haue so that as S. Augustine sayth Scriptures are more cleere about the Church then euen about Christ. in Psalm 30. concion 2. That Scripture in this poynt is so cleere that by no shift of false interpretation it can be auoyded the impudency of any forhead that will stand agaynst this euidence is confounded de vnit Eccles. c. 5. That it is prodigious blindnes not to see which is the true Church Tract 1. in 1. Epist. Ioan. That the Church is the tabernacle placed in the Sunne that it cannot be hidden vnto any but such as shut their eyes against it l. 2. cont Petilian c. 32. What vanity then is it for Protestants not being able to cleere by Scripture the cleerest of all points to appeale vnto the prouing of their doctrine by more darke or lesse euident places Thirdly if no man can directly know which be the Scriptures the Apostles deliuered but by the Tradition of the Catholike Church then it is vayne before they decide this controuersy to vndertake to proue by Scriptures what doctrine the Apostles taught For how can Scripture make me know what the Apostles taught vnlesse I know aforehand the Scriptures to be the Apostles I may see this or that doctrine deliuered in the Scripture shewed me as the Apostles but I cannot know that doctrin to be the Apostles except I know aforehand the booke to be the Apostles but this cannot be proued but by the Tradition of the Church I omit many other arguments wherby this shift may be conuinced to be but flying from the light of Gods word about the visible Church For as sayth Saint Augustine l. 1. contra Crescon cap. 33. God would haue his Church to be described in Scripture without any ambiguity as cleere as the beames of the Sunne that the controuersy about the true Church being cleerly decided when questions about particular doctrines that are obscure arise we might fly to her and rest in her iudgement that this visibility is a manifest signe wherby euen the rude and ignorant may discerne the true Church from the false Augustine l. 13. cont Faust. c. 13. must eyther be the Roman or the Protestant or some other opposite vnto both Protestants cannot say a Church opposite vnto both for then they should be condemned in their owne Iudgement and bound to conforme themselues to that Church which can be no other but the Grecian a Church holding almost as many if not more doctrines which Protestāts dislike thē doth the Church of Rome as I can demonstrate if need be It is also most manifest vndenyable that Protestants are not such nor part of such a Church since their Reuolt and separation from the Romane seing confessedly they changed their doctrines they once held forsooke the body wherof they were members brake off from the stocke of that tree wherof they were branches Neyther did they depart from the Roman ioyne themselues with any Church professing their particular doctrines dissonant from it Ergo the Roman is the one holy Catholike Apostolicall Church The second Argument THIS also plainly will appeare to any man of vnderstanding that will cast on the Roman Church an vnpartiall eye For she is most euidently Apostolicall hauing most glorious successiō of Bishops Pastours famous in all (x) The Minister p. 116. lin 9. sayth that it is incōsequent to inferre negatiuely from humane history to say historyes are silent therfore no such matter I answere Hēce one may feele euen with his hand what an vnconsequent and absurd Religion theirs is which cannot stand without denying principles euident in common reason receaued by consent of mankind for who doth not feele that to argue from humane history thus negatiuely they are silent Therfore there neuer was any such matter is many times conuincing and strong This some Protestants more iudicious then our Minister acknowledge who thus write It is most playne that euen negatiuely an argument from humane authority may be strong as namely this The Chronicles of England mention no more then only six Kings bearing the name of Edward since the tyme of the last Cōquest therfore it cannot be there should be more It is true men are ignorant many things may escape them they may be deceaued they may conceale truth or vtter vntruth out of malice they may forget what they know Howbeit INFINITE CASES are wherin all these impediments are so MANIFESTLY excluded as there is no shew or colour wherby any such exception may be taken Thus M. Hooker Eccles. Policy pag. 115. 116. Now amongst these cases wherein the negatiue argument from Tradition and history is strong the chiefest is when the matter is famous and illustrious and there is a line and succession of chiefe Bishops Princes Persons notoriously knowne euen to the particularityes of their names actions dayes of their raygne and death Wherfore it is idle what the Minister pag. 230. brings agaynst this that we know not who was the first that eate mans flesh nor when the Assyrian matrons did first prostitute themselues in the temple of Venus For no wonder we know not such things seing we haue not a lineall history of these times as we haue of other times specially since the comming of Christ. For lineall history concerning illustrious matters is both affirmatiuely negatiuely strong yea more strong negatiuely then affirmatiuely The reason is because it is not so impossible that men with full report should vent an vntruth as that they should be by full cōsent silent about a most illustrious truth men being in such cases more prone to report then to conceale For example should one contest that some of our Kings since the Conquest set vp Images in al Churches of England the Country being before that tyme pure Protestant might not such an impudent writer be conuinced of madnes by negatiue history And why But because there is a most notorious line of our Kings since the last Conquest and their names actions dayes of their raygne and deathes most famously knowne In the same manner there being a line of Popes so conspicuously knowne as nothing more from Peter vnto Vrban they eight what
be proued that she departed from her selfe that is froÌ„ the mother originall doctrines deliuered by the Apostles But she cannot (l) Heere the Minister pag. 128. agayne repeateth his saying that negatiue arguments from humane history are vnconsequent which his saying as hath beene shewed is agaynst the consent of mankind His arguments against this ground of perpetuall Ecclesiasticall Tradition knowne by notorious fame of history are by him named foure but the fourth coÌ„taines foure branches and so they are eight which I will set downe answere First it is not absolutely necessary that the humane history of all matters should be composed Answere There being a cleere lineal succession of Princes and Prelates from the Apostles famously particulrely knowne it is impossible but that historicall TraditioÌ„ eyther written or vnwritten should deliuer most notoriously the substantiall matters of fact done since that time These matters are such as cause great changes in the world as in Ciuill affayres the setting vp the pulling down and changing of renowned Kingdomes States â—n the affayres of the Church the beginnings of ReligioÌ„ the most famous Pastors thereof the conuersions of great Nations the springing vp of heresies poteÌ„t sects their preuailing their being resisted their ouerthrow and commonly also the names of their principall renowned Patrons â—hese illustrious thinges when there is particular Tradition euen to the very names of persons can not be hidden Secondly when history is written it causeth only humane fayth Answer Humane history made by meere human writers and preachers concerning humane and naturall thinges breedes only humayne fayth but Ecclesiasticall Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles made by the Pastours of the Church consecrated to that end by the holy Ghost deliuering diuine reuealed thinges being infallible breedes not only human Fayth but is eleuated by the concurrence of diuine Authority towardes the production of Diuine Fayth as hath beene sayd Thirdly historyes may totally perish and be suppressed or corrupted by the enemies of truth Answere Concerning substantiall renowned matters which are knowne not only by report but also by their permanent effects it is impossible that fame and Tradition should be suppressed or corrupted so long as there is a visible Church in the world For example Arius his doctrine Luthers occasion of changing from the Roman Church King Henryes breach with the Pope and the cause thereof can neuer be suppressed by the ennemyes of truth so long as there shall be a famous Christian Church in the world though about this or that circumstance that are not so notorious questions are mooued and new may arise Fourthly history may be repugnnant to history Answere This cannot be about the substance of the narration when the matters thereof are in manner aforesayd illustrious to wit when they are not only declared by full report but also declare themselues by effects though in circumstaÌ„ce there may be variety of reports Fiftly euen the Papists teach that the principal monuments of antiquity to wit the â—ncient Councells haue not beene faythfully preserued Answere Auncient Geneâ—all Councells concerning the substance of their definitions which they â—id principally intend are and euer were famously knowne yea Tradiâ—â—on hath made the fame of them immortall and incorruptible so long as a visible professing Church shall be in the world Heretikes may endeaâ—our to misreport and corrupt Councells as also they do Scriptures but â—hey neuer could preuayle as concerning any substantiall matter Sixtly many things suppositious haue beene added to the workes of the ancient 〈◊〉 bastardly bookes passe vnder the tytles of Fathers Answere As though also there haue not beene many suppositious bookes vrged as Scripture by Heretikes to wit the Ghospells of Peter of Thomas of Bartholomew Doe not the most ancient Fathers namely the Councell of Carthage S. Augustine receyue some bookes of Scripture to the number of 12. which Protestants partly Caluinists partly LutheraÌ„s reiect Must we therfore refuse triall by Scripture No It is sufficieÌ„t that we haue by most certayne TraditioÌ„ innumerable works that are vndeniably ancient though question be mooued about some which therefore cannot be vrged till they be knowne to be ancient Seauenthly the Papists being a part purge alter such records Answere This is vntruth we purge not any of the bookes of the ancient as any may see with his eyes that will take the paynes to read our Index Expurgatorius set forth by the Protestant Iunius and compare the Expurgations with the bookes Eightly the Papists despise and contemne Historians as Eusebius Sozomen Socrates when they are agaynst their Tenet Answere When good Historians do not agree the matter caÌ„not be certayne but must be decided by coÌ„iÌ„ecture which doth neuer happeÌ„ about the substance of famous facts that by effects made themselues notorious to the world When historians are singular they may be reiected specially when the authours are otherwise heretikes and the narrations wherein they be singular fauour their heresyes Thus Eusebius being an Arrian is not trusted in some narrations agaynst others historians concerning Constantine that seeme to fauour Arrianisme Socrates and Sozomen being Nouatians are not easily credited in singular narrations in the behalfe of their Sect Though as I sayd concerning matters illustrious facts which make themselues euident to mankind by effects as are the changing of ChristiaÌ„ Religion ouer the world resistance made agaynst all open and notorious sects and who were the resisters who the resisted such difference is neuer found about substance but only in circumstance And only this Tradition of the Church concerning these kinds of notorious matter which is as cleerly Apostolicall as the sunne is bright at Noone day we make the ground of our beliefe that our Roman Religion hath not beene changed since the Apostles be proued to haue changed her doctrine since the Apostles by any monuments of History or Antiquity yea the contrary in my Iudgement may be most euidently proued in this sort The doctrines that were for diuers ages vniuersally receyued in the Christian Church and no time of their beginning is assignable must be doctrines vnchanged comming from the Apostles But it is most cleere (m) Because this matter is stifly not to say outfacingly denyed by the Minister pa. 129. 134. behold the very words of Protestants D. Hutterus Luthers successour in the chayre of Wittenberge de sacrificio Missatico pag. 377. I willingly acknowledge that the Roman Idolary whose pyth is the sacrifice of the Masse did occupy in manner the whole world specially for the last thousand yeares Hospinian the successour of Zwinglius in his chayre superintendency Hist. Sacram pa. 1. pag. 157. In the age of Gregory the Great that is more then a thousand yeares agoe all maÌ„ner of popish Idolatry superstition as a mayne sea ouerwhelmed and drowned in manner the whole world no man making resistance agaynst it Simon de Voyoâ— a Geneuian Minister and of Caluins schoole in his
to be otherwise planted in the world but by the Apostles themselues through the efficacy of innumerable miracles Wherefore these doctrins if they be errors are errors which by the principles of Christianity no man ought to goe about to reforme And seeing it is impossible that there should be any such errours we must acknowledge that principle of S. Augustine as most certayne That doctrines receyued vniuersally in the Church without any knowne beginning are truly and verily Apostolicall and of this kind are the Roman from which Protestants are gone The fifth Argument THAT doctrine which Tradition hath deliuered as the doctrine of all Ancestours without deliuering any Orthodoxe opposition agaynst it that is opposition made by any confessed Catholike Doctors or Fathers is doctrine deriued from the Apostles without change But such is the doctrine of the Roman Church which consent and Tradition of Ancestours doth deliuer and doth not togeather deliuer that any confessed (q) The Minister pag. 141. 144. lin 8. sayth that in the dayes of the Fathers the Roman doctrine was not in being nor heard of and that this was they cause they did not so punctually and litterally oppose them I Answere The Minister doth but set a face on the matter For he knowes that it is most euident confessed by ProtestaÌ„ts that at the least some Fathers held our Religion expressely in diuers particulars For exaÌ„ple doth not Origen teach and practise Inuocation of Saints lib. 2. in Iob. in Iosue c. 13. as a doctrine vndoubtedly pious saying therof Quis dubitat in Num. c. 31. Did not diuers Fathers make it their special study to discouer Origens errors as S. Hierome Epiphanius Theophilus And yet these Fathers hauing noted so many errours in OrigeÌ„ neuer ceÌ„sured him in respect of this Which is a manifest signe they held with Origen in this poâ—nt that Inuocation of deceased Saints is an vndoubted Christian duty euen as much as the praying vnto liuing Saints orthodoxe Father opposed agaynst it We know indeed by Tradition that some in former tymes stood agaynst many points of the Roman doctrine as Arrius Pelagius Waldo the Albigenses Wickliffe Husse and some others but they are not confessed orthodoxe Fathers but were noted for nouelty and singularity and for such by Tradition described vnto vs which kind of opposition doth not discredit the doctrine of the Church but rather makes the same to appeare more cleerly and famously Apostolicall seing as euen D. Field Of the Church lib. 4. cap. 14. doth confesse When a doctrine (r) It is true as the Minister sayth pag. 140. That this Doctour doth not make the iudgemeÌ„t of the present Bishops of one age by it selfe solely infallible but only the iudgment of perpetuall succession from the Apostles yet it is true also that he makes the consent of one age so great as is heere expressed an euident signe of the iudgement of perpetuall succession Reade the place is in any age coÌ„stantly deliuered as a matter of Fayth and as receyued from Ancestors in such sort as the contradictours thereof were in the beginning noted for nouelty and if they persisted in contradiction in the end charged with heresy it is not possible but such a doctrine should come by succession from the Apostles What more euident signe of a perpetuall Apostolicall Tradition then this Protestants answere that it is sufficient that the Roman doctrine was coÌ„tradicted by Orthodoxe Fathers and that this may be proued by their wrytings which they haue left vnto posterity though their opposition was not noted by antiquity nor by the fame of TraditioÌ„ deliuered vnto posterity But this answere leaues no meanes wherby common people may know certainly the perpetuall Tradition of Gods Church without exact examining and looking into the workes of the Fathers which coÌ„mon people cannot do I proue it If against euery Tradition of the Church difficil obscure passages may be brought out of Fathers this doth suffice to make the same questionable then no Tradition can be certainly knowne without exact reading and examining of the Fathers But no Tradition or Doctrine is so constantly cleerly deliuered by the Fathers but diuers obscure and difficill places out of their workes may be brought agaynst them with such a shew that (s) The Minister doth p. 141. 144. auerre that seely Ignorant men are to examine controuersies by Scripture and that by it they may know the right doctrin in al necessary matters assuredly without resting vpon the authority of the Churches Tradition This hath been formerly confuted and it is to men of Iudgement ridiculous Yea the Minister himself elswhere Orthodoxe 392. derides it saying A blind man cannot iudge of colours a rude and ignorant person is lesse able to EXAMINE Controuersyes and deepe points of Religion And agayne ibid. pag. 393. We do not set a blind horse before others nor suffer any vulgar person to be his owne caruer in receauing and refusing publike doctrin and the same doth he teach in this Reply pag. 301. yea Luther Tom. 1. Germ. Wiâ—temb com in Gal. fol. 29. §. 3 sayth Non quiuis habet intellectum sensum vt de controuersijs Fidel inter nos Papistas tutò Christianè iudicare possit How theÌ„ shall these be saued but by simply belieuing the Tradition of Auncestors hand from haÌ„d deliuered vnto them common people shall not know what to say For what Tradition more constantly deliuered by the Christian doctors then our Sauiours consubstantiality with his Father according to his diuine nature and yet the New reformed Arrians as you may see in Bellarmin l. 2. de Christo cap. 10. bring very many testimonies of ancient Fathers to proue that in this point they did contradict themselues and were contrary one to another which places whosoeuer shall read will cleerly see that to common people they are vnanswerable yea that common people are not capable of the answeres that learned men yield vnto such obscure passages what then shall they doe They must answere that antiquity did neuer acknowlege such dissention amongst the Fathers in the point of our Sauiours Consubstantiality which they would not haue omitted to do had there byn any such reall dissension seing they noted the Fathers opposition in lesser matters In the same manner Catholikes doe sufficiently answere Protestants that bring places of Fathers agaynst the receyued Traditions of the Church as the Reall Presence Inuocation of Saints and other the like to wit that Traditions deliuered these doctrines as the vniforme consent of the Fathers and neuer noted such oppositions as Protestants frame out of their writings which is a cleere signe that Protestants eyther misalleadge their words or mistake their meaning For were that contradiction reall why did not Antiquity famously note it as it noted conueyed by fame to posterity their differeÌ„ces about disputable matters (t) The Minister heere will retort this argument pag. 144. lin 34. If euery doctrin
saith he is Apostolical against which the ancient Fathers made no expresse opposition then these Protestant articles are Apostolicall that the Roman Bishop and Councell may erre that the substance of bread wine remayne after consecration that common prayer ought to be vttered in a known language I answere Not euery doctrine against which the Fathers doe not expresly oppose is Apostolicall for some heresies were not thought of in that tyme as this Protestant persuasion That Common prayer must be sayd by the publike Minister in a language vulgarly vnderstood of euery woman and that it doth not suffice that the more principal persons of the Church vnderstand it word by word and the rest being instructed doe for matter and substance though not word by word So not euery doctrine not opposed but euery doctrine that is taught confessedly as Christian doctrine by some anciēt Fathers was neuer expressly by name opposed by any of the Fathers Doctrine I say thus taught neuer opposed as such deliuered by full Tradition is infallibly Apostolicall Such are our doctrins as may be proued euen in the particular exāples brought by the Minister as for the contrary particularly in this first instāce of their doctrine That the Roman Bishop Councells may erre For was this Protestant doctrine neuer opposed by any Father doe not the Magdeburgians Centur. 4. col 550. acknowledge the auncient Ecclesiasticall Canon that the Councels are not to be celebrated without the sentence of the Roman Bishop And the Fathers held such Cōncells had the holy Ghost so as they could not erre so cleerly as Luther complaynes Postill Wittemb Dom. 8. post Trinitatem fol. 114.6 § 3 Gregory Augustin and many other holy Fathers erred in taking from vs power to iudge our Teachers commanding vs to belieue the POPE and Councells For this misery is very auncient in the Church Thus he This answere is full and a certayne ground of perswasion else as I sayd common people could neuer know the assured Tradition of their Auncestours vpon which they must as I prooued build their Chistian beliefe seing as D. Field in the epistle Dedicatory also noteth There be few and very few that haue leasure or strengh of Iudgenent to examine particular controuersyes by Scripture or Fathers but needes must rest in that doctrine which the Church deliuers as a Tradition neuer contradicted by any Orthodoxe Fathers To discredit therfore a cōstant receaued Tradition it is necessary to bring an Orthodoxe contradiction thereof not newly found out by reading the Fathers but a contradiction by the same of antiquity deliuered vnto posterity which kind of contradiction they cannot find agaynst any point of Catholike doctrine For let them name but one Father whom Antiquity doth acknowlege as a Contradictour of Inuocation of Saints Adoratiō of the Sacrament Reall Presence Prayer for the dead they cannot certainly though they bring diuers places to proue a thing which Antiquity neuer noted or knew of before that the Fathers be various and wauering about these points The Conclusion of this point shewing that Protestants Erre fundamentally §. 6. OVT of all this appeares that the Roman Church is the true Church and consequently (u) The Minister cauilleth at this cōsequence but it is euident for the Church is but One in which only saluation is had and if the Roman be this Church Protestants are not saued out of it that Protestants haue (*) The Minister in making answere vnto this Paragraffe is from the beginning to the end not only exceeding bitter and full of rayling but also impertinent not vnderstanding the state of the cōtrouersy nor what the Iesuite vndertaketh to proue The Iesuites conclusion bendeth against some Protestants with whom he dealt in his Conferences holding there is no fundamentall difference betwixt the Roman Church and the Protestant that men may be saued indifferently in the one and the other Protestant doctrines wherein they differ from the Roman though they should be errours not being fundamentall and damnable errours The Iesuits intention was agaynst these men not to proue absolutely that Protestants erre for then he would haue proued the Nine obiected articles to be errours by such testimonyes of Scriptures and Fathers as would haue puzzeled the Minister but supposing as giuen and not granted by his aduersaryes Dato non concesso that Protestants erre he vndertaketh to shew their errours to be mayne fundamental and damnable and that the mantayners therof cannot be saued and so no saluation to be had but in the one Catholike Church Hence it is euident that the Ministers labour to shew that the Protestant doctrines be not errours is impertinent for this the Iesuite did not intend to proue but supposing they are errours to proue they are damnable and fundamentall errours agaynst Adiaphorists that hold there is no fundamentall difference betwixt the Protestant and Roman Church fundamentall Errours about fayth Errours are (x) The Minister sayth that errours fundamentall must be conuinced to be such out of Scripture citing to this purpose the saying of S. Augustine De doctrin Christian. lib. 2. cap. 3. In these thinges that are cleerly deliuered in Scripture are contayned all those things which contayne fayth and good manners I answere S. Augustine sayth not that all necessary thinges are contayned expressely in Scripture not in particular and distinctly but in generall and according to the genericall name of necessary vertues as his words fully set down declare which are these All things that contayne fayth and good manners to wit hope and charity No doubt but the genericall dutyes of Fayth Hope Charity are expressely euen in so many words set downe in Scripture though not all particularityes about them seing now all Protestants graunt that some things are contayned in Scripture inuoluedly and implicitly that is in other tearmes intricately and obscurely fundamentall that is damnable eyther in regard of the matter because agaynst some substantiall matter of fayth the knowledge whereof is necessary for the performance of a required Christian duty or in regard of the manner they are held to wit so obstinately as in defence of them one denyes the Catholike Church Errours fundamentall of the first kind Protestants haue diuers particularly these Nine First their doctrine agaynst Tradition vnwritten wherby the (y) By Tradition is vnderstood Doctrine known precedently independently of Scripture though perchāce the same be written This doctrine precedētly knowne vnto Scripture the Minister professeth that Protestants deny pag. 105. lin 24. consequently they erre fundamētally For here by they be forced to make the resolution of their fayth by the euidence of the thing and light of the matter agaynst the first ground of Christiā Religiō that in this life we walk by faith not by euidēce as hath been shewed Foundation is ouerthrowne on which we belieue all other substantiall and fundamentall points as hath been shewed Secondly their denying the (z) The Minister
yet his doctrine is agaynst the whole Consent of Deuines expresly agaynst S. Augustine who sayth that a man holding with Photinus whose Errors were fundamentall agaynst the Trinity God head of Christ thinking he holdes Catholike doctrine is not yet an (*) The Minister sayth pa. 196. that the IESVITE cites not Augustine truly for he ōly saith I would not affirme of such a person that he is an Heretique Answere This is vntruth S. Austine saith Istum nondum haereticū dico I do affirme this mā not to be yet an Heretique though he hold fundamentall errour till he knowe he dothe it agaynst the Catholike CHVRCH What he addeth that S. Austine meanes that ignorance is not heresy in foro Ecclesiae but is heresy in foro caeli is ridiculous for the contrary is true because whosoeuer denyes though ignorātly the knowne articles of the Creed is an heretike in foro Ecclesiae because he is presumed to erre out of contempt not out of ignorance But if he be truly ignorant he is no heretike in foro caeli because verily he is not willfull Heretike till warned that he holds agaynst the Catholike Church he chooseth to perseuer in his errour Hence I inferre that Protestants erre fundamentally according to the second kind of erring to wit in the manner in all points they hold agaynst the Roman Church which I haued proued to be the true Catholike Church For he that holds any priuate opinions so stifly as rather thē forsake it he denies abandons the Catholike Church a mayne article of his Creed erreth fundamētally as is cleere But Protestants hold their priuate opinions so stiffely as therupon they haue denyed and abandoned the Catholike Church to wit the Roman Neyther doth it import that they retayne the word hauing reiected the sense seeing not the letter of the Creed pronounced but the matter belieued makes men Christians Neyther is it inough to say that they belieue the Church of the Elect seeing the Church of the Creed is not the Church of the only Elect a meere Fancy but the visible and conspicuous Church continuing from the Apostles by succession of Bishops which thus I prooue The Church whereof Christ sayd I am alwayes with you to the consummation of the world is the Church of the Creed or the Church which to forsake is damnable For the Church wherewith Christ still abideth not according to corporall visible presence but by his spirit is the body of Christ whereof he is head into which he infuseth the life of grace consequently he that forsaketh this Church forsaketh the body of Christ and the head thereof and cannot liue by his spirit but is in a dead and damnable state as a member cut off and separated from a liuing body as S. Augustine epist. 50. de vnit Eccles. c. 16. long agoe noted The Catholike Church is the body of Christ whereof he is head out of this body the Holy Ghost quickeneth no man Now the Church wherof Christ sayd I am alwayes with you to the consummation of the world is not the Church inuisible of only the Elect but a visible Church deriued by succession from the Apostles Therfore he that forsakes the Church deriued by succession from the Apostles forsakes the Church of the Creed the Catholike Church the body of Christ puts himselfe into a dead damnable state may haue all things besides saluation and eternall life as Fathers affirme whose testimonies in this behalf are notable and famously knowne whereunto D. Field yieldeth acknowleging one holy Catholike Church in which only the light of heauenly Truth is to be sought where only grace mercy remission of sinnes and hope of eternall happynes are found AN ANSVVERE TO THE Nyne Points proposed by your most Excellent Maiesty I Haue bene large in my former proofes that the Roman is the one holy true catholike church whose Traditions comming downe by perpetuall succession from Christ and his holy Apostles are so constantly and strongly to be belieued that no proofes out of Scripture by priuate interpretatiō vnderstood though seeming most euident may stand to contest (a) The Minister here spends a whole leafe of Paper in bitternes gall against vs as if we did professe to preferre Old Custome before knowne Verity It is not so but thus the case standeth between Protestants and vs. First as for Verity neither they nor we know our Religion to be verity by manifest sight nor by the light lustre euidence of the thinge or doctrine as both of vs must acknowledge if we be sober Secondly there be records which by Tradition we know to haue bene giuen by the Apostles which vpon good warrant are belieued to deliuer nothing but Gods holy word Thirdly when Controuersies arise about this word of the Apostles and there be different opinions about the sense therof seeming arguments be brought on both sides we thinke that side ought to preuaile as the truly Christian for which perpetuall Christian Tradition Custome stand Fourtly we Iudge that that side ought to be reiected as not truly Christian where Christian Tradition is so notoriosly defectiue as they cānot ascend from this age vpward towards Christ by naming professours of their Religion higher then one hundred yeares or if they presume to passe further they are presently conuinced to feigne as it happeneth vnto Protestants This is the summe of all that hath been hitherto sayd and the forme of the Catholicke proceeding about their resolution of fayth against thē And this I haue not done without purpose assuring my selfe that if your Maiestie were throughly perswaded in this point you would without any mans help most easily and fully satisfy your selfe in particular controuersyes out of your owne wisdome and learning For as some that haue bene present at your Maiesties discourses casually incident about Religion report few of our Deuines though trained vp continually in Academies and Exercises of Theology are able to say more thē your Maiesty in defence of the catholicke cause for particular controuersyes when you please to vndertake the patronage thereof which I can easily belieue out of my owne Experience who could not but admire seing your Maiesty so well acquainted with our doctrines and so ready and prompt in Scholasticall subtilities Wherfore most humbly I beseech your most Excellent Maiesty to honour these my poore labours with a gratious perusall of them accepting of mine Answers whē they may seeme reasonable being in defence of doctrines receiued from Auncestors which deserue approbation when there is no euidency against them and of your abundant clemency pardon my prolixity seeing the questions by your Maiesty proposed were so difficill and obscure as I could hardly haue made any shorter full explication of them THE FIRST POINT The (b) The Minister in this question knowes not well what to stand vnto He graunts the question and then he denyes it agayne contradicting himselfe yea censuring his owne whole
Bishops turning Christian Religion into open Idolatry could not haue been without famous noâ—e therof according to time and persons deliuered vnto posterity by report written and vnwritten This supposed his discourse is consequent and conuincing for thus the argues Had adoration of the Images of our Sauiour been brought into the Church since the Apostles against the Religion planted by theÌ„ the beginning therof would haue been famously known by historicall traditioÌ„ written or vnwritten But the time of the beginning of this pretended Idolatrizing is not noted by fame nor by any full Tradition deliuered vnto vs. This is proued because Protestants that goe about to set downe the tyme of the first entrance of this worship into the Church by degrees since the Apostles vary among themselues and their best narrations are conuinced of manifest falshood whereby it is cleere they faygne That the best of their disagreing relations be thus false the Answerer sheweth because the best and most esteemed relation may seeme that of M. Iohn White which hath beene so often printed and reprinted and wherwith so many are deluded or if this not the best let our Minister shew a better which he hath neither done nor endeauored to doe But Iohn Whites relation is patched togeather of most intolerable grosse falshoods in euery point wherin he pretends beginning and beginners This the Answerer shewes vnanswerably assignable but because it were longe to set downe all their disagreeing assertions I will only declare what M. Iohn White brother to my aduersary in his booke printed and reprinted many tymes sayth therabout that your Maiesty may by this example vnderstand with how little sincerity the best esteemed Protestant Ministers handle controuersyes to the deceptioÌ„ of many Christian soules his words are these First (s) Iohn White in his waye p. 152. §. 35. n. 13. there was no Image grauen or painted saith (t) In Cathechism Erasmus no not the Image of Christ himself to be set in Churchs this appeareth by the (u) Epiphan ep ad Ioan. Concil Eliber c. 36. testimony of the Ancients Secondly when they began to be vsed the Church of Rome (x) Greg. Ep. 3. l. 7. indict 2. li. 4. ep 9. forbad the Worship of them as appeareth by the Epistles of Gregory to Serenus Polidore (y) De inuen l. 6. c. 13. a Papist confâ—sseth all Fathers coÌ„demned the Worshippe of Images for feare of Idolatry Afterward the Councell of Nice (z) Act. 7. brought in this worshippe decreeing neuertheles that no Image should be adored with Latria Diuine honour At the last Thomas Aquinas (a) 3. p. q. 25. act 3. 4 and the Trent Councell (b) Sess. 25. expounded by the Iesuits (c) Vasquez de adorat l 2 c. 4. Suarez tom 2. disp 54. sect 4. taught that diuine honour should be giuen vnto them Thus he Which in my Iudgement is sufficient to make any Iudicious man mislike Protestant writers that defend their Religion by such palpable vntruthes For to begin with his last saying and so vpward what can be more false then that the (d) Two things you here deuise for defence of your Brother First you say pag. 241. lin 25. that the determination in the Councell in this and in many other articles is like Appollo his riddles so ambiguous as no wonder your Brother was deceaued I Answere that the Councell of Trent allowes onely bowing before Images with inward reference of the adoring affection vnto Christ as any man that shall peruse the decree wil presently perceaue Secondly though the meaning of the Councell were darke obscure yet whether the Councell gaue a command in this forme of words some Images are to be worshipped with latria cannot be obscure nor can any mistake theirin but only misrelate agaynst his knowledge through desire to deceaue Now your Brother chargeth the Councell with giuing a commaÌ„d in this very forme of words in his Way of digressions from the Church digress 49. numero 5 pag. 345. lin 10. The Church of Rom sayth he commands that sâ—me Images be worshipped with Diuine honour the very same that is due to God himselfe The words with Diuine honour are set in a distinct letter and the Councell of Trent is cited as commanding in this forme of speach in the 25. SessioÌ„ therof where no such wordes are found in any part of the Councell Is not this inexcusable lying Secondly for his excuse ibidem lin 33. you say That which induced my Brother to charge the Trent Maisters with defining Diuine worship of images was their silence in condemninge the teachers of such diuine worship but especially the practise of the late Pontificians that since the Councell teach Diuine worship of Images Answer First though later Deuines did teach Diuine worship to be giuen to some Images yet this would not excuse your Brother from being guilty of belying the Councell For your Brother doth not onely say that some Pontificians so hold but that the Church of Rome defines commands Diuine worship of Images citing the CouÌ„cel of Trent Sess. 25. so defining in as many words Is not this kind of lying damnable as being grosse in matter of religion saluatioÌ„ Secondly you eyther ignorantly mistake or wilfully peruert the meaning of those Deuines as the Answerer doth shew in the next Paragraffe Councell of Trent taught that Diuine worship is to be giuen vnto Images there being no such words in the whole Councell As for the Iesuit Vasquez whom he citeth as so expounding the Councell no such doctrine is found in him either in the place quoted by the Minister or in any part of his workes yea the contrary is found l. 2. de adorat disp 9. c. 3. It is not quoth he to be said that diuine honour is giuen vnto Images Neyther doth Suarez the other Iesuit cited expound the CouÌ„cel to giue diuine worship vnto Christs Image but only saith that out of the Councel it may be gathered that the Image of Christ and Christ are honoured by one and the same act of worship which as referred vnto Christ is Diuine worship as referred vnto the Image not diuine worship but inferior veneration For as he declareth in 3. part To. 1. disp 54. Sect. 3. ad 7. Ille actus respectu prototypi est propriè Latria c. respectu viz. Imaginis non est tam perfecta adoratio sed inferior veneratio The worship of Christ and his Image though one and the same Physicall act is virtually two fold being diuine honour towards Christ not diuine but a kind of inferiour honour towards the Image Nor is M. Whites Way pag. 400 Argument good We worship Christ and his Image by the same act but the worship of Christ is diuine honour Ergo the worship of the Image is diuine honour For this proueth onely that the worship of the Image and of Christ being one and the same act is diuine as referred to Christ not
as referred vnto the Image Otherwise if M. White should helpe to pull his fellow-Ministers horse out of the mire moued therunto out of christian charity and friendship one might by the like argument proue that he beareth christiaÌ„ charity towards horses for he reliueth the horse and pleasureth his friend by one and the same acte The pleasuring of his friend is an acte of christian charity towards him Ergo the pullinge of the horse out of the mire is an act of christian charity towards the horse A foolish argumeÌ„t because that one acte is virtually twofold as referred to the man owner of the horse christian charity as referred to the horse only no charity at all but a baser kind of loue and that for his friends sake The like is when we kisse with our corporall lips the feete of the Image of Christ at the same time by deuout and reuerent Imagination kissing his true feet represented by the Image we honour Christ his Image by one and the same Physicall acte and that acte is diuine worship though not diuine as referred to the Image but onely as referred vnto Christ. A thing so easely vnderstood by learned men as I meruaile Ministers vnderstand it not or wrangle in a matter so cleer if they sincerely seeke truth And though the ignorant vnderstand not the tearmes of Theology by which Deuines declare the manner of honoring the Prototype and the Image both by one acte yet may they honour an Image as securely with as little danger of erring as any that vnderstands them For as the Clowne who knowes no more of the nature of motion then that he is to set one foote before another doth moue in the very same manner as Philosophers who explicate that action by tearmes most obscure of intrinsecal and extrinsecall beginning and ending and per vltimum non esse primum non esse so likewise a catholike that vnderstands no more of honouring Christ his Image then that he is by beholding the Image to remember Christ and with pious affectuous imagination to adore him doth honour our Sauiour his Image by one and the same acte as truly verily religiously as the greatest Diuine that can learnedly explicate the manner how that adoration is performed as being done outwardly relatiuely and transitorily vnto the Image affectuously absolutely finally vnto Christ. Secondly wheras he saieth That the councell of Nice brought in the worship of Images yet forbad that any Image should be adored with Diuine honour he both contradicts himselfe and vttereth another manifest falshood He contradicts himselfe in saying that the Nicene councel forbad diuine worship of any Image seing in another place he thus writeth Defence pag. 453. Both the Councell of Nice and the Deuines of the Church of Rome hold the Images of God and our Sauiour and the Crosse must be adored with Diuine adoration (e) The Minister hath not a worde to say in excuse of this contradiction and falshood of his Brother It is apparantly false that the said Nicene councell brought in the worship of Images which might be proued by many Testimonies but this one may suffice (f) Zonaras in Leone Isaurico Paulus Diaconus in miscella lib. 21. Accusabat omnes antecessores Principes quasi Idololatrae fuissent propter adorationem sanctaruÌ„ Iconum that Leo Isauricus before the councell of Nice opposed Image-worshippe not as then beginning but for many yeares before established in the church boasting that he was the first Christian Emperour the rest hauing been Idolators because they worshipped Images so manifestly did he oppose antiquity and so little truth there is in M. Whites (g) The Minister saith that the Nicene Synode brought in the practise of worshipping of Images by definition not simply For the Israelites worshipped molten Images in Dan and Bethel and the Symonians worshipped Images Euseb. Eccles. Historia lib. 2. c. 13. The Gnosticks worshipped the Image of Christ. â—ren l. 1. c. 13. Answer By this may appeare that so you satisfy your spleene â—n comparing vs to Idolaters you care not how little you speake to the purpose The question is who first brought in the worship that for many â—ges hath beene vsed vniuersally by Christians towards the Images of Christ and his Saints Yow answere not the Nicene Synode simply but â—efore that Councell the Israelites worshipped molten Images in Dan â—eâ—hel and the Synomians worshipped Images to wit of Symon Magus and â—elen his strumpet were these the Images of Christ his blessed mother The Gnosticks also worshipped the Image of Christ and of Paul sacrifiâ—ing vnto it and not onely vnto it but also with it vnto the Images of Homer Pythagoras Plato Aristotle and other prophane men as Irenaeus relateâ— li. 2. c. 24. and Epiphan heres 27. the like did Marcellina noted by S. Aug. de Haeres haeres 23. Is this the Catholicke custome of worshiping Images Assertion Thirdly to passe yet vp higher that Images began in Gregory the great his time and that he forbad the worship of them conteines other three falshoods First Gregory is abused who onely (h) What the Minister saith pag. 248. lin 2â— that Gregory did not approue that Images should be worshipped any way is not only against Friar Bale but also against the plaine words of Gregory who saith expressely lib. 7. Epist. 5. that worship or veneration is due to the Crosse of Christ and Image of the blessed Virgin Wherfore wheÌ„ elswher lib. 7. Epist. 10.11 he saith that Images are no wayes to be adored this is to be vnderstood according as himselfe expounds himselfe l. 7. Epist. 53. non tanquaÌ„ Deus Images are not to be worshipped as God And again we prostrate our selues before the Image not as before the deity but we adore him whome by his Image we remember as borne or as crucified or as sitting in glory Where he teacheth two things first that 〈◊〉 must prostrate our selues before our Sauiours Image secondly that 〈◊〉 hart and affection we must worship the diuine Samplar our Sauioâ—â— person commanded that none should worship Images as Gods belieuing as Gentils did that some God-head was affixed to them as he elswhere declareth (*) Lib. 7. ep 53. Non vt eam tanquam Deum colas himselfe And so manifestly did he teach Image-worship establishing pilgrimages vnto them by Indulgence as (*) Bale pagâ—â— of Popes pag. 24. 25. Symonds on the reuelation pag. 57. Friar Bale accuseth him therof Yea M. Symonds and M. Bale write thaâ— Leo 140. yeares before Gregory decreeâ— the worship of Images Secondly Polidore in this point is egregiously falsifyed for he sayth not as the Minister makes him speake All fathers condemned the worship of Images for feare 〈◊〉 Idolatry But his words are Cultum imagnum teste Hieronymo omnes veteres patrâ— damnabant metu Idololatriae all old fatheâ— as Hierome witnesseth did condemnâ— worship of Images for feare of Idolatry by the
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
of benefits receaued as pictures of Lymms by Saints prayers miraculously cured That therin they doe not deflect from ancient Christian deuotion and that the Christian Church in her best tymes vsed vniuersally to make such oblations Theodoret (o) Theodoret. de curandis Graecorum affect l. 8. is a sufficient witnes who writing agaynst the Gentills alleadgeth as a manifest signe of Christs Godhead and Omnipotency that Idols being excluded he brought in Martyrs to be honoured in their roome not superstitiously as Gods but religiously as diuine men and Gods speciall friends Christian people sayth he present themselues vnto Martyrs not as vnto Gods but as vnto the Martyrs of God and diuine men inuocating beseeching them to be intercessours for them vnto God And those that piously and with Fayth pray obtayne what they desire as testify the oblations which they being therunto bound by their vowes present in the Chappell 's of Saints as tokens of health recouered For some hang vp Images of eyes others of eares others of hands some made of gold some made of siluer (p) The Minister also here denyeth that these ancient Christians did offer these oblations at the shrines of Martyrs in token of gratitude for benefits receued Wheras Theodoret saith expressely that they were vowes which they had made and were bound to pay vnto the Martyrs that is vnto their shrines as monuments of their power in curing them Thus he so generall and notorious euen vnto Infidels was this Christian deuition The Roman Church set formes of Prayer without cause misliked §. 8. FINALLY Protestants dislike the circumstance of praying in a set forme vnto Saints and that we appoint a particular office vnto the Blessed Virgin Mary which cannot be proued to haue been vsed in the Primitiue Church (q) The Minister pag. 353. brings prayers vsed in the Romane Missalls as though they were absurd Call vpon the sweet name of Mary Saints interceding we may deserue to be deliuered from all necessityes The Saints merits interceding Lord absolue vs from all sinnes I Answere all these speaches are the very words vsed by the full consent of ancient Fathers as yow may find in the fifth Demonstration Doth the Minister expect that for feare at his rayling we should leaue all antiquity We must not do so nor do we nor may we feare the bitternes of mans tongue in so high degree I answere that the Primer or Office so tearmed of our Lady is not an office properly and principally directed vnto her but an Office contayning prayses of God taken out of holy Scripture wherein commemoration of her is made So as I dare say that the prayers of that office of our Lady that are directed vnto her make not the hundred part thereof And seing it is most certayne that the Christian Church in her best times did frequently pray vnto Saints what reason haue we to thinke that in her set forme of prayers she did not vse to craue their intercession If it be lawfull pious and profitable when we pray vnto God to pray also to Saints by their mediatiō offering our prayers to him why should any mislike the doing of this in a set forme that is allowed by the Church why should this displease rather then an extemporall forme But further we cā proue that the Church in her best (r) The Minister here questioneth our meaning by the word primitiue I answere that we hold that true Christian Religion planted by the Apostles was not a meere shaddow that vanished away in a trice but that the beliefe and practise therof cōtinued in the world after their decease This Religion in respect of being in the world was primitiue in the dayes of the Apostles and of them that saw the Apostles and were conuerted by them But in respect of free publike profession the same was neuer Primitiue till the fourth Age that is vnder Constantine Now the monuments of the first and second Age after the Apostles in regard of persecutiō are few many Christian Historyes monuments yea in a manner al were made away by Dioclesian So that the best way to know what Religiō was professed immediately vpō the death of the Apostles is to examine what forme of Religiō in the dayes of Constantine came frō vnder groūd secret meetings into the free view of the world For no doubt but that Religion was freely professed vnder Constantine that was cruelly persecuted and the monuments therof abolished by Dioclesiā Constantine his Predecessour and the other Pagan Emperours before him But the Christian profession of Constantines age is so cleerly Catholike as our Ministers feare triall thereby and would rather haue all reduced vnto those ages wherof the monuments are scarse for therin they hope to find best patronage for their negatiue religion and for their Inuisible Perpetuall Namelesse Notorious Professours times did pray vnto Saints in set formes as Catholikes now do euen with a forme of prayer acknowledged cōfessed by the Magdeburgiās Cent. 4. c. 4. to haue byn in vse euē in the fourth age after Christ in which the foure first generall Councels were held But if they will perchance say that they do not so much dislike set formes vnto Saints as some Phrases or speaches in our Prayer-bookes that seeme to giue too much vnto Creatures as our calling the Blessed Virgin Mother of Grace Mother of mercy saying to her Lady protect vs from the Diuell receaue vs in the houre of death giue light to the blind pardon to the guilty remooue from vs all euill c. I answere these speaches cannot iustly be disliked because they are vnderstood in a pious sense knowne to Catholikes a sense obuious playne according to the phrase of Scripture and which the words may well beare euen according to the custome of speach The nature of thinges being various and the answerable conceipts of men copious but words to expresse such conceyts scant and in great paucity necessity doth inforce vs to vse words applyable to diuers senses For example one man may deliuer another from death either by authority pardoning him as do Kings or by Iustice defending him as do Aduocates by force taking him out of his enemyes hands as do Souldiers or paying his ransome to them that keep him captiue as Almoners finally by begging his life of them that haue power to take it away as intercessours These be very different wayes of reliefe yet haue we but one word to expresse them all to wit to saue a mans life which therefore is to be vnderstood according to the subiect it is applyed And if men want vnderstanding or will not take our words according to the matter they are applyed vnto there can neuer want Cauils vnles we eyther speake not at all or when we speake still vse long circumlocutions which were ridiculous in verse impossible the metre not permitting it And yet the aforesayd misliked phrases in the office of the Blessed Virgin are
taken out of the Hymnes and Verses thereof If they that by begging obtayne of the king the life of one condemned to death may be are commonly (s) Our Aduersary in this place playeth the right Minister according to the new order very hansomely telleth a lye saying to the Iesuit You labour to qualifye your blasphemous words by ā honorable expositiō pretending you SAY one thinge and MEANE another What boldnes is this doth not the Iesuit say that they not only meane well but also speake well and according to the rigour of speach the phrase of Scripture holy Fathers How then doth he pretend that we say one thing and meane another sayd to saue his life though they saued him by intercession not by their proper authority why may not Saints be sayd to giue vs the things which by their prayers they obtayne for vs Why may not the Church speake in Hymnes in Verse as the learnedst Fathers spake euen in Prose neuer imagining that any would mistake their meaning Saint Gregory Nazianzen for his excellēt learning tearmed by the Grecians The Deuine thus prayeth vnto Saint Cyprian Looke downe on vs from heauen with a propitious eye guide our works and wayes feed this holy flocke gouerne it with vs dispose some of them as farre as is possible to a better state Cast out importune and troublesome wolues that cauill catch at sillables vouchsafe vs the perfect and cleere splendour of the B. Trinity with whome thou art already present (t) The Minister heere sayth the Iesuit cānot proue that Gregory Naziāzen did Inuocate S. Cyprian but only made an Oratoriall Apostrophe vnto him As Papists say in their hymne al hayle o Crosse yet they do not pray to the wodden Crosse. This is vanity For that S. Gregory Nazianzen did properly inuocate S. Cyprian I proue by this demonstratiō For one to call vpon some person for ayde thinking him that he doth heare him is able to helpe is to Inuocate him S. Gregory Nazianzē did call vpon S. Cyprian for helpe thinking he heard him was able to helpe him for he sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know well that Blessed Saints heare me and are ready to reach out their hand to such as need their helpe Ergo he did properly Inuocate him pray vnto him And not only Fathers but also Scriptures speake of Saints in the same sort our Sauiour saying Make to your selues friendes of the riches of Iniquity that when you dye they may receaue you into the eternall tabernacles If then the Saints of God by the mouth of Verity it selfe be said to receaue their friends when they dye into the eternall Tabernacles because God mooued by their prayers admits them into the Blissefull vision of his essence why may not the Church and her children craue the Blessed Virgins intercessions in these wordes Mother of Mercy receaue vs in the houre of death And seing God in Scripture is tearmed Mercy why should not she be stiled mother of mercy that is vndoubtedly mother of God especially seeing that in and of her the Authour of mercy grace was conceaued and borne and she filled with grace and charity aboue all other Creatures (u) The seely Minister not knowing which way to turne himselfe to find some seeming ground of carping at the formes of the Catholicke Missals Roman Liturgy he goeth catching at the phrases of priuate writers To what purpose If the Authours cannot iustifye their phrases Metaphores let him dislike them in Gods name What is this to the Catholike Church Some writer did not apply his Metaphore fitly Ergo the Roman Church is Idolatrous That other phrase much disliked by your Maiesty that God reseruing Iustice to himselfe hath giuen away mercy to his mother is not vsed by the Church in any of her prayers nor allowed of by Catholike Deuines nor will we iustify it being an harsh and vnfitting Metaphore though thereby the Authours thereof expresse a truth to wit that the Blessed Virgin is exceeding gracious with her Sonne and her intercession very potēt alluding to a phrase of Scripture vsed Hester cap. 5.3.6 cap. 7.2 Marke 6.23 whereby such as are gracious with a prince are sayd that they may haue any thing though halfe of his Kingdome so deuiding Gods Kingdome into Iustice and Mercy to shew how gracious the Blessed Virgin is with her Sonne they say God hath giuen her one halfe of his Kingdome to wit his Mercy which is a Metaphore far fetcht not to be vsed howsoeuer in charity it may be excused THE FOVRTH POINT The Liturgy priuate prayers for the Ignorant in an vnknovvne tongue THE custome of the Romane Church in this point is agreable to the custome of the Church in all Ages and also of (*) The Minister pag. 356. lin 22. It is false according to the Tenet of Bellarmine himselfe that all other Churches which differ from Protestāts haue their publike seruice in Hebrew Greeke or Latine Answer This is your fashion whē you haue not what to reply you impose your sayings vpon your Aduersary and then vrge they are false The Answerer neuer said that al Churches which differ from Protestants haue their seruice in Hebrew Greeke or Latine for this he knew to be false in the Maronits Armenians Aegyptians Aethiopians Russians But he said they all agree with the Roman in that they haue their diuine seruice in a language not vulgar nor commonly knowne of the people this is true for the fore-named Christians haue their Lyturgies in a speciall language which is not their vulgar all Churches now in the world bearing the name of Christian though opposite vnto the Romane only those of the pretended Reformation excepted which constant concurrence is a great signe that the same is very conforme vnto reason and not any where forbidden in Gods word which wil easily appeare if we looke particulerly into the same For we may imagine a triple state of Liturgy in an vnkowne tongue The first in a language altogeather (x) The Minister pag. 369. saith This is a Chimera Non Ens because there was neuer such a Liturgy in the Church Answere In the beginning of the Church there was not any set Forme of publike prayer but the sacred Minister did extemporally make prayers at meetings And that some then did vse to make extemporall prayers in languages altogether vnknowne euen to themselues appeares by the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. Nor is it inough for a Minister to say that this is a Non Ens and a Chimera because it neuer was For first though it neuer were yet it might haue been and things that be possible and might haue been be not Chimera's Secondly that in meetings some did vse a language altogether vnknowne at prayer S. Paul doth witnes who I trow is to be belieued before a Minister He forbids the speaking in the Church with an vnknowne tongue when there is none present that
the Apostle prefer prayer that doth edify the vnderstanding yet doth he not prohibite prayer of meere affection without new instruction of the vnderstanding but saith that in such prayers men pray with their spirit and affection though not with their vnderstanding Now that S. Paul did cōmād that seruice should be in such a language as euery womā in the Church might be able to vnderstād it word by word (b) The Minister sayth pag. 374. that Ignorance of the distinct notion of euery word hindreth not sufficient edification when the ordinary necessary and common passages of the publicke seruice are intelligible Thus he Now I subsume But people who vnderstand not latin distinctly may by instruction through bookes Sermons and Cathechismes vnderstand the ordinary necessary and common passages of the publicke seruice specially by the helpe of vse and custome as experience sheweth Ergo publicke prayers in latin may yield sufficient edification and so are lawfull is incredible nor are our Aduersaryes able to proue it neyther can they shew by any Records of antiquity that such a custome was in the Primitiue Church yea the cōtrary may more then probably be shewed because the drift of the Church in appointing Lyturgies or set formes of publike Prayer at the oblation of the Eucharisticall sacrifice was not for the (C) The Minister sayth that indeed the end of publicke seruice is not to instruct People yet the prayers must be said in a language vnderstood of all because they which come to God with sound of wordes without vnderstanding offer the sacrifice of fooles Answere He that offereth vnto God vocall prayers full of deuout pious affection knowing only in generall that they be pious deuout expressing such affections offers a gratefull sacrifice vnto God though he doe not distinctly vnderstand the words and parts of the Prayer For exāple if one that vnderstands not Latin belieue the Psalme Miserere to be full of penitent affections and say the same with many teares of inward sorow contritiō for his sinnes whosoeuer will say that this man offers vnto God the sacrifice of fooles is himselfe an Infidell or Foole. For what greater folly then to think that prayers of pious affection please not God except the affection correspond mathematically to the words peoples instruction but for other reasons First that by this publike Seruice a continuall dayly tribute or homage of prayer thankesgiuing might be publikely offered and payed vnto God Secondly that christians by their personall assistāce at this publike seruice might protest exercise exteriourly acts of Religion common with the whole Church represented by the Synaxis or Ecclesiasticall meeting of euery Christian parish Finally to the end that euery Christian by his presence yielding consent vnto the publike prayers prayses and thankesgiuings of the Church and as it were subscribing setting his seale vnto them by this assisting at them might ordinarily participate of the graces benefits fruits which the Church doth obtaine by her Liturgyes and publike oblations Now for this end there is no need that euery one shold vnderstād word by word the prayers that are sayd in the publike Liturgy but it sufficeth that the Church in generall and in particular Pastours and Ecclesiasticall persons dedicated vnto the Ministeryes of the Church and who watch being bound to giue an account of soules committed to their charge haue particular notice of all the prayers that are sayd and that all who will may be taught instructed in particular if they will vse diligence desire it Moreouer the Churches anciently euen in the purest tymes of Christianity had Chancels vnto which Laymen might not enter so could not particularly and distinctly vnderstand (c) It had bene folly for the Church intending her Liturgy for the instruction of lay-men to haue excluded them out of the Chancells and though our Aduersary say that the Preist read seruice in so audible a voice as he might be heard from the highest of the Chācell where the Aultar was placed vnto the body of Church yet this he might better haue spokē vnto fooles then vnto men of vnderstāding that know how great the Chancells of many Churches are and how farre distinctly audible a mans voice ordinarily is the prayers said by the publike Minister of the Church Within the sayd Chancells they did also vse to say a good part of the Liturgy (d) Vide Liturgias impressas anno Domini 1568. Basil. in Liturg fol. 34. secretly so that their voyce was not audible vnto any Yea the Greeke Church did anciently vse a Veyle (e) Basil. ibidem fol. 34.38.41.43.46 Chrysostom Liturg. fol. 55. hom 61. ad Pop. wherewith the Priest was for the tymes of the sacred Oblation compassed which are manifest signes that the Church did neuer thinke it necessary that all the publike Liturgy should be heard much lesse word by word vnderstood by the whole vulgar multitude present therat Besides it is certayne that the Scripture was not read in any language but Greeke ouer al the Churches of the East as S. Hierome (f) Hieron praefat in Paralip witnesseth Also the Greeke Liturgy of Saint Basill was vsed in all the Church of the East and the Grecian was not the vulgar language of all the Countreyes of the East as is apparent by manifest testimonyes particularly of the (g) Basil. de Spiritu sancto c. 19. Cappadocians (h.i) Hieron in Prooem 2. lib. com ad Galat. Act. Apost c. 1. v. 10. 11. Mesopotamians (h.i) Hieron in Prooem 2. lib. com ad Galat. Act. Apost c. 1. v. 10. 11. Galathians (k) Theodoret. in histor SS Patrum hist. 13. Lycaonians (l) Hieron de script Eccles. in Anton. Aegyptians Syrians yea that all these Countreys and most of the Orient had their proper language distinct from the Greeke is manifest out of the Acts of the Apostles No lesse manifest is it that the Latin Liturgy was cōmon anciently for all the Churches of the Westerne parts euen in Africke as appeareth by testimonyes of S. (*) August Epist. 57. de doctrin Christian. l. 2. c. 13. August in Psalm 123. in exposit Ep. ad Rom. epist. 173. Augustine But it is manifest that the Latin was not the vulgar language for all nations of the West and though the better sort vnderstood it yet some of the (m) Although the Fathers say that the Greek Liturgy translation did serue all Asia and the East Although likewise they affirme the same of the Latin for all Africa and the Occident yet our Minister saith to the contrary pa. 379. and 380. that all people had their Liturgyes in their natiue tōgue which he proueth because the people did then praise God in all languages and did pray according to S. Iustine and Tertulliā togither with the Preist Ergo the publike Liturgy was read in the Church in all vulgar tongues As his denying what
so many Fathers affirme is impudent so his arguing is friuolous as euery man may see For Catholicks praise God in all languages and meet to pray with Preists as much as Protestants yet our publike seruice is not said in all vulgar tongues More impertinent are his allegatiōs of Fathers speaking against distraction of mind mēs not hearing thēselues in prayer As though men could not be recollected in prayer by attentiō vnto God vnto their owne needes and the substance of their prayers though they do not vnderstād thē distinctly word by word vulgar multitude only knew their owne mother tongue as may be cleerly gathered out of the same Saint Augustin who writes that he pleading in Latine agaynst Crispinus a Bishop of the Donatists for possession of a village in Africa wherunto the consent of the Villagers was required they did not vnderstand his speach till the same was interpreted vnto them in their vulgar African lāguage So that the Christian Church did neuer iudge it requisite that the publike Liturgy should be commonly turned into the mother language of euery nation nor necessary that the same should presently be vnderstood word by word by euery one of the vulgar assistants neyther doth the end of the publike Seruice require it As for the cōfort that some few want in that they do not so perfectly vnderstād the particulars of diuine Seruice it may by other means aboūdātly be supplied without turning the publik Liturgyes into innumerable vulgar lāguages which would bring a great cōfusion into the Christiā Church First The Church should not be able to iudge of the Liturgy of euery country whē differences arise about the Trāslation therof So diuers errors heresies might creep into particular countreyes and the whole Church neuer able to take notice of them Secondly particular countreyes could not be certayne that they haue the Scripture truly translated for therof they can haue no other assured proofe but only the Churches approbation nor can she approoue what she doth not vnderstand Thirdly were vulgar Translations so many as there be lāguages in the world it could not be otherwayes but some would be in many places ridiculous incōgruous full of mistaking to the great preiudice of soules specially in languages that haue no great extents nor many learned men that naturally speake them Fourthly the liturgy would be often changed togeather with the language which doth much alter in euery age Fiftly in the same Countrey by reason of different dialects some Prouinces vnderstand not one another And in the Island of Iaponia as some write there is one language for Noble men another for Rustikes another for men another for women Into what language shold then the Iaponian Liturgy be turned Finally by this vulgar vse of the Liturgy the study of the learned languages would be giuen ouer in short tyme come to be extinct as we see that no ancient language now remaynes in humane knowledge but such as haue been as it were incorporated in the Liturgyes of the Church the common vse of learned tongues being extinct there would follow want of meanes for Christians to meete in Generall Councells to communicate one with another in matters of fayth In a word extreme Barbarisme would be brought vpō the world Priuate prayers (n) The Minister hauing nothing to say rayleth boasteth that the opposition of Protestants forsooth hath brought vs to allow priuate vulgar prayers by force as we translate Scripture that were our kingdome as absolute as euer we would returne to our Center Thus he Prophesieth but so as he may easily be proued a false Prophet For to omit that diuers Councels many ages before Luther was borne command the knowing of the Pater Aue and Creed in the vulgar tongue where is the Popes kingdome more absolute or Protestācy lesse knowne then in Italy and in Spaine And yet no where are prayers in the vulgar tongue more vsed then in Italy and Spaine You shall hardly there find one woman one Layman which sayeth not their priuate deuotiōs in the vulgar Wheras thousands in Germany Low countryes Polony England both men and womē loue to say their prayers rather in Latine to shew their oppositiō against Protestants that fondly cōdemne such prayers be so void of iudgemēt as to thinke that pious thoughts and affections vpon the Pater noster please not God except we vnderstād the wordes and measure our pious thoughs and affections Geometrically vnto the same so that a woman saying with much deuotion Pater noster if perchāce she thinke that Pater signifyes our and Noster Father her prayer is marred Wherfore your Protestant imprudent opposition is the cause that many pray in Latin which otherwise perchance would not for ignorant people in their vulgar languages we practise we allow yea the Pater Noster and the Creed are to be knowne of all in their Mother tongues which two formes contayne the whole substance of prayer For the end of Prayer being threefold To prayse God for his infinite perfectiōs To giue him thanks for his benefits bestowed vpon vs To demand of him such necessaryes as we want aswell for the maintayning of this present as for the attayning vnto eternall life the Creed being a Summe of the perfections of God his benefits towardes man affoards sufficient knowledge to comply with the two former ends of prayer The Pater Noster being an abridgemēt of al those things which we need cōteines a full instruction for the third Other prayers doe but more plainly expresse thinges contayned in the Pater Noster the Creed and our many bookes do shew that these kind of prayers in vulgar languages are by vs writtē esteemed practised We add that ordinarily speaking common people doe more profit by saying prayers in their mother tongue then in the Latine because not only their affections are mooued to piety but also their vnderstanding edifyed with knowledge Notwithstanding some prayers though translated into English be so difficill to be vnderstood as they will rather distract ignorant especially curious people then instruct them of which kind are many Psalmes of Dauid these prayers as we thinke may more profitably be sayd in Latine So that I see no great difference eyther in practise or in doctrine betweene Protestants the Roman Church concering priuate Prayers in a language vnknowne THE FIFTH POINT Repetitions of Pater Nosters Aues and Creeds especially affixing a kind of merit to the number of them I AM perswaded that your Maiesty doth not intend to dislike Repetition of Prayers so the same be done with reuerent Deuotion and Affection For this repetition is iustifyed not only by the example of the blind man who still cryed vpon our Sauiour with repetition of the same prayer (p) Math. 20. Marc. 10. Luc. 18. Iesu Fili Dauid miserere mei by which repetition he obtayned his sight nor only of the princely Prophet who in his 135. Psalme repeates 27.
last of the seauen so that his arguments are Nine in all These being the summe and substance of all his disputation I will heere set them downe answere them one by one that the Reader may see vpon what friuolous reasons these men are mooued to reiect the literall sense of Gods word concerning the highest mysteryes of Fayth His first Argument pag. 397. If the substance of bread and wine do remayne Christs speach This is my body This is my bloud cannot be properly true because one indiuiduall substance cannot be predicated of another properly But it shall be afterward by Fathers and Scriptures proued that the substance of bread and wine remaynes ANSWERE You will prooue the substance of bread to remayne in the holy Eucharist ad Kalendas Graecas the meane while out of what you heere confesse I argue agaynst you You grant that except Transubstantiation be maintayned the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the literall sense But they must be vnderstood in the literall sense for on these words the Church of God doth ground a chiefe mystery or Sacrament of Fayth But as hath beene prooued no figuratiue text can be the ground of our beliefe concerning any Sacrament or mystery of Fayth The second Argument pag. 397. The words wherby the wine is consecrated Luc. 22.20 are Tropicall by the confession of our Aduersaryes ANSWERE First it is not absurd that our Sauiour deliuering some precept article or Sacrament should vse words that are figuratiue and exorbitant according to the rules of Grammer if they be not figuratiue nor vnusuall but ordinary playne manyfest perspicuous according to the common phrase and vulgar manner of speach This speach This is the cuppe of my bloud which is shed for you if it be figuratiue according to Grammer yet is it playne easy cleere according to common speach for no man hearing these words This is the cup of my bloud shed for you can thinke that the cuppe and not the bloud contayned therein was shed for vs. Secondly I deny that any word of this speach This is the cuppe of the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you is figuratiue This is the cup of my bloud is not figuratiue seing Christ had in his hand a true cup not the figure of a cup and the thing contayned therein was truly and properly bloud The bloud of Christ is also truly and properly sayd to be the new Testament for it is the thing required by the new Testament Couenant for the remission of sinnes but commonly and vulgarly men say of the thing required by Couenant this is our Couenant Finally the cup in his bloud is properly sayd to be shed seing the bloud was truly and properly shed so the cup properly shed in that respect as to say of a cup of wine this cup is spilt in the wine therof is not figuratiue but rather a speach vnnecessarily playne The third Argument pag. 397. If the words be taken properly then the body and bloud of Christ is deliuered and receaued without the soule and Deity of Christ for in propriety of speach the Body is a distinct and diuerse thing from the soule and likewise from Bloud ANSWERE Thousand instances might be brought that shew your grosse Ignorance in Theology who thus argue For example the Ghospell Iohn 1.10 sayth the Word was made flesh Is this Argument good Flesh in the propriety of speach is a distinct and diuerse thing from bloud and from soule Ergo eyther these words be figuratiue and do not prooue that the word tooke substantially Flesh or els we must say that he tooke dead flesh without bloud soule S. Peter sayth that Christ did beare our sinnes in his body vpon the wood were he not simple that would argue as you do Body in propriety of speach is a thing distinct from the soule and from the God-head Therefore eyther the wordes are figuratiue and do not proue that Christ did truly suffer in body or els we must say that his body without soule and without his Deity suffered on the Crosse. Not so For though the body be a thing distinct and diuerse from the soule yet it is a thing vnited and ioyned with the soule when the person liueth and so the body of a liuing person cānot be giuen except the soule be giuen consequently or by concomitancy therewith Ordinary Philosophy might haue taught you this where it is cōmonly sayd that though the Body be distinct from the Soule yet cānot the body be mooued or remooued deliuered and receaued without the soule the same going from place to place per accidens cum corpore by concomitancy togeather with the body The fourth Argument pag. 397. Seing Christ as Saint Hierome Saint Chrysostome and Euthimius affirme did himselfe Sacramentally eate and drinke what he gaue to his disciples if the words be literally vnderstood then he did eate his owne body and drinke his owne bloud ANSWERE You would haue vs belieue that it is ridiculous and foolish to say that Christ did eate his owne body which yet you durst not vtter in playne words For if Christ as you affirme did eate what he gaue to his disciples eyther he did eate his owne body or else his word in rigour is false wherby he sayd of what he gaue to his disciples Take eate This is my body Hence the Fathers who affirme that Christ did eate what he gaue affirme that Christ did eate what he gaue his Apostles consequently inforced by the euidence of Gods word expressely auerre that he did eate his owne body as Saint Hierome ad Hedib q. 2. Christ in his supper was the eater the meate that was eaten Saint Chrysostome homil 83. in Matth. That the Apostles might not feare to do the same Christ himselfe first dranke his own bloud Yea S. Augustine Concion 1. in Psalm 33. sayth that Christ in his last supper carryed himselfe in his owne hands secundum literam according to the letter which Dauid neyther did nor possibly could doe The fifth Argument pag. 398. If the wordes be vnderstood literally then Christ gaue his Disciples his passible and mortall body But I trow no Iesuit will maintayne that a body mortall and passible can be in many hoasts or mouths at once nor can the same be corporally eaten without sensible touching ANSWERE You might truly haue sayd I trow no Caluinist will belieue that a mortall and passible body can be in two hoasts or mouths at once let the word of God say it neuer so expressely and euen as expressely as these words import Take eate this is my Body which shall be deliuered for many vnto death which shall be broken for you on the Crosse. If Christ gaue his body that was to suffer and dye he gaue his body that was then passible mortal in many hoasts at once vnto the mouths of the twelue Now this being the playne expresse and litterall truth of the word of
of bread in the very same place therwith This manner of presence is cleerly consequent vpon the precedent and that graunted this cannot be denyed For the reason vpō which Christians hold the body of Christ to be really and truly present in the Sacrament is because they cannot otherwise in proper plaine sense verify the word of Christ who sayd of bread This is my body Wherefore we must eyther put no Reall Presence at all or else put such a Reall Presence as is able to verify the foresayd speach in proper and rigorous sense But if the body of Christ be not in the same place with the consecrated bread contained vnder the formes therof it cannot be said to be verily and really the body of Christ. For though we should suppose the body of Christ to leaue heauen to be substantially present in the Church where the Sacrament is giuen yet this supposed Presence would no wayes further the verifying of the words of Christ This is my body except his body be veyled couered with the sensible accidents of bread so that it be demōstrated by them pointing vnto them one may truly say This is the body of Christ. For why should consecrated bread be tearmed truly and substantially the body of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with (*) The Ministers folly who doth in this place affirme that thinges distant may be truly really vnited is refuted in the Censure Sect. 3. §. 5. it Wherefore the Fathers affirme that Christ is so in this Sacrament as he is veiled with the semblances of bread As Saint Cyrill of Hierusalem in his booke highly commended by D. Whitaker (l) Whitakerus de sacrae Scriptura q. 6. c. 11. Cyrill Cathec 4. sayth Vnder the forme of bread is giuen thee his body Yea Mayster (m) Caluin in ep ad Cor. c. 11. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. §. 32. Caluin sayth In the supper CHRIST IESVS to wit his Body and Bloud is truly giuen vnder the signes of bread wine Whence it is also consequent that the whole body of Christ is contained vnder a consecrated hoast be the same neuer so little For in this mystery the body of Christ is demonstrable by the sensible accidences so that consecrated bread may be tearmed truly really and substantially the body of Christ not a parcell or part therof only But were not the body of Christ wholy and entyrely vnder the formes of bread consecrated bread could not truly properly be tearmed the body of Christ but a sole part and parcell therof Agayne we haue no reason to belieue that the body of CHRIST is truly and really in the Sacrament but only to the end that it may in the Supper be truly and really (n) Augustin cont aduersus Legis Prophet c. 9. Fidele corde ore suscipimus Cyprian de lapsis Tertullian lib. de resur Caro corpore Christi vescitur Iren. l. 5. c. 2. Nissen orat Cathec Chrysost homil 83. in 1. ad Cor. Leo serm 6. de ieiunio 7. mensis eaten to nourish and feed mens soules And if it be eaten only mentally by fayth we haue no ground to thinke that it is present more then mentally by fayth this presence being ordayned vnto the māducation thereof for else why did Christ institute this Sacrament vnder the elemēts of bread wine But if Christ be not present wholy and totally vnder the forme of bread he cannot be truly and really eaten why then is his body brought from heauen to be there really present Or how can the body of Christ being coextended in place according to the naturall dimensions therof enter into the mouth of the worthy receauer yea in at the mouth of the (o) When some Fathers seeme to say that the wicked eate not Christs body they meane they do not eate it fruitfully or thriue in soule by the eating therof As we commonly say of mē that thriue not by eating that they do not eate their meat as Beda super Exod. Infidelis carne Christi non vescitur S. Cyrill Hilary Chrysostome Origen and others quoted by the Minister p. 407. speake not of meere corporal eating but of eating by Fayth and thus Infidells and wicked persons do not eate the body of Christ. S. Augustin in Ioan. tract 27. saying that the wicked receaue not rem Sacramenti the thing of the Sacramēt by the thing of the Sacramēt meaneth grace not the body of Christ. And tract 59. saying that Iudas did eate panem Domini the bread of the Lord non panem Dominum not bread that was the Lord he meaneth that Iudas in his owne persuasion and fayth did not eate the bread that was the Lord yet he did eate the bread that was the Lord according to truth in the fayth of the Church Iudas sayth he Ep. 162. tooke that which the FAITHFVLL know to be the price of their Redemption wicked and vnworthy receauer as Fathers teach Wherefore seing we must of necessity graunt as I haue proued that some part of the body of Christ is vnder consecrated bread penetrating the same occupying the same place with it why shold we doubt to belieue the whole body of Christ to be wholy and totally in euery consecrated hoast For if we can belieue that two bodyes be in the same place at once we may as easily belieue the same of twenty And if we graunt that one part of Christs body doth penetrate that is doth occupy the same roome with the quantity of bread why should we not thinke that the rest of his parts may also do the like Our Sauiour sayth Matth. 19. That it is more easy for a Camell to passe through a needles eye then for a rich man to enter into the Kingdome of heauen adding though these things be impossible vnto men yet all is possible vnto God If then God can put a whole Camell into the eye of a needle is not he able to put the whole body of Christ within the bignes of a consecrated hoast The body of Christ which being mortall passible could penetrate the body of his mother come out of her wombe through the same still remayning entyre as we professe in the Creed to belieue Natum de Maria Virgine why may not the same body being now glorious immortall and as the Apostle speakes spirituall penetrate the quantity of bread and inclose it selfe wholy and entierly within the small compasse therof Christ that made heauy things not to weigh as the body of Peter walking on the water Matth. 14.16 coloured thinges not to be seene as his owne person which he so oft made inuisible to the Iewes bright thinges not to shine as his body after his Resurrection more bright then the Sunne did not shine in so many apparitions to his disciples finally a flaming furnace not to burne the bodyes of the three children cast into the midst thereof why may not he keep
a thing is fundamentally composed Hence Fire Ayre Water Earth as also the Letters of the Alphabet be tearmed Elements because both are primordiall simples and substantial parts the one of mixed substances the other of wordes and sentences Now the body and bloud of Christ as also bread wine being corporall substances the primordiall simples and substantiall principles wherof their nature is originally composed be substantiall matter forme as euery Philosopher knowes Ergo Transelementation of bread wine into Christs body and bloud doth import that bread and wine be changed into Christs body bloud according to their Elements that is matter forme Is not this Transubstantiation The second reason is because in Transelementation matter doth no more remayne then in Transubstantiation so your deuised difference betwixt them is false For as when Transelementation is partiall that is according to forme only the matter remaynes so likewise in Transubstantiation For example when wood is turned into fyre the forme being destroyed the matter remayneth As wood by this change may be sayd to be Transelemented into fire because it is changed into fire according to the forme which is one element of wood so likewise it may be sayd to be Transubstantiated into fire because it is changed into fire according to the forme which is one part of the substance of wood Though Christians do not vse so to speake because aswel the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Grecian Church as the word Transubstantiation by the latin be consecrated to signify the substantiall change in the Eucharist which is totall according to both elements substantiall parts Thirdly I thus argue The Minister grants that Transelementation doth import an essētial change or a chāge according to the essentiall forme of bread into Christs body but this cannot be according to the essentiall forme only not also according to the essentiall matter of bread else the body of Christ should be made bigger by the matter of bread changed into it as we see the fire to be made bigger by the matter of wood remayning after the conuersion therof into fire Ergo seing the Minister grants that Trāselementation imports an essentiall chāge he must if he will not be ridiculously absurd consequently grant that this change is to tall else the body of Christ shal be augmēted by the material additiō of bread vnto it Fourthly this is proued by the Fathers appropriation of this word vnto the mystery of the holy Eucharist For did not Transelementation of bread wine into Christs body blood import a substantiall change but only an accidental mystical significatiue conuersion of them I aske First why do the Fathers neuer say that the water of Baptisme is Transelemēted into Christs bloud as wel as they say that wine is Trāselemented into his bloud For thus they might haue spoken of Baptisme as well as of the Eucharist had they been of the Protestants Religion which is that water is mystically and significatiuely made Christs bloud in Baptisme as much as wine in the Eucharist Secōdly why do the Fathers neuer say that our bodyes in the day of iudgment are Transelemēted into Christs body but only as the Minister cites S. Nissen orat Catechist c. 34. transmutantur they be transmuted why this but because transmutation being a Generall tearme signifyes any mutation whether substantial or accidental whereas Transelementation cannot import but a substantial change Finally why do the Fathers neuer say that mans soule is by grace charity Transelemented into Christ into whome the same is mystically changed Theophilact indeed cited by the Minister in Ioan. c. 6. v. 56. saith that a man is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a manner Transelemented into Christ as he might no lesse truly haue sayd in a manner Transubstantiated into Christ but that men are by grace Transelemented into Christ they neuer say Which be manifest signes that the Fathers vnderstood by Transelementation according to the proper naturall signification of the word a substantiall conuersion not only an accidental much lesse a meere mysticall change III. S. Cyrill sayth the Minister by the words Conuerting bread and wine into the verity of his owne flesh vnderstandeth not Popish Transubstantiation but mysticall Sacramentall Conuersion to wit Conuersion of signification vse operation For he speaketh of bread wine according to their whole nature contayning substance accidents but the accidents are only mystically conuerted into Christ his body Answere This myst which the Minister would cast vpon this matter by the tearme of mystical cōuersion serues only to catch Woodcocks for euery man of iudgment may presently see that this sense cannot stand with the words of S. Cyrill For S. Cyrill sayth that did men see and feele what is inwardly done in consecrated bread wine men should find horrour to feed theron because they should see and feele that they eate and drinke flesh bloud Hence that this may not be perceaued he sayth the conuersion of bread wine is done inwardly by Christs penetratiue power conuerting them into the verity of his flesh and bloud But did men see what is inwardly done in bread wine by the Protestant significatiue conuersion they would feele no horrour for in their Tenet no change at all is made inwardly in bread but the whole outward substance is assumed as an Instrument to sanctify the soule If a Christian should see this conuersion of vse operation should he see I say that bread is eleuated to produce sanctifying grace in his soule why should he feele horrour to feed thereon So that it is not only willfulnes against the light of truth but also folly to expound this place of S. Cyrill of meere mysticall significatiue change IIII. Vnto this Testimony of S. Chrysostome the Minister replyeth in these words The Father sayth not that nothing of the substance is left but the cleane the cōtrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing of the substance goeth away the words which follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are falsely translated for they are not Is consumed by the substance but Is coabsumed with the substance Also the substance of bread is not consumed by the body of Christ according to the Tenet of many Scholemen The substance of the externall elements passeth into the body of the receauer is consumed or vnited to the flesh of the receauer Answere This your Reply toucheth two points first the Translation secondly the sense of this place I will discouer your vanity about both As concerning the first you shew your selfe to be a wrangler and giuen vnto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by S. Paul labouring to make those sayings to be dissonant and contrary betwixt which there is not any difference in respect of sense What disagreement in respect of sense is there between these two sentences which you say be contrary When wax is put into the fire nothing of the substance thereof is
there may be great merit and excellent Fayth if it be a truth and on the other side though which is impossible it should be false yet in belieuing it we shall not fall into any damnable errour For although we suppose this vnpossible case yet what can be layd to our charge which we may not defend and iustify by all the rules of equity and reason If we be accused that we tooke bread to be the body of Christ adoring the same as God so committing Idolatry we may defend that both for soule and body we are innocent heerin For seing the body is not made guilty but by a guilty mind euen our body may plead not guilty seing our mind our thoughts our deuotiō were totally referred vnto Christ whom we truly apprehend by faith as veyled with the accidents of bread and so may repell the reproach of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread-worshippers with saying Quae vouit mens est pani nil vouimus illâ Neyther did we belieue that the bread was changed into Christs body vpō slight reasons or mooued by the fancyes of our own head but contrary to our fancyes out of reuerence to the (q) The Minister here contradicting himselfe sayth that Trāsubstantiation is not inuolued in the litterall sense of Gods word And further that the same was neuer defined in Generall Councells For as the Ariās would allow no Councell to be lawfull which condemned Arius so with these mē no Councell is lawfull vpon which Iohn Caluin will not bestow his Blessing Otherwise why should not the Lateran Councell vnder Innocent the third and the second Councell of Nice celebrated aboue eight hūdred years agoe where the substātiue reall presence is defined and the figuratiue condemned be lawful general in which both the Latin and Grecian Church did concurre to define expresse wordes of Christ This is my body A sense declared by most ancient Fathers defined by many Generall Councels deliuered by full consent of our Ancestours so practised in the Church for many ages without any knowne beginning Finally confirmed with the most credible cōstant report of innumerable (r) The Minister sayth that these Miracles be but the lyes of Fryars which he proues by a iest that was rife in the mouth of Wickliffifts Est Frater Ergo mendax Answer The miracles done in proofe of the Corporall and substantiall permanent presence of Christs body in the Eucharist are related by most auncient Fathers and writers of which many whole Townes Cittyes and Countreyes haue been eye witnesses as it were madnes to questiō thē These may be read in Ioannes Garetius who hath gathered them together as also in Iudocus Coccius The Prouerbe He is Fryar Ergo a lyar is true of such Fryars as Martin Luther Bucer Peter Martyr Fryar Barnes and the like founders and pillars of the fifth Gospell And if the matter be looked into without passiō this inference Est Minister Ergo mēdax will seeme more iustifiable euen in Caluins iudgement who sayth that most of them that shew most zeale are ful of falshod fraud lying Hierom Zanchius a famous Protestāt in the Preface of his booke contra Arianum Anonymū saith of Ministers That euen they who are tearmed Pillars of the Ghospell are for the most part impudēt lying companions that out-face the truth euery way thereupon exclayming O Tempora O Mores most euidēt miracles Can a Christian belieue any point of religion vpon surer grounds And if God at the day of Iudgement will condemne none but such as liuing in this world wronged him in his honour why should Catholikes feare any hard sentence in respect of their prōpt credulity of Transubstātiation that is of Gods word takē in the playne proper sense Is it any iniury to his verity that they deny their senses correct their imaginatiōs reforme their discourses abnegate their iudgments rather then not to belieue what to them seemeth his word Is it iniury to his power to be perswaded that he can doe things incomprehēsible without number put the same body in innumerable places at once make a body occupy no place yet remayne a quantitatiue substance in it selfe Is it iniury to his charity to thinke that loue vnto men makes him vnite himselfe really and substantially with them to be as it were incarnate anew in euery particular faythfull man entring really into their bodyes to signify efficaciously his inward cōiunction by spirit vnto their soules Finally is it any iniury to his wisdome to belieue that to satisfy on the one side the will of his Father that would haue him euer in heauen sitting at his right hād on the other side the ardency of his owne affection vnto men desiring to be perpetually with them he inuented a manner how still remaining glorious in heauē he might also be continually on earth with his Church secretly not to take from them the merit of Fayth yet to affoard full satisfaction to his owne loue really by continuall personall presence and most intime coniunction with them On the other side it imports them that thinke Transubstantiation impossible or that God cannot put the same body in different places at once to consider if they erre easy it is for men to erre that with the compasse of their vnderstanding measure the power of God how dangerous inexcusable their errour will prooue when they shal be called to giue vnto their omnipotent maker a finall account particularly of this doctrine so much derogating from him Let them thinke how they will answere if God lay to their charge the neglect of that most prudent reasonable aduise which S. Chrysostome Homil. 83. in Mat. giues Let vs belieue God sayth he let vs not resist his word though the same seeme absurd vnto our cogitation sense for his speach doth surpasse our reason and sense his words cannot deceaue vs but our senses be deceaued easily and often How will they reply if they be pressed with the interrogatory which S. Cyrill l. 12. in Ioan. makes vnto such vnbelieuers If thou couldst not comprehend the diuine operation of God why didest thou not accuse the imbecillity of mans wit rather then the omnipotency of God Or how disputing proposing so many Arguments agaynst Gods power reiecting or questioning the same because they could not vnderstand it neuer called they to mynd the saying (s) August lib. 12. de Ciuit c. 11. of Saint Augustine Ecce quibus argumentis Diuinae omnipotentiae humana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas THE SEAVENTH POINT Communion (*) Note that the holy Eucharist is both a Sacrifice and a Sacrament A Sacrifice as offered vnto God for thansgiuing and remission of sinnes A Sacrament as receaued by mē for the foode sanctification of their soules It is a Sacrifice because a liuely and expresse representation of Christs bloudy Sacrifice on the Crosse. It is a Sacramēt because representing exhibiting Christ Iesus as the full and all-sufficient
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
them all only What reason then is there to extend the words Drinke yee all of this further then to all the Apostles Secondly these words Accipite (*) The Minister p. 490. saith If Bibite do not import a precept that the people receaue the Sacrament in the forme of wine thē Māducate doth not inforce a precept that they receaue vnder the forme of bread and so they shall be boūd to receaue neyther in one kind nor in both Answere The word Manducate was spoken personally to the Apostles only as much as Bibite and so by vertue of this word we cannot bind the people to receaue vnder the forme of bread Notwithstanding by other texts of Scripture we prooue thē to be bound to receaue by eating the Sacred bread For the precept doe this in remēbrance of mee was spoken only after the consecration of the bread as appeares by the Gospell But your selfe say pag. 490. lin 7. That these wordes were spoken to the People respectiuely and in part to wit that they receaue though not consecrate administer the Sacrament in the forme of bread Therefore though the word Manducate do not yet other wordes of the Institutiō do inforce a precept to receaue in the forme of bread manducate bibite Take eate drinke were certainly spoken vnto the same persons and they runne so togeather in ranke that no man can with probability make the one out-runne the other But the Commaund Accipite which signifyes take with your hands for it is a precept distinct from mādacate which is take with your mouth was giuen to the Apostles only not vnto al the faythfull else we must say that all Communicants are bound to take the consecrated bread Cup with their hands Who euer heard of such a precept in the Christian Church The third reason is because there was a peculiar and personall cause why Christ should giue that peculiar counsell or admonition for the Imperatiue word doth not euer signify a precept but often an aduise or a permission as your Maiesty well knowes to his Apostles at that tyme (x) When the finall cause end of the precept is personall then the sense of precept is personall The end of Christs saying Drinke yee all of this was personall to wit that all the Apostles should drinke of the same indiuiduall Cupp without new consecration filling Ergo the sense of the precept is personall only concernes those twelue persons to wit because he would haue them all not only drinke of his bloud but also would haue them drinke of the same Cup without filling consecrating the same anew This is more manifest in the Protestants opinion who thinke the Chalice whereof Christ sayd in S. Matthew Bibite ex hoc omnes to be the same wherof he sayd by (y) Luc. 22.18 Saint Marke Accipite diuidite inter vos non enim bibam ampliùs de hoc genimine vitis For this being supposed Drinke yee all of this imports the same as Deuide this Cup amongst you But deuide this Cup amongst you was a personall precept giuen to all the Apostles importing that euery one should drinke but a part of that Cup that also in such a measure as the Cup without new filling and consecration might suffice for all to drinke thereof (z) What the Minister sayth That the precept is that all men drinke not of the same indiuiduall but of the same specificall Cup is idle For Christs words deuide this Cup amōgst you import drinke yee all of this indiuiduall Cuppe If one should bestow a quart of wine vpon 4. persōs saying Deuide this amongst you were it not ridiculous to interprete his speach that he meanes not Drinke yee all of this indiuidual quart but of a quart of the same kind If two of the cōpany should drinke vp that whole indiuiduall quart being challēdged by the other to haue done agaynst the order of the giuer who would not laugh should they answere as our Minister teacheth them that Deuide this Cupp amongst you imports not drinke all of this indiuiduall Cupp but of a Cupp of the same kind So that howsoeuer the Minister in this place doe rayle bitterly and bragg mightely yet his Reply is ridiculous and agaynst common sense What all men in the world Or all Christians that should succeed them to the worlds end Christ neuer intended that one Cup for all nor is it indeed deuided or parted with vs but the Apostles dranke it vp amongst them Wherfore referring my sayings to your Maiesties learned censure I conclude that to me it seemes cleere that the precept or rather direction Drinke yee all of this was but personal confined vnto the nūber of all there then present (*) The Minister pag. 489. bringes foure arguments to proue that the wordes of Christ Drinke yee all of this command all the faythfull to drinke which arguments though very poore ones shall be answered The first is What Christ sayd to the Apostles Paul sayd to the whole multitude of the faythfull 1. Cor. 11.28 Answere S. Paul neuer sayd the wordes drinke yee all of this to all the faythfull yea the same are not found in all the Epistles of S. Paul for 1. Cor. 11.28 he only sayth let a man proue himselfe and so eate of that bread and drinke of that Cupp which wordes as euery man in his senses must needes perceaue do not import a precept to receaue in both kinds but only that no man receaue in both kinds or in one kind without first trying himselfe whether he be worthy What you cite out of S. Hieroms commentary Coenam Domini oportet esse communem only signifyes that the Sacrament is for all men aswell for the poore as for the rich agaynst which some Corinthians erred scorning to receaue in the Company of the poore The second If Communion in both kinds hath no foundation in Gods word then Communion in one kind hath no foundation in Gods word Answere The lawfullnes of Communion in both kinds the lawfullnes of Communion in one kind haue foundation in Gods word and so to vse the one or the other is not agaynst the Diuine law But a Diuine precept to receaue in one kind or in both kinds hath no foundatiō in Gods word as being but a fond Ministeriall fancy The word of God doth command to receaue at least vnder the forme of bread but to receaue in the same only without the Cupp is no Diuine precept The third Argument If the reason why the Apostles receaued the Cupp was because they were Priests then all Priests being present at Communion ought to receaue in both kinds though they administer not Answere If the reason why the Apostles receaued the Cup was not because they were Priests but as the Iesuit proueth by the Gospell because Christ would haue it so saying vnto them Drinke yee all of this indiuiduall Cupp then is the Ministers argumēt idle and impertinent Such also is
his fourth argumēt wherein he would proue that the Apostles were not made Priests by the wordes Doe this For suppose they were not made Priests by that speach how will he thence conclude that the words Drinke yee all of this were not spoken personally vnto the twelue cōmanding them to drinke all of the same indiuidual Cupp Besides in the two arguments to proue the Apostles were not made Priests by the word Do this he shews intolerable ignorance The first is what force is there in these wordes Do this to conclude Priestly ordination Answere Are you a Doctour and do not know that the word of the Almighty hath force to giue men power commission authority to do what he doth command them to doe Christ by the word Do this commanded the Apostles to do what he had done that is to consecrate bread and wine into his body and blood to receaue and consume the same to giue them to the faythfull Ergo by saying Do this he gaue them power commission authority not only to receaue themselues but also to consecrate and giue vnto others his holy body and blood which is the power and office of Priesthood Secondly If say you Do this proueth Priesthood then lay men are Priests when the wordes Doe this be spoken to them in part or respectiuely Answere Doe not you feele how you bewray the weakenes and vanity of your argument in your very proposition thereof You say the wordes Do this be spoken vnto lay men but in part that is they command them to receaue but not to consecrate and giue the Sacrament vnto others But the power or commission only to receaue the Sacrament is not Priesthood but the commission to consecrate administer the same vnto others Therefore the wordes Doe this do not make them Priests to whome in part respectiuely but to whom they are spoken absolutely in the full sense Another text of the Scripture some vrge to proue that Communion vnder one kinde is commāded to wit the famous place out of S. Iohn (a) Ioan. 6.59 Except yee eate the flesh drinke the bloud of the Sonne of Man you shall not haue life in you Where our Sauiour vnder the penalty of loosing eternall life commaūds not only eating but also drinking Perchance your Maiesty doth not stand much vpon this as not belieuing that Chapter of Saint Iohn to concerne the Sacramentall sumption of our Sauiours flesh as also some learned Catholiks hold Notwithstanding though we grant that Chapter to concerne the eating and drinking in the Sacrament as most of the Fathers teach yet this obiection may be easily satisfyed by the former Principles For as we distinguish in the Sacrament the substance the manner the substance being to receaue the body of Christ the manner in both kindes by formall eating and drinking So the same distinction is to be made in our Sauiours precept about this Sacrament For howsoeuer his words may sound of the manner of receauing in both kinds yet his intention is to commaund no more then the substance to wit that we really receaue his body and bloud which may be done vnder one kind This may be made cleere by the Precept our Sauior hath giuē about another Sacrament to wit Baptisme where though his words seeme to define the manner yet his mind was but to determine the substance He sayth (b) Matt. 28.18 to his Apostles Baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost To Baptize signifyes the same that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not to wet or sprinckle with water but to put and plunge into water by immersiō bathing them in water in which respect Baptisme is tearmed by the Apostle (c) Tit. 3.4 the Lauer or bath of the renouation of the holy Ghost And yet because the Church teacheth Baptisme by aspersion or sprinckling to be sufficient substantiall Baptisme no lesse then Baptisme by immersion christiās must do interpret the words of Christ Baptize that is plūge into the water all Nations to command only cleansing washing in substance not the manner thereof by immersion as his words may seeme to import and the Primitiue Church did the first 600. yeares practise In like sort the wordes Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you be preceptiue no further then they signify reall receauing of his body and bloud not the manner of both kindes as may appeare by the intention of the commandement For as Christ gaue this precept of eating and drinking only to the end that we might haue life in vs so likewise he meant to cōmaund the same no further then it was necessary to this end But eating formally the body of Christ vnder the forme of bread and (d) What the Minister saith that the receauing the blood of Christ Virtually as being by Concomitācy ioyned with the body is spirituall receauing and not Sacramentall is false For only iust and holy men receaue the body of Christ spiritually But wicked mē receaue the blood of Christ together with his body by Concomitancy Therefore this virtuall receauing of Christs blood is corporall and Sacramentall and not only spirituall virtually and implicitely his bloud as conteined within his sacred body sufficeth that we may haue life in vs as he promiseth in the same place v. 59. He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer what necessity then is there to vnderstand this precept of formall receauing in both kinds But further I add the coniunctiue particle Et and frequently signifyes disiunctiuely the same that vel or as Argentum aurum non est mihi (e) Act. 3.6 and particularly of this Sacrament (f) 1. Cor. 11.20 He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh damnation the sense is disiunctiue Eateth or drinketh vnworthily In this sort Except you eate and drinke is to be vnderstood disiunctiuely Except you eate the flesh or drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in you Which disiunctiue sense to be the sense intended in this place may be proued because else Christ should be contrary to himselfe For seeing in the verse 59. of this Chapter he promiseth life eternall to eating only Qui māducat hunc panē viuit in aeternum If in the 94. verse of the same Chapter he require vnto life euerlasting eating and drinking both he should in the space of a few lines speake contraryes And because this is impossible THIs last answer is truest may be inuincibly proued by Scripture First it cānot be denyed that in Scripture the particle Et and is takē disiunctiuely as the Iesuit proueth in the text the Minister granteth Secondly whensoeuer two thinges are required to one the same end for which ech a part is sufficient then the particle Et and must needs be vnderstood disiunctiuely to
locus c teach gathering their opinion of this his sanctiiy from the Scripture and yet extremely penitentiall was he in his continuall praying fasting lying on the ground enduring cold wind weather his wearing continually a rough hayre-cloath whereof Saint Paulinus writes (n) Paulin. ep 11. ad Seuerum Vestis erat curui setis compacta Cameli Contra Luxuriam molles duraret vt artus Arceretque graues compuncto corpore somnos What a mighty masse of superabounding (o) That Saints can make superaboundant satisfaction is also proued by the sayings of the Minister in the Cēsure Sect. 4. §. 5. Satisfactions were gathered from the life of this Saint alone The Prophets of the old Testamēt what afflictions did they endure Which Saint Paul (p) Ad Heb. 11.36 gathers togeather in the eleauenth Chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews being neuertheles men of most holy life innocent and without any grieuous sinnes (q) 1. Cor. 4.2 Cor. 11 That the world was vnworthy of them As also the Apostles whose labours were intollerable specially such as Saint Paul records endured by himselfe who yet after Baptisme in which his sinnes were fully and certainly remitted neuer did grieuously offend God The labours (r) Cypr. l. 4. epist. 2. and torments of Martyrs were extreme and yet any the least Martyrdome is sufficient to satisfy for any great multitude of offences (s) Aug. tract 64. in Ioan quoad reatum culpae poenae Of whose merits the Church in the primitiue times did make most account to whom afterwards succeeded another kind of Martyrdome (t) Ber. serm 41. in Cantica Terrore quidem mitius sed diuturnitate molestius of holy Confessours specially of many most holy Eremites These manifold afflictions endured by Saints far aboue measure of the temporall penalty which after the eternal was graciously remitted did remayne due to their offences did not perish nor were forgottē but were layd vp in the memory of God The third Proposition The treasure of the Church consisteth principally of the superabundāt satisfactions of Christ who did endure much more then was necessary for the Redemption of man wherewith are ioyned the satisfactions of Saints We ioyne the satisfactions of Saints with the satisfactiō of Christ in the Churches treasure not because we belieue the bloud of Christ to be insufficient alone to satisfy for sinnes nisi velut arescentis exhausti defectus aliunde suppleatur sufficiatur as mistakingly not to say calumniously Caluin lib. 4. Instit. cap. 9. n. 39. reporteth of vs. For Pope Clement the 6. whome Protestants accuse as the first Authour of this Treasure affirmes euen in his Cōstitution about this matter that the bloud of Christ is of an infinite price and euery drop therof sufficient to ctncell the sinnes of the whole world The reasons of this coniunction are these three First That penall workes of Saints as they are satisfactory be not without fruit for being satisfactory and not hauing the effect of satisfaction in their owne innocent vndefiled persons they wil be without this fruit and effect except they be applyed vnto others that are poore and needy in whome satisfaction is scant and the debt of temporall payne abounds The second is The glory of Christ whose meritts were so powerfull as to purchase to the church of God such excellent admirable Saints so pure of life so feruent in pennance as their satisfactions might suffice to pay the debt of temporall payne due vnto others The third reason is to make men loue the Church and society of Saints wherby they come to be partakers of the aboundācy of her treasures to pay their grieuous debts This is that comfortable Article of the Apostles put downe in the Creed to be knowne of euery one The Communiō of Saints This is that which made King Dauid exult saying (a) Psal. 118. vers 63. I am partaker with all them that feare thee keepe thy Cōmaundments And in this respect the Apostle exhorteth vs (b) Coloss. 1. v. 12. Gratias agamus Deo Patri qui dignos nos fecit in partem sortis Sanctorum in lumine This is that which the same Apostle writes to the Corinthians 1.8.14 exhorting them to be liberall towards Titus and Luke For the present let your aboundance in temporall goods supply their want that also their aboundance in pious works may be a supplement vnto your want This hope to supply in this kind the spirituall need of Christians by the aboundance of his sufferings made Saint Paul so much reioyce in them (c) Coloss. 1. 24. I ioye sayth he in my sufferings for you and I make full the things that want of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh for his body which is the Church And agayne (d) 2. Cor. 12.15 Cupio impendi superimpendi pro vobis Out of which words (e) Origen hom 10. in Num. Origen gathers that S. Paul as a kind of victime or sacrifice did expiate the sinns of others not satisfying for the Iniury agaynst God nor for the eternall punishment due but for one outward and transitory effect of sinne to wit the debt of temporall payne In this sense also Saint Augustine interpreteth the former words of the Apostle of suffering in his body the things wanting of the sufferings of Christ (f) Aug. in ep 61. Patitur Christus in membris suis id est in nobis ipsis ad communem hanc quasi Republicam Nam quisque pro modulo nostro exoluimus quod debemus pro posse virium nostrarum quasi canonem passionum inferimus paratoriâ plenariâ Christ suffereth in his members that is euen in vs as for a Cōmonwealth for euery one of vs payeth his owne debt according to his meane power according to his forces puts into the plenary Storehouse a certayne measure of sufferings This was the practise of the Primitiue Church which at the petition of constant Confessours in prison did relieue the penaltyes that sinners were enioyned to performe to satisfy not only the discipline of the Church but also the wrath of God after the remission of sinne still continuing vnto the infliction of temporall payne as appeareth by the testimonyes of (g) Cypr. l. 3. ep 15. Saint Cyprian And that this relaxation of temporall payne was done by applying the aboūdant satisfaction of holy Confessours and designed Martyrs vnto the Penitents that receaued Indulgence at their intercessions appeares by Tertullian For he falling from the Church into the errours of Montanus whereof one was That for Christians sinning after Baptisme there was no remission of sinne refutes the Catholike custome of remitting penaltyes vnto sinners for the merits of Martyrs speaking thus (h) Tertul. lib. de pudicit cap. 22. Let it suffice the Martyrs they haue cancelled satisfied for their own sins It is ingratitude or pride for one prodigally to cast abroad vpō others that which as a great
say his sufferings as examples were perfect and full yet were supplyed by Saint Paul why may not the same sufferings as satisfactions be supplyed by S. Paul without being imperfect For Saint Paul is sayd to supply the sufferings of Christ as satisfactory not because they were not of infinit value but because God will haue the satisfactions of his seruants to be ioyned with Christs that Christs may haue their full effect euen to the cancelling of the debt of temporall payne Minister pag. 564. The indulgences Tertullian opposed were the same whereof S. Cyprian speaketh Epist. 10.11.12 to wit relaxation of Canonicall censures and pennances to notorious sinners at the request of martyrs liuing in prison Answere It is true Tertullian being an Heretike opposed such indulgences as S. Cyprian doth mention as allowed in the Catholike Church But that these indulgences were only relaxations of Canonicall pennances censures you say but shew not yea that the pennances released were required in foro conscientiae to satisfy Gods anger appeareth by S. Cyprian his words in that tenth Epistle by you mentioned Deo patri misericordi satisfacere pro delictis suis poenitentiam agentes possunt And that penitents to make this full satisfaction vnto God and so obtayne pardon were holpen by the suffrages of Martyrs the same Saint Cyprian doth affirme Epist. 13. They who haue receaued bills from the Martyrs to be released of their Pennance may by the PREROGATIVE OF MARTYRS BE HOLPEN WITH GOD. And Epist. 14. They who bring the Bills from the Martyrs may by THEIR HELP BE AYDED IN THEIR SINNES This Catholike practise of pardoning vnto Penitents the reserued temporall penalty by the application of Martyrs suffrages satisfactions to haue byn impugned by Tertullian in his heresy is manifest by his making the Penitent in an heretical humour to say to the Martyr who applyed his satisfaction for his pardon If thou be a sinner thou needest satisfaction and pardon thy selfe How then can thine oyle of satisfaction be sufficient both for thee and me Also the Martyrs that sued for pardon to be giuen to the penitents he accuseth of Prodigality therin which is a signe that Martyrs bestowed something that was their owne vpon penitents that they by vertue thereof might be pardoned which cannot be any thing besides their own sufferings according as they were satisfactory for sinne Minister pag. 565. The aduersary is so farre from being able to proue Popes pardons in Tertullians dayes That he caÌ„not proue they had any being in the dayes of Peter Lombard or Hugo Victor Answere Still you shew your selfe to be a bold affirmer about things you know not For what more euideÌ„t falshood then this you vent That Indulgences had not any being in the dayes of Peter Lombard The Waldensian Sect was in being in the dayes of Peter Lombard as doth witnesse Illyricus in catalog Test. colum 1498. and they as the same Illyricus doth record ibid. colum 1501. 1511. contemned and derided the indulgences of the Church which they would not haue done but that they saw the same had some being and vse then in the Church Pope Paschall the 2. some yeares before Peter Lombard graunted the Indulgences of 40. dayes to all that were present at the Lateran Generall Councell kept in his tyme as writeth Vrspergens Chron. an 1106. Vrban the second in the yeare 1096. before Peter Lombard was borne in the Generall Councell of Cleremont in France graunted a Plenary Indulgence vnto al that should go to fight for the recouery of the Holy Land yea Leo the third almost foure hundred yeares before Peter Lombard to wit eight hundred yeares agoe as writes S. Lutgerus in vita Sancti Switberti c. 9. did at the request of Charles the Great dedicate the temple of our Blessed Lady of Aquisgraâ—e donans eam multis indulgentijs bestowing many Indulgences vpon it Moreouer The Pope sayth he in France consecrated many Churches euery where graunting many indulgences And agayne The Pope graunted speciall Indulgences vnto the sayd Church for all the faythfull that should keep the feast of Saint Switbert and come on his day to heare diuine seruice Behold how frequent and ordinary a thing it was eight hundred yeares agoe for the Pope to giue out Indulgences which you say had not any being in the dayes of Peter Lombard Not only S. Thomas many Catholikes write that Saint Gregory the Great before the yeare six hundred graunted Indulgences but also Protestants as Fryar Bale Act. Rom. Pontif. printed at Basil Anno 1558. Gregory sayth he did confirme the deuotion of people in visiting images by granting them indulgences And agayne He was the first Pope that did grant Indulgences vnto theÌ„ that should vpon certayne dayes visit Churches And though we cannot directly proue that such generall Indulgences for all the faithfull were vsed before Saint Gregory yet it is not probable that holy Pope would vse it without the example of his predecessors yea had this practise been then nouell the same would haue been noted But whensoeuer the vse of such Indulgences began certayne it is that Personall Indulgences graunted vnto particular persons vpon particular examination of their cause were euer in vse since the Apostles tyme as doth appeare by the former testimony of S. Cyprian Tertullian Minister pag. 566. The holy Scripture teacheth expressely that all spirituall redemption is immediatly wrought by the bloud of Christ who purged sinne by himselfe Hebr. 1.3 But our Aduersaryes restrayne this and the like place to the stayne and eternall guilt of sin saying that the guilt of temporall payne is redeemed by Christ only mediatly by the satisfaction of Saynts Which is agaynst the Apostle Coloss. 2.12 affirming that Christ blotted out the handwriting of decrees contayned in the Law that was agaynst vs and that by himselfe but the temporary punishment is contayned within the latitude of the law Leuit. 26.14 Answere You do not vnderstand the Doctrine of your Aduersaryes or else wittingly misrelate the same For Catholikes distinguish the merit of Christs redemption and the conditions by meanes of which the same is applyed vnto particular persons All spirituall guifts of this life of the future all remissions of sinne eyther mortall or veniall all releasement of punishment eyther eternall or temporall is wrought by way of redemption immediatly only by the bloud Passion of our Sauiour But the condition which God requireth that the same be applyed vnto particular persons is not only the suffering of Christ nor is the same kind of condition required in respect of euery grace Some be giuen vpon condition of meere mercy some not otherwise then according to mens works The guift of iustifying grace is applyed vnto men by the vertue of Sacramtts through Gods only mercy the sinner by fayth pennance and contrition disposing his soule for the reception thereof But the grace and guift of eternall life purchased by Christ his bloud is not applyed