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
Inferences in a matter where you pretend to be very coÌ„fident that you can bringe most inuincible proofes A Controuersy there is betwene yow and vs Whether it be a Diuine inuiolable Ordinance that all Lay men read Scriptures so that the Church be bound by Diuine Precept to translate Scriptures into all vulgar tongues not to take Translations from such persons as abuse them or vse them to their perdition In which question We say yow (n) Reply pag. 278. affirme with great confidence that the reading of holy Scripture by lay people which must needes imply translation of them is a Diuine Ordinance And because the Iesuit said that he could neuer heare nor read in Protestant substantiall proofe out of Scripture of this pretended diuine Ordinance the commonly vrged text Search the scriptures being insufficient You say that you not onely vrge the text Iohn 3.39 which the Iesuit thinketh he can elude by subtile distinctions as the Arrians eluded the text of S. Iohn 10.30 that is solidely answered as (o) Caluin in caput 10. IoaÌ„ circa vers â—0 sayth The auncient Fathers abused this text I my Father are one to proue Christ not consubstantiall with his father For Christ doth not speake of vnity of substance but of vnity of consent betwixt him and his Father Caluin auerreth but other texts of Scripture which you lay togeather on a heape in this (p) Reply pag. 378. sort The Eunuch is coÌ„mended for reading holy Scripture Act. 8.28 The Beroeans are called Noble by the holy Ghost for searching the holy Scripture Act. 17.11 He is called blessed that readeth and heareth Apocalip 1.3 The Galatians read the Scripture Gal. 4.22 The Ephesians c. 3.4 The Colossians c. 4.16 the Thessalonians 1. Thes. 5.27 The Fathers are so plentifull in this Argument as I haue (q) Defence of my Brother pag. 42. elsewhere shewed that it would astonish any man who hath read them to behold such impudency in Papists as to deny the practise to haue beene Primitiue and Catholike But necessity hath no law For if the Scriptures may be suffered to speake Papistry must fall like Dagon before the Arkâ— Thus you giuing vs great cause to commiserate your blindnes that disputing so ignoraÌ„tly you should conclude so arrogantly You haue in the place by you quoted (r) Orthodoxe pag. 42. according to the custome of Heresy brought many testimonyes of Fathers to proue what no man denyes to wit these two things First that it is Pious and Godly to read Scriptures with deuotion with humility with submission of iudgement vnto the teaching of the Church and common Exposition of Catholike Doctours Secondly that the practise of reading by Lay people was common frequent in the Primitiue Church for the time that the learned Languages were vulgarly knowne in which tongues the Church neyther now doth nor euer did prohibit the reading of Scriptures vnto any person These two things we approue so that you are vnaduised might I not say impudent in your affirming that The Papists impudently deny this to haue been a Primitiue practise No we deny not the reading of Scripture with due humility to be pious or to haue been a primitiue practise but onely two proud Noueltyes brought in by your Religion First that it (s) The very wordes of your brother Iohn in His VVay pag. 126. is lawfull yea necessary for euery particular man by the Scripture to EXAMINE and IVDGE of the things the Church teacheth him And when A PRIVATE MAN by Scripture reiects and condemnes the teaching of the GREATEST and BEST CHVRCH that is his IVDGEMENT is not to be taken as PRIVATE but as SPIRITVALL and the PVBLIKE Censure of THE SPIRIT Secondly that all euen Laymen by diuine Pretext and Ordinance are bound to read the Scriptures to haue them in their vulgar languages This your doctrine This your practise we dislike as dangerous as impious as the fountaine of Discord of Heresy and of manifold most damnable errours A doctrine which were it euery where established not Dagon before the Arke but Christianity would fall before and yield vnto the Diuell as some of your side taught by lamentable experience acknowledge and complaine This opinion say they (t) Hooker Ecclesiast Policy pag. 119. being once inserted into the minds of the vulgar what it may grow vnto God onely knoweth Thus much we see it hath already made THOVSANDS so HEADSTRONGE euen in GROSSE and PALPABLE ERRORS as that a maÌ„ whose capacity will scarce serue him to vtter fiue words in sensible manner BLVSHETH not for MATTER of SCRIPTVRE to thinke his owne bare Yea as good as the Nay of all the wise graue and learned men that are in the world which insolency must be represt or it will the VERY BANE of Christian Religion Behold open Confession extorted vpon the racke of Truth by which we may perceaue how fully and handsomely your Doctrine that it is necessary and Diuine Ordinance that euery particular man read Scripture and by it examine and iudge the Churches teaching hath made Dagon to fall before the Arke But leauing the vanity of your bitter vanting let vs examine what demonstrations out of Scripture you bring for your pretended Diuine Ordinance which with so much confidence you auerre If your arguing be idle and ridiculous in this point wherin yow professe to be so confident what may be expected of you in other articles Especially being challenged to shew your vttermost force by your aduersary affirming (u) See the Reply pag. 278. that he could neuer find any solide proofe out of Scripture of this Protestant pretended Diuine ordinance Your arguments be seauen drawne from 7. texts of Scripture in which your Antecedent commonly is eyther false or vncertayne and your inference ridiculous The first The (y) Act. 8.28 Eunuch is commended for reading holy Scripture Ergo it is a diuine Ordinance that ignorant Laymen read Scripture in their vulgar tongue Your Antecedent is more theÌ„ the Scripture doth expresse I read not any direct prayse of him in this respect The Text only (x) Act. 8.28 sayth he was sitting in his Chariot reading the Prophet Esay But suppose he be commended for his reading as it was indeed commendable is it consequent that therefore euery Christian by Diuine order and precept do the like Is euery man bound by diuine precept to doe euery thing for which any person is praysed in Scripture Dauid is commended in Scripture for rising at midnight to prayse God is this Argument good Ergo Euery Christian is bound by diuine precept to rise at midnight Verily this consequence is as good yea better both in respect of forme and matter then is this of yours The Enunch is commended for reading holy Scripture Ergo euery man is bound to read Scripture by diuine ordinance The second is The (z) Act. 17.11 Beroeans are called Noble by the holy Ghost for searching the Scriptures Ergo we may with
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
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
Wisdome and grace see in that modest looke Trueth 's triumph errors downfall in this booke Maerebunt piscatores Isa. 19.8 Tocksonus sculpâ—â—â— THE ANSWERE VNTO The Nine Points of Controuersy Proposed by our late Soueraygne of Famous Memory vnto M. Fisher of the Society of IESVS AND THE REIOYNDER Vnto the Reply of D. Francis VVhite Minister With the Picture of the sayd Minister or Censure of his Writings prefixed Be ready alwayes to giue an ANSWERE to euery one that asketh you a reason of the Hope that is in you 1 Petr. 3. Vers. 15. Permissu Superiorum M.DC.XXVI TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE CHARLES KING OF Great Brittayne France and Ireland c. MOST GRACIOVS SOVERAIGNE These Theologicall Labours which we now publish were vndertaken by Order of our late Soueraygne of Famous Memory for his desired Satisfaction about some of the principall Points which with-held his Royall ioyning vnto the Church of Rome The Authour when he penned them did expect they should haue been kept within the priuate Library of his Princely Reading and not made publike to the World as afterward they were by a Doctour Minister togeather with a Voluminous Reply wherin he seekes to disgrace them by much bitternes of speach vttered in the violence of his Zeale This imposed an Obligation vpon the Authour to reuiew them agayne and to set them forth whole and entiere purged from the faults of hand-writing misprision cleered from the cloudes cast vpon them by ignorant Cauill strenghthened with some new Collaterall Additions of more euident Explication and Proofe Which Labours renewned published we humbly offer vnto your most Excellent Maiesty as vnto the Heyre not only of your Renowned Fathers Dignity and State but also of his Wisdome and Vertue in whome is perpetuated as the Nobility of his Bloud so the Excellency of his Mind And though it be their hard fortune to appeare in your Presence at the time wheÌ„ the light of your Royall Clemency is towardes your Catholicke Subiects eclypsed yet for themselues they confide to find some speciall Fauour not to be forbidden or banished your Maiestyes Dominions in that they be Natiffe of your Royall Fathers Command by the WarraÌ„t of his Authority borne into the World whose Sacred Pleasure through pious Excesse of Filiall Affection You still reuerence after his Discease Neyther can it be for the credit of our Aduersaryes or of their Cause that free Accesse should be denyed vnto these Writings which as themselues testify were by the sound of Authority summoned vnto the Combat vpon supposition that thereby Our weakenes and want of strength would manifestly appeare For thus they write The better to discouer their weaknes D. Whites Preface to plucke them out of their Fox-hole of Personall Succession and visibility the King imposed the Taske of writing vpon the Nine Questions knowing our Aduersaryes to be cunning and subtill in eluding our Arguments but of no strength especially in particular Questions to proue their owne Tenet or to confirme their Fayth by sacred Scripture or Auncient Tradition If after so solemne Inuitation vnto the Combat if after so bold Promises that in these Writings our weakenes would be discouered if after so great assurance giuen to their Credents that we cannot confirme our Religion by Scripture these challenged Writings be stayed by Authority not to enter into the Field this may yield vnto Iudicious Protestants iust reason to suspect that weaknes and want of strength rather lyeth on their side and that the Patrons of their Reformed Religion place their confidence of Victory rather in the Partiality of the State then in the Euidence of the Scripture in the behalfe of their Doctrines And as these Tytles euen the Credit of the Protestant Cause pleade for the free permission of this Booke so the Booke it selfe contaynes nothing that may cause the hinderance of so due a fauour Therin no person in Authority is censured no matter of State touched nothing vttered that may iustly offeÌ„d only the euideÌ„ce of Gods Holy Word is vrged in defence of that Religion which euen in your Royall Iudgment is so farre from being impious in it selfe or an Enemy of your State as You haue by most happy choyce selected the same to be the Consort of your Crowne to be the Parent of those glorious Starres which according to the hope of all Loyall Subiects shal froÌ„ your Maiesties Throne by long continued Succession shine vnto these fortunate Kingdomes who by her euer-honoured Name of MARY but much more by the rare Excellency of her Vertues liuely represents the sweet Memory of your Right Glorious Grand-mother whiles she liued for Princely qualityes the Paragon of Europe and now a singular Ornament of the Heauens in regard of her coÌ„stancy in the Catholike Roman Religion vnto death that her enraged Enemyes not being able to conquer her Immortall Affection vnto the same feared not to shed her no lesse Innocent then Noble Bloud the Fountaine of Your Maiestyes Royall Rights vnto the Kingdoms of Great Brittayne to strike of that Thrice-Venerable Head more Glorious for the lustre of the One Catholike Fayth She maintayned then for the shining gemnes of Three Christian Crownes of which two She wore and the third was vndoubtedly her Due Your Royall Magnanimity timely tokens whereof appeared in your tender Yeares hath engaged the Harts of your Loyall Subiects in a secret Ioy of Hope that God by meanes of your Maiesty will illustrate this Kingdome by many rich Blessings of Temporall Glory In which Hope we are strengthned by the fortunate Name of Charles the First fortunate I say to bring Felicities vpon Kingdomes vnder by which Name France vnder Charles the Great Spayne vnder Charles the fifth Emperour but the first of that Name Kinge of Spayne surnamed Maximus the two mightiest Kingdoms of Europe aduanced to Imperial Dignity grew vnto the highest of worldly Greatnes In which respect it is not any disloyall Affection that we wish in our Harts and pray vnto the Soueraygne MoModeratour in whose hands are the Harts of Princes that he wil incline your Princely Hart to be fauourable vnto that Religion which only hath been Conquerant in former ages that hardly can any Christian King be named Renownedly Victorious that was not a Professour or a Fauourer therof Yea if we call to mind the most famous wonderfull victoryes that haue ennobled the ChristiaÌ„ Name we may find that they were fruits and effects of some Deuotions of the Catholike Roman Fayth questioned proued in this Treatise Constantine the first Christian Emperour surnamed the Great who doth not know that his Conquests were obtayned by his worshipping Euseb. in vita Constantini lib. 3. c. 2. Zozom l. 1. cap. 8. the signe of the Holy Crosse being doubtlesse of a contrary Religion vnto the Prime Religion-deuiser of this age Martin Luther who sayth of himselfe Luther Tom. 1. Wittemberg fol. 539. If I were a Souldier and should see in the field the
as offered to his heauenly Father and consequently as of a thing most highly 〈◊〉 What can be more cleere then that in this discourse not the wood of the Crosse but the payne and passion therof is sayd to haue been admitted into Christs hart and offered to his Father In proofe hereof I omit that your sense is both false and senselesse False because the wood of the Crosse did not enter into the hart of Christ nor the yron of the nayles but only the payne and passion caused by the same and the steele of the Lance though it went into his hart yet this was after his death when he could not offer it to his Father Senselesse because though the Crosse and nayles had been offered vnto God the Father yet could they not be sayd to haue been instruments of his Passion as they were offered For in that case Christs offering of them vnto his Father should haue been an action consequent vpon the Crosses instrumentall operation in payâ—â—â—g and tormenting his body whence the Crosse should not haue been the instrument to torment his body as offered to his Father but contrariwise the Crosse as the instrument tormeÌ„ting his body should haue been offered to his Father Nor will I vrge the drift of the whole discourse which doth most cleerly declare the last clause thereof For the Iesuit by the whole discourse doth intend to shew how the suffering of our Lord as it 〈◊〉 an actioÌ„ proceeding froÌ„ the hart of the wicked is distinct from the same as a passion receaued in his body and intertayned in his heart and offered to his Father for this opposition and the saying It 〈◊〉 receaued It was offered doth most euidently 〈◊〉 that offered to the Father is spoken of the Passion 〈◊〉 of the Crosse and Nayles These argumeÌ„ts I pretermâ—â— and remit vnto our Aduersary and only will stanâ— precisely vpon the Construction of this last clausâ— The Crosse Nayles and lance were instruments of Chriâ—â— Passion as lodged in his sacred Person and offered to 〈◊〉 heauenly Father and therefore as of a thing most high Venerable The wordes as lodged and as offered to 〈◊〉 heauenly Father cannot possibly be referred coâ—â—strued with the Crosse Nayles but only with 〈◊〉 Passion This I proue because to be lodged in Chriâ—â— sacred Person offered to the heaueÌ„ly Father is referreâ— in this speach to that thing which herein is conclâ—â—ded to be a thinge most higly venerable as the 〈◊〉 doth declare as lodged in his sacred Person and offeâ— to his Father and therefore as a thing most highly veâ—â—â—rable Hence lodged and offered being Participles 〈◊〉 Adiectiues must in this speach be of the same Numâ—ber and Case as is the thing thence concluded 〈◊〉 be most highly Venerable Now the thing most higâ— Venerable is in this speach put in the Genetiue 〈◊〉 singular of a thing most highly Venerable therefore lodged in his person and offered to his Father must 〈◊〉 likewyse the Genitiue Case singular How then 〈◊〉 they be construed in speach with Crosse Nayles anâ— Lance that are the Nominatiue Plurall Had the Iâ—â—suit sayd the Crosse the Nayles lance were instrumenâ—â— of Christs Passion as lodged in his person and offered 〈◊〉 his father consequently as most Venerable this speach taken precisely by it selfe had been ambiguous anâ— the former Epiphets lodged offered most Venerabâ—◠〈◊〉 haue been referred vnto the Crosse Nayles 〈◊〉 as vnto the PassioÌ„ But now saying as he doth Instruments of Christs Passion as lodged in his Person offered to his Father and therefore as of a thing most Venerable it is your grosse ignorance or vnaduised rashâ—â—â— if not willfull peruersnesse to referre lodged in his Person and offered to his Father vnto the Crosse Nayles The reproaches you loade on Loyolists so you please to nick-name Iesuits do moue them to take Compassion of you these being tokens of great passion that distempers your Iudgment which the learning of your Aduersary hath put you into For were you not blind with passion would you reuile Iesuits as you doe for Adorers of stockes and stones for prodigious Monsters most sacrilegious more to be detested then Iudas his Lips in respect of their worshipping our Sauiours Crosse Do you not marke that reuiling them in this regard you reuile togeather with them all Christians that haue worshipped that most sacred Wood to wit all the Fathers of the six Primitiue Ages For heare what a learned Father and Famous Antagonist of the Acephali then liuing doth write and witnesse of the Church in those ages (g) Rusticus Diaconus contra Acephalos Clauos quibus crucifixus est Lignum Venerabilis Crucis omnis per mundum Ecclesia sine vlla contradictione adorat The vniuersall Church of Christ spread ouer the world doth adore the Nayles wherwith he was crucifyed and the Wood of the Venerable Crosse without any contradiction because as then Mahoâ—â—t was not borne by whome (h) See Zonoras and Cedrenus in vita Leonis Isaurici and Paulus Diaconus in Miscella lib. 13. vnfortunate Christians were first taught to maligne the worship of their Sauiours Crosse and Image Another Father (i) Hormisda epist. 27. ad Euphem Augustam more auncient and of greater authority sayth Helena salutis humanae LIGNVâ— Crucem quam totus veneratur mundus inuenit Helena found out the Wood of human Saluation which the whole Christian world doth Worshipp What will you say of the Fathers who taught the Deuotes of their tyme (k) Hieron epist. 17. in Epitaph Paulae Prostrata ante crucem quasi pendentem Dominum cerneret adorabat to prostrate theÌ„selues before the Crosse adore as if they saw their Lord hanging thereon Who euen in the tyme of persecution before Constantine did plant the Image of Christ Crucifyed in the Entry of Churches informing Christians that did enter how to behaue themselues towardes it by this verse (l) Lactâ—n in Carm. de pas who liued in the tyme of persecution died in the beginning of the Empire of Constantine Flecte Genu Lignumque Crucis Venerabile adora Bow knee adore the Crosses sacred Wood. The day will come wheÌ„ (m) Matth. 24.3 the signe of the Sonne of Man shall shine in the skye and then the lips of Verity it selfe shall declare who be more to be detested then Iudas his lips Nouell-Gospellers or Auncient Fathers the Enemyes or Honourers of his Crosse when except the Fathers be Prodigious monsters you must be bound vp togeather (n) Alligate ea in fasciculos ad comburendum Matt. 13.30 with Iudas to kisse ech others lips for euer and eternally Grosse and incredible Ignorance in Logicke SECT II. AFTER Grammer and Latin Children are commonly taught Logicke or the Art of Reasoning without which no man can be grounded eyther in Philosophy or Theology Your ignorance in this kind spreads it selfe ouer euery 〈◊〉 of your booke and it is such as an Aduersary 〈◊〉
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
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
with Scripture in so many mayne articles of Controuersy about Fayth whereof some as you (a) pag. 106. confesse are only implicately contayned in the Scripture and must by the rules of Logicke and Deduction be thence wrunge out Finally the Beroeās read the Scriptures only for their greater cofirmatiō in Fayth in case they should find by their priuate reading the doctrine of S. Paul to agree with the Scripture They read not by way of doubtfull examination that is with purpose not to belieue S. Paul if so they should not find the Scriptures to yield playne testimony vnto his doctrine That they read not in this manner is cleere For the Scripture sayth that before they searched the Scripture they receaued the word with all alacrity and readines of mind But if they had been doubtfull of S. Pauls doctrine had to cleere that doubt gone to search the Scriptures it could not haue been truly sayd of them that they receaued the word with alacrity and all readines of mind and afterward searched the Scriptures Therefore they did not search Scriptures by way of doubtfull examination but with full resolution to belieue S. Pauls doctrine euen in case they should not find by their priuate industry the same cleerly deliuered in the Scripture How then may you by this example make good your Protestant doctrine that Vnlearned People may compare the doctrine of the Church with the Scripture in doubting manner that is with intention not to belieue the Church in case they should not be able to discouer her doctrine by priuate reading in their vulgar Bible Or in case that in the seeming of their priuate iudgment the Scripture should appeare as opposite vnto the Church The Text 1. Iohn 1.8 If wee say wee haue no sinne c. falsifyed WHEREAS the Iesuit pag 550. sayth out of S. Ambrose and S. Augustine that the Blessed Virgin neuer committed actuall sinne you pag. 551. reply It is a manifest vntruth For S. Iohn speaking in the person of all the Elect sayth 1. Iohn 1.8 If wee say we haue no sinne we deceaue our selues and there is no truth in vs. And vers 10. If we say we haue not sinned we make him a lyar and his word is not in vs. And pag. 517. much more bitterly thus you write to this purpose If our aduersaries wil be so gracelesse as to make any man in this life except the Holyest of the Holyes 1. Petr. 2.22 free from sinne the Apostle enrolleth him in the blacke booke of damnable lyars 1. Iohn 1.10 And they may with Acesius the Nouatian borrow a ladder and so climbe vp alone to heauen yea rather fall to Hell for who are more desperatly sicke quà m qui mentem febribus perdiderunt then they which by the feauer of pride haue lost the vnderstanding of their sinfull condition Thus you which you cannot deny to be bitter in excesse What is the Iesuits fault No other but this he sayth that not only Christ Iesus the holyest of the holyes was by nature Hypostaticall Vnion impeccable but also (*) Cōcil Trident sess 6. can 23. Sicut de Maria Virgine tenet Ecclesia that his Holy Mother was pure from all actuall sinne by speciall grace And why is this so great and damnable an offence Marry because S. Iohn sayth If wee say wee haue not sinned wee make God a lyar and this he spake not in the person of only ordinary Saynts but in the person of all the Elect euen of Saynts as singularly chosen as the Blessed Virgin This is the ground of your bitternes But first though the Scripture had sayd that all the elect commit actuall sinne yet perchance not without warrant we might except the mother of God but I will not stand herein agaynst you Shew in Gods word this text all the elect haue sinned or this S. Iohn sayd in the person of al the elect If we say we haue no sinne we deceaue our selues the Iesuit presently yieldes What can you wish more But if in the persō of all the Elect be as in truth it is your addition vnto the text ioyned therwith so cunningly as it may seeme the very letter of Gods word what may we thinke of you but only that your rayling agaynst vs is not so bitter but your iniury vnto Gods word is greater I adde that to say S. Iohn spake the aforesayd wordes in the person of all the Elect not only is not the text but also agaynst the text except wee will make S. Iohn excessiue in the conceyte of himselfe For thus I argue It is manifest S. Iohn spake the words aforesayd in the person of such Saynts in the number of which he ranketh himselfe If WEE say that WEE haue no sinne But S. Iohn could not without pride ranke himselfe in the number of Saynts as singularly chosen as was the glorious Virgin so that if the sense of his saying be If we that is Saynts as singularly priuiledged as Gods Blessed mother say wee haue not sinned we deceaue our selues what can be more arrogant Luther (a) Luther Serm. de Natiuit Mariae Sumus pares Matri Dei ac aequè Sancti sicut illa indeed hath left behind him written We are all as holy as the Virgin Mary but that S. Iohn euer sayd it or thought it the Minister will neuer an able to proue So that without any question as also the (b) S. Augustin de nat grat c. 42. 60. Epist. 95. Fathers note S. Iohn spake in the persō only of al cōmon holy Christians among whō he might without pride nūber himself As for your reproaches so many so bitter for two reasons you are to be pityed first for that your passion against the Iesuit is either so blind as you see not what lyeth before you or so fierce as not to spare him you let contumelious tearmes fly that must light on the head of the holy Fathers For this is your cēsure They that hold any except the Holyest of the Holyes to haue been free from actuall sinne are gracelesse are by S. Iohn enrolled in the blacke booke of damnable lyars mentem febribus perdiderunt they haue lost their witts by the phrensy of pride Now vnder this your Censure I subsume a knowne and vndeniable truth But holy Fathers exempt the Blessed Virgen frō actuall sinne not only S. (c) Serm. 2. de Assumpt Bernard S. (d) De excell B. Virg. c. 3. Anselme but also S. (e) Epist. ad Epict. Athanasius S. (f) In cap. 1. Reg. Gregory S. (g) Ser. 22. in Psal. 118. Ambrose yea S. Augustine (h) de Nat. Grat. c. 36. who thus speaketh for them all In matter of sinne no mention is to be made of the mother of our Lord she is not included in the generall sentences of that kind Scimus enim c. For wee KNOVV WEE ARE CERTAINE that vnto her singular Grace was giuē to conquer
(a) Baron an 1089. n. 11. Non eos homicidas arbitramur It is monstrous â—octrine which was hatched by Pope Vrban and approued 〈◊〉 Baronius that they are not to be iudged Murtherers â—hich slay Excommunicate persons As who should say â—ope Vrban and Baronius affirme that to murther â—ny way any Excommunicate persons is no sinne â—ut your slaunder will seeme moÌ„strous when their â—octrine according to truth is set downe This it is Certayne Cleargymen and Schismaticall Priests of â—ewd and dissolute life excommunicated by the Church did agaynst the lawes of the Church take armes and were slayne in the field (b) In a battayle fought betwixt Henry Emperour Egbert Marquesse of Saxony as men may iustly be in lawfull warre Now because the law of the Church censures such as strike Cleargymen they that killed these wicked seditious priests in the field had a scruple and demanded absolution and pennance of their Bishop The Bishop wrote of the matter to Pope Vrban who answered (c) Iuo part 10. c. 54. That although he did not iudge those that thus had killed such Excommunicate persons in the battaile to be murtherers yet that the discipline of the Church might be kept also because such as killed theÌ„ though the fact were lawfull might haue had some sinister and insincere intention therein as doing it out of priuate emnity that therefore the Bishop (d) SecunduÌ„ intentionem eorum modum congruae satisfactionis iniunge should according to their intention desire inioyne them a measure of congruous pennance Hence it followes that it is no sinne to kill any excoÌ„municate person euen Priests when they be inuaders of our life and in iust warre but vniuersally that it is no sinne to kill any excommunicate person what way soeuer is not Pope Vrbans Monstrous Doctrine but a Monster of your ProtestaÌ„t slaundering out of a monstrous desire you haue to delude and enrage men with lyes agaynst the Catholicke Church In the same page 114. lin 29. You thus write of Baronius (e) Baron Anno 1106. n. 14. Cardinall Baronius coÌ„mendeth to the skyes yong Henry the Emperours sonne for rebelling agaynst his naturall Father for deposing imprisoning him and bringing him with sorrow to the graue What Turke or Sauage would be the Encomiast of such vnnaturall and enormous Villany Thus you Let the truth be examined and then it will appeare that Baronius his commendation â—f yong Henry is not to the skye but your slaundeâ—ing of Baronius comes froÌ„ as low as the pit of Hell â—irst it is false according to truth of the History that â—enry the Fourth Emperour dyed of sorrow in the â—estraynt which he had layd vpon him by his Sonne (f) See Baronius ibid. and all other Historians that write of these matters nay he was in that durance vsed with such mildâ—es and liberty as he easily got away gattered forâ—es and inuaded his Sonne who by his owne conâ—ent and by the voyces of all the Electours and â—rinces of the Empire had been made crowned â—mperour This is your first vntruth that Baronius â—rayseth that imprisoning of the Father wherein he â—as brought with sorrow to his graue by his Sonne Secondly Baronius doth not commend yong â—enry at all for that fact but only speaketh conâ—itionally and on both sides no more in his prayse â—en his disprayse For hauing set downe the letters which the Emperour Henry the Elder now being at â—â—berty wrote full of complaynt agaynst his sonne â—aronius thus turneth his speach to the Reader If (g) Baron Tom. 12. pag. 46. â—hou sit Arbiter betwixt the Father the Sonne as for â—he Sonnes procuring his Fathers restraynt and deposition â—rom the Empyre by the Peeres and Princes thereof the â—onne is not to be condemned IF as he pretended HE â—ID this sincerely out of (h) Si verè pietatis intuitu prout prae se tulit ea omnia praestitit PIETY to bringe his Faâ—her vnto a better mind and to make him seeke to be absolâ—ed from Excommunication wherwith he had been so many â—â—mes tyed and chayned On the other side IF as his Faâ—her complaynes HE DID those thinges by wicked plots â—nd stratagems by periury and breaking his oath giuen to â—is Father verily HIS DEED CANNOT DE PRAISED 〈◊〉 wonderfull is the Iustice of God that this Emperour â—â—ould suffer the same persecution from his wicked Sonne which he had by perpetuall incorrigible hatred for many yeares together offered vnto his spirituall Father Thus Baronius Hence it is apparent that as Baronius and Bellarmine were great friends in their life so they are by you slaundered in the same maÌ„ner after their death That Bellarmine may seeme Turkish and guilty of propension to Turcisme you make him say The Scripture affirming a thinge is not therefore to be belieued more then Mahomets Alcoran whereas he only sayth conditionally I should not firmely belieue the Scripture affirming a thinge did I not aforehand belieue the Scripture to be diuine as I do not the Alcoran though it say of it selfe that it is of God EueÌ„ so to make Baronius seeme more sauage then any Turke wheras he sayth conditionally If yonge Henry did restrayne his Father sincerely out of piety for the good of his Father that he might returne to the Church be absolued of excommunication afterward peacebly inioy his Empyre this kind of seuerity was indeed piety you make the proposition absolute and make Baronius say It was piety in the Sonne to vse Cruelty to his Father The Reader I do not doubt seeth the exorbitancy of this false dealing I must needs adde another falsification you (i) Pag. 56. in margin lit c. vse towardes Baronius accusing him as blasphemously extolling the Authority of the Pope in this saying (k) Baron Ann. 373. num â—1 Vt planè appareat ex arbitrio dependisse Romani Pontificis Fidei Decreta sancire sancita mutare Whence it appeareth that it was in the power of the Roman Bishop to establish Decrees of Fayth and to recall the established This you bringe as if Baronius had held the Pope may make and vn-make Decrees about the Truth of Fayth making that to be Truth which before was Errour and that Errour which before was Truth So easily do you belieue charge any Barbarous and Inhumane conceyte vpon Catholicke Authors But he that shall consider attentiuely the Antecedents Consequents of the place will see that Baronius speaketh not of Decrees of Fayth in regard of the truth of Doctrine which are Eternall and so immutable that if the Pope should endeauour to change them he were (l) Decret d. 40. c. 6. Si Papa by Catholicke Doctrine an Heretike and to be deposed but only of decrees of fayth about keeping or denying Communion vnto persons suspected of Heresy in regard of doubtfull propositions This would haue appeared had you cited the wordes of Baronius that immediatly follow This is his whole
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
as by the word of God we know may be graunted only it doth rashly apply Gods extraordinary fauours to persons without sufficient warrant The second errour is that though Baptisme be the ordinary meanes of saluation for Infants yet in defect therof there is also another ordinary meanes for their saluation to wit the fayth of their Parents This errour is grosse because it presumes without the word of God written or vnwritten to appoint an ordinary meanes of saluation for Infants This doctrine is taught by Protestants but no Catholike holds it Caietan once held it with submission vnto the Church which hath razed it out of his bookes The third errour is that the children of faythfull Parents are iustifyed by the promise made to their seed and are Gods adopted children before they be borne so that Baptisme doth not truly regenerate them make them Gods children but is sayd to regenerate and adopt because it is a seale and signe of this grace of adoption which children had before Baptisme yea brought with them into the world This errour is fundamentall and damnable which Protestants hold and will hold in despite of their Church and yet dares she not say they are not her children Caluin de vera Eccles. reform inter eius opuscula fol. 759. writeth The Issue of the faythfull is borne into the world holy and sanctifyed because their children being yet in the wōbe before they draw breath be adopted into the couenant of eternall life For it is necessary that the grace of adoption go before baptisme which grace is not the cause of halfe-saluation but bringeth perfect and full saluation which is afterward signed by Baptisme Thus Caluin What the Minister brings out of the sayd Caluin to proue he held that Baptisme doth truly sanctify to wit that children are regenerated by Baptisme is idle For vnto it Caluin himselfe hath made answere l. 4. Institut c. 15. §. 2. When sayth he Baptisme is sayd to regenerate to renew to sanctify to saue men the meaning is not that our purgation saluation is made by water or that water hath vertue to purify to regenerate to renew but only because by that signe we conceyue knowledge and certitude of such gifts for what is giuen by the message of the Ghospell is signed and sealed by Baptisme Heere also I conclude that eyther the Minister and his Church erres fundamentally or at least they must grant foure thinges First that Caluin and his part erre fundamentally Secondly that Culuinists cannot be saued except they repent themselues of their Religion Thirdly that amongst Protestants there is dissention about fundamentall matters Fourthly that the Protestants do not exclude from their communion such as hold substantiall Heresy necessity thereof for Infants to whom they grant saluation without Baptisme Seauenthly their Errour agaynst the (*) The Minister sayth that Protestants only deny the manner of the Reall Presence to wit Trāsubstantiation not the substance thereof because they hold that the body of Christ is truly really and effectually present to the worthy Receauer but present by the apprehension of the soule and by operatiue fayth pag. 178.179 seq pag. 390. 395. I answere that as the Answerer sayd this Presence by fayth is not Reall nor true but only pious Imagination at the most as is proued in the sixt Poynt Reall presence which they deny or else the mayne article of the Creed that Christ is still in heauen at the right hand of his Father For they will not allow a body in two places at once Eightly their denying the Sacrament of (e) The Minister pag. 189. sayth that Protestants allow auricular Confession and Priestly Absolution but deny it to be a Sacrament or of necessity in proofe whereof he citeth the Augustane Confession Answer If the Minister approue the Augustan confession he must approue priestly absolution to be truly a Sacrament and of necessity being commanded of God euen as Baptisme is For thus they write Cap. de numero vsu Sacramentorum The true Sacraments are Baptisme the supper of the Lord Absolution which is the Sacrament of Pennance For these rytes haue the same commandement of God and promise of grace proper to the new Testament Thus they so euen by the Iudgement of this Confession which they esteeme as containing the fundamētall doctrine of their Religion our Minister and his Church erre fundamentally Pennance and Priestly Absolution the necessary meanes for remission of sin committed after (f) Agaynst this Sacrament the Minister disputeth largely but his arguments are triuiall which he takes out of Bellarmine concealing the Solutions which who will may there read in his first booke of the Sacrament of Pennance What he brings out of some Catholike Authors affirming that it is hard to prooue cleerly this Sacrament the Answer is That to proue the Sacrament of Pennance and the necessity thereof for sinnes after Baptisme by the perpetuall Tradition and practise of the Church is not hard but easy which you may see fully performed by Bellarmine but to prooue the same by some text of Scripture so cleerly as some cauill may not be taken at the argument this is difficill And no wonder seing our Minister pag. 541. lin 9. doth graunt that euen the Principall articles of Religion cannot be so prooued by Scripture but seeming Solutions may be giuen Baptisme Ninthly their denying the Catholike Church expresly set downe in the Creed which of all other Articles is with (g) Other articles are more necessary thē this as sole obiects of necessary diuine affection in this respect are more dangerously denyed But as the meanes of knowing necessary obiects nothing more necessary then this true Church nor any thing more euident therefore the deniall thereof is most dangerous in respect of heresy yea the Article without resistance whereof no man can be Heretike greatest danger denyed For the standing out agaynst this makes men heretikes without erring agaynst this no man is guilty of heresy whatsoeuer Doctour Field to the contrary sayth that an Errant agaynst a fundamentall point is an Heretike though he erre without (h) What the Minister sayth that a man may be pertinacious obstinate against Scripture not against the Church is impossible For eyther he seeth his doctrine to be agaynst Scripture or not if he see his doctrine to be contrary to the Scripture yet holds it he doth Iudge the Scripture not to be Christs nor of God consequently he is pertinacious agaynst the Churches Tradition which as hath been sayd is the stay of our Fayth in this point If he see not his exposition to be agaynst Scripture but is deceyued by conference of places he is not Heretike vntil knowing his exposition to be condemned by the Church he persist therein For what is pertinacious wilfulnes but to resist lawfull authority which we know to be agaynst vs pertinacity wherof he brings not any sillable of proofe
discourse as impertinent This I demonstrate out of his owne wordes First pa. 242. he sayth that the question is not about Diuine and Religious worship of Images but about any kind of reall worship These be his very wordes The question whether Images be to be adored with diuine worship or not is Heterogeneous that is impertinent to this disputation It is sufficient that Papists adore and worship Images with some kind of Reall worship such as the Trident Councell expressely defineth Thus he there professing that to impugne Iconolatry or diuine worship of images is impertinent And yet in the beginning of this disputation he professeth contrarywise to impugne this only Adoration not euery kind of worship of Images Thus he writes pag. 212. The Aduocate of Images should first of all haue declared what he vnderstandeth by worship of Images whether Veneration only or Adoration properly so called Veneration signifies externall reuerence regard of pictures such as is giuen to Churches Communion-Tables and sacred vessels And according to this notion many haue approued worspippe of Images that deny adoration Adoration properly so taken is yelding of honour by Religious submission of soule body c. the worshipping of Images in this māner is superstition Thus the Minister Who to proue that Protestants allow veneration or externall worshippe of Images in his margent citeth Iunius against Bellarmine professing in the name of all Protestants None of vs say Images are not to be worshipped much lesse do we say that they are no waies to be worshipped WE ALLOW that they be worshipped in their kind as Images but not with Religious worshippe Behold how cleerly he grants the question in hand euen asmuch as the answerer intended to proue For what the Minister sayth that the Answerer doth not declare what he vnderstādeth by worshippe whether externall Veneration or internall Adoration is false For he often and cleerly affirmeth that the worship he meanes to proue to be due vnto the Image of our Sauiour is the externall regard the reuerence of bowing such as is vsed towards Aultars and Communion tables out of inward religions reuerence and deuotion vnto Christ. This the Answerer did set down presently in the beginning of his discourse about images and repeates the same almost in euery paragraffe See his text in the Ministers booke pag. 214. Outwardly to the Image inwardly to Christ. pag. 206. Externally to the Image by mentall affection vnto the person pa. 827. Outwardly to the Image by deuout and pious Imagination to the person and the like very often Nor is the Ministers insinuation true that the Councell of Trent doth define the worshippe of Images vnder the tearmes of Religious Adoration First the Councell nether vseth the tearme Religious nor Adoratiō but Veneration the tearme the very word allowed by the Minister Secondly the Councell declares that this Veneration is outward regard as kneeling bowing the body vncouering the head done before the Images of our Sauiour to the end we may adore him that is testify our inward supreme deuotion towards him Finally it is false that Adoration doth properly signify Diuine Religious worship seing properly according to the common acception of the word in Scripture it signifyes any bowing of the body in signe of reuerence as might be proued by more then an hūdred examples of Scripture where creatures are said to be adored The Fathers sometimes take the word Adore in the more principall sense and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only for diuine worshippe In which sense they say only God is adored Epiphan haeres 79. Sit in honore Maria Deus adoretur Hieronymus Ep. 53. Non Angelos vel aliquam creaturam adoramus Yet also the same Fathers take the word in the proper sense say that other things besides God are adored as Men. Augustine de ciuit l. 10. c. 4. Homines si mullum illis addatur etiam adorandi Men are to be honored when much adored S. Hierome Epist. 17. Baptistae cineres adorare to ADORE the Ashes of S. Iohn The holy Crosse. Cyrill Alexandrin homil de Deipara in Concil Ephesin Crux adoratur toto orbe terrarum Holy Images· Damascen lib. 4. Orthod fidei c. 7. Saluatoris c. Imagines adoramus we adore the images of our Lord. Hence it is euident that our Minister on the one side witnessing out of Iunius that all Protestants allow some kind of worship vnto Images to wit veneration externall worship and on the other professing to impugne the Religious adoration of images only hath yeelded the question in controuersy his disputation against Iconolatry is according to his owne doome and word Heretogeneous that is impertinent and in the ayre VVorshippe of Images I Haue more hope to giue your Maiesty satisfaction in this article because all kind of Theologicall proofes stand for the same and nothing against it as I am perswaded which I declare by this discourse If the custome of worshipping Images be grounded on the prime principles of nature christianity If the same hath bene receiued in the church Vniuersally without any knowne time of beginning If places of Scripture that Protestants vrge against vs make asmuch against their custome of making Images so that with no probability or ingenuity they therupon mislike vs If by the vse of Images there be no danger or hurt to ignorāt people which may not with very ordinary diligence of pastors teachers be preuented otherwise the vtilityes very great Then there is no reason of iust mislike of this custome But this supposition is true in the same order I will endeauour to shew in the foure Particulars Worshippe of Images consequent out of the principles of Nature and Christianity §. 1. AN Image (c) This description of an Image sheweth the differēce of proper Images of our Sauiour frō types and figures By declaration wherof the cheife part of the Ministers disputation will be answered which is grounded vpon confusion of these two different things The proper Image represents the person of our Sauiour according to the true and proper shape of his kind and some indiuiduall propertyes that agree to him only Such is the Image of a man crucified pourtrayted accordinge to speciall circumstances recorded in the gospell A figure represents his person in the shape of some creature dissonant from his forme kind whose corporall proprieties haue resemblance with our Sauiours morall and spirituall perfections Thus the Lyon and Lambe be types or metaphoricall Images of our Sauiour which resemble him not in corporall shape but in his heauenly perfections his mildnes being figured by the Lambe his fortitude by the Lyon From this fundamentall difference other three flow First the proper Image represents to mans Imagination making him to apprehend by Imagination the person or the samplar as really present before his eies The figure represents to mans vnderstanding which apprehends by reason the analogy or proportion which the corporall qualityes of the figure
haue with the morall propertyes and perfections of the thing figured Secondly vpon sight of the proper Image straight a mentall imagination of the person resultes in one that knoweth him especially when the knowledge is ioyned with affection and this is done so presently that ocular aspect of the Image and mentall Imagination of the person seeme to be one and the same act But vpon sight of the figure the apprehension of the thinge figured doth not instantly follow but is leasurely caused by discourse comparing the one with the other Thirdly hence the proper Image is taken for the prototype that what is done to the Image by way of outward honour or dishonour the same is ought to be taken as done to the person and this by the naturall force of Imagination and by natures institution in this matter without any positiue ordinance The figure is not so taken without some positiue ordinance or custome For example If a Iew teare in peeces the Image of our Sauiour by way of despite that is done and to be taken as done mentally and by affection to our Sauiour but if he tread vnder foote bread and wine that is not to be taken as done in disgrace of our Sauiours body and bloud wherof bread and wine be types and figures except that bread and wine be sanctified to represent his body bloud is a distinct and liuely portrayture of some visible and corporall thinge parts of the Image corresponding to the parts of the thinge represented more or lesse particularly according as the Image is more or lesse distinct and liuely The office of an Image is to carry the Imagination of the beholders therof directly and immediatly to the person Imagined therin imagination of parts in the person represēted answering to the parts seen in the Image which kind and vse of Images Nature allowes vnto men to the end they may remember and more liuely imagine persons absent remoued from their corporall sight vpon whom they ought and haue great desire liuely and stayedly to fix their Imaginations and Thoughts The first Argument Hence ariseth the allowed Principle of Nature receiued by all Nations Ciuill and Barbarous Ita vt in eo to speake with S. Augustine nulla doctorum paucitas nulla indoctorum turba dissentiat That the Image may and ought to stand for the prototype and is by Imagination to be taken as it were the very person And (d) The Minister pag. 214. sayth This axione is not true of all Images but onely of such Images as are by ciuill or diuine ordinance appointed to stand for the Prototype This he proues by the examples of the brasen Serpēt Paschall Lambe Golden CHERVBIMS which might not be adored thogh Images of Christ yea Ezechias defaced the Image that is the brasē serpēt yet adored the Prototype Christ. Answer These examples are impertinent The brasen Serpent and the Paschall Lambe were types and figures of our Lord which we grant by the meere natiue force of Imagination without positiue ordinance do not necessarily stand for the thing figured yea the Iewes at the least the vulgar did not vnderstand that the brasen serpent was a type of the Messias nor can it be proued that Ezechias himselfe so vnderstood it The question is of proper Images of our Sauiour These we say stand for the prototype inuiolably by the law of nature that honour done or denyed outwardly to the Image is done or denyed mentally to the person and ought so to be taken The Minister if he will speake to the purpose must bring some examples where the proper Image may be disgraced without dishonour done to the Prototype which he will neuer find For euen Ezechias when he brake in peeces the brasen serpent did therein dishonour the proper prototype therof to wit the true serpent of which the brasen was the direct proper Image and of which he shewed contempt in respect of being adored of men by tearing in peeces the Image because it was adored with reference vnto it as Heathens worshipped the Images of Serpents and Calues The truth of this difference between an image figure may be made euident vnto the Minister by this familiar example If his wife be found beholding and kissing his Image that is set in the frontispice of his Reply with verses in praise of his sweet gracious face ought not this to be taken as done mentally to his person And were not the contrary to wronge her yet there is no ciuill Ordinance nor Parlament law that this his Image stand for him On the other side if she be found kissing making much of her little dogge though that be the type of a preaching Minister must that be taken as done vnto him No verily It is then cleere that there is difference betwixt figures and proper Images in respect of standing for the prototype Hence this principle Honour Dishonour done or denyed outwardly to the proper Image is done or denyed mentally to the person cannot be proued euer to faile nor can our Minister shew by the word of God that any proper Image of an adored person was euer lawfully made and not lawfully adored what we outwardly do to the Image is done by Imagination to the person And when we kisse the hands and feete of the Image in our Imagination we kisse the hands and feet of the person inwardly Imagined by his Image This is the Axiome of Philosophy gathered out of Aristotle Idem est motus in Imaginem Exemplar For motion proceeding from the body mind what the body doth really and externally to the Image the mind doth Imaginarily that is by conceite affection to the (e) This is then the first argument for the worshippe of our Sauiours Image which may be thus sūmed The proper Image so stands for the Prototype that what is done by way of outward honour to the Image is done by affection to the person whosoeuer denyes outwardly Reuerence to the Image is to be taken as denying mentally Reuerence to the person But our Sauiour is worthy of all worship so that it is impious to deny any worship vnto him Therfore supposing what Protestants grant that the Image of our Sauiour is lawfully made it is impious to deny outward Reuerence vnto it person The second Argument This Axione of Philosophy that no man thinke it disauowed in Theology the ancient Fathers vniformely teach as a prime truth euident in reason S. Damascene l. 4. c. 12. S. Augustine de doct Christ. c. 9. S. Ambrose de Dom. Incarn Sacrament c. 7. S. Basill de Spiritu sancto c. 18. S. Athanasius Serm. contra Arianos (f) The Minister pag. 229. lin 24. answereth to these testimonyes of the Fathers in this sort Damascene is not Ancient nor Orthodoxal in al points for as Cardinall Bellarmine saith de Scriptor Eccles. pag. 269. he denied the procession of the holy Ghost from the Sonne S. Augustine speaketh of signes
Christ Iesus that is vnto the thing which represents him vnto imagination as if he were visibly present is to be taken as done to his very person Wherefore seing the poore by the ordinance of Gods word stand for our Sauiour and are his images so that when we see them poore and needy we must imagine we see him poore and needy hence it is consequent that what is done vnto them not only by way of releefe but also by way of reuerence is done vnto our Sauiour and so they may be worshipped for his sake As for the title of puppets and pranked Babyes if the Minister thinke it a fine phrase he may keep it to adorne therewith his owne Brats him who said What you do to one of my least ones you do it vnto me Matth. 25. v. 40. Out of this the common Obiection of Protestants to wit that the worship of Christs Image is no where found in Scripture and therfore it is a Will-worship may be answered For as themselues confesse see D. Field l. 4. c. 14. many actions belong to Religion wherof there is no expresse precept nor any practise in Scripture which proue the lawfulnes and necessity therof There is no expresse precept in Scripture to christen Infants nor is it there read that euer any were Christened yet because there be Testimonyes which ioined with reason proue the lawfulnes necessity of this Baptisme we may must vse it In Scripture there is no expresse practise nor precept of worshiping the Image of Christ yet there be principles which the light of nature supposed conuince such Adoration to be lawfull necessary The sixt Argument Christ being true God full of honour to whom all supreme Adoration is due doth and must needes make honourable and adorable any thing that representeth him that is which must be taken by Imagination as if it were his person But supposing God to be truly Man as faith teacheth the light of nature sheweth that his Image truly representeth him that is makes him present to the imagination of the beholders therof and stands for him Ergo Christ Iesus his Image is for his sake Venerable Adorable as a thing standing for him in such sort that the honour done outwardly to it is done and ought to be taken as done by deuout pious imagination to his person Whence further is concluded the necessity of this worship For God Incarnate being most venerable and full of glory requires of a Christian that that which stāds for him represēt◠him be honoured (k) This Argument is grounded vpon this Principle of Scripture that all kind of honour worship is due to the man Christ Iesus which can be due vnto any other man whom we are bound to respect But vnto other persons whom we are bound to respect we owe reuerence in their Images more or lesse according to their dignity And this duty is double the one negatiue neuer to disgrace their Images the other affirmatiue which is actually to exhibite honour vnto their Images whē otherwise the deniall therof will be taken as irreuerence cōtempt towards them Therfore to the Image of Christ we owe this double duty of honor negatiue neuer to disgrace it positiue to reuerence the same outwardly when otherwise the neglect of reuerence to his Image is and ought to be taken as want of due reuerēce to his person adored for his sake The Seauenth Argument If the honour due to a King be so great that the same redoundes from his person to things about him as to his Chayre of state which is honoured with the like bowing and kneeling that is vsed to his person to his Image vnto which whosoeuer offreth iniury is punishable as offring iniury to the king himselfe Shall not the honour due to Christ Iesus infinitely greater so flow out of his person vnto things that belonge and concerne him as to make his (l) The Minister pag. 228. sayth this similitude halteth because the kinges Chayre of state his image whē it is honored or dishonored are conioyned with his person by ciuil ordinance and relation I Answere This is a manifest falshood for what law is in England that euery image of the king is to be taken as his person in respect of honour There is no such law written with pen and inke but only the law of nature written by the fingar of the Creatour in mens harts and obserued vniuersally in all nations by custome that the proper image of a person is in respect of honour dishonour to be taken as the person Image Crosse and such holy Monuments of his Passion and Life Venerable for his sake and to be adored with bowing kneeling and other exteriour honour as would be vsed to his person were he visibly present not so that the worship rest in the Image but be referred by imagination and affection to the person imagined But the Image of Christ being a true representation of God incarnate able to conuey our Imagination directly truely towards him corresponding very particularly vnto the parts of his sacred person hath a right in reason nature which cannot be taken from it to represent him and to stand in our imagination for him Wherfore the Image of Christ hath a right which without impiety cannot be denyed vnto it to be honoured and outwardly adored for his sake by kneelings bowings imbracings kissings referred in mind by deuout thoughts and affections to his person The eight Argument And this right is a (m) The Minister here is hoat and demands pag. 230. lin 8. Hath a dead picture or worme-eatē statue greater dignity then the liuely Images of Christ to wit the saints that are on earth and excell in vertue I Answere that no yet the Image of Christ hath a dignity which no other dumbe dead and senseles Creature of which the Answerer heere speakes can haue to wit to represent our Sauiour according to his true or proper humaine shape Whēce it hath a right in nature to stand by imagination for our Sauiour and to bind vs that our actions towards it be not respectles dignity which an Image of Christ hath aboue other creatures who though they be referred vnto God as vnto their Authour yet God may not be honoured in them in that manner as Christ is honoured in his Image The reason is because creatures represent God their Authour so rudely remotely darkly imperfectly that onely spirituall men and (n) Note agaynst the Ministers cauilling that God may be two wayes knowne by visible creatures First only abstractiuely to wit that he is and hath many diuine perfectiōs In this māner Heathen Philosophers who were not perfect contemplants did by creatures know God Secondly in a kind of intuitiue and contemplatiue manner which is when presently vpon the sight of a creature we are moued with reuerence towards the Creatour as if we saw him present therin This presence of God perfect
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
to some Godhead affixed vnto it not absolutely not to worship it which exposition is true for matter though not so conforme to the letter Now that these Authours do not vnderstaÌ„d that all honouring of Images is here forbiden but only adoratioÌ„ of images as Gods or as if some Godhead or diuine intellectuall vertue were affixed vnto them is euident by their wordes For the Authors are Gerson Caietan Castro Oleaster Stella Turrecremata Ferus Aquinas but nothing more notorious then that some of these held worship of Images the same might be demonstrated of euery one Let the first to wit Gerson speake for the rest in his exposition of the ten Commandments fol. 173. We must sayth he worship the Images of Christ his Blessed mother Saynts not for themselues but by seing theÌ„ to giue honour vnto the Holy Person represented by them Catholiks to defend froÌ„ note of impiety a coÌ„tinued Christian custome to Gods word Thou shalt not adore any image add by way of explication as God or with diuine worship resting in it How can they truly boast they bringe Gods cleere word for themselues and against vs which is no lesse cleer and expresse against their image-making then against our image-worship If the place be difficill why build they their fayth vpon it against vs If it be cleere why be they forced in their defence to depart from the expresse text Secondly their exposition is not onely violent against the text but also incongruous against the sense For Gods prohibition of a thing doth also forbid the intention therof In the precept Thou shalt not kill the intention of murther is sufficiently forbidden so that he who makes a sword with purpose to murther his enemy sinnes against the precept thou shalt not kill Wherfore if Gods precept had bene this Thoâ—â—â— all not weare about thee any weapon Thou shalt not kill the prohibition of wearing weapons should haue bene absolute and not onely with purpose of murther In like manner Gods precept Thou shalt not adore Images doth sufficiently forbid intention to adore them and consequenly forbids the making of Images with such an intention so that if the precept not to make Images be nothing else then not to haue purpose to adore them a whole longe sentence in the Decalogue is superfluous without any speciall sense Besides as to make an Image to adore it is Idolatry so likewise to take it in hand or looke on it to that purpose why then was not such looking or touching with purpose of adoration expressely forbidden aswell as making Or if looking on them with intention to adore be so included in the precept Thou shalt not adore as there needes not that expression what need was there that making of images with purpose of adoration should be so largely and particularly expressed Wherfore whosoeuer is a religious follower of Gods pure word must either without explication condemne the makinge of images together with their worshippe or els allow the worship of Images if the Prototypes be adorable the making wherof he approues Hence I gather that the most naturall and truest exposition of that precept is that it forbids not onely the worshippe but also the making of any Grauen image But how to wit of false Gods or to represent God accordinge to his Diuine Substance (l) This exposition is shewed to be good by the two rules of exposition which ProtestaÌ„ts theÌ„selues appoynt The first is that wheÌ„ a word is ambiguous and difficill we are to looke to the antecedent and declare the same with reference to them This text thou shalt not make any image is difficil as sounding ouer vniuersally euen in Protestants iudgements By lookinge vnto the words immediatly precedent this vniuersality is restrained to a true sense For the words immediatly precedent are Thou shalt not haue false Gods before me Now if we expound what followeth thou shalt not make any Image by refereÌ„ce vnto this to wit Thou shalt not make any image of false Gods the sense is cleer truth The second rule is when a place is difficil we must expound the same by another speaking of the same matter that is cleere but the Scripture treating of this precept doth in the same Chapter Exod. 10.13 cleerly declare these forbiddeÌ„ images to be the images of false Gods saying Non facietis Deos argenteos nec Deos aureos facietis vobis you shall not make to your selues Gods of gold or of siluer Behold what is meant by grauen Images This sense is gathered out of the words precedent Thou shalt not haue strange Gods before me which is explicated in the consequent verse Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image to wit of false Gods for he that makes to himselfe the image of any thinge as apt to represent God according to his Diuine substance and to conuey our Imaginations directly to him doth make and hath false Gods because the true God is not imaginable nor is truely apprehended by imagination conformable vnto any Image Wherfore the pictures of the Holy Ghost in forme of a Doue and of God the Father in forme of an Old Man be not proper direct Images of the two diuine persons but onely of the Doue that desceÌ„ded on Christ and of the Old Man seene by Daniel in a vision in which the perfections of these persons are not liuely represented but a farre off and imperfectly shadowed Nor do Catholiks vse them as proper images standinge for their prototypes conueyinge our actions by imagination vnto them for no Catholike doth kisse the feete of the Doue or lye prostrate at them referring by imagination that outward subiection to the feete of the holy Ghost who hath no feet but metaphoricall not imaginable nor such as can be represented by Image Wherfore seing this text is thus cleerly explicable and not being explicated at all doth make no lesse against Protestants then against vs I see no reason why they should be so much out of loue with the worshippe of the Image of Christ Iesus their Lord to which Nature Christianity binds them Inconueniences which may come by occasion of images easily preuented and their vtilityes very great §. 4. ANOTHER argument against images Protestants much vrge That they be stumbling-blockes for simple People who easily take an image to be the very God euen as the PagaÌ„s did in former time (o) The Minister sayth pag. 268. that Papists themselues complaine that People did comnit Idolatry in the worship of imags to which purpose he cites Viues Gerson Cornelius Agrippa DuraÌ„dus Mimatensis Gabriel Biel. Cassander Polidore Answere First the Minister hath by some tricke or other abused the words of almost euery one of these seauen which were ouer long here to discouer SecoÌ„dly the witnesses are of no credit or speake not to the purpose Cassander is no Papist but a Protestant put by the Romane Church amongst heretikes of the first ranke Cornelius Agrippa a Necromant
allow theÌ„ce drawing an argument to prooue the Galathians were senselesse and sottish that keeping in their sight the picture of Christ Crucifyed they would thinke to be saued by the Law and not by the merits of his Crosse. For it was madnes and folly to paynt Christ honour him as Crucifyed not to thinke that by his death vpon the Crosse he redeemed the world I know that some Catholikes expound this place that Christ was paynted and pictured out vnto the GalathiaÌ„s metaphorically by preaching Which I do not deny but this doth not repugne with the other sense that he was also materially paynted as Crucifyed nor must we exclude it this sense being imported by the natiue and proper signification of the words and hauing more connexion with the drift of the Apostles discourse which is to prooue the Galathians senselesse in their forsaking Christ whome they had pictured Crucifyed before their eyes For to forsake Christ crucifyed pictured by preaching as the Sauiour of the world though it be impious yet not senseles yea rather saluation by the crosse of Christ did seeme folly vnto the Gentils But for men to haue Christ painted as crucifyed before their eyes honouring him by Christian deuotion in regard of his crucifixion and death and not to expect saluation by his Crosse and death is sottish and (s) The Minister is much vexed with the euidence of this Text not finding which way to euade as you may see pag. 280. First he sayth lin 21. If this were true it proues only that Images may be made but not that they may be adored Answer First the Answerer in this place intends only to proue that the Apostles did allow the making of Crucifixes to represent our Sauiours Crucified person vnto ChristiaÌ„ deuotion Secondly this making doth inferre worship for the proper Image of an adored person if it be made it may be adored agaynst which principle euideÌ„t in reason you cannot bring one word of Scripture Secondly you say Ibid lin 3. That according to learned Bannes The worship of Images is neyther expressely nor infoldedly taught in Scripture Answere BaÌ„nes meaneth that Image-worship is not formally inuolued in Scripture nor matter of fayth by vertue of sole Scripture But he doth not deny but it is virtually contained in Scripture so that it may Theologically be coÌ„cluded by texts of Scripture Thirdly you cry pag. 282. lin 24. One Father that expounds this place literally according to your sense I answere first no Father nor Catholicke denyes this litterall sense and Athanasius is brought by Turrianus l. 4. de Dogmat. Charact. thus expounding Secondly Protestants who appeale vnto the Scripture as vnto the last iudge to giue definitiue sentence are bound to take the words of Scripture in the litterall sense except they can cleerly demonstrate by Scripture the litterall sense to be absurd Otherwise if without euident proofe by Scripture they metaphorize the Scripture they appeale not vnto Scripture but vnto their owne fancies But by Scripture you cannot proue that the litterall painting of our Sauiours Image as Crucifyed is absurd more then the painting of Luther and Caluin and such other of your pretended Prophets is absurd Therfore you must stand to this litterall sense or els confesse that you will not be ruled by the word of God but depart from the litterall sense thereof when you please without shewing warrant so to doe Finally the Minister sayth ibid. lin 27. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyeth to be written before not to be painted before This is his last yet a desperate shift First all LexicoÌ„s eueÌ„ those of ProtestaÌ„ts say that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyes before so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyes to paint or make figures because writing is a kind of painting or making of Characters hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifyes writing For is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a painter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a peÌ„sill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 painting to the quicke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 painting in waxe innumerable other words aswell single as compound that testify how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to paint Secondly not only Beza and Erasmus so translate and the French Geneuian Pourtrayé deuant les yeux Christ Iesus pictured before the eyes but also Caluin in his comment vpon this place sayth expressely depictus meo iudicio optimè quadrat the best translation in my Iudgenent is depainted adding the Apostle doth heere signify that there was amongst the Galathians non nuda doctrina sed viua expressa Christi crucifixi Imago nor the meere preaching but also liuely and expresse picturing of Christ crucifyed Finally the Minister who heere sayth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify is depainted elswhere pag. 213. lin 26. sayth the contrary to wit that S. Paul doth testify Galat 3.1 That by the Ghospell Christ Iesus IS DEPAINTED before the eyes of the soule Now how can this be true except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signify is depainted and be thence transferred by metaphore vnto preaching senselesse And of this materiall picturing of Christ crucifyed Athanasius expoundeth this place whome Turrianus citeth De Dogmat. charact l. 4. Wherefore I may iustly say that we haue more cleere expresse Scripture for the vse of images then haue protestaÌ„ts for their Translations And therefore the danger of ignorant people erring by images is without reason so much insisted vpon by Protestants their English translations being as I haue shewed a more dangerous blocke for fooles to stumble at and so fall into damnable errours If they presume that by diligent instruction they may and would haue vs thinke that they doe preserue their people from that errour why should they not thinke that the Roman Church being so potent with her children can keep them from the foolish errour of attributing life and diuinity vnto dead dumbe images and that she will so do being so strictly coÌ„manded by the (t) Sess. 2. Diligenter doceant Episcopi Councell of Trent to vse her greatest diligence in this point that ignorant people fall not into errour by any image which otherwise haue many profits and vtilities About which I will not enlarge my selfe but only mention some of them The first is an easy and compendions way of instruction in which respect they are tearmed by S. Gregory (u) Lib. 7. Ep. 109. the books of the vnlearned and as another Gregory (x) Nissen â—rat in Theodorum sayth the silent picture speakes on the wall and profiteth very much The second is to increase in men that keep honour them the loue of God and of his Saints which effect S (y) Orat. Quod veteris noui Testamenti vnius sit mediator Chrysostome experienced as he testifieth saying I loued a picture of melted wax full of piety And S. (z) Lib. 7. epist. 53. Gregory the Great sayth they inflame men that behold them in the loue
this mystery not accompanyed with many seeming absurdityes repugnances agaynst sense particularly these foure First that a body as big as our Sauiours remayning stil truly corpulent in it selfe should be contayned within the cōpasse of a round Hoast scarce an inch long and broad Secondly that a body so glorious should be combined vnto corruptible elements and so made subiect vnto the indignityes and obscenityes that may befall vnto them Thirdly that the body may be in heauen and on earth in innumerable places at once Fourthly that the substance of bread being cōuerted into Christs body the sole accidēts remaine by themselues performing the whole office of substance no lesse then if it were present euen to the nutrition of mans body These difficultyes so scandalize Protestants that some condemne Trāsubstantiation as impossible yea as (f) Field of the Church lib. 3. absurd ridiculous barbarous Others professe they cannot subdue their vnderstandings to belieue it as a matter of Fayth To giue full satisfaction in this point I set downe this proposition that these seeming absurdityes should not auert but rather incline a true Christian mind to belieue this mystery In proofe whereof I present vnto your Maiesty these three Considerations (g) The Minister here sayth that this longe tract about Gods omnipotency is impertinent because Protestants deny not Gods omnipotency But this Cauill is refuted in the Censure Sect. 3. §. 3. where it is shewed that to deny the litteral sense of Gods word about the mysteryes of our fayth to be possible vnto God is Infidelity Now Protestants grant the holy Eucharist to be a chiefe mystery of fayth Transubstantiation to be the literall sense of Gods word about the same wherefore this tract about the Diuine omnipotēcy is pertinently brought agaynst them The first Consideration The first is grounded vpon the supposall of two thinges most certayne First that the Primitiue Church preaching vnto Pagans Iewes and other Infidells the rest of Christian mysteryes as the Trinity the Incarnation the Resurrection of the body did most carefully keepe as much as might be from their knowledge the mystery of the Eucharist yea Catechumens and Nouices were not before Baptisme fully taught or instructed therein Secondly the reason moouing the primitiue Church to be carefull in this point was least Catechumens Infidells being fully acquainted with the whole mystery the one shold be scandalized the other mocke therat Hence it was accounted such an heynous offence that Christians should discouer vnto Infidels or dispute about the difficultyes thereof in their presence The Councell (g) Concil Alexand. apud Athanas. Apolog. 2. of Alexandria relating the crimes of Arrians number this as one of the greatest They were not ashamed in publike and as it were vpon a scaffold to treate of the mysteryes before Catechumens and which is worse before Pagans And a little after It (h) Epist. Iulij apud Athanas Apol. 2. is not lawfull to publish the mysteryes before them that are not initiated for feare Pagans out of ignorance mocke and Catechumens entring into curiosityes be scandalized And agayne Before Catechumens which is more before Iewes Pagans blaspheming Christianity they handled a question about the body and bloud of our Sauiour And to the same purpose Saint Ambrose (i) Ambros. de myster initian c. 1. saith To declare the Mysteryes vnto them that be Catechumens is no tradition but prodition seing by such declarations danger is incurred least they be diuulged vnto Infidells that will scoffe at them This supposed I inferre that the seeming absurdities of the Catholike reall presence should encourage a true Christian mind to belieue it For a true Christian desires to belieue and firmely cleaue vnto the reall Presence that was belieued by the primitiue Church But this was a reall Presence accompanyed with many seeming grosse absurdities that the Church had no hope to satisfy Infidells therein or to keep them from blaspheming but by concealing the mystery from them and consequently they held the Catholicke not the Protestant doctrine in this point The Protestāts (k) The Minister pag. 442. lin 12. saith that Protestāts hold the elements of bread wine to remaine to be instruments of our coniunction by grace vnto God and that this is a mystery incomprehensible Answere First Protestants do not hold the elements of bread and wine to be proper instrumēts infusing grace into mans soule but that men are iustifyed by their faith onely that this Sacrament is a meere signe and seale therof Secōdly though Sacramental influence of grace into the soule be a thinge supernaturall yet no mystery of extraordinary difficulty to be belieued nor absurd vnto sense For this is no more thē that vpon our eating and drinking of bread and wine in remēbrance of Christs body broken of his blood shed on the Crosse God infuse soule-nourishing grace into the worthy receauer Now what difficulty to belieue this or what seeming absurdity therin This is no greater mystery then that vpon the washing of the body with the element of water God inwardly wash the soule with grace Wherfore seing Protestāts cā find in their Eucharist no mystery more hard seemingly absurd thē in Baptisme doubtlesse it is not the mystery of the Primitiue Church concealed frō Infidells in regard of the seeming absurdity and immanity therof vnto carnall imaginatiō whereas Baptisme was not conceaued to be of that seeming absurdity nor concealed doctrine that makes Christs body present spiritually by fayth vnto the deuout receauer that communicating thinkes sweetly of Christs passion and death contaynes no mystery to be cōcealed in respect of the seeming absurdityes yea the Fathers did not feare to declare to Catechumens this Sacrament so farre as it was commemoratiue of Christ and his passion as appeares by the treatises of Saint Augustine vpon S. Iohn made before Catechumens out of which Treatises Protestants for their meere commemoratiue Presence alleadge many sentēces to little purpose For he there explicates spirituall manducation by fayth and he excludes the grosse imagination of eating Christs body in his proper shape tearing it in pieces with the teeth but denyes not yea rather insinuates another kind of spirituall manducation not only by fayth but by reall sumption though to conceale the mystery from Catechumens he speaks not so cleerly thereof Wherfore as the Palm-tree the heauier the weight is that is layd vpon it the more it riseth vpward as it were ioying in difficultyes So a true Catholike Christian feeling in the doctrine of Transubstātiation many seeming absurdityes that presse carnall imagination to the ground groweth thereby more strong to belieue it imbracing these difficultyes as manyfest signes that this doctrine was belieued by the Primitiue Apostolicall Church On the other side the Protestants finding the Presence of Christs body by faith to be deuoyd of such difficulties may by the very lightnes thereof suspect it is not the doctrine which the Fathers concealed from
to wit to be True to be Reuealed of God to be Preached and deliuered of the Apostles The highest ground by which I am perswaded that my fayth is true is the authority of God reuealing it The highest ground on which I am resolued that my Fayth is reuealed is the credit and authority of Christ Iesus his Apostles who deliuered the same as Diuine and Sacred But the highest ground that moueth me to belieue that my fayth was (c) The Mynister and especially the Bishops Chaplin pag. 16. 17. charge the Answerer to resolue fayth of the Scriptures being the word of God into only Tradition This is a slaūder for he doth distinguish expresly in scripture the being preached by the Apostles from the being reuealed of God or his word This second property is spirituall and hidden and belieued not vpon Tradition from the Apostles directly but vpon the word of the Apostles so affirming confirmed with the testimony of miracles wrought by the Holy GHOST but to be preached and planted in the world was a publike sensible thing so is knowne by Tradition hand to hād from the Apostles Thus the Church as belieuing her doctrine to be true is built vpon God as belieuing her doctrine to be of God is built on the Apostles as belieuing her doctrine to be the Apostles is built on the Tradition of Pastours succeeding them The ground and pillar of Truth by office as our Minister graunts pag. 9. lin 5. preached by the Apostles is the perpetual tradition of the Church succeding the Apostles that so teacheth me Into this principle (d) Aug. cont epist. Fund cap. 5. Saint Augustine resolued his fayth agaynst the Manichees who pretended that the Scriptures of the new Testament had been corrupted confuting them by the Tradition of the Church affirming That he would not belieue the Ghospell did not the Authority of the Catholike Church induce him assigning this as the last stay of his resolution in this point For though he belieued the Gospell to be soueraignely certaine and true vpon the authority of God reuealing it and that it was reuealed of God vpon the authority of the Apostles who as Sacred preached it yet that this Ghospell as we haue it came incorrupt from the Apostles he could haue no stronger or more (e) The Minister forced by this testimony graūteth two things which ouerthrow his cause first pa. 22. l. 13.14 that Nouices and simple persons ground their fayth on the authority of the Church as also Field graunteth appendix part 1. pag. 11. now I assume But the fayth of Nouices is sauing fayth as S. Aug. there sayth contra Epist. Fundamenti c. 2. and cōsequently their fayth is diuine Ergo sauing supernaturall fayth is grounded on the authority of the Church Secondly he graunts pag. 23. lin 2. 3. that The Church as including the Apostles can proue the Scripture whence it is cōsequent that the Scriptures are not principles knowne by themselues but haue another higher diuine principle by which they are proued The Church comprehending the Apostles being as Protestāts grāt Field l. 4. of Church c. 21. of greater authority then Scripture excellent proofe then the testimony of the present Church descending by the cōtinuall succession of Bishops from the Apostles Neyther can we imagine an higher except we fly to particular priuate reuelation which is absurd The second Argument SECONDLY I proue that common vnlearned people the greatest part of Christianity are persuaded about all substantiall points of fayth by Tradition not by Scripture Common vnlearned people haue true Christian fayth in all points necessary and sufficient vnto saluation but they haue not fayth of all these mayne and substantiall points grounded on Scripture for they can neyther vnderstand nor read any Scripture but translated into vulgar languages so if they belieue vpon Scrpture they belieue vpon Scripture translated into their Mother tongue but before that they can know that the Scriptures are truly translated euen in all substantiall points that so they may build on it they must first know what are the mayne and substantiall points (f) To this proofe that Christians belieue their Creed more firmely then any translation the Minister hath not answered one word nor can answere for it is conuincing as appeares by this syllogisme Perswasion more certayne and firme cannot be grounded on perswasion lesse firme and certayne Such as are true Christians belieue the articles of their Creed more firmely then they do that Scriptures are truly translated into their vulgar tongue Ergo True Christians do not build their Fayth of the Creed on Scripture translated but on doctrine knowne to be the Apostles formerly and more firmely then that Scripture is truly translated firmely belieue them so that they would not belieue the Scriptures translated agaynst them For if they know them not before how can they know that Scriptures in places that concerne them are truly translated If they doe not before hand firmely belieue them why should they be ready to allow translations that agree with them and to reiect the translations that differ from thē Ergo (g) The Minister pag. 26. sayth That Ignorant men resolue their faith into Scripture yet not into Scripture so distinctly knowne as they can tel the names of the seuerall Bookes Authours and Sections and so they resolue implicitly not explicitly This is idle For if they know the doctrine of the Scripture because it is written though they know not the name of the booke nor number of the Chapter Verse nor the formall text what groūd firmer thē their Creed haue they this to belieue originally before they know any Scripture they haue fayth grounded on the Traditiōs of Ancestors by the light wherof they are able to iudge of the truth of Translations about such substantiall points as they firmely belieue by Traditiō And this is that which Protestants must meane if they haue any true meaning when they say that the common People know Scriptures to be truly translated by the (h) The Minister is forced to fly to a found paradoxe confuted already That vnlearned Rusticks know the Scripture to be Gods word by the matter and forme of the bookes and by seing the resplendent verity of the doctrine pag. 28. lin 3. He addeth lin 7. That they which actually resolue their fayth into the doctrine of Scriptur do virtually mediatly resolue the same into the very Scripture though they know not that it is written in Scripture This is friuolous and false For the Pagan and Infidells that know hony to be sweet and taken in abundance to be hurtfull should virtually resolue their persuasion into the very Scripture because they actually belieue a thing affirmed in Scripture Prou. 25. 27. Yea the Iew belieuing that Christ was crucified belieues a doctrine of Scripture doth he therefore resolue and build virtually vpon Scripture No. That one build on Scripture it is not