one or two plain Scriptures proving the Word of God to be that whereunto a Christians faith is to be conformable The Apostle continued witnessing both to small and great saying None other things then those wâ—ich the Prophets and Moses did say should come to pass Acts 26.22 This was his teaching And for his own faith you have it Acts 24.14 This I confess unto thee that after the way which they call Heresie so worship I the God of my fathers believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets I shall put you in mind of what one of your Proselites writes about this Point I found that by consent of all Christians Dr Vane Lost Sheep return p. 5 6. this knowledg of the means to attain to happiness was not to be gotten by clear and evident sight nor by humane discourse founded on the principles of Reason nor by reliance upon Authority meerly humane but Only by Faith Grounded On The Word of GOD revealing unto men things that were otherwise only known to his infinite Wisdom seeing the Church to the worlds end must be built on the Apostles and Believe Nothing as Matter of Faith beside that which was delivered of them as St. Paul saith Ephes 2.20 Your self also when you come to the Point to speak of the Rule of Faith say that the Truth of God revealed and expressed to us is the Rule of Faith Chap. 9. If Faith be grounded on Gods Word and that this Word of God be the Rule of Faith How can the Church be it seeing there is a vast difference betwixt the Truth and the Church as betwixt a Rule and him that bears it Can you say properly that a man that keeps the standard in his house is the standard or that the post that bears it is it or that the ship that carries the compass is the compass Now you only say that the Church is the Pillar of Truth i. e. it doth but bear it If the Church be the Rule of Faith then I wonder what Rule they have sure not themselves and they being men like us they cannot be without a Rule no more then they can be Christians and yet want faith 3. You say By the first Conformity man comes to the knowledg of God as he is the Author and End of Grace by the second he relies upon his Mercy and Goodness c. Ans 1. You seem to make faith a bare knowledg distinct from reliance on Gods mercy and goodness whereby you give too little to faith whose acts are not only to discern God and divine objects but to rely upon that merciful and good promise of God whereby he offers himself and divine objects to be received by us By this receiving is faith expressed John 1.12 If faith be no more but bare knowledg then Devils yea Reprobates may have true faith yea and may hope in Gods mercy for faith is the foundation of sound hope Your Vasquez is more ingenious then most of you for he acknowledgeth that besides a dogmatical or historical faith Vasq in 1. 2. To. 2. disp 209. c. 1. 4. which he calls Catholike there is also a peculiar faith whereby a Christian believes that he is or shall be justified or saved And this faith is the foundation of that hope you mention and not much differing from it only that as hope looks at the thing promised so faith doth more directly reflect upon the promise though Vasquez saith the same of faith that you of hope Cujus generis est fides qua aliquis credit se a Deo per orationem obtenturum id quod petit c. I shall conclude this with the words of learned Rivet Ineptiunt ergo ne quid gravius dicam qui cum tribuant fideli spem fiduciam circa electionem gratiam salut m Propriam fidem tamen negant Rivet sum Cont. Tract 4. q. 16. ss 6. But as you cast faith here below it self so in the next Chapter you set up Charity above it self making it the soul of faith CHAP. III. Of the Diversities of Faiths Hopes and Charities IN this Chapter I shall only take notice of two passages 1. You say The means of habitual and actual divine Faith Hope and Charity is the Tradition of the Church Ans 1. If by the Tradition of the Church you mean the true and right Exposition of Scripture made by faithful Pastors and Teachers of the Church as Vincentius Lyrinensis understands it then I shall easily consent to you for it is no more then the Apostle himself asserts when he saith Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God Rom. 10.17 But 2. If you mean the Churches opinions distinct from Scripture or unwritten Verities as they are called by you then I affirm that these are not means for your proposed end the Scripture it self without your additions being sufficient to make the man of God perfect in all graces And this you are not altogether unconvinced of as appears by your Preachers who in their Sermons do ground their discourses upon Texts of Scriptures and I suppose their Sermons are intended to be means of faith hope c. 2. You say St Paul gives to Charity the preeminence And not undeservedly for she is the enlivening Soul of Faith and Hope c. both they being out of her company as dead bodies without life or motion c. Your assertion is grounded upon two Scriptures viz. 1 Cor. 13.13 and James 2.26 For the first I freely subscribe to the preeminence of Charity but upon the Apostles reason not yours which is the continuance of Charity when Faith and Hope fail Thus the Apostle is understood by your ordinary Gloss Primasius Augustine and the generality of Expositors In presenti tria haec Lyran. in 1 Cor. 13.13 in futuro sola charitas permanebit Majus est ergo quod semper erit quam quod aliquando cessabit But you say It 's the Soul of Faith c. This I deny For 1. Your own Authors do earnestly contend that true faith yea that faith that justifies and is joyned with hope and charity 1 Cor. 13.13 may be without charity charity therefore cannot be the soul of faith for the enlivening soul cannot be absent from its body and yet that body remain a true living humane body 2. The Apostle saith that faith without works is dead as the body without the soul yet you will not say that good works are the soul of faith whereby it hath life and motion Your Rhemists assert it that the Thief on the Cross wanted good works and thereupon conclude RheÌ„ Annot. on Luke 23.43 that Faith hope c. will be sufficient and good works not required where for want of time and opportunity they cannot be had Now can you say that his faith was without life and motion It had so much life and motion that it brought him to Heaven by your own confession Now if the
body move it hath the soul in it be its motion never so little or of so short continuance 3. Faith is before Charity and that not only by priority of nature but of agency or activity Faith is a leading grace Men first believe to righteousness and then make confession to Salvation Faith first apprehends and lays hold on the mercy and goodness of God in the promise and then for that his goodness and mercy towards us we do love him and keep his Commandments This is clearly taught by our Saviour Luke 7.47 as Salmeron Tolet Stella and others even Papists acknowledg Now in Nature the Soul precedes the body in its activity 4. If charity and good works were the soul of faith they should be intrinsecal to faith for the form is not out of the matter nor the soul out of the body but so they are not Hence 't is that some learned men call charity an external form of faith and other virtues and by spirit in the Text they understand the breath making the sence this Even as the want of breath argues a dead body so the want of works a dead faith Estius ascribes this Exposition to Cajetan Estius in Jam. 2.26 who as he saith was moved to it by this reason because works are not the form of faith but certain concomitant effects but the soul is the form of the body Azorius clearly adheres to Cajetan Azor. instit Moral lib. 9. c. 3. q. 6. denying charity to be an intrinsecal form of faith or other virtues because they have their proper fruit and produce works without charity only he calls it an extrinsecal form which will never prove it to be the soul of them Par. in loc Pareus doth well observe for this purpose that it 's not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not without soul but without spirit or breath Bernard speaks most suitably to this Exposition Sicut corporis vitam c. As we know the life of the body by motion so the life of faith by good works If this Exposition please not I shall commend to you that acute one of Mr Perkins saith he Perkins on Galat. 5.6 Here is a false composition of the words Faith that is without works is dead is true but to say Faith is dead without works as though they gave life to faith is false To conclude Though we deny charity or good works to be the enlivening soul of faith yet we assert them to be the inseparable concomitants of a true faith so that as good works cannot be without faith so neither can faith be without good works As faith looks towards the promise by beleeving it so doth it reflect upon the Will of God by obeying it these are its two vital acts that is internal this is faith's external act neither of which can a living faith not exercise CHAP. IV. Of the Churches Power and Infallibility in matters of Faith IN this Chapter you come to the Churches Infallibility as a main part of Religion and a leading Article in the Creed to whom you are so liberal that you leave little to Christ or his Father It 's the observation of one of your own men that throughout your Ladies Psalter the Name of God is changed into the Name of our Lady so the Name of God into the name of Church and the Attributes of God are predicated of the Church as here Infallibility answering herein the Apostles description of Antichrist That he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he is as God sitteth in the Temple of God shewing himself that he is God 2 Thes 2.4 But to your Chapter You might have done well seeing the Church must come in first to have defined to us what Church it is you speak of before you tell us of her Infallibility as whether it be the Church virtual or representative or essential did I know which you meant I could speedilier answer you but seeing I do not I shall shew the fallibility of each of them lest I should happen to miss of you 1. Then Infallibility is not a Jewel annexed to your Popes Crown Lyra commenting on the words of Christ Mat. 16.18 The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Lyran. ibid. A verâ fide subvertendo-scil saith Ex quo patet c. Whereby it is evident that this Church which hath this promise doth not consist in men of ecclesiastical or secular power or dignity because many Princes and Popes summi pontifices and others inferior have been found to apostatize from the Faith wherefore it consists in those persons in whom is true knowledg and confession of faith and truth Some of your Popes have been deposed for Heresie as Eugenius by the general Council of Basil Concil Basil Ses 34. apud Binnium Hart Answ to Reynolds p. 246. Honorius by the sixt general Council was condemned and that justly saith Hart in his Answer to learned Reynolds Innocentius was little better then an Heretique who held that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was necessary for children Nor was he alone in this Heresie for it continued in the Church 600 years as Maldonat observes Maldon in Joan 6. Concil Trid. ses 21. Can. 4 ap Bin. Now that it was an Heresie appears by the Curse laid upon it in the Councel of Trent If you say the Pope taught it not I answer How then durst the Church believe it and for so long a time whereas the faith of the members must be conformable to the belief of the Churches Head Or why did not the Pope hinder it when he saw it was believed in the Church as a necessary truth It cannot be imagined how the Pope should be free when the Church was so infected 2. Infallibility is not the inseparable Priviledg of the Church representative or a General Councel for according to Papists it hath no infallibility in it self but depends upon the infallibility of the Pope which I have shewed to be a Chimaera Azorius tells us Azor. iustit Moral part 2. l. 5. c. 12. q. 1. that it 's agreed upon by all Catholikes that a General Councel may err in faith and manners if it be not called and confirmed by the Authority of the Pope of Rome And he instances in the Council of Ariminum of 600 Bishops who erred with Arius The Council of Constantinople of 300 Bishops who erred with Leo the Emperor This is the meaning of Lorinus as I conceive Lorin in Act. 15.7 p. 583. Col. 2. when he saith Wise or learned men are to be consulted with but all the infallibility is in him alone Now let any Papist shew any reason why in a Council the Pope should be infallible and out of it should be as other men But Councils called and confirmed by Popes have with Papists themselves been accounted fallible The Council of Basil was called by Eugenius and had the
modest Bishops the weapons wherewith he was assaulted were meek exhortations perswasions entreaties not bulls curses racks tortures that holy age knew no such Ecclesiastical censures as Luther and his followers were acquainted with The French Historian gives this account of Protestants persecutions page 38. The Doctrine of Luther seemed to encrease by the greatnesse of persecutions which might be seen by the hot persecutions in the year 1534. for searches and informations were no sooner made of the prisoners but they were as speedily burnt quick tyed to a stake after swinged into the aire were let fall into the fire and so by a pullise pul'd up and down untill a man might see them all roasted and scorched by a small fire without complaining not able to speak by reason that they had taken out their tongue and gagged them 2. Arius did not set himself against the vices of an usurping lordly power which might have procured him hatred and revengefull opposition but Luther did whose two vices as Erasmus told Fredrick were that he touched the bellies of the Monks and the Crown of the Pope 3. Arius his heresy was not constantly maintained and stuck to Arius recanted and subscribed the Nicen Creed as did others his followers but Luther's Doctrine was constantly maintained by himself and followers without any recantation or counterfeit compliance 4. Arius his heresie did not seem crosse to reason but rather conformable but Luther's did crosse carnal reason the ground of Popish heresies In these regards Luther might more truly becompared with the Apostles than Arius And indeed his Doctrine though you are pleased to slander it as being acceptable and pleasing to the depravednesse of Nature and so contrary to the Apostles Doctrine is the very same for the substance of it that the Apostles taught being no way contrary to mortification of wills religious fasting chastity and the like And therefore it was not itching after novelties and pronnesse to libertinage that drew many after him but a desire of reformation both of Doctrine and Discipline which were exceeding corrupt in the Romish Church whereof very many were sensible and under which they groaned waiting for freedom and this is that which a great Papist saith Neither did Luther in this age come forth alone Alphons de Castro ado haeres epist nuncup but accompanied with a great troop as with a guard waiting for him as for their Captain and Leader who seemed to have expected him before he came and upon his coming did cleave unto him SHAPE III. PRotestants received their mission from Catholique Bishops in Queen Elizabeths daies and since You answer Ans If some did which is to be proved nay the contrary seems to be proved by Doctor Champney it is evident the greater part did not and what a Church must that companie make of which most are judged fit to preach the Word of God and administer the Sacraments without Authoritie Repl. 1. We had Protestant Bishops in England before Queen Elizabeths days eminent oppugners of Popish heresies then in the time of Queen Mary whom notwithstanding your fiery rage God preserved making them to survive her bloody raign by these were others afterways ordained as Bishop Parker who was consecrated by the imposition of hands of Bishop Barloe Bishop Coverdale Bishop Scory and two suffragans So that I know no Protestant that needs to use the shape you impose upon us nor do I think any doth but you set up moments and then shoot at them which is a very learned and ingenious prank But 2. Supposing it our Shape I say to your answer 1. Divers Popish Catholiques in Queen Maries days were Protestants in Queen Elizabeths and these might have an hand in Ordinations afterwards 2. Though the greater part of our Pastors received not Mission from Popeish Bishops yet they might have authority You beg the question when you tell us that they are not ordained by Popeish Bishops have no authority We had lawful Bishops Pastors in England before your Pope or any of his gowned Factors knew England But you answer 2ly Admit the calling of Protestant Bishops and Pastors were right in all of them it would not follow that the Protestant Church is true so long as she advanceth Protestantism contrary to the meaning of the Catholique Bishops who never impowâ—red any but in relation to the setting up and upholding of Catholique Religion Rep. 1. If you admit this it will follow according to your principles that there is personal succession and consequently a true Church inasmuch as derivati n of succession is so proper to the true Church that it cannot agree to any false as St. Hierom in Nucam 1. Observeth Sir you remember the words they are your own page 41. but oportet mendacem esse memorem 2. True Religion is not to be measured by mens meaning but by the Word of God So then if according to Gods Word protestantism be the true Religion it s no great matter what your Catholiques Bishops meaning be 3. Catholique Bishops ought to ordain men in order to the setting forth of the unsearchable riches of Christ Eph. 3.8 To preach the Gospel Col. 1.25 Mark 16.15 This is contained in the Scriptures If your Bishops ordain men to preach any thing else they are abusers of their power their ordination is impure and unlawfull and so far to be frustrated Thus our Protestant Bishops and Pastors that have been ordained by you retain that which is pure viz. power to preach the word and administer the Sacraments but reject that which is evil in your ordinations we retain the power which is good and from God but reject those circumstances of yours which accompany the conveiance of it and are evil 2ly You say Communion with the true Church being as necessary a requisite to the makeing up of a true Church as union of parts to the compleating of a natural body what colour for truth in the Protestant Church that is at variance with the Catholique of whom she glorieth to have her power and which she confesseth to be a true Church Repl. 1. I grant that communion with the true Church is necessary but your inference hereupon is vain For 1. We deny that the Popish Church is the Catholique Church You appropriate that name to your selves but who gives it you Indeed the Roman Church in her purity before shee was infected with the Leeven of Popery was a Catholique Church Euseb eccl Hist l. 4. c. 15. l. 10. c. 7. Socr. schol l. 2. c. 2. but so were other Churches called as well as shee with whom you hold no communion now nor they with you as the Church of Smyrna Alexandria Carthage 2. It s not necessary to the constitution of a true Church to have communion with you The Eastern Churches were as much at variance with you as Protestants are yet they were tâ—ue Churches The Affrican Bishops did oppose divers of your Popes one after another telling them they should
invent different Doctrines and new heresies Seperation from a Church cannot but suppose a different judgment in them that seperate The Donatists whom Bellarmine brings in to prove your argument go under the name of heretiques and did indeed hold doctrines different from the Apostles Doctrines To these arguments grounded on your assertions I will adde two more 1. Papists themselves urge consent of Doctrine with the Doctrine of the Apostles and ancient Church a note of the true Church this is Bellarmine's sixt note but it seemes Papists may make that a note of the true Church which Protestants may not 2. The Doctrine say some of you in answer to us is the form of the true Church therefore In inferre it cannot agree to any false one the form being intrinsecall and proper to that which it doth inform not common to others as Rationality cannot be predicated of beasts so neither can Profession of the true Apostolicall Doctrine agree to a fals and unsound Church according to your judgements But you urge two things viz. 1. Doctrine is as divers as there are divers seeming Churches and so not affording any determinate notion draweth in opposition of a mark of truth Answ 1. The question is not whether doctrine indefinitely be a mark of truth as you propound it but whether true Doctrine that is the doctrine of the Apostles clearly declaclared in the Scriptures and professed by Christians be a mark of the true Church we affirm it is 2. Though Doctrine in generall be divers yet true Apostolicall Doctrine is not divers but one and the same as there is one Lord one Spirit one Church so is there one faith which the Scripture reveals unto us 2. Doctrine supposeth Bishops and Pastors as the means whereby it is conveyed to us therefore it importeth as much to name Bishops and Pastors before may be given to mention Doctrine as it is necessary passing from one extreem to another to touch first the middle Answ 1. But that your memory is weak you might remember that we have been mentioning Bishops and Pastors and that before we mentioned Doctrine What else is the subject of the four precedent shapes 2. If you were acquainted with our judgement you might find that when we say True Doctrine is a mark of the true Church we explain our selves to mean the preaching of true Doctrine and this doth suppose Pastors and Teachers 3. Truth of Doctrine is a more proper note of the Church and more necessary than Bishops and Pastors That Doctrine which is consonant to the Apostles Doctrine is alwayes true but Pastors that succede them are not alwayes true Pastors but sometimes Wolves and therefore if you had not misled us we would first have begun with Doctrine as the more worthy 2. You answer It is no less untrue that Protestants maintain the Apostles Doctrine delivered in Scriptures they professing a Doctrine clean contrarie and opposite to that which in them is in plain and formall tearms expressed Rep. Prove this and you carry the victory but I know you cannot do it your instances are insufficient some of them being not in Scripture others not the Apostles Doctrine which you were to have proved not by consequence but expresly in plain and formall tearms Lastly some Texts are brought in against us with which we fully joyn But I will particularly examine your Instances 1 Inst Traditions 2 Thess 2. Hold the traditions whether it be by word or Epistle Answ 1. It s most evident that the Apostle by Tradition understands whatsoever he had delivered to the Thessalonians either by preaching or writings Tradition being then of a larger talent than now it is and it is no less evident that what the Apostle did preach was nothing but Scripture Act. 26.20.22 Especially see Act. 17.1 2 3 13. where you finde what Paul preached at Thessalonica even nothing but the Word of God contained in the Scriptures Annot. on Deutr. 4.2 Your Dowaists say unwritten traditions are contained implied included in the Scriptures such the Apostle preached 2. True and Apostolick traditions we willingly imbrace yea we account them worthy of Anathema who do not receive them That which Clemnitius saith is the judgement of Protestants Apostoli multa tradiderunt unâ voce c. The Apostles delivered many things by word of mouth which their immediate successours received from them Exam. Concil trident p. 1. d. trad p. 68. and delivered to their Disciples but all these as Irenaeus saith were agreeable to Scripture and we reject none of them but whatsoever are agreeable to Scripture we receive and reverence So another saith if Papists will prove their Traditions by the ancient and Apostolick Church and the universall Church since even till our time we receive them and this is Apostolicall Tradition according to Hierom. for conclusion I appeal to Medina Medri l. 6. de sacr hom Continent c. 106. whether we or not rather Papists be guilty of not holding Apostolicall Traditions of 84. Canons saith he gathered together by Clemens and the Disciples of the Apostles the Latine Church scarce observeth 6. or 8. 2 Inst Reall presence Joh. 6.51.55 56 57. Luk 22.19 Matth. 26.28 Ans This is a Jesuitical slander for protestants do not deny the Reall presence nor is the Controversie between the Papists and us about it Rivel sum Contr. Tan. 1. Tract 3. q. 18. Inst we both hold that the body and blood of Christ is truly and really present in the Sacrament as learned Rivet observes this is also affirmed by Dr. White in his reply to Fisher who objecting that Protestants hold not a true or reall presence but onely a presence by imagination and conceit is answered in these words His most excellent Majestie and all his orthodoxall people believe reall presence T is true we hold not a gross i. e. as the same Author explains it When the thing signified and presented is according to the naturall substance thereof contained under the shapes of outward signes and together with them conveyed into the mouth stomack and bodily parts but we maintain a true and effectuall presence of the body and blood of Christ so as man receiving the externall signes by his naturall parts receiveth also the thing signified and presented by the action of his spirituall facultie to wit by an operative faith and this is most evident by that 6. of John 3. Inst Sacrifice from the rising of the Sun to the going down great is my name among the Gentiles and in every place there is sacrificing and there is offered to my Name a clean oblation Mal. 1. Answ 1. This Text is in none of the Apostles writings however being Scripture I answer 2. The sacrifice of the Mass is not in plain and formall tearms expressed in it It s your fals reading that brings in the word sacrificing Vatablus reads it Incensum offertur Incense is offered Pagnin and Arias Montanus speake to the same purpose 3. It may be more
by faith without the deeds of the Law They must therefore be reconciled which they may by saying that faith only doth properly justifie us before God and Works do justifie our faith to be a true faith for as much as true faith is productive of good works for we abhor those mens conceit who imagine that faith may suffice a man though he live ill and have no good works Or 2. By saying that good works do evidence our justification Aquinas confesseth that works in c. 3. ad Gal. are not the cause that any man is just before God but they are rather manifestations of Righteousnesse and Justification Certainly Abraham was justified in the sight of God before he offered up his son Isaac which is the foundation of Saint James's speech Papists are so much convinced of this that to evade Protestant Doctrine at least seemingly they invent a distinction of a first and second justification from that they exclude all works and attribute it only to faith and the other is not properly personal justification 8. Inst Prayer to Saints The Angel that delivered from all evils blessed the Children Gen. 48. Answ 1. Here is no mention of Saints much lesse of prayer to them not so much as an implicite hint of such a thing for I suppose Jacob was not of the mind of the Grecian Daemon worshippers who said it mattered not whether they called the souls of the defunct angells or gods 2. By Angel is meant Jesus Christ the Angell of the Covenant Mal. 3.1 who is true God and he who delivered Jacob out of all his evils Thus both Jewish and Christian Expositors understand it 3. I think you mistooâ— this for the latter part of the verse which Papists urge to prove invocation of Saints But seeing you doe not urge it I shall not at present answer it 9. Inst Prayer for the dead It is an holy and wholsome cogitation to pray for the dead 2 Maccab 12. A. 1. This book is not Apostolicall nor part of the Canon of Scripture the Hebrews keepers of the book of the Old Testament received it not as is generally confest and though some fathers commend this and other books of this nature to be read yet they commended them onely as profitable Treatises not as Canonicall Scriptures and therefore advise men to reade them with discretion and prudence Christ though he gives testimony to the Prophets and Psalms he gives none to these or in speciall to this besides there are divers things in this render it suspected 1. The Author of this book supposed to be Josephus professeth it to be onely an abridgement of Jason of Cyrene c. 2.23 and the Holy Ghost is not used to Epitomize profane Histories 2. He makes an excuse for himself and such a one as the holy Writers never used nor becomes a Divine History c. 15. 38. Answ 2. The Text you urge may be divers wayes oppugned 1. The words are not rightly translated by you the Greek is thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A holy and pious cogitation therefore he made expiation or satisfaction by sacrifice for the dead to free them from sin the words are not to be read without a middle distinction Vatablus who includes these words Piam et sanctam cogitationem in a parenthesis refers them neither to prayer nor sacrifice but to the resurrection of the dead saying it s an holy and pious thought to think that the bodies of them who have deserved well of their Country should rise again and not perish for ever 2. Supposing Sacrificing or Prayer seeing you will have it so for the dead were lawfull yet as to these persons it cannot be allowed For first they were Idolaters slain for their idolatry verse 40. Dying for any thing appears to the contrary in a mortall sin 2. They were not in Purgatory the onely place from whence Prayers bring souls for at this time Purgatory had not so much as an imaginary existence 3. Supposing Prayer for the dead and holy and wholesome cogitation and might be proved so from this place yet how can we be said to maintain a Doctrine clean contrary and opposite to that which the Apostles in plain and formall tearms expressed Though here be expressed the opinion of Judas or Jason of Cyrene yet neither Judas nor Jason were the Apostles of Christ nor yet any of the Prophets of God the last of whom was Malachi It is evident that you want spirituall proofs for your charitable devotion else you would not have urged against us those books you know we account Apocriphal and not bring one syllable of Scripture you must first prove unto us the Divine authority of the books of Maccabees and then prove our contrarietie to Scriptures in dissenting from them till then you beg the question 10. Inst Extream unction Is any body sick amongst you let him bring in the Priests of the Church and pray over him anoynting him with oyl in the name of our Lord. Jam. 5. Answ 1. Here are not the plain and formal tearms of extream unction nor do I think that you read them in any ancient Author the word Extream shews your extram abuse of this ordinance as Lorichius otherwise as much for this supposed Sacrament as any o-any other clearly demonstrates in these words Abusus vocbuli est quod dicitur extrema unctio c. It s an abuse of the word to call it extream unction For it s not a Sacrament of dying men but of those who are sick not relateing to their burial but conducing to their recovery Whence it was that in the primitive Church many when they were anointed did recover health And even at this day many wâ—uld be healed if this Sacrament were rightly used I observe that these Popish Authors who pretend to follow antiquity do avoid this tearm Extream calling this supposed Sacrament either sacramentum unctionis aegrotorum as Lorichius or simply Cass consult Art 22. p. 985. unctio infirmorum as Cassander who also shews that its of use for the sick in order to their recovery of bodily health 2. This text of the Apostle proves not your extream unction It speaks of that miraculous anointing which Saint Mark mentions Mark 6.13 and which Bellarmine saith was a sign used in miraculous healing of the diseased your Rhemists imply that it had a miraculous medicinal vertue to heal diseases which you will hardly say of your extream oyl Cajetan expresly denies that this text of James Cajet in cap. 5. Jac. proves extream unction and proves it by divers reasons 1. Saint James saith not if any man be sick unto death but absolutely if any man be sick 2. The proper effect of Saint James unction is recovery of health If he speaks of remission of sins onely conditionally whereas extream unction is not given but at the point of death and directly tends as its form stands to the remission of sins besides Saint James requires that many Elders be called to one sick person
its probable his Monk Austin was not free In the life of Austin p. 511 512 and therefore when he came amongst the Brittains who had the Gospel and many Bishops and learned men amongst them he was rejected by them for which Hierom Porter calls them Schismaticks maintaining errors yea that held many things repugnant to the unity of the Catholick Church Therefore we may at least probably suppose them Orthodox being opposite to those innovations the Bishop of Râ—â—â—e by his Apostles would have brought upon them 2 To your minor Saint Austines Church and doctrine were the same with the now Roman or the Roman Church in Gregory the Great 's time was the same it is at thiâ— present I answer could you prove this it would make much for you but hic labor hâ—c opus est this is too difficult a work for you and therefore you pass it off with a reference of us to a company of quotations to no purpose There is no Protestant Writer that I meet with that affirms Austins Church and Doctrine were the same with the now Roman Perkins in his Exposition of the Creed as I can understand him doth not but rather saith the contrary for speaking of the present Church of Rome he saith They hold justification by works of grace they maintain a daily sacrifice of the b dy of Christ in the Mass for the sins of quick and dead they worship images c. Thus then it appears that the old Church of Rome is changed and is now at this day of a Spâ—use of Christ become an Harlot and therefore no more a Church of Christ indeed than the carkass of a dead man that wears a living mans garment is a living man though he look never so like him This same is the very judgement of all Protestants I meet with and is most fully and clearly demonstrated by the learned Doctor Morton in his above mentioned appeal where he largely shews what was the judgement of Saint Gregory in those main points of controversie betwixt Protestants and Papists and how far Rome at present is from that faith which Saint Gregory taught and all this he doth by the testimonies of the most learned Papists Your mention of all the English Cronicles is but a Popish vaunt be pleased in your next to mention the places where they affirm your doctrine to be the same with Saint Gregories and their words till then I suspend all further answer to this Argument which as it is the last it is the weakest and most evidently false in its propositions as I doubt not it will appear to the judicious Reader CHAP. XII Of certain Objections made against the Roman Church answered YOu begin your Chapter with a sad complaint of enemies of the Roman Church in these words The enemies of the Roman Church have not shewn more pride in contemning her power then malice in raising false and slanderous reports against her good name therefore I will endeauour in this Chapter to clear her fame mainly clouded and shot at by the ensuing objections Answ When you charge the Objectors with slander you seem to be ignorant of the nature and definition of slander There cannot be slander where there is no lying accusation or a charging of such things upon others whereof they are not guilty And this your Aquinas will tell you is true Now can you say that the Objectours charge you with that whereof you are not guilty If their accusation be false why do you not disown the things they charge you with but rather defend them You affirm that Christs Body may be in divers places at once that the Mass with Altars images and relicks are to be adored that Saints and Angels are Mediatours c. If it be true why do you charge the Objectors with slander in the reporting of them But let vs examine the Answers to the Objections 1 Objection THe first objection is The Church of Rome teacheth Christs body to be present in many places at once which implyeth contradiction Answ 1. The measure of Gods power is his will and his will is above the reach of our capacitie therefore no wonder if God oftentimes doth that we cannot dive into the understanding of I reply 1. If you speak of Gods absolute Power it s not measured by his Will God is able to do more then he hath done or will do Of this absolute power John the Baptist speaks Math. 3.9 God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham Thus we grant he is able to make more works and of a piece of bread to raise up an humane body he can turn one thing into another of a different kind This Power as it s not measured by Gods Will so it s not the foundation or reason of our faith whereby we believe the existence of any thing But 2 If you speak of Gods executive power which is the power measured by his Will whereof you speak then we affirme this presence is impossible to God because contrary to his will as I shall shew even now 3 Whereas you say Gods Will is above our capacity c. Rom. 11.34 Deutr. 29.29 I answer Gods Will comes under a twofold Consideration it s either secret or revealed that part of his will which is secret as it concerns not our knowledge so neither doth it call for our faith or obedience but his revealed will is for us to know and obey If then you speak of Gods secret will you shew your self presumptuous intruding into such things as you ought not but if onely of his revealed then you imply that this Politopie is expressed and revealed unto us Now this I utterly deny for evidence whereof I shall premise that there are two volumes of Gods will whereby it s fully expressed unto us viz. Reason and Scripture by the former its expressed more imperfectly and darkly by the latter most fully and clearly The former is subordinate to the latter and the latter is perfective of the former Whatsoever else testifies of Gods Will it s in subordination to these and is to be tryed by them Nor are we to account any mans dictate to be Gods will that doth not agree with one or both of these I shall therefore shew the dissonancy of your Doctrine 1. to Reason then 2. to Scripture 1. It s contrary to Reason Aquin. Suppl 3. part q. 83 Art 3. ad 4m. that one body should be present in many places at once without the destruction of that body Aquinas saith Vnum corpus c. One body cannot be at once locally in two places no not by a miracle and he gives this reason because to be in many places at once is repugnant to the very nature of an Individuum which is to be divided in it self for it would follow that it should be in a distinct posture whence it follows that for the same body to be locally at once in divers places includes contradictiion as for a
man to want reason to have reason A body in many places is no longer one but many bodies To this you answer Sect. 1. As for the implicancy some labour to conviâ—ce this mystery of there is none at all for though a body cannot be locally in two places at once by reason of local extension which confines it to one yet this extension being removed as is possible to the Omnipotent Power it is as easie for a body to be in several places at once as for the Deity to be in three Persons at once or for the soul to be in the head the middle the feet at once Reply 1. You suppose a body separable from Extension which is as much as to suppose a man without reason Aquin. 3. part q. 76 Art 4. for it s granted as a certain truth by Aquinas and others that a body cannot be without quantity and thereupon Aquinas codcludes that the body of Christ in the Eucharist hath its whole dimensive Quantity whence I infer that it must needs have its extension the reason is because Extension is the formal reason of Quantity Ruvio Com. in Arist Dial. c. 6. de quant q. 1. Supra Aug. ep 57. contra Faustum l. 20. c. 11. and this is not an Entitative but a Quantitative Extension as Ruvio proves by many Arguments Now if a thing cannot be conceived without its essence but by implicancy of contradiction as Aquinas grants then cannot Quantity be conceived as wanting Extension and consequently bodies that have Quantity cannot without implicancy of contradiction want Extension Augustine doth clearly assert what I say in divers places 2. Your similitudes make not for you not the first for 1. The Deity is not in three Persons as a body in three places The divine Persons are every of them every where immense and infinite not in several places 2. God is in one place only though this one be comprehensive of all places Schribl Metaph. l. 2. c. 3. Tit. 12 Art 2. p. 2. as Schribler doth wittily manifest it from Isai 66.1 Those that are dis-joyned and distant places with us are with God contiguous and make but one place 3. If by your Similitude you prove the Deity in many places it will not hence follow that a body may be so to 2. Nor the second the soule in the head middle feet at once is not in many Aquin. fum part 1. q. 76. Art 8. c. q. 52. art 2. Zabarel l. departit animae c. 5 but one place Whether you consider it as having respect primarily to the whole body as Aquinas conceives and expresseth it and that as one place or to the heart as Zabarel In saying that its in the head middle and feet you confess that it s in one place for here is no distance which should make many places 2 You answer If it be true Philosophie teacheth that a consequence from being to may be is valid and good Experience demonstrates that God hath power to make Christs body really present in seâ—erall places at once forasmuch as at the self same time he was so present with his Father in Heaven he appeared and discoursed with Saint Paul on earth Acts 9.4.5 Reply 1. That Phylosophicall thesis of yours is not true unless in ordinary events or with reference to Gods absolute power The will of God may put a Bar to it God did appear on Mount Sinai delivering a Church Model Here is a Beeing yet considering Gods Will its impossible that he should do so again Satan did tempt Christ Christ was made under the Law crucified dead buried yet who would infer that these things are now possible Amongst the errors of your master of the Sentences noted by the Parisians this is one Quod Deus semper potest quicquid aliquando potuit Ad fin Lombard sent Edit Paris Ann. 1537. p. 594. that God alwayes can do that which sometimes he hath done Sure these Gentlemen did not take that for truth which your Philosophy teacheth you though truly I think your masters speeches may be justified for he saith that the power of God is the same alwayes but that he cannot alwayes do that which sometimes he could do which seems contrary to your Philosophicall axiome 2. Granting it true yet your inference proves not true and I halfe think your selfe were convinced hereof Fateamur ergo Deum semper posse quicquid semel potuit i. e. habere omnem illam potentiam quam semel habuit illius omnis rei potentiam cujus semel habuit sed non semper posse facere omne illud quod aliquando potuit facere c. Lomb. l. 1. dist 44. for your expressions are not so plain for Christs presence on Eaâ—â—h as in Heaven You mention Christs apparition and disccourse with the Apostle on Earth but neither one nor both of these prove his corporall presence here one earth He appeared to Stephen yet remained in Heaven only Act. 7.55 He discoursed with Peter Acts 10.13 14. yet was not corporally with him on Earth And for the Text you mention it proves not any thing for you if you will believe the interlineans he will tell you the contrary I am Jesus that is saith he Gloss interl Lyran. in Act. 9. I am God speaking from Heaven whom thou thoughtest to be dead and he gives this reason of Pauls astonishment That he thought not Jesus to be in Heaven wherein Lyranus concurs with him As the light shined from Heaven its most probable the voice did also come from thence as Lyranus confesseth the voice did which Peter in the next Chapter is said to hear 3 Granting that Christ was corporally present with Paul how do you prove that he was also corporally present in Heaven why might he not ex aliqua dispensatione leave Heaven for a time 4 If we should grant he was both in heaven and earth at this time it would not follow therefore Christ may be much less must be continually present in his body on the earth I have shewed how inconsequentiall this is in the first part of my answer Thirdly you answer Even in nature there is a resemblance and light of this mystery one and the same water is in the fountain river and lake at once one and the same voice in thousands of ears at once one and the same face in sundery looking glasses at once Reply These instances resemble not this Popish mystery 1 Not the first For 1 if you make the Fountain River and Lake three distinct places then it s not one and the same water for you cannot say that the water of the Fountain is the water of the Lake c. That water that is hic nunc is not other where 2 If you conceive them continuately the water runing with a continued stream from the fountain into the channell and diffusing it self from the channell to the Lake then all the water in these three partiall continents is
but one numericall body and the three continents are but parts of the same place 2 Nor the second for first voice or sound is no body Secondly it is a question whether it be one and the same voice that comes to thousands of ears at once or a multiplied voice or sound Magyr Physiol l. 6. c. 8. Com. ad finem see Magyrus where the contrary is asserted upon this very ground Thirdly the place of sound or its proper subject is the Aire not mens ears 3 Nor yet the third for there is not one body really in two places no more than if one man were pictured in severall frames neither of which bears any resemblance of this Phylosophy of reall bodies Fourthly you answer Should we believe onely that which we understand there would not be any belief in us of mysteries of faith they being all above the reach of humane capacity Reply 1. If knowledge or understanding were not necessary to faith why hath faith the name of knowledge given it in Scripture Isai 53.11 and John 17.3 If faith be an assent as Papists tell us then faith doeth necessarily require knowledge for we must know what is truth if we believe that it is so I confess there are some things which in some respects are not fully conceivable but for those we have an express Word of God informing us of them which is the ground of our faith but this we have not for a carnall presence in many places and therefore cannot command our belief of it Fifthly by way of answer you introduce an objection against the Polytopie of Christs body but is directly against bodily presence in any place It is taken from the strange irreverencies and absurdities which would ensue thereof as to be subject to the eating and tearing in piecs of dâ—gs cats mice and to the abuse of wicked me and miscreants to which you answer He that is of power to render a body really present in severall places at once witâ—out doubt is able to defend and keep the same from all outrages as God is pleased to do in this mystery by removing locall extension and by consequenâ—e possibility by means whereof dogs cats and mice can onely tear and destroy the accidents of bread and wine Reply first the foundation is already overthrown Secondly I believe you are not perswaded that Gods power is imployed about Christs body to keep it from irreverences if you were why is it that you dare not give the Cup to the people is not God able to prevent drops of the blood from sticking to the peoples beards or falling to the ground Why do you make an invisible body to prevent the faithfull's loathing and the profane's scorning of the Ordinance is not God able to keep the faithfull from loathing flesh and blood visibly and really appearing such as well as intellectually represented to their understandings if Gods power must support one absurdity why may it not another 3 Though you speak irrationally of tearing the species of bread and wine yet others of your fraternitie speak plainly of the body of Christ Among the penitentiall Canons in the end of the old editions of the Roman Decree Can. 39. are these words Quando muâ— corrodit aut comedit Corpus Christi c. i. e. When a mouse gnaweth or eateth the body of Christ c. he saith not the species of bread and wine but the very body of Christ And in the new Mass book t is said De defect circa Missam occurrent c. 3. Sect. 7. Si Hostia Consecrata c. If the consecrated Host vanish away by some accident as if it be carried away with the wind or by some miracle or eaten up by some beast and cannot be found then let another be consecrated I suppose your Host or Sacrifice is not the meer species of bread and wine but the body of Christ Now this Host it seemes may be blown away with the winde or be eaten of beasts sure you take calm weather and tie up your beasts when you goe in Procession Ib. c. 10. Sect. 14. What should I speak of your vomiting and against licking up the vomited Host or in case of loathing putting it up for a relique such stuff is fit for such beasts as return to their vomit or lye wallowing in the mire 2. You answer to the Objection Wicked men and miscreants offer violence to the same but not hurt or anoy the Body of Christ no more then he were of force to wrong the Godhead that surprised with a raging fit should strike at the aire with an intention to do him mischief Reply Every thing you say ads to the miracle Christ hath a body to be eaten that yet is not seen nor tasted nor passible yea is like unto God or a Spirit that cannot be hit or wounded What could Eutiches have said more Doth not this prove that Christs body is no real body but only imaginary and phantastical or if real yet it s not according to your doctrine really present Will it follow that because God or another spiritual Substance is impassible by humane force therefore a true natural body is so to It must be Popish Logick that will make this a good Consequence 3. You answer Admit these pretended inconveniences should follow that the body of Christ should be eaten and torn in pieces of dogs bats mice c. I do not conceive there could be inferr'd any other then a continuation of that ardent love of Christ which he shewed to man when he estranged himself from his Eternal Father to bear with patience and mildness hunger cold whippings spittings thorns and last of all the bitter and disgraceful death of the Cross Reply 1. This ardent Love of Christ to man cannot be from hence inferred All sufferings of Christ are not the effects of his ardent Love What Love of Christ is manifested in wicked mens crucifying to themselves afresh the Son of God Heb. 6.6 10.29 and putting him to an open shame or in their treading under foot the Son of God and accounting the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing and doing despight to the Spirit of grace What Love of Christ is manifested when his body is torn in pieces of dogs cats mâ—ce or blown away with the wind or spued out of some drunken Priests mouth and lickt up again It s a most evident truth that those sufferings of Christ only are the expressions of his love which do tend to mans redemption and salvation and without which these could not be attained Of this kind were the sufferings of Christ by the Jews and Romans in the time of his incarnation Hence are those expressions The Love of God is shed abroad in our hearts Rom. 5.5 6 7 8 Gal. 3.13 14 Isai 53.4 c. for when we were yet without strengh in due time Christ dyed for the ungodly God commendeth his love to us in that when we were yet sinners Christ dyed for
Latria there is not any thing in the world but may partake of divine worship with it as well as the Mass But its sin to adore that which we know not whether it be adorable or no. 2. The Name of Jesus Altars Pictures Reliques You say She alloweth indeed of religious honour to the Name of Jesus to Altars Pictures Reliques relating to God Christ and his Saints Reply 1. The Heathens as I have shewed did give no more to their-images then that you call religious honour 2. The Worship of Images when it was in relation to Christ and Saints hath been branded with heresie The Carpocrations are cal-called Hereticks by S. Augustine for worshipping of Jesus and Paul Aug. de haeres c. 7. Dan. in cap. 6. Aug. de haeres Euseb Eccles Hist l. c. 3 Cyril Catech. Myttag 1a pag. 513. 1 Tim. 4.1 Euseb Eccles Histor lib 4. c. 15. Danaeus observes it to have been one of the Gnosticks heresies Eusebius observes out of Justin Martyr that Simon Magus and his followers put in ure against the pestilent superstition of pictures from which they seemed once to be free As Cyril of Hierusalem calls prayers candles c. made for the honour of Images 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the worship of the Devil which Saint Paul expresseth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doctrines of Daemons 3. All that the ancient Christians ascribed to Saints was love not religious worship When the Christians of the Church of Smyrna were denied the body of Polycarpus upon his account lest they should leave Christ to worship him they answer for themselves that their enemies were ignorant That we say they can never forsake Christ which dyed for the Salvation of the whole world and that we can worship none other for we worship Christ as the Son of God the Martyrs we love at Disciples and followers of the Lord and that worthily for the invincible good will they bear to their King and Master whose Companions and Disciples we desire to be In the same place they say We gathered his bones more precious then pearls and better then tryed gold and buried them in the place that was fit for the purpose They were neither worshippers of Saints much less of their images nor reservers of their reliques All they desired was that they might bury his body which being denied them they buried what they could get his bones You urge To find fault with this were to blame Justice for giving to every thing its due in acknowledging the truth It being most true and undoubted that the Name of Jesus Altars Pictures and Reliques bear relation to God Christ and his Saints as Persons in Dignities and Preheminencies to the same Ans 1. The Question is not whether every thing ought to have its due but whether religious honour be due to these things that we grant But deny this their mere relation besides which you mention nothing else cannot prove it All things in the world have relation to God Christ and the Saints yea some things have a special relation which yet you do not worship Emmanuel is as venerable a name as Jesus so is the name Christ Temples have special relation to God as well as Altars Dead pictures have not so much relation to Christ or God and their living Images true Christians Reliques of Saints have no more relation to them then their works or vertues yet Papists give not religious worship to these You must therefore give us some other characters whereby to know what things are adorable or what religion to God Christ or Saint will purchase from us this honour that we may know how and when and to whom to give it 2. Though it were true that Images and Relicks did bear such relation to Christ and Saints as might procure this worship for them yet its doubtful whether the images you give us be the true Images of Christ You know the Painter pictured Peter ruddy upon supposal that if Peter were now at Rome he would blush to see his Successours c. May. not Christ be missed in the painting as well as Peter for I hope your Painters are not infallible May not the Image you affirm to be the Image of Christ be the image of some thief or wicked person yea of Judas and so whilest we bow to Christ we kiss Judas I read of a Case not altogether unlike this mentioned by Cassander 't is this Saint Martin once going to a place in his Diocess famous for the Monument of a Martyr Cass de vener reliq pag. 973. Haback 2.18 Isai 44.10 he found it was the MonumeÌ„t of a wicked thief The Prophets truely tell us that the graven image and the molten image is a teacher of lies and is profitable for nothing The same may be said of Reliques its questionable whether they be true The most of them seem counterfeit and such are complained against by moderate and more ingenious Papists Cassander doth very much complaine of them in these words There are many that make merchandise of reliques whether true or false so that they are carried about by Juglers and the vilest fellows like the heathenish mysteries of Isis and they are commended to the vulgar with many lies Cassand ibid. Erasmus is more full What saith he would Hierom have said in these days to see every where set forth in oftentation the Virgin Mary's milk and so many pieces of the Cross of Christ which if they should be gathered together would overload a ship Here they shew S. Francis his Coale there the Virgine's Petticoat One where S. Anne's Comb in another place Joseph's Breeches and which is a thing uncertain the foreskin of Christ which they adore more religiously then Christ himself Erasm in Mat. 33. p. 80. Supr I will conclude this with the words of Cassander Whereas there are but very few true reliques in these parts and many of thosâ— that are shewed may be suspected and their frequenting and worshipping doth condâ—ce little to pâ—ety but much either to superstition or gain It were a much wiser course that there were no Ostâ—ntation of reliques but that the people might be provoked to worship the true reliques of the Saints that is to imitate those examples of piety and vertue which are extant in theirs or others writings of them In the last place you bring in two Objections against adoration at Mass and answer them 1. To urge against the lawfulness of adoration at Mass from the interposition of creatures would prove too much viz. That Christ were not adorable in Churches in the fields nay at all by reason of an interposition of walls the Heavens or Christs Body betwixt the adorers and his sacred Person Reply 1. Your last Interposition is a conceit fit for a Transubstantiator 2. No Protestant doth urge against the lawfulness of adoration the meer interposition of creatures but the interposition of them as the object of worship This we conceive forbidden in the first Commandment which