cannot vse it so the Scriptures are a meanes to conuict proteruious 〈◊〉 as they were vsed by Christ and his Apostles and by the 〈◊〉 Councels or Papall Councels and the Bishops and Doctors of the Roman Church c. Answ. First Our Sauiour and his Apostles did both vse the Scriptures themselues and commanded others euen simple men to vse them Iohn 5 39. Ephes. 6 17. and they are commended who examined Doctrine by them Acts 17 11. Secondly they which vnderstand and applie the Scriptures truely vse them as Christ and his Apostles did and so the Scripture in their vse is a word of power and not as a sword in a childs hand Thirdly Scriptures were meanes to conuict Hereticks as they were vsed by the Fathers of the Church and other holie Persons before any generall Councells were gathered to wit the first three hundred yeares and before the Papall Supremacie was aduanced in the Church Fourthly it is ridiculous to imagine that the present Roman Church and the sole Adheres thereof according to the Trident Creed are the only true expositors of holy Scriptures or that 〈◊〉 exposition of Scripture repugnant and diuers from the present Roman Creed is false or Haereticall for neither hath the holie Ghost by expresse testimonie or euident demonstration appropriated the key of knowledge to this Church and few Heretickes haue more fouly corrupted and abused the Scriptures And the pillars of this Church 〈◊〉 sundrie times been vnskilfull Ideots vnlettered Gulls Monsters of mankind with whom the holie Spirit vseth not to haue commerce Wisdom 1. 2. Cor. 6. 15. Fiftly the place of Tertul. d. Praescript c. 19. doth not 〈◊〉 the imperfection of holie Scripture to conuict proteruious error according to the latter part of my former distinction for then he could not haue said Scripturae plenitudinem adoramus We adore the plenitude of the 〈◊〉 and Let Hermogenes teach that it is written and if it be not written let him feare the Wo denounced against them which add or detract any thing from the word of God but be 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures according to the first part of my distinction to wit That Heretickes blinded with malice and either denying or corrupting the text of the Scriptures cannot be so conuicted by them but they will still vse cauils and by Sophisticall slights borrowed from Philosophers elude the euidence of the plaine Texts of Scriptures But if this argue the Scriptures of imperfection it will also prooue the Authoritie of the Church and of Tradition to be insufficient as appeares in the Arrians and Donatists And Heretickes may with no lesse pretext take exception against Tradition and Ecclesiasticall Authoritie than against the Scripture Ireneus li. 3. ca. 2. When they are confuted by Scriptures they accuse them as being not well written and destitute of Authoritie or else so ambiguous that one cannot find the Truth by them c. And in like manner when we prouoke them to stand to triall by Tradition which came from the Apostles c. they oppose the same c. And thus they will consent neither to Scripture nor Tradition And Gregorie Valence himselfe saith The infallible teaching and proposition of the Church is no lesse obscure vnto vs than any other Article which we are to beleeue Sixtly we acknowledge the lawfull Power and Authoritie of the Church about expounding holy Scriptures and for maintaining Vnitie in right Faith and appeasing contention repressing proteruious Errants Heb. 13.17 Math. 18.17.1 Timoth. 3.15 2. Thessal 5.12 And in particular first wee beleeue the authority of Councels General and Nationall lawfully assembled and accordingly proceeding to be sacred And all Councels of this nature we reuerence with the same honour the ancient Church did affirming that priuate Christians and particular Churches are to submit their iudgement to the authority of the same except it bee manifest that they depart from Truth Secondly wee highly and reuerently esteeme exposition of Scripture deliuered by the vnanimous consent of the Primatiue Fathers and although wee yeeld eminent and supreme Authoritie to the holy Scriptures because the same is absolutely diuine yet when any question ariseth concerning Expositions we allow not priuate persons vpon vncertaine or probable reasons to reiect the sence which hath bin antiently and commonly receiued and against which no strong or solid exception can be produced Now this being obserued and other helps of expounding Scripture vsed there followeth nothing from our Tenet whereby Christianitie should be made vncertaine and Disputation from sole Scripture prooue fruitles or which may hinder apparent Victorie by the same against proteruious Error IESVIT The Preface ended our Aduersarie descendeth to his disputation and herein first he setteth downe a maine proposition which hee intendeth to prooue to wit The Roman Church is the onely true Church Secondly He deliuereth fiue Principles manifest in themselues and presupposed and confessed by Papists and Protestants Principle 1. No man can be saued without firme and sure apprehension of supernaturall Truth concerning his last end and the meanes to attaine thereunto Secondly Assurance of this kind is not had by cleere sight Demonstration humane Discourse or humane Authoritie but by Faith grounded vpon Gods Word reuealing things vnknowne by other meanes Thirdly God reuealed all Supernaturall Truth to Christ and Christ reuealed the same to the holy Apostles partly by vocall Preaching but principally by the immediate teaching of his holy Spirit to this end that they should deliuer them to mankind to bee receiued and beleeued euerie where ouer the World euen to the consummation thereof Fourthly the Apostles fulfilled this preaching to all Nations and deliuering partly by writing and partly by word of mouth the whole entire Doctrine of Saluation planted an vniuersall Christian companie and to deliuer vnto 〈◊〉 all they had 〈◊〉 from them Fiftly though the Apostles and their Primatiue Hearers be deceased yet there still remaines in the World a meanes by which men may assuredly know what the Apostles preached andthe Primatiue Church receiued of them because the Church euen to the endof the World must be founded on the Apostles and beleeue nothing as matter of Faith but that which was deliuered by them The former grounds being confessed a question remaineth to be examined What is the principall infallible meanes whereby a Christian may know what was and is the Doctrine of Faith originally preached by the Apostles Whether holy Scripture of the Apostles and Euangelists bee that meanes or perpetuall Tradition vnwritten deriued by Succession from the Apostles ANSVVER The Iesuit affirmeth the latter and produceth foure Arguments to prooue his Tenet and then supposing that he hath prooued the Question inferreth that the Roman Church is the only true Church because it is the only faithfull keeper and teacher of this Tradition IESVITS 1. Argument If the maine and substantiall points of our Faith are
expressed are sufficient to prooue that the holy Apostles were the Authors or Approuers of all the Scriptures of the New Testament and if these with other humane motiues of credibilitie be not the same doubt which is made concerning them may with greater probabilitie be made concerning vnwritten Traditions And secluding the authoritie of the Scripture it selfe no other diuine testimonie can be produced to satisfie them which are doubtfull touching the veritie of vnwritten Tradition and the authoritie of the present Church If one will not beleeue the Scriptures because of the authoritie of God speaking in them neither will he beleeue the present Church consisting of persons in whom is possibilitie of error IESVIT For we may distinguish three properties of the Doctrine of Faith to wit to be true to be reuealed of God to be preached and deliuered by the Apostles The highest ground by which I am persuaded and resolued that my Faith is true is the authoritie of God reuealing it the highest ground on which I am resolued that my Faith is reuealed is the credit and authoritie of Christ Iesus and his Apostles who deliuered the same as diuine and sacred but the highest ground that mooueth me to beleeue that my Faith was preached by the Apostles is the perpetuall Tradition of the Church succeeding the Apostles that so teacheth me ANSVVER The last part of the former distinction is denied The highest ground meaning diuine which mooueth vs to beleeue that the doctrine of Faith was preached by the Apostles is not the perpetuall Tradition of the Church succeeding the Apostles but the holy Scripture of the New Testament for the perpetuall Tradition of the Church succeeding the Apostles is beleeued because of the authoritie of the said Church and whosoeuer beleeueth that Tradition or Testimonie must first of all know the Church to be an infallible witnesse But the word of God only the greater and most worthie part whereof by our Aduersaries confession is contained in the Scriptures giueth authoritie to the Church for the Church is founded vpon the word of God Eph. 2.20 and the word of God is the immortall seed which produceth and giueth being to the Church Luc. 8.11 Ia. 1.18 it selfe vpon the Apostles 〈◊〉 word and Doctrine which is principally contained in the Scripture 〈◊〉 Into this principle St. Augustine resolued his faith against the 〈◊〉 who pretended the Scriptures were corrupted confuting them by Tradition of the Church affirming that he would not beleeue the Gospell 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 beleeued the Gospel to 〈◊〉 souer aignely certaine and true vpon the authority of God 〈◊〉 it and that it was reuealed of God vpon the authority of the Apostles who as sacred preached it yet that this Gospel as we haue it came incorrupt from the Apostles he could haue no stronger or more excellent 〈◊〉 than the testimony of the present Church descended by continued succession of Bishops from the Apostles neither can we imagine any higher except we flye to particular and to priuate reuelation which is absurd ANSWER St. Augustines words C. Epist. Manichei c. 4. doe not proue that after he was fully conuerted he resolued his faith finally and principally into the authority of the Church succeeding the Apostles First St. Augustine resolued his faith finally and principally into that which he knew to be infallible and totally diuine But he was not so persuaded of the Church succeeding the Apostles because he thought it possible for the principall members of that Church to 〈◊〉 and be deceiued and he prefers the authority of the Scriptures before the iudgement of Councels and Fathers in which some of our aduersaries place the 〈◊〉 of Ecclesiasticall infallibility Moreouer it appeareth by Saint Augustine in the second chapter of this Booke that he did not make the authority of the Church the highest ground of resolution of his faith for he saith that manifest verity is to be preferred before all other tbings whereby he was held in the Catholike Church but that whose authority must be preferred before all other things is the highest ground of faiths resolution Secondly because St. Augustines meaning in this place is obscure and dubious our aduersaries cannot conclude certainely from hence 1. Some Schoolemen hold that he speaketh of acquisite or Historicall Faith which is an introductiō to infused faith and then it is inconsequent to argue that because Saint Augustine at his first conuersion and being a Nouice in Faith did ground his Historicall faith vpon the authority of the Church therefore the authority of the Church is vniuersally and after men are conuerted the highest ground of resolution Most men are at first induced by externall motiues to giue credit to the Scriptures as the people of Samaria were by the testimony of the woman to beleeue that Christ was a Prophet Ioh. 4.42 Altisiodor summa in prolog li. 3. tr 3.9.4 But as these people afterwards beleeued because of Christs owne words so they which by the Churches authority are first persuaded to heare and reade the doctrine of the Scriptures afterwards by the light of grace doe perceiue the diuine Maiestie wisedome efficacie and verity of the said doctrine and resolue their faith into the diuine authority of the holy Ghost manifesting himselfe in the Scripture or doctrine of the Scripture Secondly other learned Papists hold that St. Augustine in the place obiected by the authority of the Church vnderstood the Church wherein the Apostles themselues gouerned and of which they were parts and then no meruaile if he resolued his faith into the authority of the Church because in this notion the Church comprehends the Colledge of the Apostles whose testimony concerning the Scripture was altogether Diuine And although St. Augustine conioyneth the authority of the latter Church with the former wherein were the Apostles yet he did not equally and with the same manner of beleeuing ground his faith vpon both for when a Preacher deliuereth Apostolicall doctrine we beleeue both the Preacher and the Doctrine and we could not haue knowne the doctrine but by the Preacher yet we resolue not our faith finally and principally into the authority of the Preacher but into the diuine verity it selfe preached by him Euery thing by which we are mooued to beleeue and without whose authority we should not haue beleeued is not the principall obiect whereunto diuine faith is finally resolued as appeareth by miracles preaching instruction of Parents c. IESVIT Vpon the former place of Saint Augustine the Iesuit inferreth That because we haue no stronger or more excellent proofe than the testimonie of the present Churcb descended by continuall succession of Bishops from the Apostles to confirme that the Gospell as wee haue it came incorrupt from the Apostles therefore Saint Augustine resolued his faith that
are baptised and externally professe Christianitie And according to this notion it comprehendeth both the good and the bad the cleane and the vncleane of that profession 2. Tim. 2. 20. Math. 13.25.47 Math. 3.12 c. 22.10 〈◊〉 it is taken for Particular Societies and congregations of Christians Apoc. 1.4 2.1 and sometimes it is taken for the Pastors of particular Churches Math. 18.17 sometimes for the People Acts 20.28 sometimes for the whole Flocke consisting of Pastors and People Apoc. 3.6 But it is neuer taken in holy Scripture for the Pope and Councell If the Iesuit in his Proposition There is a visible Church alwaies in the world c. understand the 〈◊〉 Church in the first Notion then it is denied that we are absolutely to adhere to the Traditions of this Church or that the same is alwaies and intirely One Vniuersal Apostolicall Holy according to the meaning of the Apostles and Nicene Creed Secondly according to the second Notion the Church is not visible for a principall part thereof is in heauen and the other moetie militant vpon earth being considered as elect and holy is knowne intuitiuely to God only 2. Tim. 2.19 and morally coniecturally and according to the iudgement of Charitie to men in this world 2. Thess. 2.13 Thirdly according to the third Notion the Church is visible in all ages and some part thereof teacheth and professeth right Faith in all substantiall and fundamentall articles And we are to cleaue to the Traditions of the same so farre as in the deliuerie thereof it exceedeth and transgresseth not the bounds of lawfull authoritie and teacheth according to the rule of Gods word S. Chrysostome saith Because Seducers are often found even in true Churches we are not to beleeue vnlesse they speake and do that which is consonant to the Scriptures And in another place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Priest teach any peruerse Doctrine giue no credit yea though he were an Angell Nay I will presume to say more than this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one ought not beleeue Paul if he should preach any thing humane or of himselfe but as he is an Apostle and hath Christ speaking in him Lastly according to the fourth Acceptation there are euer in the world particular Churches and societies of Christians and euery one of these Churches professe some portion of diuine veritie But we must enquire by the rule of Gods word which of these are pure and orthodoxall and on the contrarie which of them are infected with errors and imbrace the Doctrine of the one and auoid the Corruptions of the other Remarkable Obseruations concerning the Church OBSERVATION I. THe externall visible Church is an intermixed or compounded societie bodie and state of Christian people professing the faith and worship of Christ in which are found sheepe and goats wheat and tares gold and drosse good fishes and bad and vessels of honour and dishonour This common and generall societie and bodie consisteth of diuers particular Churches consenting and agreeing in the professing of some part of diuine veritie and of these Churches some are orthodoxall some are impure in faith and religion and also these being compared are respectiuely purer or impurer And within the compasse of each particular Church the members are better or worse more or lesse holy or corrupt OBSERVAT. II. Whereas the Church hath many Titles and Properties belonging to it and Christ Iesus the Head thereof hath made sundrie Promises and conferred diuerse Graces vpon it wee must consider which part of the Church is the proper subiect of these Qualities Promises and Graces For it is apparant That as Sheepe and Goats Chaffe and Wheat Gold and Drosse are of a contrarie kind although they are intermixed so likewise the Affections and Attributes of the same although they are spoken in generall of the whole Subiect as an Heape which hath Wheat and Chaffe a Field which hath Wheat and Tares are called an Heape of Graine a Field of Wheat yet many of them appertaine formally and indeed onely to the better part of the common Subiect OBSERVAT. III. In the visible societie of Christian people there are found according to S. Augustine Citizens of the heauenly Hierusalem and also Inhabitants of Babylon And as the same Father teacheth Notum est ciues malae Ciuitatis administrare quosdam actus 〈◊〉 Ciuitatis It is manifest that in the visible Church Burgers of the wicked Citie Babylon doe administer some Functions of the holy Citie Hierusalem Ioh. 12.6 2. Timoth 4.10 Apoc. 3.14 15. Phil. 〈◊〉 Ioh. 3.9 The Promises of Christ made to the Church concerning his presence and assistance to his Word and Sacraments preached and administred according to his commandement are fulfilled when wicked persons execute the office and performe the worke of outward 〈◊〉 For although wicked persons like the Carpenters of Noahs Arke reape no benefit to themselues yet God Almightie concurreth with their Ministerie being his owne Ordinance for the saluation of all deuout and worthie Communicants OBSERVAT. IIII. Some things are spoken of the Church in common or generall tearmes to shew what the whole is in respect of Gods outward vocation or what the office and dutie of the whole Church is but the same promises properties and priuiledges are really fulfilled or found in the better and sounder part thereof onely When our Sauiour promiseth that the gates of Hell shall not preuaile against the Church Matth. 16.18 he vnderstandeth such a Church as heareth and obeyeth his word and not a visible companie or Hierarchie of Prelates which forsake his word and doe what they list August d. Vnit. Ecclesiae cap. 18. Ecclesia in his est qui adificant supra Petram id est qui credunt verbum Christi faciunt d. Baptismo Lib. 6. cap. 24. Nonne illi sunt in Ecclefia qui sunt in Petra Qui autem in Petra non sunt nec in Ecclesia sunt iam ergò videamus vtrum super Petram aedificium suum constituant qui audiunt Christi verba non faciant Saint Augustine in these words deliuereth three things first The Church is in them which build vpon the Rocke secondly They are not in the Church which are not in the Rocke thirdly They onely build vpon the Rocke and are in the Rocke which beleeue and obey the word of Christ And this Doctrine of S. Augustine is taken out of the holy Scripture Matth. 7.24 1. Cor. 3.11 10.4 Also when S. Paul saith The Church is the ground and pillar of Truth 1. Tim. 3. 15. by the Church hee vnderstandeth the House of the liuing God as the precedent part of his speech sheweth to wit If I tarrie long that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behaue thy selfe in the House of God c. But they alone are verily and indeed the House of God which beleeue and loue the Truth
much as one day till the consummation of the world ANSWER The place of Saint Matthew chapter 28. 19 20. prooueth First that the holy Apostles receiued a Commission and Mandate from Christ to preach the Gospell to all nations both Iewes and Gentiles and to baptise them In the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost Marke 16. 15 16. Luke 24.27 Acts 1.8 Rom. 1.14 Secondly that our Sauiour promised his Apostles a perpetuall presence and assistance of his diuine power and grace both in regard of the gifts of edification Acts 2. 4. And in respect of the grace of inward sanctification Iohn 17.17 Thirdly because the Apostles were mortall and not to remaine alwayes personally vpon earth and other Pastors must succeed in the office of Ministerie the promise of Christ touching his spirituall presence and assistance of grace is extended to these successours and when they teach and baptise in such manner as Christ commanded diuine grace is present to their Ministeriall actions and the holy Ghost co-worketh with them Fourthly But yet succeeding Pastors receiued not the same measure of diuine Grace with the Apostles neyther had they immediate and Propheticall reuelation but onely a measure of Grace ordinarie mediate and in some sort conditionall Also the said Promise Matth. 28. 20. was common and equall to all the Apostles and to the successors of one Apostle as well as of another to the successors of Saint Iames and Saint Iohn c. as well as to the successors of Saint Peter Fifthly Notwithstanding the said promise Bishops and Pastors succeeding the Apostles were in respect of themselues subiect to errors and their iudgement in matters of Faith was not absolutely infallible like the Apostles but so farre forth onely as they walked in the footsteps and followed the Doctrine deliuered by the Apostles Our Sauiour promised that he would be alwayes with the Apostles euen to the consummation of the World partly in their personall Teaching whiles they themselues liued in the World and partly in their permanent Doctrine contained in the Scriptures of the New Testament when the same was truly deliuered by their successors And he will be also with succeeding Pastors all Ages according to such a measure of Grace and assistance as is sufficient for the edifying of the Church if they for their owne part be studious to learne diuine Truth from the holy Apostles and carefull to preach the same to others But his promise concerning immunitie from error and mortall offences is not so absolute to successors as it was to the Apostles themselues Sixtly Many antient Expositors affirme That the Promise of Christ Matth. 28.20 is especially made to the iust and faithfull and some of them say to the Elect onely And Occham affirmeth That if there should be found in the whole World but one Orthodox Bishop or but one such Priest and a small number of Lay people professing right Faith in Articles essentiall and willing to embrace all other Diuine Vertie when the same should be manifested vnto them this were sufficient to make good Christ his Promise Matth. 28.20 In the next passage our Aduersarie inferreth and deriueth certaine Propositions from the former Text of Matth. 28. 20. First hee saith There is still a Christian Church all dayes not wanting so much as one day in the World till the consummation thereof I answer That there is still in the World a common Christian Church wherein some beleeuers hold the substance of right Faith But there is not perpetually in the World a Church the more potent and maior part whereof beleeueth and professeth right Faith without error in all points and so infallible in all her Doctrine as was the Primitiue Church which enioyed the immediate and actuall preaching of the Apostles IESVIT Secondly This Church is euer visible and conspicuous For the Church which alwayes teacheth and christeneth all Nations to which Christ saith I am alwayes with you not with you sitting in corners or hidden vnder ground but with you exercising the Office enioyned you in the words precedent Docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos c. ANSWER The Church is euer visible according to some degree of visibilitie but this Scripture teacheth not that the true Church is alwayes largely and gloriously visible The same doth not actually in euerie Age teach and christen all Nations and the Roman Church for sundrie Ages past teacheth and christeneth few or none within Natolia and other large Prouinces liuing in subiection to the Grand Seignior or Emperour of Constantinople And as Christ doth not say verbally in this Text I am alwayes with you sitting in corners so he doth not say I am alwayes with you when you are carryed vpon mens shoulders and tread vpon Emperours neckes and diuide and share the Kingdomes of the World and gather endlesse Riches by selling Pardons and preaching Purgatorie But yet of the two it is farre more agreeable to the Diuine Goodnesse who is a Father of the poore and oppressed to be present to his little flocke in persecution and when it flyeth as a Lambe from the Wolfe and hideth it selfe from the Oppressor Apoc. 12. 14 than that hee hath entayled his perpetuall presence vpon ambitious and oppressing Tyrants which stiled themselues Pastors and were rauening Wolues Scribes and Pharisees imposing insupportable burthens vpon others and not moouing them with one of their owne fingers And there is no cause why the good God which was present with Daniel in the Lyons Denne and with Ionas in the Whales Belly and with Ioseph in the Dungeon and with Iob vpon the Dunghill should in the dayes of the oppressing Antichrist withdraw his presence and assistance from his poore flocke yea although it were sitting in corners and hidden vnder ground IESVIT Thirdly This Church is euer Apostolicall for to his Apostles Christ said I am alwayes with you vntill the consummation of the World not with you in your owne persons but with you in your successors in whom you shall continue to the Worlds end Ergo a lawfull companie of Bishops Pastors and Doctors succeeding the Apostles must be perpetually in the World ANSVVER First The Church may be called Apostolicall because of Faith Plantation and Externall Ordination of Pastors According to Faith and Doctrine in all the maine and substantiall Articles the true Church is euer Apostolicall In regard of Plantation the Primitiue Church was Apostolicall because it was immediately planted and watered by the holy Apostles But Tertullian affirmeth That many particular Churches were not thus planted by Apostles or Apostolicall persons and yet they were truly Apostolicall by reason of consanguinitie of Doctrine with the holy Apostles According to the third manner to wit in respect of Externall Ordination and Imposition of Hands receiued from Bishops lineally succeeding the Apostles a false and corrupt Church may be Apostolicall as I haue formerly prooued And it is
not impossible for a true Church to succeed or come out of a false or for a corrupt Church to reforme it selfe And if this happen there is required no new Ordination of Pastors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any Miracles to confirme their Vocation but they which 〈◊〉 ordained in a corrupt Church returning to the right Faith and worship of God make their former Ordination more legitimate holy and effectuall The Iesuit in the words ensuing collecteth from our Sauiours promise I will be with you c. that there must euer bee a companie of Bishops and Pastours succeeding the Apostles because Christ said to them and their successours I will bee with you c. But if this collection be good then euerie one of the Apostles must haue Bishops Pastours and Doctours succeeding them in right faith to the end of the world for Christ spake to them all in generall and also distributiuely to euerie of them c. But the Papals themselues at this day exclude all the successours of other Apostles excepting Saint Peter Neither yet doth our Sauiour limit his presence and assistance to generall Councels or definitiue sentences of Popes but hee speaketh of Preaching and Baptising and therefore if his presence with Pastours and Bishops doe free them from all errour it must free them in Preaching and writing Bookes as well as sitting in Councell Also they to whom Christ is alwayes present are not of infallible iudgement or free from errour in all matters but onely from damnable and malicious errour as appeareth by Saint Cyprian Saint Augustine and all the elect of God Wherefore this promise in regard of the perfection thereof did appertaine to the Apostles themselues and in regard of the veritie of it and for such a measure of assistance as is necessarie to constitute a number of faithfull people more or lesse in euery age to serue Christ truely in the substance of faith and pietie it is fulfilled alwayes euen to the end of the world But because our Aduersaries insist so much vpon this Text to raise their visible and personall succession I will reduce the Argument which they draw out of it into forme and then accommodate mine Answere If Christ will be with his Apostles all dayes to the end of the world then the Apostles not continuing aliue themselues they must remaine in Bishops Pastours and Doctours locally and personally succeeding them to the end of the world But the first is true Ergo c. First if the consequence of this Argument were good then all and euerie one of the Apostles must continue allwayes to the consummation of the world in Bishops Pastours and Doctours lineally succeeding them which Papals themselues denie Secondly lineall and personall succession is not the sole meanes by which the Apostles after their decease remaine in the world but they remaine also in the world by their Scriptures and also by the faith of Beleeuers receiuing and obeying their doctrine Thirdly that which is promised vpon condition is not absolute vntill the condition be fulfilled The presence of Christ is promised to the Apostles successours conditionally and as they were one with the Apostles by imitation and subordination that is so farre as they walked in their steps and conformed their Doctrine and Ministerie to the patterne receiued from them But successours did not alwayes performe this condition neither did the promise inable them to doe it without their owne care and indeuour which was contingent and separable and therefore many times deficient Fourthly Christs presence alwayes to the consummation of the world with some Bishops Pastours and Doctours lineally succeeding the Apostles prooueth not that these Bishops and Pastours cannot erre in any part of their Doctrine for then no particular Bishops hauing Apostolicall ordination could fall into any errour but it sheweth onely that Christ co-operates with them in such Ministeriall duties and actions as they performe according to his Ordinance And when they preach his Doctrine and administer his Sacraments hee himselfe will adde vertue and grace to their actions being duly performed IESVIT Fourthly this Church is vniuersall 〈◊〉 in mundum vniuersum Marc. 16. 15. where I will be alwayes with you ANSWER The true Church is vniuersall according to the manner formerly declared But the Argument taken out of Saint Marke 16.15 prooueth not that it is euer actually vniuersall in respect of place and multitude of professours For as it followeth not that because Christ said he would be with Saint Paul when he preached at Corinth Act. 18.10 therefore he will be euer at Corinth So likewise it is inconsequent to inferre Christ said he would be present in all places of the world with the Apostles when they baptised and preached as he commanded them Ergo he will alwayes be present in those places although their successours neglect his commandement Is God euer in the dungeon in Egypt because he was euer there whilst Ioseph a iust person continued in prison The promise of spirituall presence is annexed to the worke of Preaching and Baptising wheresoeuer it is performed according to the Diuine Ordinance but that which in some ages hath beene done in many places may at other times be performed in few IESVIT Fiftly the Church is one not diuided into parts because it teacheth and beleeueth vniformely all that Christ deliuered and commanded without factions Sects or parts about matters of faith ANSWER It is not affirmed neither can it be concluded out of Mat. 28. that the visible Church in all ages of the world teacheth and beleeueth either vniformely or expresly and distinctly all that Christ deliuered or commanded and in the same Churches which were planted by the Apostles there was discord among infirme Christians 1. Cor. 1.11 IESVIT Sixtly this Church is alwayes holy for doctrine neuer deliuering or teaching any falshood I who am the truth am alwayes with you teaching all nations Holy also for life Christ the Holy of Holies assisting and making her able to conuert Infidels which it could not well doe without signes and tokens of wonderfull sanctitie at the least in her more eminent Preachers ANSVVER Although the true Church is alwaies holy for Doctrine yet it is not perfectly and in the highest degree euer so And it is most inconsequent to argue Christ which is the Truth is euer with the Church Ergo the Church cannot erre or teach any falshood for Christ is alwaies with the faithfull Ephes. 3. 17. yet iust and faithfull people may erre Because Christ was with the Apostles by miraculous inspiration therefore they could not erre or deliuer any falshood great or small but he is present with the sounder part of the Church militant since the Apostles by ordinarie grace and assistance which freeth the same from damnable and malicious errour but not from all errour And this assistance of Grace is greater or lesse according to the good pleasure of Christ and the disposition of his people which are
compassed about with ignorance and infirmitie and at some times better or worse qualified than at other Also the true Church in firmissimis suis in her firmest members is 〈◊〉 holy for life because the Holy of Holiest sanctifieth and purgeth the same by his Word Sacraments and Grace Eph. 5.26 Tit. 3.5 6. But it is not absolute in holinesse Iam. 3.2 1. Ioh. 1.8 nor yet in euery age so remarkeably holy that it is thereby able to conuert Infidels And the true Church hath not in all ages the gift of Miracles and the pretext of Miracles is common to deceiuers Math. 24.24 25. 2. Thessal 2.9 Apoc. 13.13 And Suares the Iesuit saith Haec adulterari possunt ita exterius fingi vt non sint necessaria signa verae Fidei Miracles may so be adulterated and externally feigned that they may not be necessarie signes of Faith And Canus speaking of Popish miracles and legends saith Nostri pleriquè de industria ita multa 〈◊〉 vt eorum me pudeat taedeat sundrie of our men do so wilfully coine many things in their report of Miracles that I am ashamed and irked of them IESVIT That the Roman is the One Holy Catholicke Apostolicall Church from and by which we are to receiue the Tradition of Christian Doctrine These grounds being laid it is apparant that the Roman Church that is the multitude of Christians spread ouer the world cleauing to the Doctrine and Tradition of the Church of Rome is the One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicall Church ANSVVER The former grounds according to your deliuerie and exposition of them are partly false and partly ambiguous and captious and therefore it cannot be made apparant from them That the moderne Roman Church is the One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicall Church from which we are absolutely to receiue the whole Tradition of Christian Doctrine IESVITS 1. Argument There mnst be alwaies in the world One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicall Church that is a Church deliuering Doctrine vniformely therby making them credible Vniuersally thereby making them famously knowne to mankind Holily so making them certain and such as on them we may securely rely Apostolically so making them perpetually flow without change vnto the present Christianitie in the Channell of neuer interrupted succession of Bishops from the Apostles And this Church must either be the Roman or the Protestants or some other opposit to both Protestants cannot say a Church opposite to both for then they should be condemned in their owne judgement and bound to conforme themselues to that Church which can be no other but the Graecian a Church holding as many or more Doctrines which Protestants dislike than doth the Church of Rome as J can demonstrate if need be ANSVVER There must be alwaies in the world a Church One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicall that is A number of Christians beleeuing and 〈◊〉 professing Christianitie to the sounder part wherof the properties of One Holy Catholicke Apostolicall belong But there is not alwaies in the world an Hierarchiall visible Church consisting of Prelates and people vnited in one externall forme of Policie and profession of Religion vnder an vniuersall Pope to which alone these foure titles are proper or principally belonging And there may bee an Orthodoxall Apostolicall Church consisting of a small number of inferiour Pastors and right beleeuing Christians opposed and persecuted by the Hierarchiall part of the visible Church euen as in the raigne of king Manasses and other idolatrous kings of Iuda when Idolatrie preuailed among the Priests and generall multitude there was a remnant of holy people worshipping God according to his word and not defiled with the impietie of those times Now concerning the disiunctiue part of the Iesuits Argument which is This Church must either be the Roman or the Protestants or some other opposite to both It is answered The Protestant Church is that true and Orthodoxall Church which is One Holy Apostolicke and a sound part of the Catholicke For although the same may be supposed to haue had beginning in Luthers age yet this is vntrue concerning the essence and kind and is true onely touching the name and some things accidentall For in all ages and before Luther some persons held the substantiall articles of our Religion both in the Roman and Graecian Church And by name the Graecians maintained these articles in common with vs That the Roman Church hath not primacie of Iurisdiction Authoritie and Grace aboue or ouer all other Churches neither is the same infallible in her definitions of Faith They denie Purgatorie priuate Masses Sacrifice for the dead and they propugne the mariage of Priests In this Westerne part of the world the Waldenses Taborites of Bohemia the Scholers of Wiclife called in England Lollards maintained the same doctrine in substance with the moderne Protestants as appeareth by the confession of their Faith and by the testimonie of some learned Pontificians And concerning certaine differences obiected to haue beene betweene them and vs we shall afterward shew that the same are no greater than such as haue beene antiently among the Fathers and there are as great differences betweene the Elder and moderne Romists in many passages of their doctrine But now on the contrarie if it were so that we could not for certaine ages past nominate or assigne out of historie any other visible Church besides the Roman or Grecian yet because right Faith may be preserued in persons liuing in a corrupt visible Church as Wheat among Tares 1. King 19. 11. and because God hath promised there shall be alwaies in the world a true Church hauing either a larger or smaller number of professors if Protestants be able to demonstrate that they maintaine the same Faith and Religion which the holy Apostles taught this alone is sufficient to prooue they are the true Church IESVIT It is also most manifest and vndeniable that Protestants are not such a Church nor part of such a Church since their reuoult and separation from the Roman seeing confessedly they changed their Doctrines they once held forsooke the bodie whereof they were members broke off from the stocke of that tree whereof they were branches Neither did they departing from the Roman ioine themselues with any other Church professing their particular doctrines dissonant from it Ergo The Romane is the one holy Catholicke and Apostolicall Church c. ANSVVER Bold words It is most manifest and vndenyable miserable proofes they changed their Doctrine they once held c. If the Pharisees had argued in this manner against Saint Paul or the Manichees and Pelagians against Saint Augustine the one would haue told them That it was no fault to forsake the leauen of Traditions to imbrace the Doctrine of the Gospell confirmed by the Prophets and the other would haue pleaded most iustly That it is a vertue and honour to forsake errour and to imbrace veritie Gods people are commanded vpon a
must be Doctrines vnchanged comming from the Apostles ANSVVER This Proposition may hold in prime and essentiall Articles of Doctrine but not generally in all Doctrines and some learned Papists hold that it is possible for the visible Church of one age to erre or be deceiued by a blamelesse and inuincible ignorance in points of Doctrine the expresse knowledge whereof is not necessarie to Saluation IESVIT But it is most cleere and confessed by the Protestants whose testimonie plentifull in this behalfe if need require shall be brought First that the Doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestants refuse haue beene vniuersally receiued for many ages a thousand yeares agoe at least euer since Boniface the third ANSWER It is neither cleere in it selfe nor yet confessed by Protestants that the Doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestants refuse haue been vniuersally receiued for 1000 yeres at least c. The article of the Popes Supremacie and of Purgatorie Adoration of Images forbidding married Priests to liue with their wiues were euer opposed and reiected by the Greek Church The Doctrine of the Trident Councell concerning the Canon of the holy Scriptures and the preheminence of the vulgar Translation before the Hebrew and Greeke Text was not vniuersally 〈◊〉 for a thousand yeeres The temporal authoritie of the Pope the merit of Condignitie publicke seruice in an vnknowne language Iubilees and Popes pardons Communion in one kind Transubstantiation Blessing or baptising of Bells c. were not generally receiued in the Church vniuersall for a thousand yeeres at least And a great number of Beleeuers which in this West part of the world haue alwayes denied and resisted these Articles and among other opponents there were a people called Waldenses Leonistae pauperes de Lugduno c. many in number and largely diffused through diuers Countries who denied the foresaid Popish Articles and whose Doctrine in the most points was consonant to that which reformed Churches doe now professe Reinerius an Inquisitour of the Church of Rome liuing about the yeere one thousand two hundred fiftie foure in a Booke Printed at Ingolstade writeth in this manner of the Waldenses which hee calleth Leonists Among all Sects which are or haue formerly beene none is more pernicious to the Church than that of the Leonists First because it continued longer than any other for some say it hath lasted euer since Pope Siluester others say euer since the Apostles Secondly because no Sect is more generall than this for there is scarce any countrey in which it is not found Thirdly whereas other Sects deterre men with their horrible blasphemies this Sect of the Leonists maketh a great shew of godlinesse because they liue righteously before men and beleeue all things rightly touching God and concerning all other Articles of the Ceed onely they blaspheme the Romane Church and Clergie in which thing the Laitie is forward to giue credit vnto them IESVIT Secondly That Protestants cannot tell the time when the Church of Rome began to change and deuiate from the Apostolicall Doctrine deliuered by succession Ergo the Roman Church neuer changed her Faith ANSWER If the Antecedent were true yet it followeth not Ergo the same Roman Church neuer changed her Faith For although we cannot tell the time when the progenitors of Abraham first began to change and deuiate from the Doctrine of Noah and Sem yet it is certaine that they had changed their Religion Iosh. 24. 2. And were not the Sodomites transgressors of the Law of Nature because the first beginning of their transgression cannot be knowne How many wicked Customes haue beene common in the World whose authors and first beginners were vnknowne to Posteritie The time is not knowne when the late Iewish Church did first change and corrupt the sense of the Morall Law and brought in the Traditions condemned by our Sauiour and yet they had corrupted and changed the same Matth. 5. 6. 7. 15. 19. 23. If a Tenant haue by himselfe and his predecessors long held an House which is now in decay and readie to drop downe the Landlord by this Law of the Iesuits Ergo shall neuer compell the Tenant to make reparation vnlesse he be able to demonstrate to the Tenant in what yeere and moneth euerie Wall and Rafter began to decay A Physician shall not purge a malignant humor out of a diseased bodie vnlesse hee or his Patient be able to name the time and manner of that misdiet which bred the first seed of this distemper IESVIT So that her Doctrines are to be receiued as Apostolicall supposing the Maior of this Argument be true That Doctrines vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne are to be beleeued as Apostolicall which is a Principle set downe by Saint Augustine allowed by Doctor Whitgift late Archbishop of Canturburie who in his Bookes written by publike authoritie against Puritans citing diuerse Protestants as concurring in opinion with him saith Whatsoeuer Opinions are not knowne to haue begun since the Apostles times the same are not new or secundarie but receiued their originall from the Apostles But because this Principle of Christian Diuinitie brings in as M. Cartwright speaketh all Poperie in the iudgement of all men I will further demonstrate the same though of it selfe cleare enough ANSWER If the Maior of this Argument were graunted to wit Doctrines vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne are to be 〈◊〉 as Apostolicall yet the inference is false because the Romane Doctrines opposed by vs were neuer vniuersally receiued but by many eyther not heard of or reiected and contradicted Neyther is the former Principle sufficiently prooued out of S. Augustine First because hee speaketh in all the places obiected of Customes and matters of Fact and Practise the right and Doctrine whereof is found in holy Scripture Secondly the Iesuit conueyeth into his Proposition certaine words to wit Doctrines vniuersally receiued c. which are not found in S. Augustine And this Father did neuer allow that the vniuersall Church should beleeue any thing as Doctrine of Faith which was not contained expressely or deriuatiuely in holy Scripture And in the same bookes out of which these Obiections are collected he confuteth rebaptising by Scripture and confirmeth the lawfulnesse of Infants Baptisme by Scripture So that his meaning is when matters being in common vse and practise are questioned the right and lawfulnesse hath warrant from the Scripture although no especiall example be found in the written Bookes of the Apostles of such practise yet the generall custome and vse of the vniuersall Church in all Ages argueth that such practise receiued it beginning from the Apostles For example That the Apostles baptised Infants is not particularly reported in their Writings but sufficient grounds are found in them to prooue the necessitie and to warrant the practise thereof In this and in all other the like cases Quod vniuersa tenet Ecclesia nec
though he lead vs to hell bring something euident and manifest out of the holy Scripture Si diuinarum Scripturarum earum scilicet quae canonicae in Ecclesia nominantur perspicua firmatur Authoritate sine vlla dubitatione credendum est 〈◊〉 vero testibus vel testimonijs quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur tibi credere vel non credere liceat c. If saith S. Augustine it be confirmed by the perspicuous authoritie of those diuine Scriptures which are Canonicall it must without all question be beleeued but as for other witnesses and testimonies by which any thing is persuaded to be beleeued it is lawfull for thee to beleeue or not beleeue them as thou shalt perceiue them to deserue credit IESVIT Fundamentall errours of the first kinde Protestants haue 〈◊〉 particularly these Nine ANSWER Malice alwayes fighteth against Vertue and laboureth to impose and rub off her owne faults vpon it and all they whose brests and minds are inhabited by Satan testifie their venemous rage with furious words If this Traducer be able to conuince the Protestants of Nine or of any one fundamentall errour wee must acknowledge that we are in a perillous state but if hee onely depraue and falsifie our doctrine or affirme that to be fundamentall errour which is diuine veritie then he prooueth himselfe to be one of his Ministers of whom S. Gregory speaketh Perfidious dealing is in the Tabernacle of Antichrist whereby he gainesayeth the faith of the Redeemer IESVIT First their Doctrine against Traditions vnwritten whereby the foundation is ouerthrowne on which wee beleeue all other substantiall and fundamentall points as hath beene shewed ANSVVER Either you wilfully falsifie or ignorantly mistake the Protestants Doctrine concerning vnwrttten Tradition First we admit in generall all vnwritten Traditions agreeing with the holy Scripture which are deriued from the Apostles and deliuered vnto vs by the manifest and perpetuall testimonie of the Primitiue Church and by the vniforme consent of succeeding Churches in all ages Secondly we beleeue in particular the historicall Traditions of the Primatiue and succeeding Churches concerning the dignitie authoritie perfection authors number and integritie of the bookes of Canonicall Scripture and also the Historicall Tradition of the said Church concerning the perpetuall virginitie of the blessed Virgin Marie and concerning the baptisme of infants and all other genuine Traditions which maintaine the Faith and Doctrine contained expressely or by consequent in the Scripture Thirdly we embrace such exposition of holy Scripture as being consonant to the rule of Faith and to the text of Scripture is affirmed by antient Tradition to haue descended from the holy Apostles Fourthly we beleeue the rule of Faith contained in the Apostles Creed both vpon the authoritie of Christs written word and also vpon the voice and testimonie of vnwritten Tradition If it shall then be demanded Wherefore do the Romists and you so eagrely contend about the question of Traditions and wherein lies your difference we answer as followeth First we yeeld the highest and most soueraigne authoritie to the sacred Scripture and make the voice and sentence thereof a supreame rule and iudge of supernaturall Veritie and we make Tradition vnwritten subordinate and ministeriall to holy Scripture admitting the same so farre forth only as it is conformable to the Scripture and reiecting the contrarie Secondly we affirme that the Canonicall Scriprure containeth all supernaturall Veritie necessarie to saluation and being receiued and vnderstood is a sufficient and perfect rule of Faith and the sole doctrine thereof is sufficient to instruct the whole Church and euery member thereof to saluation And that Tradition vnwritten maketh no addition or increase of new Articles of Faith but is only an helpe and instrument to deliuer applie and interpret the doctrine expresly deliuered or intended by the holy Ghost in the Scripture Thirdly we receiue no Tradition as diuine or apostolicall but such as hath the plaine manifest and vniforme testimonie and approbation of the Primatiue Church But our Aduersaries either equall or preferre vnwritten Tradition before the Scripture and they make Tradition a diuers and larger part of the rule of Faith containing many Articles which are neither expressely nor inuoluedly reuealed in the Scripture and they make the present Roman Church an infallible witnesse of such Tradition affirming that we are bound to beleeue euerie Article which the said Church deliuereth as a Tradition with the same assurance of Faith wherewith we beleeue any written testimonie of S. Paul or the holy Euangelists And many of them teach That it is not necessarie to deriue Tradition by a perpetuall descent and current through all ages but the voice of the present Church is sufficient to make any Article ctedible and authenticall to vs Lastly many particularopinions of antient Fathers which they deliuered coniecturally or probably onely and concerning which they haue not affirmed that they were diuine or apostolicall Traditions are ranked by latter Pontificians in the number of diuine 〈◊〉 and made parts of the vndoubted word of God And thus the present Roman doctrine concerning Traditions vnwritten is a Seminarie of Errour and by pretext hereof Pontificians obtrude vpon the Church many prophane fabulous and superstitious 〈◊〉 fansies and nouelties repugnant to holy Scripture and the antient Catholicke Faith Let therefore impartiall Readers consider whether this Romish doctrine debasing the sacred Scripture and aduancing humane Traditions tendeth not to the corrupting of Christian Faith and consequently whether the same be not rather a fundamentall Errour than an Orthodoxall Veritie And on the contrarie whether the doctrine of the Protestants maintaining the supreame authoritie of the sacred Scripture which is Gods vndoubted word and withall yeelding to genuine Tradition the credit and honour which the antient Church gaue thereunto is not fundamentall Veritie and a soueraigne meanes to preserue right Faith IESVIT Secondly their questioning the infallibe authoritie of lawfull generall Councels thereby casting downe the foundation of Vnitie in Gods Church ANSWER They which will not permit generall Councels to assemble or to proceed lawfully and which oppose the decrees of antient Councels are the Romists and not the Protestants First The moderne Popes vsurpe the whole right and authoritieof calling and conuocating Councells contrarie to the antient custome and practise of the Church Secondly They receiue and admit no Assessors and Iudges in Councels but onely their fast friends to wit men aforehand oblieged by solemne oath to proceed according to the will and purpose of the Pope Thirdly The Pope alone is appointed the authenticall Iudge of all causes and matters which are concluded in Councels he approoueth or refuseth whatsoeuer himselfe pleaseth and all other Iudges and Assessors are onely his shadowes and creatures Fourthly Whereas in words and tearmes they seeme to aduance
ought to know them and thud God himselfe forgiuing sinnes knoweth them Psal. 69.6 But they which forgiue sinnes declaratiuely and by publishing Gods iudiciall Act like as a Cryer pronounceth the sentence of a Iudge and by applying the Word and Sacraments to penitent persons vpon the holy and worthie receiuing whereof the holy Ghost himselfe conferreth the grace of Remission may performe that which belongeth to their office without distinct knowledge of all the particular sinnes whereof the penitent person hath repented himselfe in the sight of God as appeareth in Baptisme and generall Confession ioyned with Contrition And when a Priest applyeth the word of Absolution hee knoweth not whether the person confessing his sinnes performeth the same truely and with contrition of heart or not Iohn Medina Cardinall Caietan and Iansenius acknowledge the weakenesse of this Argument to prooue Auricular Confession And Vasques saith That a man can hardly find among those which maintaine Auricular Confession out of the place of Ioh. 20. 23. which doe effectually conclude the same from thence Ioh. Medina treating of Auricular Confession saith The Romane Catholike Doctors haue laboured till they sweat againe to find proofe for this veritie He might well haue said They laboured to as good purpose as the man who sought to finde Nodum in Scirpo or A Needle in a Bottle of Hay Mich. Palacius saith Diuines are perplexed in finding places of Scripture or other conuincing arguments to prooue Auricular Confession to be of Diuine Institution and it is worthie admiration what contention is about this matter and how badly Authors agree concerning the same Our Aduersaries labour tooth and nayle to prooue from the former Text in S. Iohn That Priests exercise a Iudiciall Power when they absolue sinners But if this were graunted they gaine nothing for this Iudiciall power is exercised according to the word of Christ And if that word absolue contrite and penitent persons vpon internall Confession to God himselfe and vpon their generall Confession before men without secret Confession then it followeth not That because a Priest exerciseth a Iudiciall power when hee absolueth Ergo Penitents must confesse all their knowne sinnes A penitent person may haue mortall sinnes which he remembreth not Psal. 19.13 and when vpon profession of his repentance he is absolued those sinnes are pardoned Psal. 103.3 and the Priest in giuing Absolution exerciseth a Iudiciall Act according to the Popish Tenet and yet those finnes are not disclosed or manifested vnto him Secondly The present Romish Doctrine concerning the absolute necessitie of Auricular Confession is not Catholique The Greeke Church both of antient and later times reiected the same as appeared by Nectarius S. Chrysostome and by the testimonie of learned Papists which affirme the same concerning that Church The Glosse vpon Gratian saith Auricular Confession is not necessarie among the Grecians Greg. Val. Lib. 2. d. Miss cap. 4. saith That Panormitan and Gerson maintained that secret Confession was not necessarie Andreas Vega Very many learned Catholikes haue doubted of this necessitie of Confession by Diuine Law Maldenat sum q. 18. ar 4. There be also among Catholikes which thinke there is no Diuine Precept touching Auricular Confession to wit all the Interpreters of the Decrees and also Scotus B. Rhenanus and Petrus Oxomensis denyed the said Confession to be of Diuine Institution And Gratian himselfe hauing disputed the Question pro con concludeth in this manner I leaue it to the Readers choyse which opinion to follow because each opinion to wit the one holding Confession to be of Diuine Institution and the other Ecclesiasticall hath fautors both wise and religious Now if Auricular Confession is not certainely and infallibly of Diuine Institution then it is impossible for the same conioyned with Absolution to be a Sacrament because Sacraments of the New Testament were immediately instituted by Christ and haue their institution matter forme visible signes and promises expressely and manifestly deliuered and appointed in the Scripture of the New Testament From hence I argue If that which Romists tearme Sacramentall Penance haue no word of Institution no visible and corporeall Element no expresse forme or word of Consecration neither any Sacramentall effect appropriated vnto it by Christ and his Apostles then the same is no Sacrament of the New Testament But all and euerie of these Conditions are wanting in Popish Penance Ergo The same is no Sacrament of the New Testament If Penitencie be not affirmed by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church to be a Sacrament properly taken then that the same is such in our dayes is not Catholique Doctrine But learned Pontificians haue narrowly searched euerie Sentence of Antiquitie concerning Penitencie and cannot yet produce one place where the same is plainely and expressely affirmed to be one of the Sacraments of the New Testament properly taken to wit such as is Baptisme and the holy Eucharist Therefore the present Doctrine of Romists concerning Penitencie That the same is a Sacrament is neither grounded vpon the Scripture nor the perpetuall Tradition of the Church And our Romish Aduersarie is the eight time guided by a lying Spirit when he accuseth vs of fundamentall Error because wee denie Popish Penance to be a Sacrament IESVIT NInthly Their denying the Catholique Church expressely set downe in the Creed which of all the other Articles is with greatest danger denyed For the standing out against this makes men Heretikes and without erring against this no man is guiltie of Heresie whatsoeuer Doctor Field to the contrarie saith That an errant against a fundamentall point is an Heretike though hee erre without pertinacie whereof he brings not any syllable of proofe And yet his Doctrine is against the whole consent of Diuines and expressely against S. Augustine who saith That a man holding with Photinus whose errors were most fundamentall against the Trinitie and the Godhead of Christ thinking hee holds Catholique Doctrine is not yet an Heretike till warned that hee holds against the Catholique Church hee chuseth to perseuere in his error ANSWER WEe beleeue stedfastly the Article of the Apostles Creed concerning the Catholique Church and denie onely the false sense which Romists impose and the absurd inferences which they draw from this Article And whereas the Iesuit affirmeth That this Article is with greatest danger denyed because the standing out against it makes men Heretikes c. Both the Proposition it selfe thus rawly and confusedly deliuered and the Confirmation are false The Article of the Catholique Church is not the most fundamentall and prime Article of the Creed for many other Articles are about a more principall and excellent Obiect to wit immediately concerning God the Creator and Christ Iesus the Sauiour and Redeemer and God the Holy Ghost c. whereas the Obiect of the Article in question is concerning the Creature The
prime foundation of Christianitie is Christ himselfe 1. Cor. 3. 11. 1. Pet. 2.6 The Church is the seruant and Spouse of Christ the House of God whereof Christ himselfe is the grand Lord and Builder But wee haue learned in the Gospell That the seruant is not greater than his Lord Ioh. 13. 16. Hereupon S. Augustine Enchyrid cap. 56. Good order requireth that the Church be placed after the Trinitie as an House after the Inhabiter his Temple after God and the Citie after the Founder And if the Aduersarie replie That although it be a lesse Article in regard of the Obiect yet the denyall thereof is of greater consequence because it maketh men guiltie of Heresie c. I answere Granting that the denyall of the whole Article being rightly expounded maketh men Heretickes but I denie that a Christian which beleeueth this Article is no Hereticke if hee beleeue and maintaine any Errour against the plaine Doctrine of the holy Scripture which hee knoweth or which hee is bound Necessitate 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 to know beleeue and maintaine Saint Hierom vpon the Galathians saith Whosocuer to wit in waightie points vnderstandeth the Scriptures otherwise than the sence of the holy Ghost whereby they were written requireth may bee called an Hereticke although hee depart not out of the Church Tertullian saith Whatsoeuer in points Diuine and Sacred is repugnant to Veritie is Heresie Albertus saith Hee is an Hereticke which followeth his owne opinion and not the iudgement of the Scripture Occham Hee is an Hereticke which with a pertinacious minde imbraceth any Errour the contradictorie doctrine whereof is contained in holy Scripture Two things constitute an Hereticke First Errour and false Doctrine as the materiall Secondly Malicious and pertinacious adhearing to the same or defending the same as the formall A man may haue both these without any explicite denying the Article of the Catholicke Church For the Trueth which hee gainesayeth may be plainely deliuered in the holy Scripture and hee may reade the same and haue sufficient meanes to know it in the Scripture and maliciously or inordinately resist the holy Ghost speaking by the Scriptures Act. 7.51 Our Sauiour condemneth some for Heretickes calling them false Prophets Murtherers and Theeues Mat. 7.15 Ioh. 10.5 Not because they opposed the present Church for some of these were principall Rulers of the Iewish Church Mat. 23.1 but because they taught and beleeued contrarie to the Scriptures Mat. 22.29 Saint Augustine d. Bapt. c. Don. li. 4. c. 16. speaketh not altogether as the Iesuit 〈◊〉 him but saith onely That hee would not affirme of such a person who being baptised in the 〈◊〉 Church beleeued as Photinus the hereticke did supposing the same to be Catholicke Faith that he was an hereticke he absolutely affirmeth not that such a person was no Hereticke but that hee would not pronounce him an Hereticke before hee was conuicted And hee speaketh of Heretickes not as they were in foro coeli according to the iudgement of God but in foro Ecclesiae according to Ecclesiasticall Censure Neither doth hee speake of persons sufficiently conuicted by plaine euidence of holy Scripture and maliciously and inordinately resisting the Truth but of simple Errants misled and seduced through ignorance or infirmitie Doctor Field whose learned Treatise of the Church is nibbled at by Papists but yet remaines vnanswered by them is censured by this Obiectour for saying without any Proofe that an Errant against a fundamentall point is an Hereticke though he erre without pertinacie But the Iesuit reporteth amisse when hee saith Doctor Field deliuered this Assertion without Proofe for in the Margine of his Booke he confirmeth the same by the testimonies of Gerson and Occham two famous Doctors of the Roman Church And it is remarkeable that the Iesuit censuring the Doctour himselfe produceth no Argument out of diuine Authoritie to confirme his owne Position but resteth onely vpon the single testimonie of one Father which as I haue alreadie shewed speaketh not to his purpose IESVIT Hence Jinferre that Protestants erre fundamentally according to the second kind of erring to wit in the manner in all points they hold against the Romane Church which I haue prooued to be the true Catholicke Church For he that holds any priuate opinion so stiffely as rather than forsake them he denyes and abandons the Catholike Church a mayne Article of his Creed erreth fundamentally as is cleare But Protestants hold their priuate opinions so stifly as thereupon they haue denied and abandoned the Catholicke Church to wit the Romane ANSWER The mayne Proposition of this Section to wit Protestants 〈◊〉 fundamentally according to the second kinde of erring c. is denied and the Assumption of the Syllogisme whereby the Obiectour laboureth to prooue the same is palpably vntrue For Protestants maintaine no priuate opinion either stiffely or remissely whereby they haue denied and abandoned the true Catholicke Church First They maintaine no doctrine as matter of Faith but that which is deliuered in holy Scripture and which consenteth with the Primitiue Church either expresly or virtually But such doctrine is not priuate opinion because the holy Ghost which is the supreame gouernour and directour of the Church and the Prophets and Apostles which were inspired from heauen are the Authours thereof Secondly The Romane Church is not the Catholicke Church but an vnsound part of the generall visible Church as it is prooued by the Learned of our part whereunto the Aduersaries haue as yet made no replie IESVIT Neither doth it import that they retaine the word hauing reiected the sence seeing not the letter of the Creed pronounced but the matter beleeued makes men Christians Neither is it enough to say that they beleeue the Church of the Elect seeing the Church of the Creed is not the Church of the onely Elect a meere fancie but the visible and conspicuous Church continuing from the Apostles by sucsion of Bishops which thus I prooue ANSWER We retaine both the words and the sence of the Article and the Catholicke Church in the Apostles Creed in respect of the militant part thereof is a Church of right beleeuers and especially of iust and holie persons and principally and intentionally and as it comprehendeth both the militant and triumphant the congregation of all the elect for this Church is the mysticall and liuing bodie which Christ saueth Ephes. 5. 23. It is the Church of the first borne which are written in Heauen Heb. 12.23 It is the Church builded vpon the Rocke against which the gates of Hell shall not preuaile either by Haeresie Temptation or mortall Sinne Math. 16. 18. Math. 7.24 And if it be a meere fancie to hold this then Gregorie the Great with many other of the antiēt Fathers were fantasticks for teaching in this manner But the Church of the Creed is not alwaies the Church Hierarchicall for the Church in the
eloquij per suspitionum suarum abrupta praecipitari There is extant the sacred authoritie of diuine Scripture from whence wee may not deuiate nor forsaking the infallible ground of Gods word be carried into the precipicies of mens fancies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith great Athanasius The sacred Scriptures giuen by diuine inspiration are all-sufficient of themselues to the demonstration of sacred verity But a theefe saith Chrisostome entreth not into the sheepfould by the testimonie of the Scriptures which are called a doore that most iustly because they leade vs to God and manifest diuine knowledge to vs they make vs Christs sheep and preserue vs so as wolues cannot rush in vpon vs. But he that vseth not the holy Scripture but climeth in some other way that is a way not permitted the same is a theefe Now Protestants follow the Scriptures and Romists enterby humane Traditions THE THIRD PART OF THIS TREATISE Wherein the Iesuit disputeth Nine Questions propounded by his MAIESTIE IESVIT AN ANSWER TO THE Nine Points proposed by your most EXCELLENT MAIESTIE I Haue beene large in my former Proofes That the Roman is the onely true Catholike Church whose Traditions comming downe by perpetuall succession from Christ and his holy Apostles are so constantly and strongly to be beleeued that no proofes out of Scripture by priuate interpretation vnderstood though seeming most euident may stand to contest against them And this I haue done not without purpose assuring my selfe that if your Maiestie were thoroughly persuaded in this Point you would without any mans helpe most easily and fully satisfie your selfe in particular Controuersies out of your owne excellent Wisedome and Learning For as some that haue beene present at your Maiesties discourses casually incident about Religion report few of our Diuines though trayned vp continually in Academies and Exercises of Theologie are able to say more than your Maiestie in the defence of the Catholique cause for particular Controuersies when you please to vndertake the patronage thereof which I can easily beleeue out of my owne experience who could not but 〈◊〉 seeing your Maiestie so well acquainted with our Doctrines and so readie and prompt in Scholasticall subtleties Wherefore I most humbly beseech your most excellent Maiestie to honour these my poore Labours with a gracious perusall of them accepting of my Answeres when they may seeme reasonable being in defence of Doctrines receiued from Auncestors which deserue approbation when there is no euidencie against them And out of your abundant Clemencie pardon my prolixitie seeing the Questions by your Maiestie proposed were so difficill and obscure as I could hardly haue made any shorter full explication of them ANSVVER YOu haue beene large and prolixe Nam quid est loquacius vanitate for what is more wordie than Vanitie in depressing the sacred Scriptures which are the Oracles of God himselfe and aduancing the Customes and vsurped Authoritie of the Romane Sect. Sed quis tam vanus vt veritati consuetudinem praeferat Who will be so mad as to preferre Custome before Veritie And whereas you glorie of the Pedigree of Romish Traditions pretending that they are descended by perpetuall succession from Christ and his holy Apostles and that the same ought so strongly and constantly to be beleeued that no proofes out of Scripture interpreted against your Tenet though seeming to be most euident may stand to contest against them Surely there is hitherto nothing solid or euident produced by you to confirme this Assertion and therefore Quae ista obstinatio est quae ve praesumptio humanam traditionem Diuinae dispositioni anteponere What presumption and obstinacie is this to preferre humane Tradition before Diuine Ordinance Ipsam fidem quae in Scripturis manifesta est non vultis discere You will not learne the right Faith which is manifest in the Scripture Nec remanet vobis nisi sola infirmitas animositatis quae tanto est languidior quanto se maiores vires habere aestimat Your onely support is the infirmitie of an high or ouerweening stomacke which is so much the more feeble by how much it ouer-valueth its owne strength Hence proceedeth the assuring your selfe of successe in persuading no meaner a Person than his most excellent Maiestie to rellish your Superstition But Saint Basil saith Solo rore aluntur Cicadae Grassehoppers feede wholly vpon deaw and Ephraim feedeth vpon the Wind Hos. 12. 1. His Maiestie is a Cedar of Libanus grounded on Veritie established in the right Faith one which by reason of habit and long vse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath his senses exercised to discerne good and euill Heb. 5.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Captaine of the Host of the Lord Lex Dei in corde eius The Law of God is in his heart his foot can neuer slide It is therefore subtletie rather than hope which induceth you to vent these fond surmises of his propension or inclination towards your part For although such fancies are rediculous to prudent men yet they serue your turne in being baits to delude and intrap the credulous and incautelous who commonly regard not what indeed is but what in their owne fancie may be Lastly whereas vpon fame or hearesay which according to Tertullian Plurimum mendax ne tunc quidem cum veri 〈◊〉 adfert sine 〈◊〉 vicio est you report That his Maiestie doth at some times shew his excellent Wisdome and Learning in the patronage of your Catholike Pseudo-Catholike Cause you should rather haue made mention of that which is certaine How often and with what admirable soliditie his Maiestie vndertaketh by his Word and Penne the confusion and demolishing of your Babylonian Cause But were it so that his excellent Maiestie should sometimes propound and vrge your Obiections for the better resolution of Points in question there is as little reason to interprete this as a fauour to your Cause as to construe some passages of king Salomons Ecclesiastes vttered by way of tentation in the person of Epicures to haue beene spoken seriously in fauour of that wicked Sect. THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES IESVIT 〈◊〉 Haue more hope to giue your MAIESTIE satisfaction in this Article because all kinde of Theologicall Proofes stand for the same and nothing against it as I am persuaded which I declare by this Discourse ANSVVER YOu were no Loyalist if you could not promise golden Mountaines but the Worship of Images is a practise so absurd in reason and so repugnant to all diuine Authoritie that to speake in Saint Augustines phrase Non solum infideliter sed etiam infaeliciter impudenter c. The defence thereof cannot be vndertaken without infidelitie impudencie and vnluckie successe IESVIT If the custome of Worshipping Images bee grounded on the prime Principles of Nature and Christianitie If the same hath beene receiued in the Church vniuersally without any knowne time of beginning If places of Scripture that
Church assembled in Gods feare and not factiously for their owne ends shall iudge aright than Popes which referre all things to their owne worldly ends Also it is one thing to contradict a Church defining and speaking of it selfe and another when it deliuereth the doctrine of Christ. Now whensoeuer the preaching of the Church is according to the rule of holy Scripture the voice thereof is the voice of Christ and all people learned and vnlearned are bound to heare and obey the same IESVIT If wetake out of the world a Church infallible whence shall ignorant men learne which is the Doctrine of saluation the Apostles deliuered It is as euident as the Sunne shining at noone day and the euidence of the thing hath forced some Protestants to acknowledge That the Controuersies of Religion in our time are growne in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue time and leasure fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them so that nothing remaines for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the societies of men in the world is the Church of the liuing God the Pillar and ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her Communion follow her Directions rest in her Iudgement ANSWER If the rule be infallible and the Preaching of Pastours according to that rule ignorant persons by the assistance of Grace may learne the doctrine of saluation from their teaching without the least thought or reference more to the Romane Church than to any other Church for although Saint Augustine and Saint Cyprian were subiect to errour yet the vnlearned people of Hippo and Carthage receiued right Faith by their Ministerie with assurance that the same descended from the Apostles And it is as euident as the Sunne shining that the Word of Christ is the sole authenticall ground of Faith and the onely infallible rule to decide Controuersies and the Pastours of other Churches if they vse the meanes and haue sufficient knowledge and the assistance of ordinarie Grace may bee as infallible in their Doctrine as Romane Prelates And although vnlearned people depend vpon their Pastours like sicke men vpon their Physitions yet where they inioy the free vse of the holy Scripture as in antient times all people did and if they be carefull of their owne saluation and desire to know the truth God blesseth his owne ordinance and ordinarily assisteth them by his grace in such sort as that they shall not be seduced to damnation Math. 24.24 And if they be distracted in smaller points by the dissentions of Teachers their Errour in this case is excuseable But howsoeuer the Roman Church can be no greater stay to them than other Churches but onely by leading them to a blind obedience like as Pagans are led in another kind Dr. Fields testimonie concerning the necessitie of learning which is the true Church the ground and Pillar of Truth c. serueth not to prooue That the definition of any moderne Church is absolutely and vniuersally the rule of Faith and supreame Iudge of all Controuersies or free from all Errour for this learned Diuine speaketh of the Catholike Church in generall as it containes the holy Apostles and those which succeeded them in all ages in the teaching of the doctrine which they deliuered to the world And concerning the present Church he ascribeth no more vnto it but to be a manuduction and guider to sauing veritie confirmed and grounded vpon the holy Scripture neither maketh he the authoritie and definition thereof absolute but dependant vpon the word of God IESVIT Jf there be no Church besides the Roman in the world that can with any colour pretend infallibilitie of Iudgement Jf the most part of men cannot by their examining of Controuersie be resolued in faith and therefore must perish eternally except they find a Church that is an infallible Mistresse of truth in whose iudgement they may securely rest certainely those that haue bowells of charitie will accept of any probable answer vnto Protestants Obiections and accusations rather than discredit the authoritie of so necessarie a Church which being discredited no Church remaines in the world of credit sufficient to sustaine the waight of Christian that is infallible beleefe ANSWER Vnlearned people must relye vpon the Ministerie of some moderne Church not as a ground and rule of their faith but as an helper of their faith and although the Ministerie of the Church whereupon they depend is not absolutely infallible or free from Errour yet their saluation is not by this meanes impeached neither doe they perish eternally For it is not necessarie That a Church subiect to errour as Hippo Carthage Lions c. in the dayes of S. Augustine S. Cyprian S. Ireneus shall at all times actually erre or grieuously erre at any time and when it deliuereth the doctrine of holy Scripture it is herein free from errour and Christian people by comparing the doctrine thereof with the Scripture may certainely know that it erreth not Act. 17. 11. And touching the Roman Church Vpon what grounds are Christian people able to know by assurance of faith That the doctrine thereof is more infallible than the doctrine of other Churches But if Rome is Babylon described Reuelat. ca. 14. 8. 17 5. 18. 2. as weightie motiues induce some men to thinke then it is most safe for people to renounce the Communion of this Church as it now beleeueth and to liue in the fellowship of that Church which groundeth her faith on holy Scripture and not vpon the traditions of men Apoc. 18.4 IESVIT What amiserie will it be if it fall out as it is most likely it will fall out That at the day of Iudgement the most part of English Protestants be found to haue beleeued points of Doctrine necessarie to saluation not out of their owne certaine skill in Scripture as they should by the principles of their Religion but vpon the credit of the Church that teachech them which doth acknowledge her selfe to be no sufficient stay of assured beleefe for without question men cannot be saued who although they beleeued the truth yet beleeued it vpon a deceiueable ground and consequently by humane and fallible persuasion and not as need is by a diuine most certaine beleefe grouuded vpon aninfallible foundation which cannot be had without an infallible Church ANSWER What a miserie will it be if it fall out as it is certaine it will That at the day of Iudgement the greatest part of English Romists be found to haue renounced the expresse and manifest word of Christ and the sincere faith of the Primitiue Church and in stead thereof to haue imbraced lying vanities and the deceiueable Traditions of the man of finne the sonne of perdition who exalteth himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped 2. Thes. 2 3 4. For out of all doubt men cannot be saued
Text of God is a verie credible Text. Well these are the foure by most of which men offer to prooue the Scripture to be the Word of God as by a Diuine and infallible warrant and it seemes no one of these doth it The Tradition of the present Church is too weake because that is not absolutely Diuine The Light which is in Scripture it selfe is not bright enough it cannot beare sufficient witnesse to it selfe The Testimonie of the Holy Ghost that is most infallible but ordinarily it is not so much as considerable in this Question which is not how or by what meanes we beleeue but how the Scripture may be proposed as a credible Obiect 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 And for Reason no man expects that that should 〈◊〉 it it doth seruice enough if it enable vs to disprooue that which misguided men conceiue against it If none of these then be an absolute and sufficient meanes to prooue it eyther wee must find out another or see what can be more wrought out of these For the Tradition of the Church then certaine it is we must distinguish the Church before wee can iudge right of the validitie of the Tradition For if the speech be of the Prime Christian Church the Apostles Disciples and such as had immediate Reuelation from Heauen no question but the Voice and Tradition of this Church is Diuine not aliquo modo in a sort but simply and the Word of God from them is of like validitie written or deliuered And against this Tradition of which kind this That the Bookes of Scripture are the Word of God is the most generall and vniforme the Church of England neuer excepted And then here 's the Voyce of God of which no Christian may doubt to confirme his Word For the Apostles had their Authoritie from Christ and they prooued that they had it by apparant Miracles which were beyond exception And when S. Augustine said I would not beleeue the Gospell vnlesse the Authoritie of the Catholike Church mooued me whichplace you vrged at the Conference though you are now content to slide by it some of your ownewill not endure should be vnderstood saue of the Church in the time of the Apostles onely and some of the Church in generall not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but sure to include Christ and his Apostles the 〈◊〉 is there But this will not serue your turne The Tradition of the present Church must be as infallible as that of the Primitiue But the contrarie to this is prooued before because this Voyce of the present Church is not simply Diuine To what end then serues any Tradition of the present Church To what Why to a very good end For 〈◊〉 it serues by a full consent to worke vpon the minds of vnbeleeuers to mooue them to reade and to confider the Scripture which they heare by so many wise learned and 〈◊〉 men as of no meaner esteeme than the 〈◊〉 of God It 〈◊〉 among Nouices Weakelings and Doubters in the Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselues with and vnderstand the Scripture which the Church deliuers as the Word of God And thus againe some of your owne vnderstand the fore cited place of S. Augustine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gospell c. For he speakes it eyther of 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 in the Faith or else of such as were in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You as the B. tells me at the Conference though you 〈◊〉 it here would needs haue it that S. Augustine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Faithfull which I cannot yet thinke For hee speakes to the 〈◊〉 and they had a great part of the 〈◊〉 in them And the words immediately before those are If thou shouldst find one Qui Euangelio nondum credit which did not yet beleeue the Gospell what wouldst thou doe to make him beleeue Ego vero non Truly I would not c. So to these two ends it serues and there need be no question betweene vs. But then euerie thing that is the first Inducer to beleeue is not by and by either the principall Motiue or the chiefe and last Obiect of Beleefe vpon which a man may rest his Faith The first knowledge that helpes to open a mans vnderstanding and prepares him to be able to demonstrate a truth and make it euident is his Grammar but when he hath made a Demonstration he resolues the knowledge of his Conclusion not into his Grammar Rules but into the immediate Principles out of which it is deduced So in this particular a man is probably led by the Authoritie of the present Church as by the first informing inducing persuading meanes to beleeue the Scripture to be the Wordof God but when hee hath studied considered and compared this Word with it selfe and with other Writings with the helpe of ordinarie Grace and a mind morally induced and reasonably persuaded by the voyce of the Church the Scripture then giues greater and higher reasons of credibilitie to it selfe than Tradition alone could giue And then he that beleeues resolues his last and full assent That Scripture is Diuine Authoritie into internall Arguments found in the Letter of it selfe though found by the helpe and direction of Tradition without and Grace within And the Resolution that is rightly grounded may not endure to pitch and rest it selfe vpon the helpes but vpon that Diuine Light which the Scripture no question hath in it selfe but is not kindled till these helpes come Thy Word is a Light so Dauid A Light therefore it is as much manifestatiuum sui as alterius a manifestation to it selfe as to other things which it shewes but still not till the Candle be lighted not till there hath beene a preparing instruction what Light it is Children call the Sunne and Moone Candles Gods Candles They see the Light as well as men but cannot distinguish betweene them till some Tradition and Education hath informed their Reason And animalis homo the naturall man sees some Light of Morall counsaile and instruction in Scripture as well as Beleeuers but he takes all that glorious Lustre for Candle-Light and cannot distinguish betweene the Suune and twelue to the pound till Tradition of the Church and Gods Grace put to it haue cleared his vnderstanding So Tradition of the present Church is the first motiue to Beleefe but the Beleefe it selfe That the Scripture is the Word of God rests vpon the Scripture when a man finds it to answere and exceed all that which the Church gaue in Testimonie And as in the voyce of the Primitiue and Apostolicall Church there was simply Diuine Authoritie deliuering the Scripture as Gods Word so after Tradition of the present Church hath taught and informed the Soule the voice of God is plainely heard in Scripture it selfe And then here 's double Authoritie and both Diuine that confirmes Scripture to be the Word of God Tradition of the Apostles deliuering it and the internall worth and argument in the Scripture obuious
commanded points of Controuersie to bee decided according to the rule of holy Scriptures as I shall heereafter make manifest in this Treatise yea sometimes the doctrine of one sound member of the Church hath beene a Soueraigne meanes to conuert errants and consequently to reforme such as were misled by errour Neither is reformation vnreasonable or impossible although they which reprooue others are themselues exorbitant in some things because the same must bee performed not by accomodation to the humor of Reproouers but according to the diuine rule wherein all things are straight and perfect Lastly when the Roman Church it selfe is in Schisme and Combustion which hapned at the Councell of Constance and Basill and in the dayes of Antipopes shall no reformation be required because the Parties litigant being of contrarie opinions the same cannot be proportioned according to euery ones seuerall humour The second reason taken from Councells Customes c. is deficient in both the parts For neither are the Romish doctrines to wit Communion in one kind Popes pardons Latin Seruice Purgatorie Apocryphall Scriptures Vulgar Translation preferred before the Originall Text Transubstantiation c. defined by any generall Councell or deriued from the Apostles or Primitiue Church by custome and vniuersall consent And later Councells and Customes must giue place to holy Scripture Yea according to S. Augustine no vnderstanding man did euer make the Councells of Bishops equall to Sacred Scripture And some of our learned Aduersaries confesse That a generall Councell of Popes Cardinalls and Bishops is not of equall Authority with the Colledge of the Apostles Others also of them affirme That such Councels are fallible and subiect to errour The third reason wherein it is affirmed That Protestants forsaking the common rule of Faith present the world with Scriptures vnderstood by priuate Illumination is grounded vpon a false suggestion for we assume to our selues no other Illumination than only of ordinarie grace and we maintaine no other exposition of Scripture as diuine but such as is deliuered by the holy Ghost in the Scripture And the sence of holy Scripture deliuered by the Primitiue Church is followed by Protestants with farre more respect than by Romists But our Aduerfaries are the men who dissembling the same in words doe in truth maintaine priuate Illumination For they affirme That the Bishops of Rome haue infallibilitie of Iudgement by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost and not by the studie and meditation of holy Scripture IESVIT Wherefore there beeing no possibilitie that the Catholike part could gaine Peace to Christendome by any yeelding vnto our Aduersaries either reasonable or vnreasonable whither should louers of Concord turne themselues but vnto your gracious Maiestie that haue in your Power the Affections of Protestants and therefore would bee the fittest Instrument for their Re-vnion with the Romane Church The God of Charitie hath put into your Maiesties Heart a desire of Vnitie of the Church and in your Hand an Oliue-Bough-Crowne of Peace which you may set on the Head of Christendome which wearie of endlesse Contention poureth foorth vnto your Maiestie her Suppliant Complaint Quem das finem Rex magne laborum And seeing nothing hindereth but that your selfe are not yet satisfied in some Doctrines of the Roman Church particularly in the Nine Points your Maiestie hath set downe in writing J humbly present vnto your Maiestie these my poore Labours for your satisfaction so much desired of the Christian World And to the end that this my Answere may be in it selfe more solid and better accepted of your Maiestie before J descend vnto particulars J thinke best first to shew in generall the Romane to bee the onely true Church For this was the Occasion and Subiect of the Conference betwixt Dr White and mee ANSWER What a vast and impossible I will not heere say impious enterprise doe you in the depth of your sublimated wit cast vpon our Gracious Soueraigne Must his Maiestie haue the Office of a Proctor and Factor for the Court of Rome nay of a Lieutenant of the Papall Forces to revnite all Protestants to the Church of Rome Had you meant the procuring of a Free Generall Coancell of all Christendome or at least of all the Westerne Church for the reducing eyther of the Deuiate parts home to the Truth or the exasperated parts to a more charitable complying in things indifferent or tollerable in which discussion as well the Papacie it selfe as other matters might bee subiect to Tryall such a Worke might be fit for a Church-man to mooue and for his Majestie to affect than whom no Prince no nor priuate Christian is more forward in Zeale and furnished in Wisedome to purge the Distempers and heale the Wounds of the Christian Church But your former words shew the frensie of the Demand when you fore-lay this for a Ground Satis imperitè nimis obstinatè That those particular Enormities that wee Protestants call to haue reformed are the verie Foundations of the Vnitie of Faith Catholike Principles c. And so this your dreamed Re-vnion must bee not to come on your part one step towards vs but our running headlong to you which is no other than a slauish subjection of all Churches to the Papacie and the trampling Gods Truth and Gods People vnder the foot of the vnerrable vncontroulable Grand Seigniour of the seuen-Hilled Citie It seemeth you haue forgotten or would extinguish the validitie and memorie of his Majesties most judicious Writings in maintenance of Orthodoxe Religion and of the Libertie of Christendome and shaking the verie Foundations of Papall Corruptions and Tyrannie Otherwise you neuer would thus boldly and leaudly call to so puissant a Champion in the Lords Battailes to sound Retreat To whom the state of Christendome to speake in your phrase poureth foorth her Suppliant Complaint but to an end opposite to your Projects Qua Roma patet fera regnat Erinnis In facinus iurasce putes Dent ocius omnes Quas Meruere pati sic stat sententia poenas TOVCHING THE NECESSITIE OF VNderstanding the Qualitie of the ROMAN CHVRCH IESVIT Thinke best first to shew in generall the Roman to be the onely true Church For this was the occasion and subiect of the conference betwixt Dr. WHITE and me and is the most important and manifest point of controuersie in which all other are inuolued ANSVVER THe most important Neither most nor important at all to all but onely to those who are either inuolued in that Church or vexed by it If people may attaine saluation without knowing the qualitie of the Romane Church then it is not of all Questions and Controuersies most important to know whether the Romane Church is the true Church or not But many people may bee saued without this knowledge for all they may attaine saluation which are baptised and which beleeue and repent Mark 16 16. Acts 2 38. and which haue all the ordinarie meanes of Saluation
1. Tim. 2 4. But without vnderstanding the qualitie of the Romane Church people may be baptised beleeue and repent and haue all the ordinarie meanes of saluation as appeareth by the Iewes Asts 2 41. and the Eunuch Acts 8 37. and Lydia Acts 16 14. and many Gentiles Acts 13 48. and the elect Ladie and her children 2. Iohn v. 1 2 4. and the Corinthians Galatians Ephesians and the seuen Churches of Asia Apoc. 2 3. c. Occham saieth that after Christs ascension many people were saued before the Roman Church had anie being and AEneas Siluius affirmeth That the first 300 yeares before the Nicene Counsell small regard was had of the Roman Church Iohannes Maior saieth It were ouer hard to affirme that the Indians and other Christans which liue in remote countries should be in the state of damnation because they were ignorant That the Bishop of Rome is head of the Church if they beleeue other necessarie Articles of Saluation And Alchasar saieth Before such time as the publique nuptials betweene the Roman and other Churches were celebrated by a common receiued custome a lesse frequent communion with that Church was sufficient Seconly It is no Article of the Apostles Creed or of any other ancient Creed neither is it delinered in any plaine text or sentence of holy Scripture That all Christian people must receiue their beleefe from the Roman Church or that the same intirely shall in all ages continue in the doctrine and faith receiued from the Apostles yea the contrarie is taught in holie Scripture Rom. 11 22. But if the doctrine aforesaid were fundamentall and of greatest importance the same must haue beene plainely deliuered either in holy Scripture or in all or some of the auncient Creedes IESVIT The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth 2. Tim. 3 15. The eminent Rocke and Mountaine filling the whole world on the top whereof standeth the Tradition of sauing Doctrine conspicuous and immooueable Ergo Jt is the most important Controuersie of all other to know whether the Roman Church be the true Church ANSVVER Foure texts of Scripture are produced to proue that it is the most important controuersie of all other to know whether the Roman Church be the true Church but neither are the places of Scripture expounded rightly neither is the Iesuits islation from them consequent or firme 1 Although it were granted that the totall certaintie of Christiantie dependeth vpon the Church yet because the Roman Church is not the whole Church but onely a part and member thereof Rom. 1 6. and such a member as may erre and proue vnsound Rom. 11 22. The knowledge of the state and qualitie of that Church cannot be simply necessarie and consequently not a matter of greatest importance to be vnderstood 2 The places of Scripture 1. Tim. 3 15. Math. 16 18. Esay 2 1. Dan. 2 35. proue not the question The first place to wit Math. 16 18. is expounded by manie interpreters of Christ himselfe and by the most of the faith which S. Peter confessed touching Christ. And our Sauiour affirmeth not in this Text that the Roman Church of euerie age is a Rocke but that the Church of right beleeuers is builded vpon a Rocke and so the Church is one thing and the Rocke another because nothing is builded vpon it selfe The second place 1. Tim. 3 15. 〈◊〉 that the Church which is the house of the liuing God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pillar and ground of Truth 1. If by the Church we vnderstand the Catholicke Church as it containeth the holie Apostles then this commendation agreeth fully and perfectly to it in respect of the Apostles who were led into all Truth Iohn 16 13. and which taught whilest they 〈◊〉 all Truth and they do at this present day in the Scripture teach the fulnesse of Truth 2. If by the Church we vnderstand the Church of Christ liuing after the Apostles the same is by office and calling the pillar and ground of Truth in all ages And some part or other thereof Truth of God 〈◊〉 to saluation But the present Church is not 〈◊〉 and simply in all things the pillar and ground of Truth but so farre onely as it teacheth the doctrine reuealed by the holie Ghost and groundeth her faith vpon the word of God and this is proued because the Church Apostolicall was free from all errour but succeeding Pastors and Doctors may erre in Ecclesiasticall censures in degrees legislatiue in sermons disputations and other tractats as our Aduersaries themselues confesse and they which propugne the infallible authoritie of the present Church restraine the same to the Pope and Councell of which S. Paul is silent 1. Tim. 3 15. And from hence I inferre That the Church wherein the Apostles taught and gouerned was the ground and pillar of Truth fully intirely and in all things But the present Church is so with limitation conditionally and so farre forth onely as it deliuereth the Apostles doctrine Lastly the Roman Church can challenge no greater priuiledge of Infallibilitie from this Scripture than the church of Ephesus of which the Apostle speaketh litterally in the said Text. But although the Church of Ephesus was by office the pillar and ground of Truth yet the same did afterwards degenerate and depart from the right Faith which argueth that particular Churches such as were the Roman Ephesine Corinthian c. are not in such sort the pillar and ground of Truth as that they are in no danger of errour The other two places Esay 2 1. Dan. 2 35. are principally vnderstood of Christ and his Apostles and they proue not the Iesuits position which is It is the most important controuersie of all other to know whether the Roman Church is the true Church for the present Church of Rome is a Molehill and not the Mountaine prophesied of Esay 2. the same filleth not the whole world but onely a small part of the world neither did the same antiently for 500 yeares at the least fill the whole world for many people both in the East and West were Christians without depending vpon it neither is the same alwaies illustrious for Vertue and Truth but sometimes notorious for Superstition and Vice If our Adnersaries will contend That there is in all ages avisible Church like vnto a great Mountaine filling the whole world vpon the top whereof standeth the Tradition of all true doctrine conspicuous and illustrious 1. The places of Esay and Daniell affirme not this concerning all times and ages of the Church 2. The Scriptures foretell a large reuolt and apostasie from heauenly trueth 3. Our Aduersaries themselues acknowledge that the outward face of the visible Church at some times hath beene and againe may be miserably polluted with foule and enormious scandals and abominations IESVIT If this Church bee ouerthrowne the totall
certainetie of Christianitie cannot but with it fall to the ground ANSVVER The totall certainetie of Christianitie dependeth not vpon a Church illustrious and conspicuous to the eie of the whole world and hauing such externall pompe and Visibilitie as Papals imagine Therefore if such a Church be ouerthrowne that is be proued in sundrie Articles to be corrupt and vnfound which is our Tenet concerning the present Roman Church the certaintie of Christianitie may still subsist The Tenet which wee maintaine touching the qualitie of the present Roman Church 〈◊〉 to the reformation of errours and abuses in the same and not to the ouerthrowing of the lawfull authoritie of the Visible Church The certainetie of Religion in the time of the Iewes did depend as much vpon the authoritie of the Visible Church of Iuda as it can in our daies depend vpon the authoritie of the Roman Church or of any other for that Church was by office the keeper of the Canonicall Scripture Rom. 3 2. the teacher of heauenly trueth Ezek. 44 23 Mal. 2 7. a ministeriall Iudge of controuersies Deut. 17 9. Ezek. 44 24. and yet notwithstanding the said Church was reprooued by the holie Prophets Mal. 2 8. 2. Chron. 29.6 7. Esay 56 10. Ezek. 34. and the religious kings of Iuda reformed the same 2. Chron. 14.3 4. and cap. 17.7 8 9. and cap. 29.3 c. and cap. 34.3 4. and cap. 33.15 Now like as when a Physition discouereth the diseases of the bodie and prescribeth remedies and medecines he doth thereby heale and not destroy the state of the bodie so likewise they which out of the Oracles of God haue reuealed the errours and corruptions of the Roman Church and sought reformation thereof doe not ouerthrow the certainetie of Christianitie nor impaire the lawfull authoritie of the Church but repaire and establish the same IESVIT If it be hidden and made inuisible men must needs wander in the search of the first deliuered Christian Doctrine without end or hope of euer ariuing at any certaine Issue And if this Controuersie be not examined and determined in the first place disputation by Scripture will proue fruitlesse by the sole euidence whereof no victorie can be gotten against proteruious error or at least not victorie that is verie apparant neither will answers about particular Doctrines satisfie a mind preoccupated with a long continued dislike of them ANSVVER In this Section two things are deliuered First If the Church be hidden c. Secondly Controuersies cannot be decided by sole Scripture c. To the first I answer The Church that is the societie of Christian people professing sauing Faith is at no time totally bidden and inuisible but in Persecution the same may be hidden and vnknowne to them which 〈◊〉 no will to know it 2. Cor. 4 3. or which defire to know it that they may persecute and oppresse it Reuelat. 12 14. And the same may sometimes cease to be largely and in a 〈◊〉 and pompous manner visible Math. 10 23. and 23 34. Heb. 11 38. And in the state of Persecution when the same is hidden and vnknowne to enemies the friends of this Church to whom it is knowne may by the Ministerie thereof exercised in priuate receiue the certaintie of beleefe and if it be vnknowne or hidden to any of them these may by priuat reading or meditation of that which they haue formerly learned supplie the defect of publique Ministerie euen as some Christians at this day being slaues in Turkie or Barbarie may be saued without externall Ministerie And it is also possible for such to be Instruments of conuerting and sauing others Ruffin Hist. Eccles. li. 1. c. 9 10. Besides we do also acknowledge that the Popish Church although it were corrupt and vnsound in many things yet it preserued the Bookes of holie Scripture and taught the Apostles Creed and sundrie parts of Diuine veritie collected from the same and by these Principles of Christianitie preserued in that Church iuditious and pious men might with studie and diligence find out what was the first deliuered Christian Doctrine in such things as are necessarie to Saluation as in the Iewish Church when the same was corrupt in manners and doctrine Mal. 2 8. Esay 56 10. 2. Kings 16 11 16. Marc. 6 34. the Bookes of holie Scripture and many remnants of Diuine truth which were able to saue Gods elect remained and were sufficient Principles from whence all sauing truth might be deriued and pernitious errours and abuses discouered and reformed And thus although the true Church be granted at sometimes to be hidden and inuisible in manner before expressed well affected people shall not want all meanes to vnderstand what was the first deliuered Christian faith The Iesuit in the next passage laboureth to make it appeare impossible to end and determine Controuersies of Religion without the authoritie of a perpetuall visible Church whose iudgement is alwaies infallible and free from all error But if his speech be resolued from a Rhethoricall flourish into forme of Argument the loosenesse of it will appeare For he proceedeth in this or the like manner IESVIT By all such meanes as is of it selfe sufficient to declare what was the first deliuered Christian Doctrine apparant victorie may be gotten against proteruious errour and minds preoccupated with long dislike of particular Doctrines may be satisfied By sole Scripture no apparant victorie can be gotten against proteruious errour neither can long dislike of particular Doctrines be satisfied Ergo sole Scripture is not a sufficient meanes to declare what was the first deliuered Christian Doctrine ANSVVER First If by apparant Victorie be meant such Victorie as proteruious errants will confesse or persuade themselues to bee a Victorie against them then the Maior Proposition is false For when our Sauiour himselfe confuted the Pharisees by such demonstration as none could be greater yet they resisted the Truth and in like sort they resisted St. Stephen Acts 7 53. and S. Paul Acts 28 23. and in the best Councels of Nice Ephesus c. no such apparant Victorie was gotten of proteruious Heretiques Secondly If by apparant Victorie be meant a true and sufficient confutation and conuiction of Errants then the Minor is false for that is a sufficient means to obtaine Victorie by which our Sauiour himselfe subdued Sathan Math. 4.4 7. and the Heretiques of his time Math. 12 3. 22 29 43. and by which St. Paul confuted the Pharisees and other Aduersaries Acts 17 2. and 28 23. And whereby the Fathers of the Nicene Councell conuicted the Arrians Socrat. Hist. l. 1. c. 6. and which are giuen by inspiration to be an effectuall meanes to reprooue and confute error 2. Tim. 3 16. Chrys. d. fid leg nat But the Iesuit may cauil saying that euen as a sword in the hand of a Giant is sufficient to 〈◊〉 an enemie but not in the hand of a child who
meanes to know their Authours the one Ecclesiasticall to wit the perpetuall History of the Church since the Apostles departure whereby is produced a morall persuasion and credibilitie than which none can bee greater in that kinde by reason of the antiquity number consent and sanctitie of the witnesses which testifie this the other totally diuine to wit the matter and forme of Doctrine contained in the the said bookes to be 〈◊〉 and if they be can speake in them And that within those bookes is affirmed by the 〈◊〉 Among which 〈◊〉 are taken from the internall matter and maiesty of the bookes and Gregory Valence contained in the same Scripture c. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the 〈◊〉 of God is seene by faith in the holy faith The Scripture is a faire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You haue before 2. Pet. 1. 19. And 〈◊〉 August And therefore as a 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others by the same light or 〈◊〉 manifests it selfe so the holy Scripture inlightning the Church demonstrates his owne 〈◊〉 and vertue And thus 〈◊〉 we be first directed and holpen by vnwritten Tradition to know the Scriptures yet the Tradition of the present Church is 〈◊〉 the onely last and principall ground whereunto we resolue 〈◊〉 If the Iesuits Argument be retorted vpon himselfe it will demonstrate that our Faith is finally resolued into holy Scripture and not into vnwritten Tradition for inuerting 〈◊〉 order of the 〈◊〉 and retaining the matter I argue as followeth If the maine and 〈◊〉 points of Faith are 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 because of the 〈◊〉 of perpetuall Tradition vnwritten and 〈◊〉 Tradition vnwritten is beleeued to be Apostolicall because of the authoritie of the Scripture then our resolution that our Faith is Apostolicall resteth finally vpon the Scripture But the Antecedent is true Ergo c. The Assumption is confirmed two waies First by the practise of Papals which confirme their doctrine of Tradition by testimonies of Scripture alledging 2. Thess. 2. 15. 1. Tim. 6. 20. 2. Tim. 1. 16. Secondly because the credit of Tradition in respect of vs dependeth vpon the authoritie of the Church and the authoritie of the Church vpon the Scriptures Both these assertions are maintained by the Papals First They say that the authoritie of Tradition in respect of vs dependeth vpon the Church Gretsar def Bellarm. d. verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 9. Vitus miletus cont 〈◊〉 loc 27. Error 615. Secondly They confirme the Churches authoritie by the Scriptures 1. Tim. 3.15 Math. 18.17 Eph. 4. 11 12 13 14. Gregorie Valence tom 3. disput 1. punct 1. pa. 40. ibid. punct 7. pa. 327. Driedo d. Eccles. dogm li 2. c. 3. pa. 59. Stapleton triplic c. 15. pa. 179. And thus will they nill they they are compelled to make holie Scripture the last and finall resolution of Faith for if we beleeue Tradition vpon the authoritie of the Church and the Churches authoritie for the Scripture then we must of 〈◊〉 make the Scripture our last and finall resolution of 〈◊〉 which is the Tenet of the Fathers S. Chris. sup Psal. 95. When any thing is deliuered without the warrant of Scripture the hearers thought staggereth sometimes consenting and then againe 〈◊〉 and another while reiecting the same as 〈◊〉 c. but when the testimonie of Diuine Voice is deliuered out of the Scripture it both confirmeth the saying of the Speaker and mind of the Hearer IESVIT So it is that the Scripture of the New Testament 〈◊〉 not be prooued to haue beene deliuered vnto the Church by the Apostles but by perpetuall Tradition vnderwritten conserued in the Church succeeding the Apostles for what other proofe can be imagined except one would prooue it by the titles of the Bookes which were absurd seeing doubt may be made Whether those titles were set on the Bookes by the Apostles themselues of which doubt Tradition only can resolue vs. Besides the Gospell of S. Marke and S. Luke and also the Acts of the Apostles were not written by any Apostles but were by their liuely voice and suffrages recommended vnto Christians as sacred otherwise as also Mr. Bilson noteth they should neuer haue obtained such eminent authoritie in the Church neither should they be now so esteemed but vpon the supposall of Apostolicall approbation but how shall we know the Apostles saw these writings and recommended the same vnto Christian Chnrches but by Tradition ANSVVER The point which the Aduersarie endeauors to prooue is That the Scriptures of the New Testament are beleeued by diuine Faith to come from the Apostles only and principally by the testimonie of perpetuall Tradition vnwritten he endeauoreth to performe this by disproouing other meanes to wit the titles of the Bookes c. The summe of his argument is Either perpetuall Tradition vnwritten is the only ground of this beleefe or else the Titles of the Bookes But the Titles of the Bookes are not the only ground because doubt may be made of their credit c. And some of the Bookes of the New Testament were not penned by the Apostles but by their Suffrages recommended to Christians and so became Authenticall in the Church And this approbation is not expressed in the Titles of the Bookes but is only made knowne by Tradition I answere It followeth not that Tradition vnwritten is the only or principall ground whereupon we beleeue the Scriptures of the New Testament to be Apostolicall although the titles of the Bookes alone are not so for besides the externall Titles there be three other grounds arguing the said Books to be Apostolicall First the inward Subscription 1. Corinth 16.21 and Inscription 1. Rom. 1. 1. of many of these Bookes and namely of all Saint Pauls Epistles except to the Hebrews together with the Reuelations of Saint Iohn and the other Canonicall Epistles Secondly In diuers Bookes there is found apparant testimonie within the same that the Apostles were the Authors Iohn 21. 24. 1. Cor. 15. 10. 1. Tim. 1. 13. Renel 1. 4. Thirdly In those Bookes which want such inward inscription or testimonie the matter and forme of the Bookes their harmonie with the Scriptures of the Old Testament and with those other of the New Testament which haue inscription and the voice of the holy Ghost speaking in them will prooue them to be diuine and if they be diuine then it followeth that they are Apostolicall either by the Apostles owne writing or approbation because the Church of the New Testament is builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles Eph. 2. 20. and our Sauiour himselfe did appoint their Doctrine and Ministerie to be the prime rule of Faith Math. 28. 20. Luc. 10. 16. c. 24. 48 49. And whosoeuer in their daies by preaching or writing instructed the Church must receiue approbation from them Gallath 2. 2. 9. The titles prefixed before the Bookes of the New Testament being ioined with these three grounds formerly
erred in exposition nor differed one for the other Thirdly the Fathers affirme that the Scripture expounds it selfe Aug. d. verb. 〈◊〉 Serm. 2. d. vnit Eccles. c. 5. p. 427. Chrys. sup Gen. Hom. 13. And they doe not alwayes referre men to Tradition concerning exposition of Scripture but prescribe other rules and meanes also Aug. d Doctr. Christ. l. 4. c. 30. c. Chrys. sup Gen. Hom. 21. sup Rom. Hom. 13. sup Iohn Hom. 39. Tertul. c. prax Hilar d. Trinit l. 5. Ambros. 〈◊〉 Psal. 118. Serm. 8. Origen Mat. Hom. 25. Fourthly that which the Aduersarie affirmeth touching the Fathers to wit that they held the Scriptures to be cleare in all substantiall points onely to men beforehand instructed by the light of Tradition is vntrue neither doe the Fathers speake of Tradition according to the Romish acceptation First sometimes the Fathers exhort heathen men which were not instructed by Tradition to reade the Scriptures Theophilus Antiochenus saith to Autolicus being as then a Pagan Verum tu ipse si placet consule liter as sacras But doe thou thy selfe if it seeme good vnto thee consult with the holy Scriptures Also they prouoke Heretikes which denied the Tradition of the Church to examine truth by Scriptures August d. vnit Eccles c. 2.3.16 contra Maxim Arrian l. 3. c. 14. Socrates Hist. lib. 1. cap. 6. Secondly by Tradition they vnderstand not the fabulous dreames and inuentions of Papals who like the Pharisees corrupt the right sence of Scripture by their vnwritten Traditions and affirme those things to bee Apostolicall which agree with the confessed Doctrine of the Apostles like darkenesse with light But the Fathers by Tradition vnderstand such exposition of Scripture as was vniformely receiued and commended for Apostolicall by the Primatiue Church and which besides antiquitie or the report of men appeared to bee Apostolicall by an exact harmonie and consent with the Text of the holy Scripture to which it was applied St. August d. Bapt. c. Donatist l. 5 c. 26 St. Cyprian Epist. 74. Tertul. d. praescript c. 21 Ruffin Hist. Ecclesiast l. 2 c. 9 IESVIT I hope I haue in the opinion of your most learned Maiestie sufficiently demonstrated the first ground of Catholicke faith to wit that a Christian is originally and fundamentally built vpon the word of God not as written 〈◊〉 Scriptures but as deliuered by the Tradition of the Church successiuely from the Primatiue vpon the authority whereof we beleeue that both Scriptures and all other substantiall Articles of Faith were deliuered by the Apostles thence further ascending and inferring they came from Christ and so from God the prime veritie and Authour of truth ANSVVER You haue played the Paralogist and weaued a spiders web which is fitter to catch flyes than to persuade so religious learned iudicious and resolute a king who is like an Angell of God knowing good and euill Your obiections being weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuarie are found light they are Funiculus vanitatis a coard and bundle of vanitie a potsheard couered ouer with the drosse of siluer His most learned Maiestie as you truly stile him honoureth genuine and Orthodox all Tradition as no religious king or good Christian can doe more and hereupon to wit vpon the testimony of Tradition besides other Arguments he beleeueth that you and your consorts are deceiued when you hold that a Christian is originally and fundamentally built vpon the word of God not as written in Scripture but as deliuered by Tradition c. For if the Scripture according to the doctrine and Tradition of the Primatiue Church is eminentissimae authoritatis of most eminent authoritie If it be the seed of which faith is first of all conceiued if it is the Rocke whereupon the Church is built if the authoritie of vnwritten Tradition dependeth vpon it and must bee examined by it If the Churches authoritie is 〈◊〉 from it then a Christian is originally and fundamentally built vpon it First That which is most excellent in euery kind is the modell and paterne of all the rest but I trow you will grant the Scripture to be the most excellent part of Gods word 2. Pet. 1. 〈◊〉 S. 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 Manich. li. 11 cap. 5. d. Ciuit. Dei lib. 11. cap. 3. Ibid. 〈◊〉 14. cap. 7. d. Vnit. Eccles. 16. Chris. d. 〈◊〉 Hom. 4. Oecumen sup 2. Tim. 3. Ansel. sup 2. Tim. 3. Secondly A Christian is fundamentally built vpon the rock but the Scripture is a rocke Cardinalis Camaracensis 〈◊〉 vespert 〈◊〉 sacrae Scripturae In euery building orderly framed the foundation hath precedence then followeth superedification and lastly consummation According to this order Christ the most exact Architect did build his Church vpon the rocke of holy Scripture Thirdly The seed of Faith is the root and foundation of 〈◊〉 Christian the Scripture is the seed of Faith Iohn 20. 41. for it is the word of God Luc. 8.11 Iam. 1.18 1. Cor. 4 15. And were the Popish Tenet true that the Scripture is not the whole word of God but only a part thereof yet a Christian must be originally and fundamentally built vpon it together with Tradition And Tradition according to the Tenet of our Aduersarie in this place cannot be the sole foundation of Christianitie but only a part of the foundation Fourthly All Scripture giuen by diuine Inspiration is simply and without exception to be receiued and all Tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be refused From hence it followeth that Scripture is a rule of Tradition and not Tradition of Scripture and Scripture is the highest rule as both the Fathers and many Papists themselues affirme and thus it is certaine that a Christian is orignally and fundamentally built vpon the holy Scripture IESVITS 2d Ground That there is a visible Church alwaies in the world to whose Traditions men are to cleaue and the Church is one Vniuersall Apostolicall Holy ANSWER The subiect of this Proposition to wit Ecclesia the Church is a word or terme of diuers significations and therefore the Iesuit should haue declared in what notion he taketh the same when he saieth There is a visible Church c. First Cardinall Bellarmine with other Pontificians saith that the Church whereof he disputes is a companie of people linked together by the same profession of Faith and Communion of Sacraments vnder lawfull pastros 〈◊〉 vnder the Roman Bishop who is Christs Vicar Secondly The terme Church is taken in the holy Scripture for the vniuersall number of holy beleeuers in all ages and more strictly for the whole number of holy beleeuers vnder the New Testament Heb. 12.23 Apoc. 5.9 Ephes. 5.25.27 and thus it comprehendeth both the Church Militant and Triumphant Thirdly the Church is taken for the common and vniuersall multitude of Christian people of any one or more ages which
S. August Enchirid. c. 5.6 c. Donatist Lib. 7. cap. 50. Wicked people may be called Gods House because of externall calling and visible profession 2. Tim. 2. 20. Sed non sunt de compage domus They are not of the frame of the House Heb. 3. 6. August d. Bapt. Lib. 7. cap. 50. All they which couet earthly things preferring worldly felicitie before God they which seeke their owne and not those things which are Iesus Christs ad vnam Ciuitatem illam pertinent quae dicitur Babylonia mystice habet Regem Diabolum belong onely to that Citie which in a mysterie is called Babylon and hath the Deuill the Head Aug. sup Psal. 61. Wicked persons saith S. Augustine Epist. 50. figuram membri tenent retaine the figure or outward shape of a member sed reuera corpus Domini non sunt but they are not in truth the bodie of Christ August d. Doct. Christ. Lib. 3. cap. 32. In corpore Christi non sunt quod est Ecclesia They are not in the bodie of Christ which is the Church August c. Crescon Lib. 2. cap. 21. But they which are not of the Body of Christ nor of the house of God really and in truth doe not constantly preserue or faithfully deliuer Apostolicall Traditions neither are they one or holy nor yet such as the Spirit of God infallibly and alwayes directeth in their publicke Doctrine OBSERVAT. V. The qualities of vnitie holinesse veritie Apostolicall succession and other the like are not alwayes found in the true Church equally or in the same degree and measure of perfection but according to a latitude and inequalitie of intension and remission and more or lesse so that although the sounder part of the Church hath alwayes the substance of truth sanctitie and vnitie yet this veritie of Doctrine vnitie of Charitie sanctitie of Manners is greater larger and more sincere and perfect in some persons and ages of the Church than in others These qualities were in their greatest perfection when the Apostles themselues liued they were in great measure in the ages immediately abutting vpon the Apostles But the holy Fathers complaine of the decrease and decay of them in after times And Papists deplore the extreme diminution of them in their dayes OBSERVAT. VI. It falleth out sometimes in the outward state of the visible Church that wicked persons which are not sound parts of Gods house nor liuing members of Christs mysticall bodie being more in number and greater in power doe possesse the chiefe places of publicke Iudicature and Ecclesiasticall gouernment and being thus exalted and withall abetted by worldly power and swarmes of time-feruers whom they aduance and honour to accomplish their owne ends it may heereby fall out that the outward state of the visible Church shall be ordered and swayed according to the lust and will of wicked rulers And then good men may be disgraced depressed and persecuted the simple and they which are negligent vnlearned and secure may be deluded and errour and superstition craftily and couertly be brought in and that is fulfilled which Gregory saith Dum mali praepositi suam contra veritatem honorem exigunt ab omni rectitudine corda sequentium abducunt When wicked rulers seeke their owne glory more than truth they misleade their followers from all course of righteousnesse This happened in the Iewish Church when the Scribes and Pharises and other hypocrites and errants were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 master-builders Math. 21.41 And the euill seruant beareth rule in the houshold and oppresseth his fellow-seruants Matth. 24. 49. Diotrophes excommunicates and vsurpes according to his owne will 3. Ep. Ioh. 9. 10. The Arrians in the dayes of Constantius and Valence did all the former in the greater part of the Christian world The same happened in the Church of Rome especially after the thousand yeere one man vsurped ouer the Christian world making himselfe on earth chiefe and sole commander ouer things diuine and humane his power was so exorbitant and boundlesse that he trode vpon the necke of kings throning and dethroning crowning and decrowning them as himselfe listed his dominion was so absolute and vast as that no man might reprooue or withstand him All men were reputed heretickes or schismatickes which would not say and sweare as he commanded in Synods and Councels causes were transacted according to his will and remission of sinnes and right to life eternall were intailed to his chaire IESVIT This principle is consequent vpon the former and out of it sixe things may be clearely prooued First that there is alwayes a true Church of Christ in the world for if there be no meanes for men to know that Scriptures and other substantiall Articles came from Christ and his Apostles and so consequently from God but the Tradition of the Church then there must needs be in all ages a Church receiuing and deliuering these Traditions else men in some ages since Christ should haue beene destitute of the ordinarie meanes of saluation because they had not meanes to know assuredly the substantiall Articles of Christianitie without assured faith whereof no man is saued ANSVVER By true Church we may vnderstand either an vniuersall maltitude of Beleeuers totally in respect of all persons or distributiuely in regard of them which principally rule and command free from errour in publicke doctrine Or else a choise and select number of Beleeuers liuing either in the common fellowship of the generall visible Church or vnited in particular Congregations by themselues teaching and professing right Faith in all capitall points and readie to imbrace all diuine Truth when the same is manifested vnto them If the name of true Church be taken in the first sense or for an Hierarchicall Church wherein the principall commanders teach and maintaine truth intirely and sincerely then the Proposition to wit There is alwayes a true Church of Christ in the world is denied for it is possible that the greater Prelates to wit Popes Cardinals mitred Bishops and Abbots of which the Hierarchicall Church principally consisteth shall bee reprobates blinde guides a generation of vipers wolues in sheepes cloathing and such as being armed with the title of the Church persecute the true Church And that this is possible it appeareth First by the example of the arch-rulers of the Iewish Church which in some ages corrupted true Religion and persecuted the seruants of God 2. Chron. 36. 14. Moreouer all the chiefe of the Priests and the people transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen and polluted the house of the Lord c. v. 16. They mocked the messengers of God and dospised his word and misused his Prophets c. Reade 2. Kings 16. 11 16. Ierem. 2.8 Esay 56.10 Malach. 2.8 Ierem. 20.1 23.1 2. Machab. 4.10 Ezek. 34.4 Mark 6.35 Math. 3.7 Matth. 23. 13. Luk. 12. 1. Matth.
16. 12. Iohn 10. 8. Ezek. 22. 26. Secondly the same apeareth to be true both by the example of the greater Prelates of the Asian Churches which corrupted true Doctrine and worship and prouoked the Almightie so much that he remooued their Candlesticke out of his place and also by the example of the West Church it selfe wherein Popes and greater Prelates haue been illiterate Monsters Diuels incarnate Apostataes men defiled with all wickednesse and abominable sinnes as Papists themselues report And concerning Doctrine it is euident by comparing their decrees with the Scriptures and the ancient Fathers and Councels that they are in many things departed from the truth And Occham saith Omnis congregatio quae potest errare contra bonos more 's potest errare contra fidem quia mali mores excacant intellectum Because euill manners blinde the iudgement therefore euery assembly which may erre notoriously in manners may erre against the Faith But if by true Church we vnderstand a number of Beleeuers smaller or greater teaching and professing right Faith in all substantiall and capitall points and willing to imbrace and teach all other diuine veritie when the same is made knowne vnto them then it is granted that there is a true Church of Christ alwayes in the world And this kind of Beleeuers doe either teach and professe their Faith and Religion in congregations apart or in the externall fellowship and common societie of corrupt Beleeuers as appeareth by the example of the Iewes in the dayes of their wicked Kings and Priests and in the time of the Pharisees The open and publicke ministerie of Priests was corrupt in those dayes yet God had a remnant of people and small Church in the middest of this blindnesse Esay 1.9 In the other part of this Section the Iesuite produceth an Argument to prooue That there is alwayes a true Church of Christ in the world The summe of his Argument is Christ neuer leaueth the world destitute of the ordinarie meanes of saluation and people cannot haue the meanes of saluation but from the true Church and by the Tradition thereof by which they receiue the Scriptures and the rule of Faith to guide them in the exposition of the Scriptures ANSVVER It is lost labour to spend time in proouing against vs that there is alwayes in the world a true Church for wee haue euer acknowledged this The thing that we denie is that although there bee alwaies in the world a Church the 〈◊〉 members whereof are free from damnable and 〈◊〉 errour yet there is not alwaies a true Church in the world whose commanding Prelates are free from all error or 〈◊〉 part of it from malicious error Secondly It is granted that Christ doth not according to his antecedent will leaue the world destitute of the meanes of Saluation Math. 23.37 1. Timoth. 2.4 2. Pet. 3.9 But notwithstanding this will of Christ many people may be actually destitute of the meanes of Saluation by the negligence of Preachers and through their owne negligence or malice contemning or repelling the said meanes when they are offered vnto them Acts 13.46 Thirdly A corrupt visible Church may truely deliuer some parts of sacred Truth and among other verities it may deliuer the Apostles Tradition touching the Canon of the Scripture and also the rule of Faith contained in the Apostles Creed This appeareth by the Churches of the Nestorians at this day and also of old by the Iewish Church which at such times as it was Idolatrous and vnsound preserued the Canon of the Scriptures of the Old Testament and by transcribing and reading deliuered the whole Text thereof truely Rom. 3.2 and Acts 15.21 Fourthly If we should grant which is false as appeareth by the Greeke Church that there was in some ages past no other Church but the Roman and the adheres thereof and affirme withall that the chiefe Prelats thereof and their faction maintained sundrie erronious and superstitious doctrines yet because all Doctors and people liuing within the externall communion of that Church were not equally poysoned and surprised with error but many among them firmely beleeuing all fundamentall 〈◊〉 were 〈◊〉 by adeu out and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some other points It followeth not that the world should be destitutes of all meanes of saluation for these founder members lining in the visible Roman Church might deliuer the maine and capitall Articles of Christianitie and their ignorance and error in other matters was in those daies pardonable because they offended in simplicitie and were 〈◊〉 unawares IESVIT Secondly this Church must be alwaies visible and conspicious for the Traditions of the Church must euer bee famous glorious and notoriously knowne in the world that a Christian may say with S. Augustine I beleeue nothing but the consent of Nations and Countries and most celebrious fame Now if the Church were hidden in secret invisible in any age then her Traditions could not bee Doctrines euer illustriously known but rather obscure hidden Apochriphall Ergo the Church the mistris pillar and foundation of Truth must bee alwaies visible and conspicuous which if need bee may be further prooued most euidently ANSVVER The Church according to the Popish Tenet is said to be Visible because it alwaies hath such an outward forme and appearance in the eyes of the world as that people are able by sence or common reason to know the same materially and to distinguish it from other societies of infidels and Hereticks And by the Church in this question they vnderstand a companie of beleeuers professing Christian Faith without error submitting themselues to the Bishop of Rome as to their vniuersall Visible head And they affirme concerning the said Church that it may at all times be sensibly knowne and discerned and that the place of aboad and the principall members thereof are openly knowne and the externall actions of the same to wit Preaching Praying administration of 〈◊〉 may bee alwaies heard and seene and that the same is perpetually sensible and 〈◊〉 like vnto earthly kingdomes and common weales Some few of them acknowledge that it is possible for the same for some short season to loose part of the externall amplitude and glorie and to be ouershadowed with clouds and stormes of Heresies Scismes and Persecutions but yet they all 〈◊〉 that euen in those tempestuous seasons it is conspicuous to the world in regard of the principall members and that the common and ordinarie condition of the true Church is to be amply famously and in a glorious manner visible But our Tenet is First That the true Church abideth oftentimes in persecution either of 〈◊〉 and externall enemies or of domesticall foes And in time of persecution by either of 〈◊〉 enemies it may be reputed a false Church or impious Sect by the multitude and consequently be vnknown to the wicked world vnder the Notion of holy and true and in such
persecutions the loue of many may waxe cold Math. 24.12 and iniquitie and infidelitie so abound Luc. 17.26 cap. 18.8 that the number of right beleeuers shall be few and the same may bee compelled to exercise their religion in 〈◊〉 Secondly We deny that a naturall man is able infallibly to iudge and discerne by sence and common reason or human prudence only which is the true Church of Christ whereunto euery one that wil be saued must vnite and ioine himselfe 1. Cor. 2.11.14 Now the reasons for which we reiect or limit the Popish Doctrine concerning the Churches visibilitie are these and not what the same must be perpetually Some teach what the same is by outward calling and consequently what in right by precept and dutie it ought to be Some Texts of holy Scripture describe the inward and spirituall beautie of the sounder part of the Church by Allegories and similitudes taken from externall and worldly pompe and glorie Some places shew what 〈◊〉 ought to performe when the publike and common Ministerie of the Church is incorrupt and ordinarie Pastors in Doctrine and Discipline proceed according to the Ordinance of Christ. Lastly some of the Fathers liuing in Ages wherein the outward face of the Church was externally glorious not foreseeing what was imminent and future might probably suppose that the same should alwayes retaine the like beautie And yet S. Augustine who because of the Donatists speaketh most largely in this kind vseth words of limitation and exception and affirmeth that the splendor of the Church in time of Persecution may be eclipsed and the glorie thereof ouershadowed Secondly The Arguments against the glorious and perpetuall Visibilitie of the true Church according to our aduersaries Tenet are weightie First The best and worthiest members of the said Church may be persecuted disgraced and condemned as Heretikes and impious persons as appeareth by the example of Athanasius Hilarius Ambrosius c. And this may be done by great multitudes and by learned persons and by such as are potent in worldly and Ecclesiasticall power and in such times the true Church vnder the notion of a true Church cannot be generally and gloriously visible Secondly The prime Rulers and Commanders in the visible Church doe at some times by Ambition and other enormious Vices become enemies vnto Truth as our aduersaries themselues acknowledge concerning all other Bishops but onely the Roman and his adheres and that the Roman Popes and Prelates haue departed from right Faith and exceeded others in monstrous ambition and wickednesse is reported by many amongst themselues Now when these Master-builders fall innumerable multitudes of inferiour ranke for hope fauour feare and other humane and carnall respects concurre with them and then the number of Infidels which remaine without the Church being added to the Church malignant the totall summe of both amounteth to a great number and in comparison of them right beleeuers may be few and their reputation in the world so meane as that they shall not be generally knowne the true Church And if they be not knowne and esteemed a true Church by the greatest part of the world then they are not famously visible at all times as our aduersarie maintaines Thirdly The Scriptures foretell a comming and reigne of Antichrist a large Apostasie and reuolt from the right Faith a raritie of true beleeuers and decay of Charitie a flying of the true Church into the Wildernesse and grieuous persecutions of Gods Elect before the finall consummation of the World 2. Thess. 2.3 c. 1. Tim. 4.1 2. Tim. 3.1 c. Luc. 18.8 Matth. 24. 12 24. Reuel 12.6 But such a perpetuall visibilitie of the Church as Romists imagine is not compatible with the precedent Predictions But the Iesuit saith IESVIT Because the Tradition of the Church must be at all times famous glorious and notoriously knowne in the World therefore the true Church which is the Teacher Pillar and Foundation of Tradition must be at all times famously visible to the eye of the World ANSWER Neither the Antecedent nor Consequent of this Argument are firme It is not alwayes true that those things are visible which make other things famous glorious and notoriously knowne for that which is innisible to the eye of the World may cause other things to be famous as wee see in God himselfe in Christ in the holy Apostles c. Also persons liuing in disgrace and persecution may by writing from Exile Prison or vnknowne Habitations make Diuine Truth notoriously knowne to the making of the enemies thereof inexcusable and the conuersion of others as appeareth in Athanasius Secondly The Antecedent is false If the Iesuit by the word Must vnderstand that which by an immutable prouidence of the Almightie shall infallibly in all ages be fulfilled it is not decreed by the Almightie that the Doctrine and Tradition of Diuine Veritie shall in all Ages be generally famous and notoriously knowne to the World the same must alwayes in matters substantiall and necessarie be sufficiently knowne to some part of the World But many people for sundrie Ages haue beene ignorant of Christ and of the whole Tradition and Doctrine of the Apostles and a large tract of the World remaineth at this present day in Heathenish and damnable ignorance and consequently to a large part of the World Tradition is not in a famous and glorious manner notoriously knowne IESVIT Thirdly The Church is Apostolicall and that apparantly descending from the Apostolicall Sea by succession of Bishops vsque ad confessionem generis humani euen to the acknowledgement of humane kind as S. Augustine speaketh ANSWER The true visible Church is named Apostolicall not because of locall and personall succession of Bishops onely or principally but because it retaineth the Faith and Doctrine of the holy Apostles Eph. 2. 20. Reuel 21.14 Tertullian d. Prascript cap. 32. affirmeth That Churches which are able to produce none of the Apostles or other Apostolicall men for their first planters are notwithstanding Apostolicall for consent of Faith and consanguinitie of Doctrine And many learned Papists antient and moderne say The Church is called Apostolicall because it is grounded vpon the Doctrine of the Apostles in respect of Faith Lawes and Sacraments But personall or locall succession onely and in it selfe maketh not the Church Apostolicall because hirelings and wolues may lineally succeed lawfull and orthodoxe Pastours Act. 20.29 30. Euen as sicknesse succeedeth health and darkenesse light and a tempest faire weather as Gregorie Nazianzen affirmeth Orat. d. laud. Athanasij That which is common and separable cannot of it selfe demonstrate the true Church And the notes of the Church must be proper and inseparable agreeing to all times to euery true Church as Bellarmine affirmeth Also the same must be so conspicuous as that they cannot easily bee pretended by Aduersaries or be at all
controuerted or doubtfull But personall succession may bee found in a false Church as appeareth by the Iewish Church in the time of the Pharisees and by the Churches of the East in the dayes of the Arrians and our Aduersaries affirme the Greeke Church to be vnsound notwithstanding it is apparently descended from the Apostles by a lineall succession of Bishops Cardinall Bellarmine perceiuing the weight of the former Argument departeth from the common opinion of other Papists saying That although personall succession alone or by it selfe is not a proper note of a true Church yet the absence thereof prooueth a nullitie of the Church in them which want it But if this be so then personall and locall succession must bee expuged out of the Calendar of Churches notes for all proper notes argue and demonstrate their subiect both 〈◊〉 and negatiuely also they demonstrate the same of themselues without the assistance of other things If therefore externall succession prooueth not a true Church except right Faith bee concurring and if as Bellarmine teacheth it rather serueth to prooue there is not the true Church where it wanteth than to argue a true Church where it is then the same is not proper and conuertible and consequently it is no essentiall marke because to bee proper and conuertible are of the being of notes according to the Cardinals owne description It is likewise remarkeable that the ancient Fathers doe not onely or principally vnderstand personall succession when they mention succession in their writings because they argue affirmatiuely from succession and not negatiuely onely Therefore Romists in this disputation shall doe well to begin with the questions which concerne Doctrine and prooue that they haue succession of Doctrine in all those Articles wherein they oppose other Churches before they mention locall and personall succession but the manner of these men is to obserue a contrarie proceeding and from the latter to conclude the former which is against good reason and against the Custome and manner of the ancient Fathers IESVIT For how can the Tradition of Christian doctrine be eminently and notoriously Apostolicall if the Church deliuering the same hath not a manifest and conspicuous pedigree or deriuation from the Apostles which is a conuincing argument vsed by Saint Augustine how can we thinke that we 〈◊〉 receiued manifestly Christ if wee 〈◊〉 not also 〈◊〉 manifestly his Church It is a Principle of Phylosophie Propter quod vnumquodque tale illud magis But the name of Christ his glory his vertue and miracles are to the world famously knowne from age to age by reason of the Church and her preaching that in her first Pastours saw them with their eyes Ergo This Church must needes be more famous more illustrious as able to giue fame vnto the being and Doctrine and actions of Christ. ANSVVER I haue shewed in the former Section that the visible Church is principally called Apostolicall because it imbraceth the doctrine of the holy Apostles And euerie Church is Apostolicall so farre foorth onely as it consenteth with the Apostles in Doctrine Sacraments Inuocation and in that which is substantiall in Ecclesiasticall policie And in a precedent Section I haue declared That the visible Church may at some times bee more or lesse Apostolicall holy c. But it is not at any time simply or principally Apostolicall because it hath externall personall succession Occham a famous Schooleman and some others with him affirme That a true and Apostolicall Church may consist of a few lay people and if all the Prelates and Clerkes throughout the world should become hereticall God may raise vp Pastours either extraordinarily or else hereticall Bishops 〈◊〉 Pastours the Church may be reformed by them But to the Argument I answere as followeth First if the same were wholly granted nothing could bee concluded against the Church of England from it because the Bishops and Pastours of this Church are able to exhibite a Pedigree or deriuation both of their Ministerie and Doctrine from the Apostles 1. Of Ministerie in that they haue for substance the same descent of externall Ordination which the Romane Church hath 2. Of Doctrine because they maintaine the Primitiue Faith and accord in the same with the soundest part of the Catholicke Church in all ages And where we may seeme to discent from the Antient the same is either in things humane and adiaphorous or in matters which were not fully discussed or in points which were not deliuered by an vnanimous consent or in things which are reprooued by plaine demonstration of holy Scripture and wherein the Fathers permit libertie of dissenting and the Papists themselues take the like libertie Secondly the Iesuits Interrogation How can the Tradition of Christian Doctrine be eminently and notoriously Apostolicall if the Church deliuering the same hath not a manifest and perspicuous pedigree or deriuation from the Apostles is answered this may be performed two waies 1. By the historie and monuments of the Primatiue Church whose descent and pedigree from the Apostles was perspicuous 2. The same may be made manifest by the Scriptures of the Apostles which are diuine and authenticall Records of all Apostolicall Doctrine and contain in themselues many liuely and effectuall Arguments proouing to such as read and examine them with diligence and vnderstanding that they are the Doctrine of the holy Ghost and consequently the worke of the Apostles And the maiestie and lustre of heauenly Doctrine is such that if it be propounded by meane and obscure persons it will appeare illustrious euen as a rich Iewell if the same be deliuered by a poore Artificer doth manifest his owne worth and therefore the sequell of the Iesuits Argument is denied for it followeth not because the Doctrine of Christ must be illustrious that the Church which deliuereth the same must be alwaies so Thirdly S. Augustine in the place obiected Epist. 48. confuteth the Donatists which confined the Church vniuersall to one countrie only excluding the rest of the world from the communion thereof against this error he saith How can wee thinke that we haue receiued Christ made manifest if we haue not also receiued his Church made manifest From hence nothing can be inferred but that we receiue the true Church not only at one time or in one place but at all times and in all places where it is manifest and that Christ is reuealed and made manifest by the Doctrine of the Apostles and that this Doctrine must be preached although not at one time yet successiuely throughout the whole world But all this which S. Augustine speaketh being granted prooueth not that the true Church shall be notoriously eminent and visible at all times neither doth this Father say that Christ cannot bee manifest but by such a Church only as can lineally deriue her pedigree by Records and Tables from the Apostles And howsoeuer Papists boast of their owne pedigree yet when their
Satan may be Infidels at least a great part of them as well as Christians and although Satan possessed deceiued them before yet now when he is loosed he doth in a new manner and by a greater efficacie of errour deceiue them 2. The true Church may be persecuted vniuersally by multitudes of enemies dispersed euery where and yet remaine it selfe in one or in few places and it may also be persecuted when it professeth and exerciseth religion in secret Apoc. 12.14 15. 3. Many learned Papists affirme that in the dayes of Antichrist true beleeuers shall cease to bee in many places and the number of orthodoxall people shall be small and the same shall professe their faith in secret August Triumph sum d. Eccles. pot q. 21. ar 4. At that time particular Churches diffused farre and neere ouer the world shall withdraw themselwes from the obedience of the Romane Pope and few shall obey him and the Pope himselfe at that time shall with a few keepe himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 others being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his 〈◊〉 The like is affirmed by Occham 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Barradias Now this former affertion which is the common Tener of Papists agreeth not with the speech of our Aduersarie when he saith That in the dayes of Antichrist the Church shall be euerie where visible and conspicuous euen to the wicked and he must reuoke his bold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his first words A truth so cleare that it may euidently be prooued c. IESVIT The reason of this perpetuall visible vniuersalitie is because the Tradition of the Church is as I haue prooued the sole ordinarie meanes to ground faith on for substantiall points Wherefore this Tradition must bee so deliuered as that it may bee knowne to all men seeing God will haue all men without any exception of nation to bee saued and to come to the knowledge of Truth 1. Timothie 2. 4. But if the Church were not still so diffused in the world that all knowne nations may take notice of her all men could not be saued ANSWER Although the teaching and Tradition of the Church is the first Introduction to leade people vnto the knowledge of the grounds of saluation and the ordinarie meanes whereby they receiue the holy Scriptures and rule of Faith contained in the same which is all you haue or can prooue yet hence it followeth not that the true Church is visibly vniuersall in all places of the world First you are reprooued by the example of the Indians and people inhabiting the New found World who are Gods creatures and reasonable men formed 〈◊〉 his image capable of grace and 〈◊〉 as well as other men and included within the latitude of 〈◊〉 promises Math. 28.19 Marc. 16.15 Call 2.28 Call 3.11 and the Apostles speech 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. God will 〈◊〉 all men to be 〈◊〉 c 〈◊〉 them as well as others And yet notwithstanding the true Church whose Tradition according to your position is the sole ordinarie meanes to ground Faith on was not for many ages either Actually or Moraily visible vniuersall or any waies made knowne to them It seemes by the conclusion of your Argument wherein you insert these words That all knowne nations c. that you obserued this but you are no way able to cleere the difficultie for if because S. Paul saith God wil haue all men to be saued and come to the knowledge of the Truth the true Church must in all age be visibly vniuersall then the same must be so in regard of the nations inhabiting the New found world because S. Pauls words God will haue all men to be saued and come to the knowledge of the Truth are vniuersall according to your exposition and must be vnderstood without limitation or respect of persons Secondly when S. Paul saith God wil haue all men to be saued c. He 〈◊〉 according to the antecedent wil of God as learned Papists commonly maintaine But this antecedent Will according to some learned Papists is no formall Will in God but is only improperly and metaphorically so called and according to others which say it is a formall Will the same produceth not vniuersally either grace of outward calling to Saluation or inward grace in them that are externally called and therefore it is inconsequent to argue from this manner of Gods willing all men to be saued That the true Church is in all ages visibly vniuersall 1. Aquinas and others say that the antecedent will of God is only a velleitie or wishing that the thing might be a complacencie in a thing considered abstractiuely and without other circumstances and that vpon it alone the Saluation of no man followeth 2. The same is generall in respect of all and euery singular and indiuiduall person and God by his antecedent will wisheth the Saluation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by experience that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Will all 〈◊〉 and singular persons by the ministerie of the true Church and that whole countries and nations for 〈◊〉 ages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same and some countries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preaching of the Gospell sooner and others latter some haue been 〈◊〉 in one age and some in another 4. Gods antecedent Will is alwaies the same and 〈◊〉 to it he 〈◊〉 the Saluation of all men in the time of the Old Testament Ezek. 33.11 Now from the former positions it followeth that S. Pauls words 1. Tim. 2.4 God will haue all men to be saued c. do not 〈◊〉 that the true Church is visibly vniuersall in all ages since the Ascension of Christ and the preaching of the Apostles For if the antecedent will of God of which S. Paul speaketh 1. Tim. 2.4 be onely a velleitie and complacencie about mans Saluation abstractiuely considered and if it respect singular and indiuiduall persons as well as whole nations and notwithstanding the same many singular persons and whole nations haue beene destitute and that for a long space of time of all meanes of conuersion and outward calling to Christianitie and if the same Will for some large tract of time produceth no external effect sufficient to conuert Infidels then it followeth that the true Church which is the onely ordinarie teacher of sauing veritie is not visibly vniuersall in all places of the world in euery age The minor is prooued from the foure propositions formerly deliuered The sequell is euident by the exposition which our Aduersaries deliuer of S. Pauls text vnderstanding the same of the antecedent will of God and from the position of the 〈◊〉 deliuered in this section which is That the Tradition and Preaching of the true visible Church is the sole ordinarie meanes to leade people to the knowledge of sauing Truth For if the antecedent will of God is not a certaine and infallible cause that all people shal at all times haue the preaching of sauing Veritie by the ministerie of the true visible
Church then it is not necessarie that because God will haue all men to be saued by his antecedent will therefore the true Church must in all ages be visibly vniuersall A contingent cause vndetermined doth not produce or argue a constant certaine and necessarie effect The antecedent will of God is a contingent cause in respect of the perpetuall visible vniuersalitie of the Church Ergo The antecedent will of God doth not produce or argue a perpetuall visible vniuersalitie of the Church For if notwithstanding the antecedent will of God many singular persons and whole nations may be for some space of time destitute of outward calling by the ministerie of the Church and of all morall possibilitie for that space of time of the hauing thereof and are not guiltie of the sinne of infidelitie because without any speciall demerit of their owne they are destitute of the word of Faith as it is maintained by Aquinas and his followers then the antecedent will of God is only a contingent cause in respect of producing arguing outward calling by the ministerie of the Church and consequently of the perpetuall visible vniuersalitie of the true Church But the first is true as appeareth by the Indies before Columbus arriuing in their coasts and by many barbarous people and nations liuing in remote regions and hauing no preachers of the Gospell sent vnto them before the two hundred fiue hundred or six hundred yeare after Christ Ergo The latter is also true IESVIT Sixtly this Church is holy both in life and doctrine holy for life shining in all excellent and wonderfull sanctitie such as the Apostles gaue example of as Pouertie Chastitie Obedience Virginitie Charitie in vndergoing labours for the helpe of Soules Fortitude in suffering heroicall Martyredomes Zeale and Patience in the rigorous treatie of their bodies by miraculous Fasting and other austerities ANSVVER Sanctitie is a propertie and inseperable qualitie of the true Church in respect of all the liuing members thereof Cant. 4. 7. Eph. 5.26 27. 1. Cor. 14.33 Rom. 1.7 Eph. 1.18 c. 4.12 Phil. 4.21 Coll. 1.12 1. Cor. 6.11 1. Iohn 3.18 And the same is called holy First Because it is clensed and washed from the guiltinesse of sinne by the immaculate blood of Christ Apoc. 1.5 Heb. 10.10 c. 13.12 Secondly Because it is pertaker of the holinesse of Christ the head thereof by Grace 1. Cor. 1.30 Ephes. 5.30 Iohn 17.19 Heb. 12.10 and because of the speciall inhabitation and operation of the holy Ghost Ephes. 1.13 1. Cor. 3.17 1. Thessal 4.8 2. Tim. 1. 14. Thirdly Because it is called and consecrated vnto holinesse 2. Tim. 1.9 1. Pet. 2.9 1. Thessal 4.7 Apoc. 1.6 Fourthly Because the Faith Doctrine Lawes Sacraments and Religion thereof are holy Iud. v. 20. 2. Pet. 2.20 Tit. 3.5 Fiftly Because the vertues and actions thereof are truely and indeed holy whereas the vertues of Infidels which liue out of the Church are prophane and vnholy as bearing the image of vertue but wanting the true forme and fruit thereof But our Aduersarie passeth by these causes and reasons of the sanctitie of the Church being proper and essentiall which are deliuered in the holy Scripture and will haue the same to be reputed holy because of monasticall vowes of Pouertie Obedience and Chastitie and for externall Fastings Whippings wearing of Haire-cloth and other bodily exercises which some Heremites and Cloysterers performe in the Roman Church Touching this Assertion we are to obserue First that the Iesuit doth onely affirme these things but bringeth no proofe and therefore it were sufficient for me to say with S. Hierom Quod de Scripturis non habet authoritatem eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur That which wanteth authoritie from the Scriptures may as well bee despised as receiued Secondly when the principall Doctors of the Romish Church deliuer the causes why the true Church is stiled Holy they either omit these externall exercises or else onely mention them as accessarie Turrccrem sum d. Eccles. l. 1. c. 9. Cordub Arma. fid q. 1. propos 2. Bannes 22. q. 1. ar 10. Bellarm. d. Eccles l. 4. c. 11. Greg. Val. to 3. Disp. 1. punct 7. Thirdly these exercises are common to hypocrites and heretickes and they make not people holy and good which vse them and the Church may bee holy without them and therefore they are no constitutiue parts or essentiall properties of the sanctitie of the Church That the same are common appeareth by the example of the Pharisees and of many Heretickes which vsed these exercises with great austeritie and yet they were no sound parts of the holy Catholicke Church And that the Church may be holy without these exercises is manifest by reason and example The Church which wanteth these things may haue all the causes of sanctitie to wit Faith Hope Charitie Regeneration remission of sinnes c. Therefore it may bee holy without them And the Church of the Hebrews to which Saint Paul wrote his Epistle was an holy Church yet Saint Chrysostome saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There was not so much as any footstep of a Monke c. Fourthly these monasticall vowes haue many times distained and corrupted the Church and therefore they are no mayne or proper actions of holinesse Aluares Pelagius saith of the Monkes and Cloysterers of his age that they were Paupertatis professores sed haereditatum successores Professours of pouertie and heires apparant to euerie mans land Mathew Paris saith That the Mendicants in England raised stately buildings equall to Princes palaces and they hoorded vp inualuable treasure c. And Papirius Masson saith Pouertie which religious Orders seeme to professe is more hatefull to them than to any other sort of men The vow of Chastitie made the most of them more impure than dogs and to stinke before God and men That many of them were Sodomites is affirmed by no meaner man than Saint Bernard who saith Besides fornication adulterie and incest the deedes of ignominie and turpitude for which the cities of Sodome and Gomorrha were predamned are not wanting c. Rodericus a famous Bishop saith That Votaries and Regulars were not satisfied with one woman but kept Concubines and young Damosells sans number Alphonsus Castro saith The incontinencie of Priests is in these dayes so frequent that if but one of them be knowne to liue chastly although many other necessarie 〈◊〉 lities be wanting in him he is esteemed a holy man by the people for this one qualitie Aluares Pelagius saith That the Cells of Anchorites were dayly visited by women And in another place Priests for many yeeres together doe arise euerie day from their Concubines sides and without going to Confession say Masse And in another place Quis Clericorum intra sanctam Ecclesiam Castitatem seruat What Clerke is there within the holy Church which obserueth
Chastitie And againe There be few Priests in these dayes in Spaine and Apulia which doe not openly foster Concubines Dionysius Carthusian saith Paucissimi eorum proh dolor continenter viuunt Few of them out alas liue continently And S. Bridget the Nunne in her Reuelation saith Not one among a hundred And the same Bridget speaking of Nunnes saith Talia loca similiora sunt Lupanaribus quam sanctis Cellis Such places are more like Brothelhouses and common Stewes than holy Cells The Vow of Pouertie brought forth perpetuall Theft and Rapine and that from the Widow and fatherlesse The Vow of Chastitie filled all the Earth with the steame of Brothelsome impuritie and the Vow of blind Obedience caused hatefull and direfull Murthers euen of Kings and Gods annointed Concerning whom the holy Prophet saith Touch not mine annointed and the sacred Historie reports to all posteritie That Dauids heart smote him because he cut off a piece of the Kings Garment These voluntarie Exercises and Deuotions carrie a great shew of perfection and merit among worldly people euen as the Pharisaicall will-worship in ancient time did But yet experience taught them which beheld these things in the height of their pride that the more these Vowes and religious Orders encreased the more Ignorance Infidelitie Iniquitie and all manner of Plagues multiplyed in the World Antonin sum Histor. p. 3. tit 23. c. 9. § 5 IESVIT This sanctitie shineth not in all the Children of the Church but in the more eminent Preachers and Professors which kind of sanctitie together with Miracles if the Church did want she could not be a sufficient Witnesse of Truth vnto Infidels who commonly neuer begin to affect and admire Christianitie but vpon the fight 〈◊〉 sucb wonders of sanctitie and other extraordinarie workes ANSWER Sanctitie of Grace which is a perpetuall propertie of the true Church shineth in all the sound and liuing members of the Church Phil. 2. 15. And whereas the measure and degrees thereof are 〈◊〉 the most eminent degree of sanctitie is not alwayes found in Preachers or in Popes and greater Prelates or in persons professing Monasticall life but the same may be equall or greater in Lay persons or in people of meane esteeme as appeareth by the state of the Iewish Church in the dayes of Esay cap. 1.9 and of the Pharisees at such time as our Sauiour was incarnate Dominicus Bannes a famous Schoole-man treating of the sanctitie of the Church saith That the supreame Bishop the Pope is said to be most holy because of his State and Office although indeed hee is not so Rodericus speaking of the Clergie of his times saith Rectores moderni non Pastores sed raptores ouium tonsores non ad viridia pascua ductores non piscatores sed negotiatores non dispensatores bonorum crucifixi sed voratores c. Our moderne Church-men are not Pastors but Raueners they fleece their Sheepe and lead them not to the greene Pastures they are not stewards but deuourers of the goods of Christ crucified c. And Laurent Iustinianus saith The greatest part of Priests and Clerkes in our dayes liue voluptuously and after the manner of Beasts Paucissimi reperiuntur qui honestè viuunt rariores autem qui pabulum salutis gregibus valeant praebere fidelium Verie few are found which lead an honest life and a farre smaller number of such as are able to minister the food of saluation to their flockes In the next words our Iesuit affirmeth That if the Church wanted the sanctitie aforesaid together with Miracles shee could not be a sufficient witnesse of Truth to Infidels c. This Assertion concerning the perpetuitie and absolute necessitie of Miracles in all Ages is repugnant to the Fathers and to many learned Papists and it is voluntarily affirmed by our Aduersarie First If the gift and power of Miracles were perpetuall and inseparable from the true 〈◊〉 in all Ages this would appeare by some reuelation or promise of holy Scripture as well as other gifts and priuiledges of the same But there is no reuelation or promise concerning perpetuitie of the gift of Miracles more than of the gift of Tongues or of Prophesie or the giuing of the Holy Ghost by imposition of Hands c. And these gifts were neuer promised in the Scripture to be perpetuall and are long since ceased August Retrac Lib. 1. cap. 13. Secondly The Fathers which liued since the foure hundreth yeere affirme That outward Miracles such as the Apostles wrought were 〈◊〉 in their dayes and not absolutely necessarie for after times Gregor Moral 27. cap. 11. Lib. 34. cap. 2. super Euang. Hom. 29. August d. vera Relig. cap. 25. d. Ciuit. Dei Lib. 22. cap. 8. sup Psal. 130. Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 4. Imperfect in Matth. Hom. 49. sup 1. Timoth. Hom. 10. Thirdly Many learned Papists hold That the gift of Miracles is rare and vnnecessarie in these later times Abulensis Leuit cap. 9. q. 14 Trithemias Abbas Lib. 8. Q. ad Imperat. Max. q. 3. Roffensis c. Luther a. Captiu Babylon c. 10. n. 4. pag. 81. Acosta d. Procur Indorum Salut Lib. 2. cap. 8. pag. 218 Stella in Luc. cap. 11. Cornel. Muss Conc. Dominic Pentecost pag. 412. And some of them censure the reporters of Miracles as Impostors and grosse Fabulers and Lyars Gerson Lib. c. Sect. Flagellantium Canus Loc. Lib. 11. cap. 6 Ludouicus Viues Erasmus Occham Espenceus Fourthly If Infidels cannot be assured that the Wonders which they outwardly behold are the workes of the true God and if the same may be the illusions of the Deuill then the operations of such Miracles can be no infallible argument of Veritie and consequently no meanes of conuerting Infidels But Bellarmine affirmeth That before the approbation of the Church which Infidels know not it is not euident and certaine by Faith concerning any Miracle that the same is true and Diuine and it is possible for the same to be an illusion of Sathan IESVIT Holy for doctrine in regard her Traditions be diuine and holy without any mixture of errour ANSVVER The Church which buildeth it selfe vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Eph. 2.20 And which heareth the voyce of Christ Iohn 10.27 is holy both for life and doctrine But as holinesse of life is compatible with some kind of sinne 1. Iohn 1.8 Euen so sanctitie of doctrine excludeth not all errour St. Augustine a man as holy as any since the Apostles saith I must not deny but that as in my manners euen so in my workes and writings many things may iustly and without any temeritie be reprehended IESVIT For if the Church could deliuer by consent of Ancestors together with truth some errours her Traditions euen about truth were questionable and could not bee beleeued vpon the warrant of her Tradition ANSWER If Ancestors may erre
and be deceiued then the later Church may vpon their reports deliuer some errours together with truth and yet the Tradition thereof concerning matters which are grounded vpon diuine Testimonie is infallible The Church may speake of it selfe and vpon report of them whose Testimonie is humane and fallible And it speaketh also vpon the authoritie of Gods word In the first it may erre and bee deceiued and consequently the Testimonie thereof absolutely bindeth not people to beleeue But when it confirmeth her doctrine and Tradition by diuine Testimonie the Tradition thereof is the Tradition and voyce of God himselfe worthy of all acceptation Neither is her Testimonie fallible and doubtfull in this latter kinde because of errour in the first any more than the Prophesie of Nathan was fallible when he spake by inspiration to Dauid 2. Sam. 7.5 Although when he formerly answered by a humane spirit he was deceiued Balaam is a credible witnesse in all those verities which God put into his mouth Numb 23.5 18. 24. 1. And yet in other matters which proceeded from himselfe he was fallible And Iosephus a Iew is credited in the Testimonie which hee gaue of Christ Antiq. lib. 18. c. 4 although in many other reports he was deceiued The antient Fathers Iustin Martyr Ireneus Origen St. Cyprian erred in some things and yet their authoritie in other matters which they deliuered consonantly to holy Scripture is credible Our Aduersaries confesse that their Popes may erre personally and that their Popes and Councels may erre in the Premises and Arguments from which they deduce conclusions of Faith and yet they will haue their definitiue sentences to be of infallible authoritie Cardinall Iacobatius speaking in the Popes defence saith That it followeth not because one hath erred that therefore his testimonie is altogether inualid and to be refused And hee confirmeth this assertion by diuers Texts of the Canon Law IESVIT And whereas some Protestants affirme that the Church cannot erre in fundamentall points but onely in things of lesse moment The truth is that in her perpetuall Traditions she cannot erre at all If the Tradition of the Church deliuering a small thing as receiued from the Apostles may be false one may call into question her Traditions of moment especially if he please to thinke them not to be of moment for like as if we admit in the Scriptures errours in small matters wee cannot be sure of its infallibitie in substantiall matters So likewise if we grant Tradition perpetuall to be false in things of lesse importance we haue no solid ground to defend her Traditions as assured in other of moment wherefore as he that should say That Gods written word is false in some lesser matters as when it sayes That S. Paul left his cloake at Troas erreth fundamentally by reason of the consequence which giueth occasion to doubt of the truth of euery thing in Scripture Euen so hee that granteth that some part of Traditions or of the word of God vnwritten may bee false erreth substantially because he giueth cause to doubt of any Tradition which yet as I haue shewed is the prime originall ground of Faith more fundamentall than the verie Scripture which is not knowne to be Apostolicall but by Tradition whereas a perpetuall Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by its owne light For what more euident than that that is from the Apostles which is deliuered as Apostolicall by perpetuall succession of Bishops consenting therein ANSWER The true Church in her sounder members erreth not in points fundamentall nor yet in matters of lesse moment maliciously or with pertinacie But the same may be ignorant and also erre in secondarie Articles The reason of the first is because the same should then cease to bee the true Church by corrupting the substance of right faith expresly or vertually and consequently there should remaine no true Church vpon earth which is impossible The reason of the second is because the Church since the Apostles is not guided by immediate inspiration or by Propheticall reuelation but by an ordinarie assistance of grace accompanying the vse of right meanes which remooueth not possibilitie of errour but leaueth space for humane iudgement being regenerate onely in part Heb. 5.2 Gal. 5.17 Aug. Enchir. c. 63. to worke by his proper force and power Secondly the Church hath no perpetuall Traditions but such as are either contained in holy Scripture or which are subseruient to maintaine the faith veritie and authoritie of the holy Scriptures and the doctrine thereof Thirdly whereas the Iesuit saith That euen as no vntruth can be admitted in the holy Scripture in regard of such things as are of the least moment without ouerthrowing the totall authoritie thereof so likewise no errour great or small can bee admitted in the doctrine and Tradition of the present Church because vpon the same will follow the subuersion of all her Tradition euen in matters essentiall I answere That there is not the same reason of the Scripture and the Church for the Scripture is totally and perfectly diuine and must alwayes bee so esteemed and to admit any errour or possibilitie thereof in Scripture were to make God a lyar and consequently to ouerthrow all faith But the present Church is onely the seruant of God and of his word Iohn 10.27 and hath no credit or authoritie but from it and although the same may erre in some things yet there remaineth alwaies a higher and more soueraigne Iudge to wit the holy Ghost speaking in and by the Scriptures to whom Christians desirous of truth may appeale and by whose sentence the Doctrine and Traditions of the present Church are to bee iudged Whosoeuer admitteth any errour or vntruth in the holy Scripture taketh away all authoritie from that which is the prime foundation of supernaturall veritie But he that admitteth error or fallibilitie of iudgement in some Traditions and Doctrines of the Pastours of the present Church doth onely make the credit of a secondarie and inferior witnesse subiect to triall and examination of an higher Iudge And euen as in building the rule and measure of proportion must alwaies be euen and right in it selfe but the workemans hand may possibly leane or shake and applie his rule amisse so likewise the holy Scriptures which are the principles of Theologie and the most exact ballance and measure of diuine Veritie as S. Chrysostome speaketh must be free from all obliquitie of error and to admit the least error in the Scripture ouerthroweth the foundation of Faith But the Ministerie and Tradition of the Church is like an Artificers hand which may sometimes leane and goe awrie and yet the foundation of Veritie abideth firme in the prime authenticall rule and by the same the errour of mens Tradition and Doctrine may be corrected Fourthly the Iesuit affirmeth That Tradition to wit of the
Church since the Apostles is the prime originall ground of Faith more fundamentall than the Scripture This assertion is Antichristian and impudent for can any thing be more fundamentall than the foundation or of greater authoritie than the word of God S. Peter speaking of the Propheticall Scriptures equalleth the same to the sensible voice of God which was vttered in the Apostles audience from heauen Math. 3.17 c. 17.5 saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We haue the most sure word of Prophesie c. vpon these words S. Augustine d. verb. Apostoli serm 29. commenteth as followeth Et cum dixisset hanc vocem audiuimus de Coelo delatam subiunxit atque ait habemus certiorem propheticum sermonem sonuit illa vox de Coelo certior est propheticus sermo when the Apostle had said We heard this voice from heauen he addeth further and saith We haue a more sure word of prophesie That voice sounded from heauen and yet the propheticall word is more sure he said more sure not better or truer because that word from heauen was as good and as profitable as the word of prophesie Why therefore more sure Because the hearer was more confirmed by it Our Sauiour himselfe in the Gospell examineth the Traditions of the Pharises and of the Iewish Church then being by the Scriptures Math. 5.6 and 7. Ch. 12.5 c. 15.4 19.4 And the holy Ghost in the new Testament both in the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles confirmeth the Truth which was taught by the authoritie of the Scriptures and Christ Iesus perpetually submitteth himselfe and his doctrine to the triall of the Scriptures and the Apostles after him did the like Acts 26.22 The antient Fathers affirme that the Scriptures are of most eminent authoritie and that wee are aboue all things to giue credit to them and that they are the mouth of God and the verie hand of God and Paul and Peter and Iohn and the whole companie of the Prophets do speake with vs by them and that Faith it selfe by which a iust man liueth is conceiued by them and the Church it selfe is demonstrated to wit tanquam à priori by them But on the contrarie Traditions receiue their authoritie from the Scriptures and may not be admitted vnlesse they agree with the Scriptures And in our Aduersaries Tenet men must first beleeue the authoritie of the Church before they can receiue or beleeue Tradition from all which it followeth that Tradition of the present Church is neither the prime originall ground of Faith nor yet more fundamentall concerning Faith than the Scripture The Trident Councell held it sufficient to equall Tradition with the Scriptures This new master with Baronius Pighius preferreth them before the Scriptures These men perceiue that the Roman Faith cannot subsist vnlesse they depresse the written word of God and exalt the prophane bastardly and Apocriphall Traditions of the Pope They say the Scripture is a breathlesse lumpe a nose of wax a leaden rule Andradius writeth That in the Books of the Scriptures themselues there is no diuinitie or any thing else binding vs to beleeue Stapleton saith That being considered as written it can no way be called the Temple or Tabernacle of the holy Ghost Bosius saith The holy Ghost resideth in the Church more effectually and nobly than in the Bookes of the Scripture And Majoranus hath these words The consent of the Church alone which neuer wanted the spirit of God ought to be of greater esteeme with vs than all mute and tonguelesse Bookes and than all the written volumes which are or euer were and which haue in all ages ministred fuell of contention to the wits of men And Gretsar the Iesuit There would haue beene fewer contentions in the world as I supose if there had beene no Scripture at all Iacob Brower a Reader of Doway saith I would not beleeue the Gospell did not the authoritie of Pope Paul the fift mooue me And lastly it is one of the dictates of Pope Hildebrand canonised by Baronius That no Chapter or Booke of Scripture must bee esteemed canonicall without his authoritie I doubt not but that Romists are able with faire glosses and distinctions to salue these blasphemies and to reconcile dark nesse with light but he that diggeth a pit for people to fall into althought he couer the same with some superficiall tecture is accused by the antient sentence of diuine Law Exod. 21.33 Towards the end of this Section the Iesuit addeth First That the Scripture is not knowne to bee Apostolicall but by Tradition This is false for the Scripture is knowne to come from the Apostles by inward grounds and testimonies contained in it selfe and by the vertue and effects of it as well as by the Tradition of the Church Secondly it is most vntrue that Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by it owne light but not Scripture for what internall light hath Tradition more than or aboue the Scripture If it haue then the articles of Popish Tradition Purgatorie adoration of Images c. are more manifest than the articles which Scripture teacheth concerning the incarnation and resurrection of Christ than Heauen and Hell c. Also sacred Scripture is receiued as diuine by all Christians Popish Tradition onely by some The Catalogue of Romish Tradition could neuer to this day be specified and distinctly assigned but the Canon of holy Scripture may Moreouer holie Scripture hath the perpetuall and vnanimous consent of the Primitiue Church Popish Tradition hath not Againe Bellarmine confesseth that nothing is better knowne and more certaine than holy Scripture but if nothing be better known then nothing hath clearer light Thirdly the confirmation of the former to wit What more euident c. is insufficient because that which is known to come from the Apostles by their owne immediat testimonie in writing is more euidently knowne to come from them than that which is affirmed to come from them onely by the report of men which are deceiueable Diuine testimonie maketh things more certaine and infallible than humane The testimonie of the Apostles extant in writing is totally diuine the report of Bishops is in part humane IESVIT And this may bee clearely prooued to omit other pregnant testimonies by the words of our Sauiour in the last of Matthew Going into the whole world teaching all nations baptizing them In the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost teaching them to keepe all that I haue commanded you all dayes euen to the consummation of the world A promise of wonderfull comfort vnto them that pawne their soules and saluation vpon Gods word deliuered by perpetuall Tradition For in this sentence appeare these fixe things First That there is still a Christian Church all dayes not wanting in the world so
Vertue Deut. 31. 21. Secondly Their doctrine of Pardons ministred daily occasion of intollerable wickednesse For although their Scholemen plastered the same with subtle distinctions yet the people entertained them according to the outward letter and practised accordingly Thirdly By some part of their doctrine they 〈◊〉 people to commit sinne Equiuocation is a doctrine of Periurie To affirme that it is lawfull to depose Princes and take away their 〈◊〉 in case of Heresie is a plaine doctrine of 〈◊〉 worse than murder and if the Pope may command murder why may he not also command adulterie theft and blasphemie The doctrine of the Popes authoritie to dispence with oathes is perilous and pernitio us to the safetie of mankind making way to all kind of fraud and iniustice If the Roman Church be so apparantly and infinitly holy why doth it openly maintaine Stewes and receiue yearely tribute and part stake with Harlots and wherefore are Sanctuaries the harbours and dennes of Assisines and other enormous delinquents tollerated and supported by this Church It is a monstrous doctrine which was hatched by Pope Vrban and approoued by Baronius That they are not to be iudged murtherers which slay excommunicate persons The exemption of 〈◊〉 from being tried in Causes Criminall before Christian Magistrates is a doctrine which maketh way to most outragious offences Gulielmus Nubrigensis lib. 2. cap. 16. The Iudges complained that there were many robberies and rapes and murthers to the number of an hundred then presently committed within the realme by Ecclesiasticall persons vpon presumption of exemption from the censure of the lawes We cannot be persuaded that the Roman Church is holy in such high and extrordinarie manner as our Aduersarie boasteth because the greatest Clerkes of that societie vndertake the defence of such impieties as are detestable in Nature and condemned by the light of common Reason Garnets Powder-plot hath many Patrons Cardinall Baronius commendeth to the skies yong Henrie the Emperors sonne for rebelling against his naturall father for deposing imprisoning and bringing him with sorrow to the graue what Turke or Sauage would be the encomiast of such vnnaturall and enormous villanie IESVIT Most 〈◊〉 Apostolicall 〈◊〉 a most glorious succession of Bishops and Pastors from the Apostles famous in all monuments of Historie and Antiquitie who were neuer noted as deliuering 〈◊〉 doctrines the one to the other In which proofe that these properties agree to the Roman and be wanting in the Protestant Church J will not inlarge my selfe as I otherwise might as well not to wearie your Maiestie as also not to seeme to diffide the matter being most cleere of your Maiesties judgement wherefore it is more than cleere That the Roman Church is the One Holy Catholicke Apostolicke Church by whose Tradition Christian Religion hath beene is and shall be euer continued from the Apostles to the worlds end ANSVVER First If the present Roman Church do want the life and soule of Apostolicall Succession to wit Apostolicall Doctrine locall and titular Succession is only a Pharisaicall cloake or a painted wall Acts 23.3 and common to Caiaphas Paul Samosaten Nestorius and to many other notorious Heretickes Secondly The visible Succession of the Bishops and Pastors of the said Church from the Apostles is not most glorious and famous by the report of all monuments of Historie and Antiquitie but the same hath beene notoriously distained in latter times by Simoniacall entrance of Popes and Prelats by Schysmaticall intrusions and by commutation of the forme of election of Pastors appointed by the Apostles and exercised in the Primatiue Church And whereas the Aduersarie contendeth that Roman Bishops and Pastours hane Succession of doctrine because Ecclesiasticall Historie is silent in noting latter Popes for deliuering contrarie doctrines the one to the other both the Illation it selfe and the antecedent or ground of the Illation are false First it is inconsequent to inserre negatiuely from humane Historie and to say Histories are silent and therefore no such matter was Our Sauiour prooueth the Pharisees and Sadduces to be errants because their present doctrine was repugnant to the Scripture and had the Pharisees or Sadduces replied That their doctrine was the same which Moses the Prophets taught because they had Snccession and Histories were silent when they changed the antient Faith they had iustified themselues vpon as good grounds as Papals do Secondly it is false which this disputer venteth so confidently That Histories and antient Monuments are altogether silent of the Innouations which were made by latter Popes and we are able as in due place it shall appeare to produce testimonies of Historie to the contrarie IESVITS 2. Argument Protestants haue the holy Scriptures deliuered vnto them by and from the One Holy Catholicke and Apostolical Church but they receiued them from no other Church than the Roman Ergo the Roman is the One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church ANSVVER This Sillogisme is peccant in forme and both the propositions are affirmatiue in the second figure which I note the rather because the Aduersarie at the end of his Argument cryeth Victoria saying An Argument conuicting and vnanswerable I must therefore reduce the same to a lawfull forme and then answer That Church by and from which the Protestants receiue the Scriptures is the Only Holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church The Protestants receiue the Scriptures from the Roman Church Ergo The Roman Church to the Only Holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church First If this Argument be conuicting and vnanswerable as the Iesuit boasteth then these which follow are such That from which the Russians receiued the Scriptures is the Only Holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church The Russians receiued the Scriptures from the Greeke Church Ergo The Greeke Church is the Only Holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church Also that Church from which the Apostles receiued the Scriptures was the true Church The Apostles receiued the Scriptures from the Sinagogue of the Iewes gouerned by the Pharisees Ergo The Synagogue of the Iewes gouerned by the Pharisees was the true Church The deliuerie of the Text of the holy Scriptures is common to the true and corrupt Church and not proper to the Only Holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church as appeareth by the Synagogue which being a corrupt Church at the time of our Sauiours Aduent yet by the speciall prouidence of God preserued and deliuered the Text of the old Testament Rom. 3.2 And S. Agustine testifieth of the Iewes That they were Librarie keepers to Christians of the Bookes of the Law and Prophets And S. Hierom saith That the Hebrews did not corrupt the Text of the old Testament Also the Donatists and Nouatians deliuered the incorrupt Text of holy Scripture to their followers Secondly the proposition of the former Argument hath another defect The Text of holy Scriptures may be deliuered by a particular Church which is but a member of the vniuersall and therefore it is
inconsequent to conclude That because the Protestants receiued the Scriptures from the Roman Church therefore they receiued them to wit immediatly from the vniuersall Church The Minor proposition to wit the Protestants receiued the Scriptures from no other Church than from the Romane may be taken in a double sence For either it may be vnderstood originally and by way of authoritie that is The Protestants receiued the Scriptures both originally and deriuatiuely from and by the authoritie of the Romane Church onely or else it may bee vnderstood indicatiuely The Protestants receiued the Scriptures by the hand of the Romane Church and were first of all instructed and told by that Church that the same were diuine Bookes yet they receiued them not onely or principally from that church but also from the Primitiue Church which led them originally to the Apostles themselues And besides the former Tradition by reading and studying the holy Scriptures they learned sufficient matter out of those heauenly bookes to confirme them that they were diuine and of God Philemon receiued S. Pauls Epistle by the hand of Onesimus he did not esteeme Onesimus a seruant who had beene a fugitiue an infallible witnesse in himselfe but the argument and contents of S. Pauls Epistle persuaded him that S. Paul was the Author A man may receiue the Kings Proclamation from off a pillar or his great Seale by the hand of a meane clarke So likewise the bookes of holy Scriptures are first conueyed vnto vs by Ecclesiasticall testimonie and Tradition but they containe heauenly veritie and doctrine within themselues which persuade the diligent readers and learners of them that they are diuine IESVIT The Maior I prooue If Protestants haue not the Text of Scripture by and from the one holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church they cannot be certaine they haue the true incorrupt Text the Apostles deliuered and recommended as Diuine to the first 〈◊〉 seeing the Tradition of any other Church is fallible and may deceiue And if it may deceiue how can they be certaine that they are not deceiued seeing they themselues liued not in the Apostles dayes to see with their owne eyes what Copies the Apostles deliuered But Protestants as they pretend be certaine that they haue the true incorrupt Apostolicall Text of Scripture Ergo they haue it vpon the Authoritie of the holy Catholike Apostolike Church ANSWER The Argument whereby the Aduersarie confirmeth his Maior is this If the Protestants receiue the Scriptures from any other but the Holy Catholique Church they cannot be certaine that the same are incorrupt because a fallible Witnesse may deceiue Answ. They which receiue the Scriptures from the hands of a corrupt Church may be deceiued if there be not some other infallible meanes besides the Testimonie of that Church to assure them But if that Church be onely a Messenger to deliuer and there be found in the thing deliuered that which is certaine and infallible in it selfe to wit the Testimonie of the Apostles and of the Spirit of God speaking in and by those Scriptures Acts 24. 25. then they which immediately receiue the Text of the Scripture from a fallible Church may be certaine that they are not deceiued It is not necessarie that the Messenger by and from whose hands wee receiue immediately the Text of the Scriptures should be infallible in all things for then wee must receiue them from the hands of no particular Church or particular Councell vnconfirmed by the Pope or from any particular Pastour of the Church because these are fallible And according to our Aduersaries Tenet infallibilitie of Iudgement is found onely in the Pope and Councell confirmed by him And from hence it will in like sort follow that for the first two or three hundred yeeres beginning from the death of the Apostles in which time there was no generall Councell yea for certaine Ages after generall Councels began vntill the Canon of the Scripture was expressely assigned by some generall or particular Councell confirmed by the Pope Christians should haue remained vncertaine touching the sacred Authoritie of Diuine Scripture because the meanes by which they receiued them immediately were fallible The Authoritie of the holy Scripture dependeth vpon the immediate Messenger which deliuereth the Bookes vnto vs no more than the Authoritie of the Kings Proclamation dependeth vpon the Sergeant who proclaymes it or sets it vpon a Pillar to be read of all men but vpon the first Diuine Witnesses which wee know to be the Authors of the Scripture not because Pope Paul the fifth or Clement the eight say so but because the Witnesses themselues affirme it in their Scripture or deliuer that in their Scripture by which it is prooued to such as are eleuated by Grace and taught of God IESVIT Now the Minor That they haue the Scripture from the Romane is apparent For what other Church did deliuer vnto Luther the Text of the Bible assuring him that they had it by Tradition of Ancestors time out of mind as giuen originally by the Apostles which is accordingly acknowledged by M. Whitaker and others but particularly by Luther himselfe Ergo the Romane Church is the one holy Catholike Apostolike Church whose Tradition doth deliuer infallibly vnto vs the Text of Scripture ANSVVER The Protestants receiuing the Bookes of holy Scripture by the hand of the Roman Church proueth not the said Church to be the onely holy Catholike and Apostolike Church any more than the receiuing of Baptisme by Heretikes or the Old Testament by the Synagogue of which the Pharisees were a part proue the same to be the true infallible Church IESVIT And if the true Apostolicall Text then also the true Apostolicall Sense ANSWER The sequele is denyed For it is not necessarie that they which truly deliuer the Text shall also truly deliuer the Apostolicall sense and on the contrarie a lying sence may be deliuered by them which retaine the true and incorrupt Letter of the Text as appeareth by the Pharisees Arrians Donatists and many other Heretikes IESVIT This I proue If the Apostles did not deliuer the bare Text but together with the Text the true sense of Scripture to be deliuered perpetually vnto posteritie then they who by Tradition receiue from the Apostles the true Text must together receiue the true sense But all principall Protestants affirme No man doubteth but the Primitiue Church receiued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not onely the Text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sense which is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Fathers that from the Apostles together with the Text descends the Line of Apostolicall interpretation squared according to the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense ANSVVER The Assumption of the former Argument to wit The Apostles together with the Text deliuered the true sense of all their Scriptures to those people to whom they wrote is vncertaine They deliuered no doubt the sense of the Scriptures
an vniforme Tradition of all ages that the place of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 3. 12. is vnderstood of Popish Purgatorie or Math. 16. 19. Iohn 20.23 of Iubilees and Indulgences or the place of Acts 10. 13. Rise Peter and kill of murthering Princes or of the temporall dominion of the Pope If the Papists would impose no other sence vpon the Scripture than such as is confirmed by vniforme Tradition the difference betweene them and vs would easily bee composed but these men euerie day hatch nouell expositions and when they are hunted out of one they flie to another They glorie of antiquitie succession vniforme Tradition and cry Victoria Inuincible Vnanswerable before the combate is finished but they are compelled to forge Authours to impose false expositions vpon the Texts of Fathers sometimes to abridge sometimes to inlarge the Tomes of Councells and to purge and corrade Ecclesiasticall writers old and new and yet being vnable to preuaile by all the former they are forced in many cases to presse the bare authoritie of the Pope and his adheres to warrant their Tradition IESVITS 3d. Argument My third proofe I ground vpon a principle most certaine and set downe by your most gratious Maiestie That the Roman Church was once the Mother Church and consequently the One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church all other Churches being her daughters and that she is not to be forsaken further than it can be prooued that she departed from her selfe that is from the Mother and originall Doctrine deliuered by the Apostles ANSWER This principle whereupon you ground your third Argument is neither true in it selfe nor yet confessed by his excellent Maiestie in the place whereunto you referre vs His Maiestie affirmeth That wee ought not to depart from the Church of Rome in Doctrine or Ceremonie further than she had departed from her selfe in her best estate and from Christ her head This sentence of our most religious King is consequent vpon S. Pauls doctrine Rom. 12. 18. Rom. 14. 13. and the same is consonant to Charitie and Reason and argueth a mind desirous of Concord and Peace and averse from vnnecessarie Innouations And as this moderation is commendable in all men so it is most agreeable to him that is a Father of peace whose word is Beati Pacifici But whereas you incroach vpon his Maiesties speech adding a glosse which is not warranted by the Text and infer a conclusion which the premises affoord not you are herein iniurious both to the Author you alleage and to the Truth The Roman was neuer by diuine institution the Mother Church in regard of all Christians neither Vniuersall in respect of an absolute command and iurisdiction ouer all particular Churches as is challenged by the Canon Dist. 12. c. 1. Non decet c. But it was once a Mother Church as the Seas of Patriarches are stiled Mother-Churches or a Mother-Church respectiuely to such people and nations as were conuerted by her preaching and other Churches were stiled with that title as well as the Roman Theoderet speaking of the Church of Hierusalem saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We make knowne vnto you that the most reuerend and godly Cyrill is made Bishop of Hierusalem which is the Mother of all Churches The Roman Church once a Metropolitan or patriarchall Mother Church since the daies of Hildebrand is suspected to be the Mother spoken of Apoc. 17. 5. and some of your owne part haue said that in these latter times Nontam se matrem exhibet quam Noueream she behaueth her selfe more like a stepdame than a naturall mother her brests haue beene verie drie for sundrie ages past and she depriued her children of a principall portion of the food of life and in steed of milke deliuered them water mixt with chaulke Her publicke readings and seruice were in an vnknowne tongue the holy Scriptures were closed vp that people might not cast their eies vpon them fabulous legends were read and preached in steed of Gods word and hereby it came to passe as some of their owne Authors say That the greater number of people vnderstood no more concerning God and things diuine than Infidels or Heathen people IESVIT But she cannot be prooued to haue changed her Doctrine since the Apostles by any monuments of Historie or Antiquitie yea the contrarie in my iudgement may be most euidently prooued in this sort ANSVVER If by monuments of Historie and Antiquitie be vnderstood Human or Ecclesiasticall Monuments it is inconsequent to inferre that the present Roman Church hath not changed her doctrine since the Apostles although this could not be demonstrated by monuments of Historie c. for there remaineth a more firme and demonstratiue Argument to prooue this to wit the holy Scripture and if the present doctrine of the Roman Church disagree with the Scripture then it is changed from that which it was antiently The rule by which we must trie doctrines is the word of God and not humane Historie and the word of God is true and abideth for euer whereas humane Historie is fallible contingent and corruptible 1. It is not absolutely necessarie that humane Histories of all matters should be composed and the world continued many ages without any written Historie Secondly When the same are written they cause onely humane Faith Thirdly they may totally perish and be suppressed or corrupted by the enemies of Truth Fourthly Historie may be repugnant to Historie and that which is affirmed by some may be contradicted or contrauerted by others and the largenesse and difficultie of the Monuments of Antiquitie may be such as that few people can be able to read and examine them and if they which read and compare them be opposite in iudgement each to other the greater part of people shall be perplexed and cannot know how to resolue themselues Our Aduersaries teach vs That the principall Monuments of Antiquitie to wit the ancient Councels haue not beene faithfully preserued Many things supposititious haue beene added to the workes of the Antient and bastardly Bookes and Sentences passe vnder the titles of Fathers Our Aduersaries being a party whose doctrine is to be examined according to their owne challenge by Monuments of Antiquitie haue presumed to correct purge and alter such Records Lastly when the testimonie of Historians repugnant to their present Tenet is produced against Papals they despise and reiect them to wit Eusebius Socrates Sozomene c. Baronius a new vpstart censureth all Historians Pighius after one thousand yeares controls the testimonie of generall Councels and it is a rule among them that the antient Fathers then much lesse Histories are not to be 〈◊〉 any 〈◊〉 than they 〈◊〉 the keyes and 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 Church IESVIT The Doctrines that were for diuers ages vniuersally receiued in the Christian Church and no time of their beginning is assigneable
〈◊〉 institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi Authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur That which the vniuersall Church holdeth and which was not appointed by Councels but alwayes obserued is most rightly beleeued to be none other than a Tradition of the Apostles Lastly that which is produced out of BB. Whitgift and M. Cartwright belongeth to the Titles or Names of Ecclesiasticall Rulers and to the matter of Ceremonies Cartwright had a sowre opinion against these being neuer so antient and inculpable The most reuerend BB. his Aduersarie answereth out of S. Augustine Epist. 118. Those things that be not expressed in the Scriptures and yet by Tradition obserued of the whole Church come either from Apostles or from generall Councels as the obseruing of Easter the celebration of the day of Ascension c. The Bishop disputeth of adiaphorous Ceremonies and Titles of Ecclesiasticall persons no wayes blameable but because they are not expressely found in Scripture and concerning such things he saith That because their originall cannot be found out it is to be supposed it is probable they haue their beginning from the Apostles But hee speaketh not in this manner touching dogmaticall points and Articles of Faith Therefore our Aduersarie peruerteth his words and meaning IESVIT The Spirit of Christ or Christ by his Spirit being still with the Church cannot permit Errors in Faith so to creepe into the Church as they grow irreformable euen by the Principles of Christianitie But if Errors could so creepe into the Church as their beginning could not be knowne since the Apostles and neuer be espyed till they be vniuersally receiued Errors could so creepe into the Church and preuaile that by the Principles of Christianitie they are irreformable This I prooue because Errors are irreformable by the Principles of Christianitie when whosoeuer vndertakes to reforme them by the Principles of Christianitie is to be condemned as an Heretike But he that will vndertake to reforme Doctrines vniuersally receiued by the Church opposeth against the whole Church and therefore is by the most receiued Principle of Christianitie by Christs owne direct Precept to be accounted as an Heathen and Publican And as S. Augustine saith to dispute against the whole Church is most insolent madnesse specially when the Doctrine is antient without any knowne beginning as are the supposed erronious Customes and Doctrines of the Romane Church for then the vndertaking Reformer must striue against not onely the whole present Church but also the whole streame of the visible Church time out of mind since the Apostles Et quis ad haec Idoneus Who is able to begin a new course of Christianitie and to ouerthrow that Doctrine which is vniuersally receiued and cannot be prooued by any Tradition of Ancestors to be otherwise planted in the World but by the Apostles themselues through the efficacie of innumerable Miracles Wherefore these Doctrines if they be Errors which by the Principles of Christianitie no man ought to goe about to reforme and seeing it is impossible that there should be any such Errors we must acknowledge that Principle of S. Augustine as most certaine That Doctrines receiued vniuersally in the Church without any knowne beginning are truly and verily Apostolicall And of this kind are the Roman from which Protestants are gone ANSWER The Point which you labour to prooue is That Doctrines vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not reported by Monuments of Historie and Antiquitie are Apostolicall You haue taken that as granted and presupposed which we denie to wit That your Popish Doctrine was for a thousand yeeres at least vniuersally receiued But this is a begging of the Question and a false supposition Wherefore I might according to the rules of Disputation passe by the other part of your Argument But to cleare all things more exactly I will ex abundanti answer that which followeth Your disputation about this part of the question being resolued into the seuerall Arguments and parts may bee thus conceiued No errours irreformable can be in the Church All errours vniuersally receiued without a knowne beginning are irreformeable Ergo No errours vniuersally receiued without a knowne beginning can be in the Church The Maior is confirmed by an Argument taken from the continuall presence of Christ by his Spirit to the vniuersall Church for wheresoeuer Christ is perpetually present and assistant by his holy Spirit there it is impossible that irreformeable errours should preuaile I answere No errours great or lesse absolutely irreformeable can bee in the Church as it signifieth the sounder and better part thereof but errours irreformeable Ex Hypothesi that is presupposing the ignorance and malice of some ouerruling Prelates may preuaile in the Hierarchicall Church which is vulgarly reputed the vniuersall Church for such a Church may be the seate of Antichrist and whiles he reigneth errours may be incureable Ierem. 51. 9. Apoc. 17. 5. Neither doth the presence of Christ and of his Spirit deliuer the malignant part of the Church from irreformeable errours but onely the liuing members of his mysticall Bodie which are actuated and mooued by influence of sauing Grace Iohn 8. 31 32. Rom. 1. 28. 2. Thes. 2. 11. Iohn 12. 40. The Assumption to wit All errours vniuersally receiued without a knowne beginning are irreformeable is denied For although the errours of the Pharisees were vniuersally receiued according to the vniuersalitie of the state of the Church in those dayes without such a knowne beginning as Papists require vs to exhibite concerning their errours yet the same were reformeable by the word of Christ and by the doctrine of the Prophets in all such as receiued the loue of the Truth that they might be saued But the Iesuite prooueth his Assumption by this reason All errours are irreformeable when they which seeke to reforme them are Heretickes by the Principles of Christianitie But all that seeke to reforme errours vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne are heretickes by the principles of Christianitie Ergo All errours vniuersally receiued without a knowne beginning are irreformeable The Minor of this Paralogisme is denyed and it is false That all they which seeke to reforme errours vniuersally receiued are iustly condemned as heretickes by the principles of Christianitie And the Argument produced to prooue this Proposition is of no force Whosoeuer opposeth against the whole Church is by the most receiued Principle of Christianitie deliuered Matth. 18. 7. to be accounted as an Heathen or a Publicane and Saint Augustine saith That to dispute against the whole Church is insolent madnesse But whosoeuer seeketh to reforme errours vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne opposeth against the whole Church Ergo All they which seeke to reforme errours c. are Heretickes by the Principles of Christiantie ANSVVER Whosoeuer opposeth against the whole Church taken as before for the Church Hierarchicall or representatiue is not by the doctrine of our Sauiour and Saint Augustine to be accounted an
Heathen or Publicane but euery one which opposeth against the true Church inordinately and without iust cause is onely so to be accounted First there is opposition by way of counsell and aduice and this maketh no man an Hereticke as appeareth by Paphnutius opposing the Councell of Nice Secondly there is opposition by way of reprehension and true confutation of errour by authoritie of the holy Scriptures And this also maketh no man an Hereticke because he that in a lawfull manner propugneth the faith of the Scriptures maintaineth the Law and veritie of God and fulfilleth the Diuine Precept requiring man to contend for the truth 1. Tim. 6. 11. 2. Tim. 4. 7. And also performeth a worke of charitie in labouring to conuert people from errour Iam. 5. 19 20. Saint Augustines place Epist. 118. c. 5. ad Ianuar. is vnderstood of outward ceremonies and adiaphorous rites in respect of their vse vnblameable and not of matters of faith and therefore it appertaineth not to the question in hand IESVITS 4th Argument That doctrine which Tradition hath deliuered as the doctrine of all Ancestours without deliuering any Orthodox opposition against it that is opposition made by any confessed Catholicke Doctours or Fathers is doctrine deriued from the Apostles without change ANSWER This Proposition is denied for new Doctrine may bee brought in after the decease of the antient Fathers and because the same was vnheard of in their dayes they could make no such plaine and direct opposition against it as that either Historians might take notice thereof or the maintainers of such Doctrine haue no euasion by distinctions and sophisticall slights to elude their Testimonies IESVIT But such is the Doctrine of the Roman Church which Consent and Tradition of Ancestors doth deliuer and doth not together deliuer that any confessed Orthodox Father opposed against it ANSVVER Some Doctrines of the later Roman Church were opposed by the antient Roman Bishops themselues to wit Adoration of Images by Gregorie the Great Communion in one kind by Leo the first Transubstantiation by Gelasius the first The temporall dominion of Popes and Bishops ouer Princes by S. Chrysostome Optatus Mileuitanus and Gregorie the first The dignitie and title of vniuersall Bishop by the same Gregorie And the Doctrine of Papals preferring the old Translation before the originall Text making Apocriphall bookes Canonicall prohibiting lay people to read the Scriptures and exalting the authoritie of the present Church aboue the Scriptures are condemned by many antient Fathers IESVIT We know indeed by Tradition that some in former times stood against many points of the Roman Doctrine as Arrius Pelagius Waldo the Albigenses Wiclife Husse and some others but they are not confessed 〈◊〉 Fathers but were noted for nouelty and singularity and for such by Tradition described vnto vs which kind of opposition doth not discredit the Doctrine of the Church but rather makes the same to appeare more cleerely and famously Apostolicall ANSVVER 〈◊〉 opposed the Doctrine of the holy 〈◊〉 and of the 〈◊〉 Church and was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 and the Fathers of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that by the Scriptures and the Pelagians were 〈◊〉 conuicted by S. Augustine and his Scholers out of the holy Scripture And although Pope Celestine approoued S. Augustines Faith and condemned these Hereticks yet that was not the principall reason whereupon they were reputed Heretickes by the Christian world but the falshood of their Doctrine prooued such by repugnancie with the Scriptures made them to be so esteemed And how many Heretickes were discouered and confuted by the Fathers of the first three hundred yeares out of the Scriptures before the Roman Church ascended to the height of authoritie The Waldenses were no Hereticks as I haue formerly prooued but were only branded with that aspersion by Papals whose pride and tyrrannie they did oppose and had S. Paul himselfe beene aliue and reprooued the errour and wickednesse of the Babilonian Harlot he must not haue escaped her censure and malice Wicliffe and Husse were blessed instruments of Christ vindicating and defending Gods Truth withheld in Iniquitie neither did they hold such blasphemies as the Romists cast vpon them They might haue some opinions in points lesse materiall wherein perhaps they concurre not with our Doctrine as likewise the Waldenses but as for those vile reports which Romists make of their Doctrine no indifferent person will regard it for euen at this day when things are in present view and action you calumniate the persons and falsifie the Doctrine of all your Opposites as grosly as euer Pagans traduced the Primitiue Christians And many of the Bookes and Writings of Wicliffe and Husse are extant wherein are found no such Doctrines as Papists haue charged them with IESVIT Seeing as euen Doctor Field doth confesse when a Doctrine is in any age constantly deliuered as a matter of Faith and as receiued from Ancestors in such sort as the Contradictors thereof were in the beginning noted for Noueltie and if they persisted in contradiction in the end charged with 〈◊〉 it is not possible but such a Doctrine should come by Succession from the Apostles What more euident signe of a perpetuall Apostolicall Tradition than this ANSWER You mistake the Doctors meaning for he speaketh of the most famous and eminent of euery age in sensu composito that is of the most famous and eminent of euery age which consent and agree the latter with the former But he affirmeth not in sensu 〈◊〉 that whatsoeuer the most famous in any one particular age constantly deliuered c. is descended from the Apostles Whiles this reuerend Diuine was liuing such passages of his booke were obiected against him by Papists which caused him to explane himselfe and among other things he saith I neuer make the judgement and opinion of present Bishops of Apostolicall Churches to be the rule to know Traditions by but denie it c. And make onely the Pastors of Apostolicall Churches successiuely from the beginning witnessing the same things to be a rule in this kind IESVIT Protestants answer that it is sufficient that the Roman Doctrine was contradicted by Orthodox Fathers and that this may be prooued by their writings which they haue left vnto posteritie though their opposition was not noted by Antiquitie nor by fame of Tradition deliuered vnto posteritie But this answere leaues no meanes whereby common people may know certainely the perpetuall Tradition of Gods Church without exact examining and looking into their workes which common people cannot do J prooue it if against euery Tradition of the Church difficill and obscure passages of the Fathers may be brought and this doth suffice to make the same questionable then no Tradition can be certainely knowne without exact reading and examining and looking into the holy Fathers But no Tradition or Doctrine is so constantly and cleerely deliuered
Argument concluding That because no Historicall and expresse opposition was made against these Doctrines by the antient Fathers therefore the Tradition of the present Romane Church concerning these Doctrines is Apostolicall As if a man should conclude That because no expresse opposition was made against the Pharisees by the antient Iewish Church therefore their Traditions were diuine But if the sequele of this Argument be good then the Proposition following is necessarie to wit Euerie Doctrine against which the antient Fathers haue not made expresse and literall opposition is Apostolicall But this is false because some Heresies sprang vp in the Church after the decease of the antient Fathers and against those they could make no such opposition vnlesse they had beene endued with Propheticall inspiration But if as our Aduersarie obiecteth euerie Doctrine is Apostolicall against which the antient Fathers made no expresse and Historicall opposition then the Articles following which Protestants maintaine are Apostolicall to wit The Romane Bishop and Councell may erre The substance of Bread and Wine remaine in the holy Eucharist after consecration The common Prayer and Seruice of the Church which the vnlearned frequent ought to be vttered in a knowne Language These I say and the like Articles according to the Iesuits Argument must be Apostolicall because no expresse Historicall or literall opposition was made against them by the antient Fathers But the Iesuit will peraduenture except That euerie Doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of the Romane Church against which the Fathers haue made no expresse opposition is Apostolicall and not euerie other Doctrine This verily or any thing else as wilde and absurd may be pretended but it must be prooued before it can merit any credit And if the Romane Church may erre and change her Doctrine after the decease of the antient Fathers then the Doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of the Romane Church is of the same qualitie with the Doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of other Churches But the first is true Rom. 11. 22. and there is nothing promised in Diuine Writ to the Romane Church to free the same from Error more than to the Churches of 〈◊〉 Antioch Ephesus c. For Hierusalem was the prime Mother Church Esa. 2. 3. Luc. 24. 47. and the first Seat of all the Apostles Ephesus was the Episcopall Sea of S. Iohn and it was once a Ground and Pillar of Truth 1. Tim. 3. 15. and Antioch was the Episcopall Sea of S. Peter Baron Annal. to 1. anno 39. nu 20. And yet euerie one of these Apostolicall Churches are departed from their antient integritie Wherefore except Romists can demonstrate by diuine testimonie that their Prelates and Pontifes haue singular and ample promises beyond other Apostolicall Churches they begge the question when they arrogate sole perfection infallibilitie and immutabilitie to themselues THE SECOND PART of the Iesuits Disputation concerning the supposed Errors of the PROTESTANTS IESVIT THe Conclusion of this Point shewing that Protestants erre fundamentally ANSVVER THis Conclusion is inferred vpon false Premises and therefore it is a Lying Conclusion And if Protestants erre not in all or any of the Articles obiected eyther materially or pertinaciously then they erre not fundamentally IESVIT Out of all this appeares that the Romane is the true Church and consequently that Protestants haue fundamentall Errors about Faith ANSWER If the Antecedent were graunted yet the Consequence is not necessarie for the Church of Africa in the dayes of Saint Cyprian was a true Church and yet they which beleeued otherwise touching rebaptising than that Church erred not eyther materially or fundamentally IESVIT Errours are fundamentall that is damnable either in regard of the matter because against some substantiall Article of Faith the knowledge whereof is necessarie for the performance of a required Christian dutie or in regard of the manner they are held to wit so obstinately as in defence of them one denies the Catholicke Church ANSVVER The distinction of errours into fundamentall and preterfundamentall is collected out of the Scriptures 1. Cor. 3. 12. Phil. 3. 15 16. 2. Tim. 2. 18. Col. 2. 19. Heb. 6. 1. And the same is found in the Fathers and in the Schoolemen in tearmes aequiualent As all verities according to St. Augustine are fundamentall without the knowledge and faith whereof people cannot attaine saluation so likewise all errours directly opposing and destroying right Faith concerning those necessarie and essentiall verities are fundamentall 1. Tim. 6. 3. 1. Cor. 15. 4 c. Gal. 5. 2. All necessarie and essentiall veritie either concerning Faith or good manners according to St. Augustine is deliuered in plaine places of holy Scriptures and therefore they which accuse others of fundamentall errour must produce plaine and manifest Scripture against them And if after such ostension Errants continue obstinate they are guiltie both before God and men of damnable Heresie and deserue the title and punishment of Heretickes These things being premised concerning the Subiect of the Iesuits Proposition I denie that errours in secondarie points defended against the common tenet of the Catholike Church are alwayes fundamentall for 〈◊〉 Cyprian with 80. Bishops of Affrica did stifly defend Rebaptising against the common iudgement of the Catholicke Church and yet S. August freeth them from the guiltinesse of damnable errour Secondly if all such errour be damnable yet the Protestants are innocent because they defend no errour great or small wilfully or obstinately neither doe they oppose but humbly submit themselues to the iudgement of the true Catholicke Church The Pharisees of Rome enroabe themselues with glorious titles but where doth the word of Christ endow them with priuiledges beyond other Churches shew vs out of the holy Euangelists or the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles that you are the onely Catholicke Church All fundamentall veritie is deliuered in the plaine Texts of Scripture Aug. d. Doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 9. And all fundamentall errour is condemned by manifest Scripture Et Catholica fides in Scripturis manifesta est The true Catholike faith is manifest in the Scriptures Aug. d. Agon Christ. c. 28. Ecclesia nonin parietibus consistit sed in dogmatum veritate Ecclesia ibi est vbi vera fides est The Church of Christ consisteth not of outward Titles and walles but of the veritie of Doctrine Wheresoeuer true Faith is there is the Church saith S. Hierom sup Psal. 133. Where Faith is there is the Church saith Saint Chrysostome Where right Faith is not there is not the true Church Et Ecclesia est Hierusalem cuius fundamenta posita sunt super montes Scripturarum And the Church is Hierusalem whose foundations are placed vpon the mountaines of the Scriptures Eruite igitur aliquid manifestum quo demonstretis Ecclesiam If therefore Papals will force vs to beleeue that they are the only Catholicke Church and that we must follow their Pope
rest of the Apostles with him Iohn 20. 23. Eph. 2.20 Apoc. 21.14 Matth. 28.19 Thirdly To be a Ministeriall Rocke and foundation of the Church is not to be the sole Monarch of the Church because St. Peter might bee such in regard of his Preaching and Doctrine as the other Apostles were and not in respect of Monarchicall dominion Heereupon Turrecremate in his Sum. d. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 11. saith Non argumentati sumus Petrum primatum habuisse quia dictus fuit fundamentum aut Petra Ecclesiae sed quia singulariter c. Wee argue not Saint Peter had the Primacie because he was called the Foundation or Rocke of the Church but because he was in a singular manner so called But if the name of Rocke argueth not St. Peters supremacie the singular applying thereof in one Text of Scripture will not doe it both because the speaking to him in particular is onely a circumstance and relation of a matter granted by the words of Rocke and Keyes but no addition of any other essentiall gift and also because the same Title in tearmes equiualent is elsewhere made common to other Apostles The Iesuit addeth That we denie the primacie of Peters Successour and that this Successour is the foundation of the Church laid by Christ and necessarie for the perpetuall gouernment of the same I answere First St. Peter in one respect to wit in regard of his Apostolicall function had no successour for the Office of Apostles was extraordinarie appointed by Christ for the first planting of Faith and consequently it ceased with the Apostles Immediate calling Propheticall inspiration the gifts of Miracles and Languages authoritie ouer the whole Church and all the ordinarie Pastours thereof were proper to the holy Apostles and if none succeed them in these gifts and prerogatiues then it is manifest that in respect of their Apostleship they haue no Successours Secondly In respect of ordinarie Ministerie and in regard of the power and order of iurisdiction St. Peter hath successours in the same manner as the rest of the Apostles to wit all Bishops and Pastours teaching either where hee planted Churches or in any other part of the world the same Faith and Religion which himselfe and his fellow Apostles did Thirdly That St. Peter hath a speciall Successour differing in kinde from the Successours of the rest of the Apostles and which is to bee for euer a visible Head and Monarch ouer the vniuersall Church from whom all Ecclesiasticall power is deriued and to whose sentence in things diuine euery Chrstian must submit himselfe and that the Romane Bishop is the man is deliuered as a prime Article of Christian Faith by Papals but it is neither confirmed by the holy Scripture nor by any diuine Reuelation neither is the same deliuered in the holy Apostles Creed or by any antient generall Councell or by the vnanimous consent of the Primatiue Fathers And sundry Romists themselues haue made question of it and later Pontificians doe with so many subtill sleights and inuentions propugne it that all intelligent and impartiall men may plainely discerne That this Doctrine of Papall Supremacie is builded vpon the sand For if the Romane Bishop had beene appointed and established the perpetuall Successour of Saint Peter in manner before mentioned either our Sauiour himselfe would immediately expreslly and manifestly haue reuealed the same to his Church or the holy Apostles would haue taken notice thereof and declared the same to others Also Saint Peter must haue carried himselfe as a Monarch among the other Apostles and exercised the actions of Soueraigntie in the visible Church But we find in the holy Scripture no supereminent iurisdiction or Monarchicall actions exercised by him no vassallage and subiection yeelded him by the rest of the Apostles And if hee must haue had a Successour in his Monarchie the Apostles suruiuing him should rather haue beene his Successours than the ordinarie Pastours of one Diocesse The Spirit of God also together with so eminent authoritie would haue conferred vpon 〈◊〉 Successours extraordinarie graces of Learning Wisedome Holinesse c. necessarie for so high a calling Also it is not probable that Eusebius and other antient Ecclesiasticall Historians would altogether haue been silent of this Monarchicall authoritie of the Romane Bishop neither would any Orthodoxe Father or generall Councell haue confined the Romane Pontife to equall bounds with other Patriarkes But the antientest Ecclesiasticall Stories are absolutely silent of such a swelling preheminence as moderne Papals claime and the Fathers and Councells contest the same Pope Stephan was slighted by St. Cyprian and the Bishops of Affrica when he enterposed in their affaires and Pope Victor by the Bishops of the East The Oecumenicall Councell of Chalcedon equalleth the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Bishop of Rome Gregory the Great himselfe giueth the Papacie a deadly blow And a great part of Christianitie hath euer to this day opposed the Papall Primacie Therefore it is most improbable that this doctrine should be fundamentall veritie which hauing no 〈◊〉 or infallible grounds in diuine Reuelation wanteth also the suffrages of all antient Ecclesiasticall Testimonie IESVIT FOurthly Their denying the foundation of true 〈◊〉 which is one true Catholicke Christian faith about reuealed Mysteries bringing in a fantasticall faith pretending That euery man is iustified by beleeuing himselfe to be iust or one of Gods Elect. ANSVVER YOu ought first to haue weighed our Doctrine concerning the definition of Faith and haue compared the same with the Tenet of sundrie of your owne Doctours before you had accused vs of fundamentall Errour about the same First We maintaine that true Christian Catholicke Faith is a 〈◊〉 and foundation to wit on mans part of Iustification Heb. 11.6 Rom. 1.17 Iud. v. 20. Secondly We denie that euery man is iustified by only beleeuing himselfe to be iust for he must be truely iust before he can or ought to beleeue himselfe to be so The promise of remission of sinnes is conditionall Esa. 1.16 17 18. Ezec. 18. 21. Pro. 28. 13. Math. 6.14 15. Iohn 15. 10. 16 27. Heb. 5.9 and the same becommeth not absolute vntill the condition be fulfilled either actually or in desire and preparation of mind and the full assurance of remission of sinnes succeedeth Repentance Faith Obedience and Mortification 1. Iohn 3.19 20 21 22. Thirdly We denie that it is an action of Christian Faith praeuious or fundamentall to Iustification for a man to beleeue himselfe to be one of Gods elect and admitting that one do not attaine the certainetie of Faith but of Hope onely that he is elected if there be no other impediment found in him besides this we make no question but such a person may be 〈◊〉 Wherein then lyeth the fundamentall errour concerning Faith and Iustification wherewith we are reproched If it be answered That
Apostles Creed is that societie of Beleeuers against which Hell gates preuaile not finally either by Heresie or mortall sinne But Hell gates preuaile against Popes and Popish Prelats by mortall sinne so farre as that they descend into the infernall lake Therefore the Roman Hierarchicall Church consisting principally of Popes and Popish Prelats is not the holy Catholicke Church in the Creed for that Church hath remission of sinnes and life eternall and passeth not into Hell Ioh. 10.28 August d. Doctr. Christ. li. 3. ca. 32. IESVIT The Church whereof Christ said Math. 28.20 I am alwaies with you to the consummation of the world is the Church of the Creed or the Church which to forsake is damnable For the Church wherewith Christ still abideth not according to corporall and visible presence but by his Spirit is the body of Christ whereof he is head into which he infuseth the life of Grace and consequently he that forsaketh this Church forsakes the body of Christ the head thereof and cannot liue by his Spirit but is in a dead and damnable estate as a member cut off and seperated from a liuing bodie as S. Augustine long ago noted The Catholicke Church is the bodie of Christ whereof he is head out of this bodie the holy Ghost quickeneth no man Now the Church whereof Christ said I am alwaies with you to the consummation of the world is not the Church inuisible of onely the Elect but a visible Church deriued by succession from the Apostles therefore hee that forsakes this Church deriued by succession from the Apostles forsakes the Church of the Creed the Catholicke Church the bodie of Christ and puts himselfe into a dead and damnable state and may haue all things besides Saluation and eternall Life as Fathers affirme whose testimonies in this behalfe are notable and famously knowne whereunto D. Field yeeldeth acknowledging One Holy Catholicke Church in which only the light of heauenly Truth is to be sought where only Grace Mercie remission of Sinnes and hope of eternall Happinesse are found ANSWER The Church whereof Christ said Math. 28.20 I am alwaies with you to the consummation of the world is the Church of the holy Apostles of Pastors and Beleeuers succeeding them in the same Faith and Religion and this is a principall part for the Catholicke Church in generall containes all Faithfull and iust persons from Abel c. of the Church in the Creed Secondly some part of the Catholicke Church of the Creed is alwaies visible in the world sometimes in an ampler sometimes in a smaller number of Professours Also the visibilitie thereof is at sometimes illustrious and notorious and at other times it is obscure according to the state of Persecution Thirdly to forsake the true Church in the maine and primarie Articles of Faith or by any wilfull infidelitie is damnable and all people which desire Saluation must actually if it be possible or Voto in case of necessitie conioine themselues to some part of the Orthodoxall Catholicke Church But our Sauiour promised to no one visible Sea or Church continuing after the Apostles by succession of Bishops absolute immunitie from all Errour and infallibilitie of Veritie but only presentiall assistance and protection of Grace sufficicient for the saluation of his people vpon condition to wit when the said Pastours taught and obserued that which he commanded and continued in the right vse of those meanes which he had deposed among them Ioh. 8.31 32. Rom. 11. 22. Read before in this Treatise pag. 94.99 The Testimonies of S. Augustine obiected by the Aduersarie which are That the Catholick Church is the body of Christ whereof he is head and that out of this bodie the holy Ghost quickeneth no man make altogether against himselfe for none are vitall members of Christs mysticall body but iust and holy persons And it is the same Fathers doctrine Impij non sunt reuera Corpus Christi wicked persons are not in deed and veritie Christs bodie And in another place In corpore Christi non sunt quod est Ecclesia quoniam non potest Christus habere membra damnata They are not in Christs bodie which is the Church because Christ cannot haue damnable members And Bernard saith Manifestum est non esse Caput Hypochritae Christum It is euident that Christ is not the head of an Hypochrite But the visible Rulers of the Popish Church haue many times bin as our Aduersaries themselues report not only Hypochrites but apparantly monstrous and damnable sinners therefore they are not the Catholicke Church out of which no Saluation can be had neither is perpetuall influence and assistance of Grace absolutely intailed vpon them Out of the former premises I argue thus Wolues Hipochrites and impious persons are not the holy Catholicke Church of the Creed out of which there is no Saluation Romish Prelats haue beene Wolues Hypocrites and impious men for they haue maintained false and superstitious Doctrine repugnant to the holy Scripture and aduerse to the Faith of the Primitiue Church which Protestants haue and are againe readie to demonstrate and they haue beene most notorious for all kind of abhominable vices as Romists themselues haue published to the World and they haue also most iniustly and tyranically persecuted and oppressed true beleeuers Ergo Romish Prelats are not the holy Catholicke Church of the Creed out of which there is no Saluation Argument 2. Out of the holy Catholicke Church of the Creed there is no Saluation Out of the fellowship of the Roman Church there hath beene and is Saluation Ergo The present Roman Church is not the holy Catholicke Church of the Creed And thus the Obiector hath gained nothing by accusing our Church of fundamentall error and his nine Accusations are prooued to be so many calumniations and we neither erre fundamentally in any maine Article nor yet pertinaciously or maliciously against any other Christian veritie For although whiles we liue in the world tenebras huius mortalitatis circumferimus as S. Augustine speaketh we carrie about vs in regard of our selues the darkenes of mortalitie tamen ad Scripturae lucernam ambulamus yet we studie carefully to walke according to the true light of holy Scripture and God hath hitherto so assisted vs that the euill eye of our Aduersaries is not able to discouer in our Doctrine any capitall Error neuerthelesse if vpon further inquisition they shall make it appeare by diuine testimonie or other sufficient proofe that we are deceiued in any matter of Faith small or great we will be as 〈◊〉 to reforme our selues as they are readie to accuse vs. And in all differences betweene them and vs we submit our selues to a free lawfull generall Councell to be tried by the rule of Gods word concerning which S. Augustine saith Extat authoritas diuinarum Scripturarum vndè mens nostra deuiare non debet nec relicto solidamento diuini
is bread of which foure sences sight feeling smell tast giue in euidence as of bread no lesse verily than any other so farre as they can discerne and yet so potent is the Word and doctrine of the Church grounded on generall Councells declaring the word of God for Transubstantiation as Catholikes denying their sences beleeue assuredly that what seemeth bread is not bread but the true body of our Sauiour vnder the formes and accidents of bread Now can any man with any shew of the least probabilitie in the world thinke that it is difficile for this Church to persuade her children that the Image of Christ is not a liuing thing or bath any Godhead or liuing diuine power lodged in it as plaine Scriptures shew and generall Catholike Councells particularly the Tridentine and Nicene define which doctrine neither reason nor sence can dislike or shall the sole similitude of members correspondent vnto humane liuing members which Images haue so much preuaile in Catholike minds so to bow downe their thoughts to base Idolatrie as to thinke a stocke or stone to be God and that the Church shall not be able by teaching to erect them to a more high and diuine apprehension being able to make them firmely beleeue a consecrated Hoast is not really bread against the Iudgement that they would otherwise frame vpon most notorious euidencie of sence ANSVVER This passage is wasted in magnifying the power which the Roman Church hath in preseruing her adheres from the infection of superstition in worshipping Images The argument vsed by the Idolist to this purpose is The Roman Church performeth that which is more difficile to wit it persuadeth people contrarie to the experience of all their senses to beleeue that consecrate bread is not bread but the true body of Christ vnder the formes and accidents of bread Therefore it is able to persuade people that the Images which they adore are not very God or that any diuinitie or diuine vertue resides in them I answer that it is not more difficile to persuade some people to beleeue transubstantiation than to rectifie their iudgement in adoration of Images for mans nature being of it selfe through inbred corruption prone to beleeue lies and the members of Antichrist hauing a speciall curse of God vpon them 2. Thes. 2. 10 11. no maruell if they credit false doctrine although it be most absurd But they which beleeue and obey their Masters when they teach lyes doe not alwayes follow their directions if they instruct them in truth Neither are such people free from scandall iustly taken if they conceiue not images to be Gods or indued with diuine vertue residing in them for without such imagination they performe an vnlawfull worship neuer instituted but alwayes condemned by the Holy Ghost And this alone without further abuses is sufficient to condeme the doctrine and practise of the Romane Church IESVIT The Protestant Church on the other side may seeme to haue no great vigor by preachings to persuade common people against the errour of the Anthropomorphits seeing their principle is That a world of Preachers is not to bee beleeued against the euident Scripture Yea that a common ordinarie man by Scripture may oppose as great and a greater Church than is the whole Protestant Which principle being laid how will they conuince people that that God is a pure Spirit whom the Scripture doth so perpetually set forth as hauing humane members I may conclude therefore that their translating of Scripture into the vulgar languages breedes more danger vnto common people than our making of Images ANSWER The Iesuit is fallen vpon a Paradoxe affirming that there is more danger for Protestants to be mislead by reading Scriptures translated into the errour of the Humaniformians than the Papists to be seduced by images And his reason is because Protestant Ministers cannot by preaching the contrarie doctrine persuade people to desist from any errour which seemes to them agreeable to any literall text of holy Scripture for one of their owne principles is That a world of Preachers is not to be beleeued against euident Scripture c. and he citeth Mr. Iohn White in his Way pag. 59. I perceiue it is impossible for Papists to deale sincerely Mr. Iohn White affirmeth not that euery priuate person or that any companie of people whatsoeuer are to be credited vpon the sole allegation of a text of Scripture expounded as the outward letter soundeth for we know that sometimes the letter killeth and Saint Augustines rule concerning Scriptures exposition is neither strange nor vnpractised by vs but Mr. Iohn Whites doctrine is That if foure hundred Baalites or a whole Councell of Pharisees or Errants deliuer vntruths one Micajah one Stephen one Athanasius in whose mouth is fouud the word of Truth although the persons seeme neuer so priuate must be preferred before them which teach lyes or doctrine repugnant to holy Scripture truely expounded IESVIT But they will say the translation of Scripture into vulgar languages is commanded in the Scripture and the Apostles and Apostolicall Church practised it Whereas wee cannot prooue by Scripture that the Apostles did warrant or practise the setting vp of Images This they say with great confidence But what substantiall proofe is of this their saying I could neuer reade or heare The testimonies they bring in this behalfe Search the Scriptures Let his word dwell plentifully among you c. are insufficient to prooue a direct and expresse precept or practise of translating Scriptures into the vulgar tongue ANSWER Wee affirme with great confidence both that the reading of holy Scripture by Lay people which must needes imply Translation of them is a Diuine Ordinance and that Image worship was neither warranted by the Apostles nor practised by the Primatiue Church succeeding the Apostles Neither doe wee alledge onely those Sentences of holy Scripture Iohn 5. 39. Collos. 3. 16. which the Iesuit thinkes himselfe able to elude by subtile distinctions as the Arrians in times past eluded the Text of Saint Iohn Cap. 10.30 But we cite also the Precept of God giuen to the Church before Christ his comming and the perpetuall practise of the godly in the Old and New Testament and the vehement exhortations of the Primatiue Fathers exhorting Lay people to the reading and meditation of holy Scripture and magnifying the fruit and benefit arising from thence The Eunuch is commended for reading holy Scripture Acts 8. 28. The Baereans are called Noble by the holy Ghost for searching the holy Scriptures Acts 17. 11. Hee is called Blessed which readeth and heareth Apoc. 1. 3. The Galathians read the Scripture Gal. 4.21 The Ephesians Cap. 3.4 The Collossians Cap. 4. 16. The Thessalonians 1. Thes. 5.27 The Fathers are so plentifull in this Argument as I haue elsewhere shewed that it would astonish any man who hath read them to behold such impudencie in Papists as to denie this Practise to haue beene Primatiue and
Sacrifices were offered to God onely Exod 22.20 Iud. 13.16.2 Chron. 34.25 so likewise oblations and vowes Deut. 23.21 Leuit. 24.5.6 and as the Lord condemned people of Idolatrie for sacrificing to creatures so the Israelites are reprooued for burning incense to the brasen Serpent 2. Kings 18.4 and to the queene of heauen Ierem. 44.25 This law in respect of the substance is morall and consequently obligeth Christian people as well in case of Oblations as of Sacrifices Now by what authoritie and right the Roman Church can abrogate this law in whole or in part and appropriating Sacrifices to God make prayer vowes Incense and oblations common to God and Saints our aduersaries haue not as yet made remonstrance and the Iesuit in this place alleadgeth no diuine authoritie to giue his Maiestie satisfaction but produceth onely an historicall narration out of S. Augustine and 〈◊〉 who report certaine miracles wrought by God Almightie at the Sepulchres of Martyrs IESVIT I answer if any Catholike should offer to the blessed mother of God by way of sacrifice any the least thing he were seuerely to be rebuked and better instructed for sacrifice is a religious homage due to God onely in which respect the sacrifice of the holy Eucharist is neuer offered vnto any but vnto God in memorie and honour of Saints herein the Collyridians women Priests did erre who did sacrifice a wafer cake vnto the blessed Virgin which kind of worship vnder the title of adoration S. Epiphanius reprooues allowing the Catholike worship as thereby tearming her honourable not for humane or ciuill but for diuine and supernaturall respects True it is that in Catholike countryes people offer vnto Saints lights flowers and cheynes not as sacrifices but as ornaments to set foorth their tombes and shrines wherein they doe not dissent from antiquitie nor from Gods holy will who hath confirmed such deuotions by miracle as diuers Authours worthy of all credit relate particularly S. Augustine by Protestants allowed as the most faithfull witnesse of antiquitie He tells that a woman starke blind recouered her sight by laying to her eyes flowers which had touched the shrine wherein were carried about the Relikes of the most glorious Martyr S. Stephan A more wonderfull example in the same kind he relateth done vpon an old man of good note who being sicke and readie to die did yet very obstinately refuse to beleeue in Christ and leaue his Idolatrie although he was very earnestly mooued thereunto by his children that were zealous Christians His son in law despairing to preuaile by persuasion resolued to goe and pray at the tombe of S. Stephan and hauing performed his deuotions with burning affection with many groanes and 〈◊〉 being to depart tooke with him some flowers that were on the shrine and laid them secretly vnder his father in law his head the night as he went to sleepe Behold the next morning the old man awaking outof his sleepe cryeth out desiring them to come to call the Bishop to baptise him He had his desire he was baptised afterwards as long as he liued he had this prayer in his mouth Lord Iesu receiue my spirit being altogether ignorant that that prayer was the last speech of S. Stephan when he was stoned to death by the Iewes which also were the last words of this happy old man for not long after pronouncing these words be gaue vp his soule Other oblations also Catholikes vse to offer vnto Saints not as sacrifices but as memories and monuments of benefits receiued as pictures of limmes by Saints prayers miraculously cured that therein they doe not deflect from antient Christian deuotion and that the Christian Church in her best times vsed vniuersally to make such oblations Theodoret is a sufficient witnesse who writing against the Gentiles alleadgeth as a manifest signe of Christs Godhead and omnipotencie that Idols being excluded he brought in Martyrs to be honoured in their roome not superstitiously as Gods but Religiously as diuine men inuocating and beseeching them to be Intercessours for them vnto God And those that piously and faithfully pray obtaine what they desire as testifie the oblations which they being therevnto bound by their vowes present in the Chappels of the Saints as tokens of health recouered for some hang vp images of eyes others of eares others of hands some made of gold some of siluer Thus he So generall and so notorious euen vnto Infidells was this Christian deuotion ANSWER Touching the Collyridians I answer that notwithstanding there is some difference in the materiall act betweene Romists and them yet because Epiphanius condemneth not onely externall sacrifice but all Oblation to the blessed virgin and alloweth onely that honour and not adoration shal be yeelded vnto her therefore Prayers incense-offerings and presents to Saints deceased were held vnlawfull in this Fathers dayes Secondly Saint Augustine de Ciuit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. doth not mention any Prayers Oblations Vowes or donatiues offered to Saints and Martyrs but he reporteth what miraculous cures were performed at the toombes of some Martyrs now because these things were extraordinarie and the credit of diuers of them dependeth vpon fame which is many times vncertaine and St. Augustine himselfe saith They are not commended vnto vs by such waightie authoritie as that without all doubt they must needs be credited they cannot be sufficient grounds or foundations of Catholicke Doctrine or Practise Thirdly Theoderit d. cur Graec. Affect lib. 8. saith Wee Oh Grecians neither offer sacrifice to Martirs nor drinke offerings but honour them as holy men and as the friends of God And whereas he further saith That some hang vp the shapes of eyes others of eares c. he meaneth that these were monuments of miraculous cures wrought in those dayes extraordinarily by God at the Sepulchres of Martyrs but he affirmeth not that they were oblations offered to Martyrs And yet the particular practise of some people in those dayes whatsoeuer it was if it haue not ground in Diuine Reuelation cannot raise an Article of Faith or necessarie dutie IESVIT § 8. The Romane Church set formes of Prayer without cause misliked FInally Protestants dislike the circumstance of praying in a set forme vnto Saints and that we appoint a particular office to the blessed Virgin Mary which cannot be proued to haue been vsed in the Primatiue Church ANSVVER THe Romish set formes of Prayers to the Virgin Marie and other Saints deceased are iustly condemned by vs not meerely because they are exercised in a set forme which is accidentall but in respect of the matter and substance of them neither can our Aduersaries demonstrate that such Prayers either in a set forme or by sudden inspiration were vsed in the Primatiue Church for the holy Apostles which are the prime Fathers and founders of that Church prescribed and practised no other forme of Prayer than such as was consonant to their Scriptures and the Churches which
Grace Mother of Mercie saying to her Ladie protect vs from the Diuell receiue vs in the houre of death giue light to the blind pardon the guiltie remooue from vs all euill c. A answer These speeches cannot iustly bee disliked because they are vnderstood in a pious sence knowne to a Catholicke a sence obuious and plaine according to the phrase of Scripture and which the words may well beare euen according to the common custome of speech The nature of things being various and the answerable conceits of men copious but words to expresse such conceits scant and in great paucitie Necessitie doth inforce to vse words applicable to diuers senses For example one man may deliuer another from death either by authoritie pardoning him as do Kings or by iustice defending him as do Aduocates by force taking him out of his enemies hands as do Souldiors or paying his ransome to them that keepe him captiue as Almoners finally by begging his life of them that haue power to take it away as Intercessors These be verie different wayes of reliefe yet haue we but one word to expresse them all to wit to saue a mans life which therefore is to be vnderstood according to the subiect it is applied and if men want vnderstanding or will to take our wordes according to the matter they are applied vnto there can neuer want cauills vnlesse we either speake not at all or when we speake euer vse long circumlocutions which were ridiculous and in verse impossible the meeter not permitting it And yet the aforesaid misliked phrases in the office of the blessed virgin are taken out of the hymnes and verses thereof If they that by begging obtaine of the King the life of one condemned to death may be and are commonly said to saue his life though they saued him by intercession not by their proper authoritie Why may not Saints bee said to giue vs the things which by their prayers they obtaine for vs Why may not the Church speake in hymnes and in verse as the learnedest Fathers speake euen in prose neuer imagining that any would mistake their meaning ANSVVER We condemne the verie substance of your prayers in this kind and not only some phrases c. For what Prophet or what Apostle or Euangelist did euer teach Gods people to pray in this manner And whereas some formes of your prayers to Saints being vnderstood according to the sound of words are blasphemous you labour to qualifie this by a fauourable exposition pretending that you say one thing and meane another and that herein you varie not from the Scripture You call the blessed Virgin Mother of Grace Mother of Mercie Queene of Heauen c. you say that all power is giuen her in heauen and in earth and because she outliued her sonne she was by naturall right heire of all the world Yea some of you go further teaching that as Christ redeemed man-kind by his flesh and bloud so she redeemed the same with her soule and that all grace and glorie comming from Christ the head passeth to the Church by the Virgin Marie as by the necke and she as his mother hath all right authoritie and dispensation of his mercie This lying doctrine is coloured with certaine distinctions and forced instances of holy Scripture which notwithstanding agree to the present question like Harpe and Harrow Men indeed which are instruments of preseruing life and sauing others may be said in largenesse of speech to giue life or to be sauiours Iud. 3. v. 9. 15. But the blessed Virgin and Saints deceased since their departure are not by any new actions instruments of spirituall life nor bestowers of grace and saluation vpon the liuing And when the Prophets and Apostles exercised their office and ministerie vpon earth Who euer stiled them Sauiours or prayed vnto them with such a conceit or by vsing such titles They themselues gaue all glorie to God and Christ and instructed the Church to do the like The Virgin Marie was neuer stiled a Redeemer Mediatour or Sauiour by the holy Ghost but she saith in her thankesgiuing My spirit reioiceth in God my Sauiour Some names are common and sometimes that which was common or typically giuen to certaine persons in the old Testament is appropriated in the new as we obserue in the names of Sauiour Iesus Redeemer Mediatour High Priest and the like Sometimes the effect of the principall cause is attributed to the instrumentall but in all these Regulam habemus praeter quam loqui fas non est We haue a rule beside which we may not speake And we are not so straighted for words that we must of necessitie applie or communicate the titles of Christ vnto the creatures Now to that which you adde by way of excuse for your improper or abusiue speaking saying in verse impossible the meeter not permitting I answer What an impudent and ridiculous plaster is this will not verse permit vs to implore benefits only at Gods hand by Christ or will not the measure and number of poeticall feet without pinching in the stockes be applied to direct and euident compellation of Saints to pray for vs without crauing the benefits we desire at their own hands Nay who so readeth the Papisticall poeticall Church hymnes shall in the most of them find versing laws most broken where the lawes of inuocation are most transgressed A reasonable Poet in lesse than a weekes worke would make so many hymns in exact verse and yet without ridiculous circumlocutions expres that which might better beseeme the triumphant Church to heare from the militant But that is verified in you which Arnobius said of the Gentiles Quod semel sinè ratione fecistis nè videamini aliquando nescisse defenditis meliusquè putatis non vinci quam confessae cedere atquè annuere veritati That which you haue once done vnreasonably you wil still persist in defending least you should seeme to haue beene ignorant and you rather desire to haue it appeare you are not ouercome than to submit your selues to euident truth IESVIT Saint Gregorie Nazianzen for his excellent learning tearmed by the Grecians The Diuine thus prayeth vnto Saint Cyprian Looke downe on vs from heauen with a propitious eye guide our words and wayes feed this holy flocke gouerne it with vs dispose some of them as farre as is possible to better state cast out importune and troublesome wolues that cauill aud catch at syllables vouchsafe vs the perfect and cleare splendor of the blessed Trinitie with whom thou art alreadie present ANSWER That Gregorie Nazianzen prayed vnto Saint Cyprian is more than you can prooue he vseth indeed an Oratoriall Apostrophe but your selues make a difference betweene a Prosopopeia or Apostrophe and Prayer you say you make an Apostrophe to the Crosse when you vse this Hymne All haile oh Crosse c. And I thinke you will not grant that the wodden Crosse heareth you So by
manners and tongues Thirdly it is repugnant to the nature and end of vocall Prayer that the same should be exercised in a forme of words which people that pray together vnderstand not for prayer is an ascending of the mind to God and according to Aquinas and other Schole-men it is an action of the vnderstanding facultie and in the same people confesse their sinnes and request of God such things as they haue need of They giue thankes for benefits spirituall and temporall general and speciall conferred vpon them and the effect of prayer dependeth vpon their inward humiliation and sence of their wants 2. Chro. 34.27 Psal. 51.19 and vpon their speciall faith in the diuine promises Math. 9.28 Marc. 9.23 and Marc. 11.29 And Tertullian saith God is not so much an hearer of the voice as of the heart But these things cannot be performed where people vnderstand not what they confesse request or praise God for And words are appointed to instruct excite and edifie men and if they vnderstand them not to what vse serueth vocall prayer for we vse not words to teach God but to instruct and excite our selues And hereby the Popish euasion is answered wherein they affirme that euen as When a Supplication is preferred to a King or Iudge which the Suppliant vnderstandeth not it is all one in what language soeuer the same be preferred the Iudge vnderstand it So likewise because God vnderstandeth all languages it mattereth not though people pray to him in a strange tongue for our words in vocal prayer concern our selues mutually principally but God himselfe requireth the vnderstanding and affection of our heart Read S. Augustines words cited in the margent Also the Iewes vnder the Law and the Prophets prayed in a language which they vnderstood our Sauiour and his Apostles and the Primitiue Church did the like and the gift of languages was bestowed vpon Pastors and people in common Act. 2.3 Also the former Doctrine is so apparant that some of the best learned Romists teach that publicke seruice in a knowne language is most fruitfull and conuenient Caietan saith It appeareth by S. Pauls Doctrine that it is better for the edification of the Church that common Prayers which are made in the hearing of the people be said in a vulgar tongue vnderstood indifferently by Priest and people than in Latine Lira saith If the people vnderstand the prayer of the Priest they are better brought to God and they answere Amen with greater deuotion And the reason hereof is manifest for deuotion compunction desire and affection depend vpon vnderstanding and follow the same and the more distinct and particular the vnderstanding of the obiect of these is the more feruent and perfect the actions are IESVIT For we may imagine a triple state of Liturgie in an vnknowne tongue The first in a language altogether vnknowne in which no man in the Church speakes no man vnderstands besides the celebrant himselfe nor he neither but by Enthusiasme or inspiration of the holy Ghost Without question it is inconuenient that publique prayer should be said in a language in this sort vnknowne and this is prooued by the reasons the Apostle brings against an vnknowne tongue in the Church ANSWER This first imagination is a Chimera or 〈◊〉 for there was neuer in the world any such kind of common or ordinarie Seruice or Liturgie And S. Paul 1. Cor. 14. condemneth in generall the vse of vnknowne tongues in the congregation vnlesse they be interpreted and referred to mentall edification As for the vnlearned Ideot which is ready to ioine with the Priest in prayer what is it to him whether the Priest speake by Enthusiasme or by discipline an vnknown language his ignorance and impossibilitie of speciall concurrence in prayer is the same as well in the one as in the other IESVIT Secondly in a language vnknowne to most euen of the better sort of the Church yet some know it and other may with facilitie learne it To vse a language in the Church for publique prayer in this sort vnknowne cannot be prooued vnlawfull nor forbidden by the Apostle seeing the reasons brought by him against a language vnknowne make not against this For S. Paul reprehends in the publique Liturgie a language vnknowne as the Minister of the Church that supplies the place of the Ideot and ignorant cannot vpon his knowledge of the goodnesse of the prayer say thereunto Amen in the name of them all But when the language is knowne to some of the Church and may with facilitie be learned of others there is or may easily be found one able to supplie the place of Jdeot and ignorant and answere in their person Amen out of his intelligence of the prayer in that vnknowne tongue ANSVVER That is forbidden by the Apostle to bee vsed in prayer and consequently it is vnlawfull whereby all states and sorts of people being of ripe yeres may not be edified in their vnderstanding and to which being read pronounced or heard they are not able to say Amen hauing some distinct vnderstanding of the things which are spoken 1. Cor. 14.16 17. 19 20. but all states and sorts of people being of riper yeares cannot be edified in their vnderstanding neither are they able to say Amen c. to prayers which are heard by them being read or pronounced in a strange language Ergo Common prayer read and pronounced in the Church in a strange tongue is prohibited by the Apostle and consequently such forme of ordinarie prayer is vnlawfull The Iesuit restraineth the words of S. Paul either to the Minister supplying the place of the Idiot or to the Clerke of the congregation But the Apostle requireth that all those which ioyne in prayer and among these the Idiots and vulgar sort be edified in their minds and they must pray and giue thanks vnderstanding the sence of words spoken and vpon this vnderstanding say Amen And except saith he ye vtter by the tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significant words or words carrying a perspicuous sence with them ye shall speake in the ayre and be as Barbarians to the hearers v. 9.11 and the Idiot mentioned by him v. 16. is not the Priest or the Clarke alone but the vulgar sort of people ignorant of the language and words which are vsed in preaching reading or praying as all the Fathers and sundry Pontificians deliuer which comment vpon this text As for the Latine the same is as vncouth to a great part of the congregation as to the Chineses they can onely gape at it and returne home from Masse and Mattens as wise as they went for ought they learne by the language The old rule was Barbarus hic ego sum quia non intelligor vlli and accordingly your Masse Priests are meere barbarians to the ordinarie sort of people IESVIT Notwithstanding the Roman Church doth not
dealing of their Mother than serue as lawfull witnesses of that which the Aduersarie intendeth to prooue by them The Vaile in the Greeke Church of which S. Chrysostome speakes Hom. 61. ad Pop. Antioch was not vsed to depriue the people of hearing but it was a ceremonie admonishing and signifying that prophane and vncleane persons were vnworthie to behold or pertake the sacred mysteries And as this Father sheweth Hom. 3. in Ephes. the drawing open of the curtaines signified the opening of Heauen and the descending of Angels at the celebration of the holy Eucharist Metrophanes a Monke of Greece in a certaine tractate testifyeth the forme or vse of the Vaile or Curtaine in the East Church to be That the Priest may within or vnder the same prepare aforehand the things requisit for the administration of the Sacrament and when this is done then the Canopie is drawne at the pronouncing of the holy Creed which is vttered with a loud voice euen as all other parts of the Liturgie are that all people may heare Now this action signifieth according to Dionisius that God reuealeth these mysteries to those only which are Orthodoxall in Faith and hee communicates his diuine grace to none but those which are sound in the diuine worship and to such all things are manifested whether men or women poore or rich c. The Iesuit therfore is ignorant of the reason wherefore the Greeke Church vseth a Canopie and shutteth and openeth the same at the holy Communion for the same was not done to take away audience of any part of the Seruice from lay people for the whole Liturgie from the beginning to the ending was pronounced with a loud voice but to admonish and signifie the due preparation which all persons were to vse when they pertake the sacred mysteries IESVIT Besides it is certaine that the Scripture was not read in any language but Greeke ouer all the Church of the East as S. Hierom witnesseth Also the Greeke Liturgie of S. Basil was vsed in all the Church of the East and yet the Grecian was not the vulgar language of all the Countries of the East as is apparant by manifest testimonies of the Cappadocians Mesopotamians Galatians Lycaonions Egyptians Syrians yea that all these countries and most of the Orient had their proper language distinct from the Greeke is manifest out of the Acts of the Apostles No lesse manifest is it that the Latine Liturgie was common antiently for all the Churches of the Westerne parts euen in Africke as appeareth by testimonies of Augustine but it is manifest that the Latine was not the vulgar language for all nations of the West And though the better sort vnderstood it yet some of the vulgar multitude onely knew their owne mother tongue as may be gathered out of the same S. Augustine who writes that he pleading in Latine against Cryspinus a Bishop of the Donats for possession of a village in Africke whereunto the consent of the villagers was required they did not vnderstand his speech till the same was interpreted to them in the vulgar African language So that the Christian Church did neuer iudge it requisit that the publique Liturgie should be commonly turned into the Mother language of euery nation nor necessarie that the same should be presently vnderstood word by word by euerie one of the vulgar Assistants neither doth the end of the publique diuine Seruice require it ANSWER Omitting things doubtfull this is apparant that common people both of the East and West had the vse of the Scriptures in such a language as they vnderstood for otherwise the Fathers would not haue exhorted them to read the holy Scripture but such exhortations are most frequent in S. Chrysostome S. Hierome and in other Fathers Read before pag. 279. And that the people of Asia vnderstood Greeke and the Africans Latine is prooued by the learned of our part out of many Authors and where this was wanting people had Translations and Seruice in their natiue tongue Also such people as were conuerted to Christianitie if they wanted Translations in their Mother tongue were careful to learne the ordinarie language in which diuine Seruice was vsed and wherein the holy Scriptures were commonly read But what proofe can the Aduersarie make that Christian people altogether ignorant of the language vsed in the publique Seruice came into those congregations and were pertakers of the holy Sacraments IESVIT As for the comfort that some few want in that they do not so perfectly vnderstand the particulars of diuine Seruice it may by other meanes bee aboundantly supplied without turning the publique Liturgies into innumerable vulgar languages which would bring a mightie confusion into the Christian Church First the whole Church should not be able to iudge of the Liturgie of euerie countrie when differences arise about the Translation thereof so diuers errours and heresies may creepe into particular countries and the whole Church neuer able to take notice of them Secondly particular countries could not be certaine that they haue the Scripture truely translated for thereof they can haue no other assured proofe but onely the Churches approbation nor can she approoue what she doth not vnderstand Thirdly were vulgar Translations so many as there be languages in the world it could not be otherwise but that some would be in many places ridiculous incongruous and full of mistakings to the great preiudice of soules specially in languages that haue no great extents nor many learned men that naturally speakethem Fourthly the Liturgies would be often changed together with the language which doth much alter in euerie age as experience sheweth Fiftly in the same countrie by reason of different dialects some prouinces vnderstand not one another And in the island of Iaponia as some write there is one language for noble men another for rustickes another for men another for women Into what language then should the Iaponian Liturgie be turned Finally by this vulgar vse of Liturgie the studie of the two learned languages would bee giuen ouer and in short time come to be extinct as we see that no antient language now remaines in humane knowledges but such as haue beene as it were incorporated in the publique Liturgies of the Church and the common vse of learned tongues being extinct there would follow want of meanes for Christians to meet in generall Councells to communicate one with another in matters of Faith Jn a word extreame Barbarisme would be brought vpon the world ANSVVER They cannot be some few onely in this case but the maior part yea an hundred to one which want the benefit and comfort of the holy Scriptures and publique Seruice of the Church And to supplie this want by preaching or priuate instruction it is morally speaking impossible it may be performed more compendiously and easily if Papists would chuse rather to follow S. Pauls doctrine 1. Cor. 14. than stifly to adhere to the late custome of
Luc. 22.18.1 Cor. 10.16 11.26.27.28 Secondly the same affirmeth not that the substance of Bread and Wine is abolished Thirdly naturall reason sheweth that accidents must haue a subiect of inhaerencie and that bare formes and shadowes of things cannot nourish without corporall substance Fourthly the sences of Tast and Feeling discerne apparantly a corporietie in the elements receiued In this case there is no reason to imagine that our sences are deluded or that God almightie by miracle worketh in a contrarie manner to the course of nature and to that which he hath otherwise reuealed in his word It is not sufficient for Romists to affirme That God vseth a miraculous course in these things and to palliate absurdities repugnant to sence reason and scripture vnder pretext of Gods omnipotencie but they must prooue by diuine Reuelation that he will doe this for God effecteth not all things by his omnipotencie which men may imagine to be possible In the wordes of our Sauiour This is my Bodie This cuppe is the new Testament in my Bloud c. there is not a sillable concerning accidents without a subiect or concerning any miracle wrought in the Sacrament by omnipotencie neither is there any such doctrine elsewhere reuealed And if Christs words be expounded figuratiuely according to S. Augustine Tertullian Theoderit Origen Bertram c. they make nothing for corporall presence by indistance of place and if they be vnderstood literally they prooue not Transubstantiation for Bread may be called the bodie of Christ by an inusitate forme of speaking which according to the Tenet of some learned Diuines is no trope or figure And if neither of these expositions content our Aduersaries they might haue beleeued the words of the holy Text as they sound literally and a reall presence of Christs Bodie and Bloud wrought by the power of the holy Ghost without defining and determining the expresse manner how For if they beleeue that accidents subsist without a substance and nourish and are tasted and felt and passe into the stomach and yet are not able to expresse the distinct manner how and if they beleeue a substantiall presence of Christs indiuiduall humane bodie in many hosts and yet are vnable to declare the maner how Why might they not haue suspended other questions concerning the distinct manner of presence and maintained onely a true and mysticall presence the distinct manner whereof is incomprehensible in this life and not haue disturbed the peace of the Church by defining as an article of Faith such a doctrine as hath no foundation in diuine Reuelation to make it appeare certaine and infallible IESVITS 1. Consideration The first is grounded vpon the supposall of two things most certaine First that the Primitiue Church preaching vnto Pagans Iewes and other Infidels the rest of Christian mysteries as the Trinitie the Incarnation the Resurrection of the bodie did most carefully keepe as much as might be from their knowledge the mysteries 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 and Infidels being fully acquainted with the whole mysterie the one should be scandalized and the other mocke thereat Hence it was accounted such a haynous offence that Christians should discouer this secret vnto Infidels or dispute about the difficulties thereof in their presence The Councell of Alexandria relating the crimes of Arians number this as one of the greatest They were not ashamed in publique and as it were vpon a scaffold to treat of the mysteries before Catechumens and which is worse before Pagans And a little after Jt is not lawfull to publish the Mysteries before them that are not initiated for feare least Pagans out of ignorance mocke and Catechumens entring into curiosities be scandalized And againe Before Catechumens and which is more before Iewes and Pagans blaspheming Christianitie they handled a question about the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour S. Ambrose saith To declare the mysteries vnto them that be Catechumens is not Tradition but Prodition seeing by such declarations danger is incurred least they be diuulged vnto Jnfidels that will scoffe at them This supposed I infer that the seeming absur dities of the Catholique reall presence should incourage a true Christian mind to beleeue it for a true Christian desires to beleeue and firmely cleaue vnto the reall presence that was beleeued by the Primitiue Church But this was a reall presence accompanied with many so seemingly grosse absurdities that the Church had no hope to satisfie Infidels therein or to keepe them from blaspheming but by concealing the mysterie from them and consequently they held the Catholique not the Protestant Doctrine in this point The Protestant Doctrine that makes Christs bodie present spiritually by Faith vnto the deuout Receiuer that communicating thinks sweetly of Christs passion and death containes no mysterie to be concealed in respect of the seeming absurdities ANSWER In the daies of the Fathers Heathens Iewes and Heretickes might enter into the Church and heare the publicke Sermons and preaching as appeareth by the fourth councell of Carthage and Infidels might read the bookes and tractates of the Fathers But the Fathers in their sermons to the people and also in their written bookes deliuered the Doctrine of the holy mysteries as appeareth by Ireneus Iustin Martyr S. Cyprian Gregorie Nissen Cyrill of Hierusalem S. Chrysostome S. Augustine S. Ambrose c. Neither is it apparant that the said Fathers taught any other secret Doctrine touching the holy mysteries than such as they preached in their Homilies and penned in their Bookes and therefore these Homilies and Bookes being publique it appeareth not that the Primitiue Church was more carefull to conceale the Doctrine of the Eucharist than of Baptisme or of the Trinitie The Obiections out of Athanasius and S. Ambrose shew that it was held vnlawfull in those ages to treat or dispute of the holy Eucharist intempestiuè that is before Heathens which were not at all instructed in the first Principles of Religion or to treat of this Doctrine in prophane places or auditories But what is this to Transubstantiation For it was held vnlawfull in the Primitiue Church in maner aforesaid that is in an vndue time order place to treat or dispute of the mysteries of Baptisme or of other profound mysteries belonging to Christian faith Also if it were granted that some antient Fathers beleeuing a reall Presence did therefore conceale the doctrine of the holy Eucharist Ratione scandali because of offence of Infidels arising vpon many difficulties and seeming contradictions to sence and common reason it followeth not from hence that those Fathers beleeued Popish Transubstantiation for many difficulties and repugnances to sence and common reason are found in Consubstantiation as well as in Transubstantiation and sundrie places of the Fathers may with more
spirituall manducation alone without Sacramentall If the former illation of Romists were good it will follow likewise from thence that receiuing of Bread in the Eucharist is not of the substance of Christs Institution for whole and intire Christ according to bodie and soule and infinite person is in the blood alone if the Popish Doctrine of Concomitancie be true and if this be granted as of necessitie it must then Romists may mangle and transforme the holy Sacrament at their pleasure Secondly The end and fruit of the Sacrament is either common to the holy Eucharist with other meanes of Grace or else proper to it onely To eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Sonne of God by recognition of Christs Passion and by Faith in the same may be an effect of the Gospell preached Ioh. 6. 54. But to eate the same flesh and blood communicated more distinctly and effectually by visible seales of the couenant of the new Testament is an end and fruit peculiar and proper to the holy Eucharist 1. Cor. 10. 16. A man may haue the same inheritance bestowed on him by the word and writing of the Donor yet when the same is confirmed by the seale of the Donor the donation is of greater validitie and if by Law or custome two seales should be appointed the apposition of one is not of equall force and validitie to the apposition of both so likewise because the Sonne of God made choyce of two outward signes namely Bread and Wine to represent and apply his Passion and Oblation and withall commanded the common vse and reception of both saying Drinke ye all of this and also annexed a speciall promise and blessing to both these outward signes ioyntly vsed therefore the vse sumption of one of these without the other cannot haue so great force to apply the effect fruit of the Sacrament as the vse reception of both And as in concauses or partiall causes the action of the one cannot produce the effect without the other and as when two keyes are prouided to open a locke the same is not opened by one of them onely so likewise Christ Iesus hauing instituted and sanctified two signes for the more proportionable and effectuall application of his Bodie and Blood it is grosse presumption in man to mutilate and cut off a part of that bodie which the wisedome of Christ hath framed in due and beautifull proportion and to diuide that which God hath ioyned together and without warrant from Gods reuealed word to attribute a totall effect to a partiall meanes and cause IESVIT Hence it is apparent that without any iust cause some Protestants inueigh against the Councell of Constance as professing to contradict the Precept of Christ because it decreed That the Sacrament may bee lawfully giuen vnder one kind Non obstante quod Christus in vtraque specie illud instituerit Apostolis administrauerit Notwithstanding Christs Institution and Administration thereof in both kinds to his Disciples This their bitternesse proceeds from zeale without knowledge not distinguishing the Jnstitution of God from his Precept which are very distinct for the Precept of both kinds if Christ gaue any doth bind whether both kinds be necessarie for the maintenance of mans soule in grace or no but the Jnstitution in both kinds doth not binde further than the thing instituted to wit Communion vnder both kinds is necessarie for the maintaining of spirituall life for which one kind being sufficient as I haue shewed Christs Institution of both kinds doth not inforce the vse of both If God should haue commanded the vse both of meate and drinke euery man should be bound not onely to eate but also to drinke though he had no necessitie thereof but now seeing God hath not giuen such a Precept a man that can liue by meate without euer drinking is not bound to drinke non obstante that God did institute both eating and drinking for the preseruation of life in euerie man ANSWER The Councell of Constance is iustly censured for presuming to alter and disanull the ordinance of Christ for if it be flagitious amongst men to alter and contradict the lawfull Will of a Testator Galat. 3.15 shall it not be much more vnlawfall to alter the Testament of the Sonne of God who disposed to the common people his Bloud as well as his Bodie saying Drinke ye all of this Math. 26 27. and except yee eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the man c. Ioh. 6.53 And the words of the said Synod are most presumptious for this they pronounce Although Christ after supper instituted and administred to his Disciples vnder both kindes c. And although in the Primitiue Chruch this Sacrament was receiued of Beleeuers in both kinds yet notwithstanding the contrarie custome for Laicks to receiue in one kind is with good reason brought in and they are Heretickes which hold this sacrilegious or vnlawfull But what are these men in comparison of Christ and his Apostles and of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church If men may thus twit Christ and his Apostles what shall become of all religion The sole and totall rule to guide the Church in the matter of the holy Eucharist is Christs Institution and practise recorded by the Euangelists and testified by the Apostles and the Primitiue Church in their doctrine and practise followed this rule as some of our learned Aduersaries ingeniously confesse If therefore Christ Iesus and his Apostles and after these the Primitiue Church administred the Communion to lay people in both kinds as this Synod confesseth and on the contraie nothing is extant in holy Writ or in the monuments of the Fathers to testifie that Christ and his Apostles retracted or altered this first practise What audacious sacriledge was it in the Prelates of Constance vpon their owne priuate and childish reasons to cancell Christs last Will and Testament and to violate the sacred precept and ordinance of the Sonne of God But our Aduersarie laboureth by a distinction of Institution and Precept to plaister the vlcerous Doctrine of the 〈◊〉 of Constance saying or implying That although Christ did institute the holy Eucharist in two kinds yet he gaue no precept for the vse of it in two kinds But this plaister of sig-leaues healeth not the wound for there is both an institution and a precept for both kinds and more expressely for the cup than for the bread for Christ said expressely and literally Drinke yee all of this whereas he said not so literally and expressely eat yee all of this Besides his institution is a vertuall and interpretatiue precept as appeareth by S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.23 And Christ did institute the Eucharist in two kinds that people might receiue and vfe it in two kinds Also if the manner of the institution prooueth not the manner of the vse then the Eucharist may be vsed in another manner I meane in things substantiall than
God for then hee must free iust persons from all sinne but in respect of some particular Actions to wit whereas the Law of Charitie commandeth to distribute a portion of goods to the poore a man may bestow halfe his goods neuerthelesse he which performeth this may be deficient another way for he may fall short in the intension of his Charitie and also in the measure of his Hope Humilitie and other vertues The Iesuit concludeth the place of Saint Ambrose Lib. de viduis with an Exclamation saying What can bee more clearely spoken for Workes of Counsell and Supererogation But before his boasting he should haue aduised better touching these Fathers meaning First Ambrose teacheth that there is a difference betweene Precepts and Counsells Secondly That the obseruing of Counsells is not required of all but of some Thirdly They which besides Precepts obserue Counsells are more profitable seruants and shall receiue a greater reward Now the Argument for Workes of Supererogation from this Testimonie of St. Ambrose must be as followeth If they are more profitable seruants and receiue a greater reward which performe some vertuous and laudable Actions not inioyned by common Precept but by Councell then Workes of Supererogation must be granted But they are more profitable seruants and receiue a greater reward which performe some vertuous Actions not inioyned by common Precept but by Councell Ergo Workes of Supererogation must be granted I answere denying the Consequence for to the being and definition of Workes of Supererogation more is required than the performing of some vertuous and rewardable Actions inioyned by Councell and not by common Precept to wit First That the said vertuous and laudable Actions bee neither inioyned by strict and morall Precept nor yet by the Law of gratitude for when the Fathers oppose Precepts and Councels they vnderstand Precepts strictly and not the Law of Gratitude Secondly They which supererogate must doe the same vniuersally and transcend the common rule in euery Precept and vertuous Action and not in some alone Thirdly They must so transcend that they be guiltie of no Omission or Commission either against the substance or perfection of any morall Commandement IESVIT Neither is there any arrogancie as J said before in this Doctrine for neither the Fathers nor wee attribute more vnto man than Protestants doe but onely acknowledge one kinde of Diuine liberalitie towards man which Protestants bee somewhat backward to beleeue for Protestants will not denie supposing that God exacteth much lesse than man is able by his grace to performe but a man may offer vnto God some voluntarie seruices beyond commanded duties Catholickes also grant that had God vsed the vttermost seueritie in charging vs with debts as hee might hane done we could neuer by any measure of grace that now is ordinarily affoorded vnto men haue complied with vnrequired offices The difference therefore betweene them and vs is this They thinke that God seuerely exacteth of man that euer and in all 〈◊〉 hee worke according to the vttermost of his power yea commands him things impossible for him to performe Contrarywise wee 〈◊〉 that God to the end his Law may bee vnto men A sweet yoke A light loade and his Commandements not difficile doth not exact of man all that man is able to doe with his grace but much lesse and so much lesse as man is able through his remission to offer him liberalities What pride is it for man to acknowledge this sweet prouidence of this Creatour to praise his mercifull indulgence in not exacting so much as he might Especially beleeuing that this diuine indulgence not to exact of man and consequently mans abilitie to present vnto God more perfect and excellent seruice than he requires is giuen him through the merits of Christ Iesus ANSWER First You couple your selues with Fathers like as the Pharises did themselues with Abraham Sed quid Simiae prodest si videatur esse Leo saith Gregorie Nazianzen An Ape is but an Ape although he will seeme a Lyon Secondly A man may offer vnto God a free-will offering and yet herein he performeth no more than he is obliged vnto by the Law of gratitude Thirdly It is no part of our Creed that God in the Euangelicall Couenant seuerely exacteth of man any thing as necessarie to his saluation which is impossible for him to performe by the assistance of diuine grace and yet wee say againe That God by the rule of his Law commandeth a greater perfection of righteousnesse than man is able to performe in this life that all flesh may be humbled by the sight of infirmitie and consider the gracious indulgence of God in remitting sinne and his free bountie in conferring so great and so many vndeserued benefits Fourthly We praise God as much as any Romists can doe for his mercifull indulgence in remitting and not exacting so but with all we beleeue that God hath not 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vs from being stil his debtors and we stand perpetually obliged vnto him touching the debt of Obedience yea more after Grace receined than before Rom. 6. 18. And although he imputeth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 defects when we obey him in the maine yet this indulgence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power to man to merit his owne saluation much lesse to supererogate or to communicate his vertuous actions by way of satisfaction vnto others IESVIT §. 4. Workes with reference to the Treasure of the Church THe other part of this Controuersie proposed by your Maiestie about Workes referred vnto the Treasure of the Church concernes good Workes not as they are meritorious of reward but as they are satisfactorie for sinne for the workes of Saints as they are Merits be laied vp not in the Treasurie of the Church to bee applied vnto others but in the memorie of God to receiue their deserued guerdon in due time ANSWER TO the constitution of Popes Pardons three things are required by the Papals and reiected by vs. First Superfluous and redundant satisfactions of Saints Secondly A vast Treasurie in the Church militant to receiue and containe the same Thirdly An eminent authoritie and power in the Popes and Prelates of the Roman Church to communicate and applie the same to the liuing and defunct Protestants denie that any member of this Doctrine is Catholicke and Orthodoxall or that the holy Apostles or Primitiue Church maintained the same by teaching or practise We affirme also That the said Doctrine is nouell and deuised by Roman Prelates for filthie lucre The Aduersarie notwithstanding laboureth to vnderprop the tottering wall of Papall 〈◊〉 and Indulgences First by distinction of Merits and Satisfactions Secondly by explication of his Romish Tenet touching Satisfactions Thirdly by deliuering the maine grounds of the Doctrine of Satisfactions and Pardons His first Proposition is The merits of Saints are reserued and laid vp in the memorie of God and not in the Treasurie of the Church And on the
Whether you haue related the two former truly appeares by Dr Whites Relation or Exposition of them The B. was present at none but this third of which he is readie by me to giue the Church an account But of this third whether that were the cause which you alledge he cannot tell You say F. It was obserued That in the second Conference all the speech was about particular matters little or none about a continuall infallible visible Church which was the chiefe and onely Point in which the person doubting required satisfaction as hauing formerly settled their mind That it was not for them or any other vnlearned persons to take vpon them to iudge of particulars without depending vpon the Iudgement of the true Church B. The opinion of that person in this was neuer opened to the B. And it is very fit the people should looke to the Iudgement of the Church before they be too busie with particulars But yet neither Scripture nor any good Authoritie denyes them some moderate vse of their owne vnderstanding and iudgement especially in things familiar and euident which euen ordinarie Capacities may as easily vnderstand as reade And therefore some particulars a Christian may iudge without depending F. That person therefore hauing heard it granted in the first Conference That there must be a continuall visible Companie euer since Christ teaching vnchanged Doctrine in all fundamentall Points that is Points necessarie to Saluation desired to heare this confirmed and proofe brought which was that continuall infallible visible Church in which one may and out of which one cannot attaine Saluation And therefore hauing appointed a time of meeting betweene a B. and me and thereupon hauing sent for the B. and me before the B. came the doubting persons came first to the roome where I was and debated before me the aforesaid Question and not doubting of the first part to wit That there must be a continuall visible Church as they had heard graunted by Dr White and L. K. c. B. What Dr White and L. K. graunted neyther the B. nor I heard But I thinke both graunted a continuall and a visible Church neyther of them an infallible at least in your sense And your selfe in this Relation speake distractedly For in these few Lines from the beginning hither twice you adde infallible betweene continuall and visible and twice you leaue it out But this concerneth Dr W. and he hath answered it F. The Question was Which was that Church One would needs defend That not onely the Romane but also the Greeke Church was right B. When that Honourable Personage answered I was not by to heare But I presume hee was so farre from graunting that onely the Romane Church was right as that he did not graunt it right and that hee tooke on him no other defence of the poore Greeke Church than was according to Truth F. I told him That the Greeke Church had plainely changed and taught false in a Point of Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost and that I had heard say that euen his Maiestie should say That the Greeke Church hauing erred against the Holy Ghost had lost the Holy Ghost B. You are very bold with his Maiestie to relate him vpon hearesay My intelligence serues me not to tell you what his Maiestie said but if hee said it not you haue beene too credulous to beleeue and too suddaine to report it Princes deserue and were wont to haue more respect than so If his Maiestie did say it there is truth in the speech the error is yours onely by mistaking what is meant by loosing the Holy Ghost For a particular Church may be said to loose the Holy Ghost two wayes or in two degrees The one when it looses such speciall assistance of that blessed Spirit as preserues it from all dangerous errors and finnes and the temporall punishment which is due vnto them And in this sense the Greeke Church lost the Holy Ghost for they erred against him they sinned against God and for this or other sinnes they were deliuered into another Babylonish Captiuitie vnder the Turke in which they yet are and from which God in his mercie deliuer them The other is when it looses not onely this assistance but all assistance ad hoc to this that they may remaine any longer a true Church And so Corinth and Ephesus and diuers others haue lost the Holy Ghost But in this sense the whole Greeke Church lost not the Holy Ghost for they continue a true Church in substance to and at this day though erroneous in the point which you mention F. The said person not knowing what to answer called in the B. who sitting downe first excused himselfe as one vnprouided and not much studied in Controuersies and desiring that in case he should faile yet the Protestant Cause might not be thought ill of B. The B. indeed excused himselfe and he had great reason so to doe But his Reason being grounded vpon his Modestie for the most part he is willing I should let you insult at your pleasure This onely by the way It may be fit others should know the B. had no information where the other Conferences brake off no instruction what should be the ground of this third Conference nor the full time of foure and twentie houres to bethinke himselfe whereas you make the sifting of these and the like Questions to the very Branne your dayly worke and came throughly furnished to the businesse Saint Augustine said once Scio me inualidum esse I know I am weake and yet he made good his Cause And the B. preferring the Cause before his Credit was modest and reasonable For there is no reason the weight of that whole Cause should rest vpon any one particular and great reason that the personall defects of any man should presse him but not the Cause F. It hauing a hundred better Schollers to maintaine it than he To which I said There were a thousand better Schollers than I to maintaine the Catholike Cause B. The B. in this had neuer so poore a conceit of the Protestants Cause as to thinke they had but a hundred better than he to maintaine it That which hath a hundred may haue as many more as it pleases God to giue and more than you And the B. shall euer be glad that the Church of England which at this time if his memorie reflect not amisse he named may haue farre more able defendants than himselfe he shall neuer enuie them but reioyce for her And hee makes no question but that if hee had named a thousand you would haue multiplyed yours into ten thousand for the Catholike Cause as you call it And this confidence of yours hath euer beene fuller of noyse than proofe But you admonish againe F. Then the Question about the Greeke Church being proposed I said as before that it had erred B. Then I thinke the Question about the Greeke Church was proposed But after you had with confidence
to be concluded out of it And since you are pleased before to passe from the Church of England to all Protestants you may know for your comfort that all Protestants agree most strongly in this That the Scripture is sufficient to saluation and containes in it all things necessarie to it The Fathers are plaine the Schoolemen not strangers in it And haue not wee reason then to account it as it is The Foundation of our Faith And Stapleton himselfe though an angrie Opposite confesses That the Scripture is in some sort the Foundation of Faith that is in the nature of Testimonie and in the matter or thing to be beleeued And if the Scripture be the Foundation to which wee are to goe for Witnesse if there be doubt about the Faith and in which we are to find the thing that is to be beleeued as necessarie in the Faith we neuer did nor neuer will refute any Tradition that is Vniuersall and Apostolike for the better exposition of the Scripture nor any definition of the Church in which she goes to the Scripture for what shee teaches and thrusts nothing as fundamentall in the Faith vpon the world but in what the Scripture is Materia Credendorum the substance of that which is to be beleeued whether immediately and expressely in words or more remotely till a cleare and full deduction draw it out F. I asked How he knew Scripture to be Scripture and in particular Genesis Exodus c. These are beleeued to be Scripture yet not prooued out of any place of Scripture The B. said That the Bookes of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and needed not to be prooued B. I did neuer loue too curious a search into that which might put a man into a Wheele and circle him so long betweene proouing Scripture by Tradition and Tradition by Scripture till the Deuill find a meanes to dispute him into Infidelitie and make him beleeue neither I hope this is no part of your meaning yet I doubt this Question How doe you know Scripture to be Scripture hath done more harme than you will be euer able to helpe by Tradition But I must follow that way which you draw me And because it is so much insisted vpon by you and is it selfe a matter of such consequence I will sift it a little further Many men labouring to settle this great Principle in Diuinitie haue vsed diuers meanes to prooue it All haue not gone the same way nor all the right way You cannot be right that resolue Faith of the Scriptures being the Word of God into onely Tradition for onely and no other proofe are equall To prooue the Scripture therefore so called by way of Excellence to be the Word of God first some flye to the Testimonie and Witnesse of the Church and her Tradition which constantly beleeues and vnanimously deliuers it secondly some to the Light and the Testimonie which the Scripture giues to it selfe with other internall proofes which are obserued in it and to be found in no other Writing whatsoeuer thirdly some to the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost which cleares vp the Light that is in Scripture and seales this Faith to the soules of men that it is Gods Word fourthly All that haue not imbrutished themselues and sunke below their Species and order of Nature giue euen Naturall Reason leaue to come in and make some proofe and giue some approbation vpon the weighing and the consideration of other Arguments 1. For the first The Tradition of the Church taken and considered alone it is so farre from being the onely that it cannot be a sufficient proofe to beleeue by Diuine Faith That Scripture is the Word of God for that which is a full and sufficient proofe is able of it selfe to settle the soule of man concerning it Now the Tradition of the Church is not able to doe this for it may be further asked Why he should beleeue the Churches Tradition And if it be answered Because the Church is infallibly gouerned by the Holy Ghost it may yet be demanded How that may appeare And if this be demanded either you must say you haue it by speciall Reuelation which is the priuate Spirit you obiect to other men or else you must attempt to prooue it by Scripture as all of you doe And that very offer is sufficient acknowledgement that the Scripture is a higher proofe than the Churches Tradition which in your owne grounds is or may be questionable till you come thither Againe if the Voice of the Church saying The Bookes of Scripture commonly receiued are the Word of God be the formall Obiect of Faith vpon which alone and absolutely and lastly I may resolue my selfe then euerie man not onely may but ought to resolue his Faith into the Voice or Tradition of the Church for euerie man is bound to rest vpon the proper and formall Obiect of the Faith But nothing can be more euident than this That a man ought not to resolue his Faith of this Principle into the Testimonie of the Church therefore neither is that Testimonie or Tradition the formall Obiect of Faith The Learned of your owne part grant this Although in the Article of the Creed I beleeue the Catholike Church peraduenture all this be contained I beleeue those things which the Church teacheth yet this is not necessarily vnderstood That I beleeue the Church teaching as an infallible Witnesse And if they did not confesse this it were no hard thing to prooue It seemes to me verie necessarie that we be able to prooue the Bookes of Scripture to be the Word of God by some Authoritie that is absolutely Diuine for if they be warranted vnto vs by any Authoritie lesse than Diuine then all things contayned in them which haue no greater assurance than the Scripture in which they are read are not Obiects of Diuine Beleefe And that once granted will enforce vs to yeeld That all the Articles of Christian Beleefe haue no greater assurance than Humane or Morall Faith or Credulitie can affoord An Authoritie then simply Diuine must make good Scripture's Infallibilitie This Authoritie cannot be any Testimonie orVoice of the present Church for our Worthies prooue That all the Churches Constitutions are of the nature of humane Law And some among you not vnworthie for their Learning prooue it at large That all the Churches Testimonie or Voice or Sentence call it what you will is but suo modo or aliquo modo not simply but in a manner Diuine Now that which is Diuine but in a manner be it the Churches manner is suo modo non Diuina in a sort not Diuine But this great Principle of Faith the ground and proofe of whatsoeuer else is of Faith cannot stand firme vpon a proofe that is and is not in a manner and not in a manner Diuine as it must if wee haue no other Anchor than the externall Tradition of the Church 2. For the second That Scripture
should be fully and sufficiently knowne as by Diuine and infallible Testimonie Lumine proprio by the resplendencie of that Light which it hath in it selfe onely and by the witnesse that it can so giue it selfe I could neuer yet see cause to allow For as there is no place in Scripture that tells vs such Bookes containing such and such particulars are the Canon and the infallible Will and Word of God so if there were any such place that were no sufficient proofe for a man might iustly aske another Booke to beare witnesse of that and againe of that another and where euer it were written in Scripture that must be a part of the whole And no created thing can alone giue witnesse to it selfe and make it euident nor one part testifie for another and satisfie where Reason will but offer to contest Besides if it were so cleare by 〈◊〉 and in giuen Light What should hinder but that all which heare it and doe but vnderstand the Tearmes should presently assent vnto it as men vse to doe to Principles euident in themselues which dayly experience teacheth vs they doe not And this though I cannot approoue yet me thinkes you may and vpon probable grounds at least For I hope no Romanist will denie but that there is as much Light in Scripture to manifest and make ostension of it selfe to be infallibly the written Word of God as there is in any Tradition of the Church that it is Diuine and infallibly the vnwritten Word of God And the Scriptures saying from the mouths of the Prophets Thus saith the Lord and from the mouths of the Apostles That the Holy Ghost spake by them are at least as able and as fit to beare witnesse to their owne Veritie as the Church is to beare witnesse to her owne Traditions by bare saying they come from the Apostles And your selues would neuer goe to the Scripture to prooue that there are Traditions as you doe if you did not thinke the Scripture as easie to be discouered by inbred Light in it selfe as Traditions by their Light And if this be so then it is as probable at the least which some of ours affirme That Scripture may be knowne to be the Word of God by the Light and Lustre which it hath in it selfe as it is which you affirme That a Tradition may be knowne to be such by the Light which it hath in it selfe If this Argument were in ieast this were an excellent Proposition to make sport withall 3. For the third Either some thinke that there is no sufficient warrant for this vnlesse they fetch it from the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost and so looke in vaine after speciall Reuelations and make themselues by thisvery conceit obnoxious and easie to be led by all the whisperings of a seducing priuate Spirit or else you would faine haue them thinke so For your side both vpon this and other occasions doe often challenge that wee resolue all our Faith into the Dictats of a priuate Spirit from which wee shall euer prooue our selues as free if not freer than you To the Question in hand then Suppose it agreed vpon that there must be a Diuine Faith Cui subesse non potest falsum vnder which can rest no possible error That the Bookes of Scripture are the written Word of God If they which goe to the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost for proofe of this doe meane by Faith Obiectum Fidei The Obiect of Faith that is to be beleeued then no question they are out of the ordinarie way for God neuer sent vs by any word or warrant of his to looke for any such speciall and priuate Testimonie to prooue which that Booke is that wee must beleeue But if by Faith they meane the Habite or Act of Diuine infused Faith by which vertue they doe beleeue the Credible Obiect and thing to be beleeued then their speech is true and confessed by all Diuines of all sorts For Faith is the gift of God of God alone and an infased Habite in respect whereof the Soule is meerely recipient And therefore the sole Infuser the Holy Ghost must not be excluded from that worke which none can doe but he For the Holy Ghost as hee first dictated the Scripture to the Apostles so did he not leaue the Church in generall nor the true members of it in particular without grace to beleeue what himselfe had reuealed and made credible So that Faith as it is taken for the vertue of Faith whether it be of this or any other Article though it receiue a kind of preparation or occasion of beginning from the Testimonie of the Church as it proposes and induceth to the Faith yet it ends in God reuealing within and teaching within that which the Church preached without For till the Spirit of God mooue the heart of man he cannot beleeue be the Obiect neuer so eredible The speech is true then but quite out of the state of this Question which enquires onely after a sufficient meanes to make this Obiect credible and fit to be beleeued against all impeachment of follic and temeritie in beleefe whether men doe actually beleeue it or not For which no man may expect inward priuate reuelation without the externall meanes of the Church vnlesse perhaps the case of necessitie be excepted when a man liues in such a Time and Place as excludes him from all ordinarie meanes in which I dare not offer to shut vp God from the soules of men nor to tye him to those ordinarie wayes and meanes to which yet in great wisedome and prouidence hee hath tyed and bound all mankind Priuate Reuelation then hath nothing ordinarily to doe to make the Obiect credible in this That Scripture is the Word of God or in any other Article For the Question is of such outward and euident meanes as other men may take notice of as well as our selues By which if there arise any doubting or infirmitie in the Faith others may strengthen vs or we affoord meanes to support them whereas the Testimonie of the Spirit and all priuate Reuelation is within nor felt nor seene of any but him that hath it so that hence can be drawne no proofe to others Miracles are not sufficient alone to prooue it 〈◊〉 both they and the Reuelation too agree with the Rule of Scripture which is now an vnalterable Rule by Man or Angell 4. The last which giues Reason leaue to come in and prooue what it can may not iustly be denyed by any reasonable man For though Reason without Grace cannot see the way to Heauen nor beleeue this Booke in which God hath written the way yet Grace is neuer placed but in a reasonable creature and prooues by the verie seat which it hath taken vp that the end it hath is to be spirituall eye-water to make Reason see what by Nature onely it cannot but neuer to blemish Reason in that
to a soule prepared by the present Churches Tradition and Gods grace The Difficulties which are pretended against this are not many and they will easily vanish 1. First you pretend wee goe to priuate Reuelations for Light to know Scripture No wee doe not you see it is excluded out of the very state of the Question and wee goe to the Tradition of the present Church and by it as well as you Here wee differ wee vse this as the first Motiue not as the last Resolution of our Faith wee resolue onely into prime Tradition Apostolicall and Scripture it selfe 2. Secondly you pretend wee doe not nor cannot know the prime Apostolicall Tradition but by the Tradition of the present Church and that therefore if the Tradition of the present Church be not Gods vnwritten Word and Diuine we cannot yet know Scripture to be Scripture by a Diuine Authoritie First suppose I could not know the prime Tradition to be Diuine but by the present yet it doth not follow that then I cannot know Scripture to be Scripture by a Diuine Authoritie because Diuine Tradition is not the sole and onely meanes to prooue it For suppose I had not nor could haue full assurance of Apostolicall Tradition Diuine yet the morall persuasion reason and force of the present Church is ground enough to mooue any reasonable man that it is fit hee should reade the Scripture and esteeme very reuerently and highly of it And this once done the Scripture hath then In and Home Arguments enough to put a soule that hath but ordinarie Grace out of doubt That Scripture is the Word of God infallible and Diuine Secondly Next the present Tradition though not absolutely Diuine yet by the helpe of Diuine Arguments internall to the Scripture is able to prooue the very prime Tradition for so long as the present agrees both with the prime Tradition and with the Scripture it selfe deliuered by it as in this it is found and agreed vpon that it doth and Hell it selfe is not able to belch out a good Argument against it it is a sufficient testimonie of the Scriptures Authoritie not by or of it selfe because not simply Diuine but by the prime Tradition and Scripture vpon which it grounds while it deliuers And both these are absolutely Diuine 3. Thirdly you pretend that wee make the Scripture absolutely and fully to be knowne Lumine suo by the Light and Testimonie which it hath in and giues to it selfe Against this you giue reason and proofe from our selues Your reason is If there be sufficient Light in Scripture to shew it selfe then euerie man that can and doth but reade it may know it presently to be the Diuine Word of God which we see by dayly experience men neither doe nor can First it is not absolutely nor vniuersally true There is sufficient Light therefore euerie man may see it Blind men are men and cannot see it and sensuall men in the Apostles iudgement are such Nor may wee denie and put out this Light as insufficient because blind Eyes cannot and peruerse Eyes will not see it no more than we may denie meat to be sufficient for nourishment though men that are heart-sicke cannot eate it Next wee doe not say That there is such a full Light in Scripture as that euerie man vpon the first sight must yeeld to it such Light as is found in prime Principles Euerie whole is greater than a part of the same and this The same thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same respect These carrie a naturall Light with them and euident for they are no sooner vnderstood than fully knowne to the conuincing of mans vnderstanding and so they are the beginning of knowledge which where it is perfect dwells in full Light but such a full Light wee doe neyther say is nor require to be in Scripture and if any particular man doe let him answere for himselfe The Question is onely of such a Light in Scripture as is of force to breed Faith that it is the Word of God not to make a perfect Knowledge Now Faith of whatsoeuer it is this or other Principle it is an Euidence as well as a Knowledge and a firmer and surer Euidence than any Knowledge can haue because it rests vpon Diuine Authoritie which cannot deceiue whereas Knowledge or at least he that thinkes he knowes is not euer certaine in deductions from Principles I say firmer Euidence but not so cleare For it is of things not seene in regard of the Obiect and in regard of the Subiect that sees it is in aenigmate in a Glasse or darke speaking Now God doth not require a full demonstratiue Knowledge in vs that the Scripture is his Word and therefore in his prouidence kindled in it no Light for that but he requires our Faith of it and such a certaine Demonstration as may fit that And for that he hath left sufficient Light in Scripture to Reason and Grace meeting where the soule is morally prepared by the Tradition of the Church vnlesse you be of Bellarmine's opinion That to beleeue there are any Diuine Scriptures is not omninò necessarie to saluation The Authoritie which you pretend is out of Hooker Of things necessarie the verie chiefest is to know what Bookes wee are bound to esteeme holy which Point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach Of this Brierly the Store-house for all Priests that will be idle and yet seeme well read tells vs That Hooker giues a verie sensible Demonstration It is not the Word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs that we doe well to thinke it is his Word for if any one Booke of Scripture did giue testimonie to all yet still that Scripture which giueth credit to the rest would require another to giue credit vnto it Nor could wee euer come to any pause to rest our assurance this way so that vnlesse beside Scripture there were something that might assure c. And this he acknowledgeth saith Brierly is the Authoritie of Gods Church Certainely Hooker giues a true and a sensible Demonstration but Brierly wants fidelitie and integritie in citing him For in the first place Hookers speech is Scripture it selfe cannot teach this nor can the Truth say that Scripture it selfe can It must needs ordinarily haue Tradition to prepare the mind of a man to receiue it And in the next where hee speakes so sensibly That Scripture cannot beare witnesse to it selfe nor one part of it to another that is grounded vpon Nature which admits no created thing to be witnesse to it selfe and is acknowledged by our Sauiour If I beare witnesse to my selfe my witnesse is not true i. not of force to be reasonably accepted for Truth But then it is more than manifest that Hooker deliuers his Demonstration of Scripture alone For if Scripture hath another proofe to vsher it and lead it in then no
whatsoeuer it may now determine into which Error some opposers of the Church of Rome haue fallen And vpon this is grounded your Question Wherein are wee neerer to vnitie if a Councell may erre In relating the B. his Answer to this you are not so candide as you confesse him ingenuous before For his words did not sound as yours seeme to doe That wee should hold with the Councell erre or not erre till another came to reuerse it As if grounds of Faith might varie at the Racket and be cast of each side as a cunning hand might lay them You forget againe omit at least and with what mind you best know the B. his Caution For he said The determination of a Generall Councell erring was to stand in force and haue externall obedience at the least yeelded to it till euidence of Scripture or a demonstration to the contrary made the Error appeare and vntill thereupon another Councell of equall Authoritie did reuerse it Thus then the B. But indeed he might haue returned vpon you againe If a Generall Councell not confirmed by the Pope may erre which you affirme To what end then a Generall Councell And you may answere Yes for although a Generall Councell may erre yet the Pope as Head of the Church cannot An excellent meanes of vnitie to haue all in the Church as the Pope will haue it what euer Scripture say or the Church thinke And then I pray to what end a Generall Councell Will his Holinesse be so holy as to confirme a Generall Councell if it determine against him I for my part am willing a little to consider hereupon the point of Generall Councels How they may or may not erre and a little to looke into the Romane and Protestant opinion concerning them which is more agreeable to the Power and Rule which Christ hath left in his Church and which is most preseruatiue of Peace established or ablest to reduce vnitie into the Church of Christ when that poore Ship hath her Ribs dashed in 〈◊〉 by the Waues of Contention And this Consideration I will venture to the World but onely in the Nature of a 〈◊〉 and with submission to my Mother the Church of England and the Mother of vs all the Vniuersall Catholike Church of Christ. 1. First then I consider Whether all the Power that an Oecumenicall Councell hath to determine and all the Assistance it hath not to erre in that determination it hath it not all from the Catholike vniuersall Bodie of the Church or Clergie in the Church if you will whose Representatiue it is It seemes it hath For the gouernment of the Church being not Monarchicall but as Christ is Head this Principle is 〈◊〉 in nature Euerie Bodie collectiue that represents receiues Power and Priuiledges from that Bodie which is represented else a Representation might haue force without the thing it represents which cannot be So no Power in the Councell no Assistance but what is in and to the Church But yet then it may be questioned Whether the Representing Bodie hath all the power strength and priuiledge which the Represented hath And suppose it hath all the Legall power yet it hath not all the Naturall eyther of strength or wisedome that the whole hath Now because tho Representatiue hath power from the whole and the maine 〈◊〉 can meet no other way therefore the Acts 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 of the Representatiue be it Ecclesiasticall or Ciuile are binding in their strength But they are not so certaine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 as that Wisedome which resides in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Assemblies meerely Ciuile or Ecclesiasticall all 〈◊〉 men cannot be in the Bodie that represents And it is possible so many able and sufficient men for some particular businesse may be out as that they which are in may misse or mis-apply that Reason and Ground vpon which the determination is principally to rest Here for want of a cleare view of this Ground the Representatiue Bodie erres whereas the Represented by vertue of these Members may hold the Principle vnuiolated 2. Secondly I consider That since it is thus in Nature and in Ciuile Bodies if it be not so in Ecclesiasticall too some reason must be giuen why For that Bodie also consists of men Those men neyther all equall in their perfections of Knowledge and Iudgement whether acquired by Industrie or rooted in nature or infused by God Not all equall nor any one of them perfect and absolute or freed from passion and humane infirmities Nor doth their meeting together make them infallible in all things though the Act which is hammered out by many together must in reason be perfecter than that which is but the Child of one mans sufficiencie If then a Generall Councell haue no ground of not erring from the men or the meeting either it must not be at all or be by some assistance and power vpon them when they are so met together And this if it be lesse than the assistance of the Holy Ghost it cannot make them secure against Error 3. Thirdly I consider That the assistance of the Holy Ghost is without Error that 's no question and as little there is that a Councell hath it But the doubt that troubles is Whether all assistance of the Holy Ghost be affoorded in such a high manner as to cause all the Definitions of a Councell in matters fundamentall in the Faith and in remote Deductions from it to be alike infallible The Romanists to prooue there is infallible assistance produce some places of Scripture but no one of them inferres much lesse enforces an infallibilitie The places which Stapleton there rests vpon are these I will send you the Spirit of Truth which will lead you into all Truth And This Spirit shall abide with you for euer And Behold I am with you vnto the end of the World To these others adde The founding of the Church vpon the Rocke against which the Gates of Hell shall not preuaile And Christs prayer for S. Peter That his Faith faile not 1. For the first which is Leading into all Truth and that for euer All is not alwayes vniuersally taken in Scripture nor is it here simply for All Truth for then a Generall Councell could no more erre in matter of Fact than in matter of Faith in which yet your selues graunt it may erre But into All Truth is a limited All into All Truth absolutely necessarie to saluation And this when they suffer themselues to be led by the blessed Spirit by the Word of God And all Truth which Christ had before at least fundamentally deliuered vnto them Hee shall receiue of mine and shew it vnto you And againe Hee shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance which I haue told you And for this necessarie Truth too the Apostles receiued this promise not for themselues and a Councell but for themselues and the whole Catholike
in the second The Conclusion and not the Meanes For the Conclusion must follow the nature of the premisses or Principles out of which it is deduced therefore if they be sometimes vncertaine as is prooued before the Conclusion cannot be infallible Not in the third The Meanes and not the Conclusion For that cannot but be true and necessarie if the Meanes be so And this I am sure you will neuer graunt because if you should you must denie the infallibilitie which you seeke to establish To this for I confesse the Argument is old but can neuer be worne out nor shifted off your great Maister Stapleton who is miserably hampered in it and indeed so are yee all answers That the infallibilitie of a Councell is in the second course that is It is infallible in the Conclusion though it be vncertaine and fallible in the Meanes and proofe of it How comes this to passe It is a thing altogether vnknowne in Nature and Art too That fallible Principles can either father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion Well that is graunted in Nature and in all Argumentation that causes knowledge But wee shall haue Reasons for it First because the Church is discursiue and vses the weights and moments of Reason in the Meanes but is Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Reuelation from the Spirit of God in deliuering the Conclusion It is but the making of this appeare and all Controuersie is at an end Well I will not discourse here to what end there is any vse of Meanes if the Conclusion be Propheticall which yet is iustly vrged for no good cause can be assigned of it If it be Propheticall in the Conclusion I speake still of the present Church for that which included the Apostles which had the Spirit of Prophesie and immediate Reuelation was euer propheticke in the Definition Then since it deliuers the Conclusion not according to Nature and Art that is out of Principles which can beare it there must be some supernaturall Authoritie which must deliuer this Truth That say I must be the Scripture For if you flye to immediate Reuelation now the Enthusiasme must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the verie Exposition of all the Primitiue Church neyther say it nor inforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your Prophesie in the Conclusion I know no other thing can warrant it If you thinke the Tradition of the Church can make the World beholding to you Produce any Father of the Church that sayes this is an vniuersall Tradition of the Church That her Definitions in a Generall Councell are Propheticall and by immediate Reuelation Produce any one Father that sayes it of his owne authoritie That he thinkes so Nay make it appeare that euer any Prophet in that which he deliuered from God as infallible Truth was euer discursiue at all in the Meanes Nay make it but probable in the ordinarie course of Prophesie and I hope you goe no higher nor will I offer at Gods absolute Power That that which is discursiue in the Meanes can be Propheticke in the Conclusion and you shall be my great Apollo for euer In the meane time I haue learned this from yours That all Prophesie is by Vision Inspiration c. and that no Vision admits discourse That all Prophesie is an Illumination not alwayes present but when the Word of the Lord came to them and that was not by discourse And yet you say againe That this Propheticke infallibilitie of the Church is not gotten without studie and Industrie You should doe well to tell vs too why God would put his Church to studie for the Spirit of Prophesie which neuer anie particular Prophet was put vnto And whosoeuer shall studie for it shall doe itin vaine since Prophesie is a Gift and can neuer be an acquired Habite And there is somewhat in it that Bellarmine in all his Dispute for the Authoritie of Generall Councels dares not come at this Rocke He preferres the Conclusion and the Canon before the Acts and the deliberations of Councels and so doe wee but I doe not remember that euer he speakes out That the Conclusion is deliuered by Prophesie or Reuelation Sure he sounded the Shore and found danger here He did sound it For a little before he speakes plainely Would his bad cause let him be constant Councels doe deduce their Conclusions What from Inspiration No But out of the Word of God and that per ratiocinationem by Argumentation Neyther haue they nor doe they write any immediate Reuelations The second Reason why hee will haue it propheticke in the Conclusion is Because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Faith not of Knowledge And that therefore the Church proposing it to be beleeued though it vse Meanes yet it stands not vpon Art or Meanes or Argument but the Reuelation of the Holy Ghost Else when we embrace the Conclusion proposed it should not be an Assent of Faith but a Habit of Knowledge This for the first part That the Church vses the Meanes but followes them not is all one in substance with the former Reason And for the latter part That then our admitting the Decree ofa Councell would be no Assent of Faith but a Habit of Knowledge What great inconuenience is there if it be graunted For I thinke it is vndoubted Truth That one and the same Conclusion may be Faith to the Beleeuer that cannot prooue and Knowledge to the Learned that can And S. Augustine I am sure in regard of one and the same thing euen this the verie Wisedome of the Church in her Doctrine ascribes Vnderstanding to one sort of men and Beleefe to another weaker sort And Thomas goes with him And for further satisfaction if not of you of others this may be considered too Man lost by sinne the Integritie of his Nature and cannot haue Light enough to see the way to Heauen but by Grace This Grace was first merited after giuen by Christ. This Grace is first kindled in Faith by which if wee agree not to some supernaturall Principles which no Reason can demonstrate simply wee can neuer see our way But this Light when it hath made Reason submit it selfe cleares the Eye of Reason it neuer puts it out In which sense it may be is that of Optatus That the verie Catholike Church it selfe is reasonable as well as diffused euerie where By which Reason enlightned which is stronger than Reason the Church in all Ages hath beene able either to conuert or conuince or stop the mouthes at least of Philosophers and the great men of Reason in the verie point of Faith where it is at highest To the present occasion then The first immediate Fundamentall Points of Faith without which there is no saluation they as they cannot be prooued by Reason so neither need they be determined by any Councell nor euer were they attempted they are
EFFIGIES DOCTISSIMI UIRI D NI FRANCISCI WHITE S. T. PROFESSORIS ET ECCLESIAE CATHIS CARLEOLENSIS DECANI Aº AETA 59 ANNO 1624 Wisdome and grace see in that modest looke Trueth 's 〈◊〉 errors downfall in this booke Maerebunt piscatores Isa. 19. 8. HONI SOIT QVI MAL Y PENSE BEATI PACIFICI Bv Francis WHITE D. of Div Deane of Carlile Chaplaine to his Matie Hereunto is annexed a Conference of the right R B of St Dauids wth the same Iesuit Cirprianus de lapsis Nec Ecclesiae iungitur qui ab Euāgelio seperatur VERITAS VNIVOCA VERITATE APERIT DIES MENDACIV̄ AEQUIVOCŪ ERROR CAECUS ET FALLAX PISCATORIS RETE HABET RANAS LONDON Printed by Adam Islip 1624. TO THE MOST HIGH AND POTENT MONARCH JAMES OF GREAT BRITTAINE FRANCE and IRELAND King Defender of the Faith my Soueraigne Lord and Maister MOST GRACIOVS and Religious Soueraine it is apparent that the externall Tuition and Projection of Orthodoxall Veritie and Religion next vnder the Almightie doth principally belong to Christian Princes which are by Office and Vocation the Lords Annointed Sonnes of the most High and supreme Regents of this inferior World vnder God The Donates in times past denyed the lawfull Authoritie of Christian Princes in superuising and externall gouerning Ecclesiasticall Causes saying Quid est Imperatori cum Ecclesia What hath Imperiall or Regall Maiestie to doe with the Church But Optatus stileth this a braine-sick Error saying Ille Parmenio furore succensus c. And S. Augustine contesting with these malepart Heretikes saith Jn hoc Reges Deo seruiunt c. Kings according to the Diuine Precept serue the Lord as they be Kings when they command good and prohibite euill not in Ciuile Affaires onely but in Matters which concerne Diuine Religion Jsiodor Hispal saith Secular Princes sometimes that is when they are Christians haue eminent Authoritie intra Ecclesiam within the Church to fortifie Ecclesiasticall Discipline Princes of the Earth saith S. Augustine serue Christ by making Lawes for Christ. And againe Ciuile Vertues in higher Powers auaile them not for eternall Beatitude vnlesse withall they gouerne their People in true Religion And in another Epistle Jt appertaines to Religious Princes to represse by iust seueritie not onely Adulterie Homicide and other hainous Crimes against men but also Sacrilegious Jmpietie against God The Euangelicall Prophet fore-tells that Kings should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nursing or Foster-Fathers of the Christian Church Esa. 49.23 Also they are Shepheards of the Almightie and concurrents for the building of his House Esa. 44.28 King Josiah reformed the Iewish Church suppressed Impietie restored true Religion 2. King 23. And hee was herein so farre from transcending the bounds of Regall Authoritie that the Holy Ghost faith of him Like him was there no King before him neither after him arose there any like Constantine the Great by Imperiall Lawes established true Religion Hee appointeth Festiuall Dayes prescribeth what Bishops shall doe for the Churches auaile Hee 〈◊〉 Synods is himselfe an Assessor and Agent among the Nicene Fathers Hee 〈◊〉 and directeth the Bishops Hee confirmeth the Decrees of the Great Councell of Nice and compelleth his Christian subjects to professe the Faith determined in that Synod Now of this Grand Patron of Christian Faith and the true Professors thereof S. Augustine affirmeth The God of Heauen enriched him with such large Blessings in this World Quanta optare nullus auderet as one could not haue presumed to wish S. Cyrill of Alexandria writing to Christian Princes which did the like sayth The Orient Pearles and bright-shining Diamonds of Jndia doe not so much adorne your Royall Heads as your care and protection of true Pietie maketh your sacred Persons venerable and glorious Your most excellent Maiestie walketh in the Religious wayes of those renowned Princes and their example hath euer been the President of the exercising your Royall Authoritie in sacred Causes and of your constant resolution in professing and protecting true Religion The Almightie hath placed you within your Dominions his supreme Vicegerent He hath made you greater than Joseph ouer his House and a Joshua ouer his People you are a Signet vpon the Lords right hand neuer to be plucked off He hath exalted you in Hominem a Deo secundum quicquid est a Deo consecutum solo Deo minorem as Tertullian speaketh the immediate visible person within your Kingdomes vnder himselfe receiuing all your Authoritie and Maiestie from his owne hand and hee hath made you inferior to none but himselfe and to vse S. Cyrils words vttered to Theodosius Vestrae serenitati nullus status est aequalis No State is equall much lesse may ouer-top your serene Maiesties But together with your Regall Power and Authoritie the Almightie hath enriched your heart aboue many other Princes of the World with incomparable Wisdome and Iudgement in matters Religious and Diuine as not onely your owne subiects but euen Forrainers haue obserued and that is fulfilled in you which S. Athanasius once vttered in an Epistle to Jouianus the Emperour Decora eximia res est in principe mens discendi auida rerum Coelestium cupido inde enim fit vt cor tuum vere sie in manu Dei It is a gracious and excellent qualitie in a great Prince to haue a mind desirous of knowledge and affecting the intelligence of Coelestiall things for hereby it commeth to passe that your heart is indeed in the hand of God It is the happinesse therefore of your loyall and Orthodoxall subiects which answere for Veritie against Error that they may defend the same before a King expert in the Questions whereof they dispute and whose cleare-seeing Iudgement like the fining Furnace is able to make difference betweene Gold and Drosse And this hath animated me to present my Replie To a Jesuits Answere of certaine Questions controuerted betweene Papals and vs to your most sacred Maiestie I receiued the Aduersaries Disputation by my Lord Duke of Buckingham who enioyned me in your Maiesties Name to examine and answere the same I could not but admire your Princely zeale to haue true Religion maintained as well by Disputation as by your iust Lawes And although I was conscious to my selfe of the want of those more eminent Graces which are found in greater Diuines yet hauing sensibly obserued your owne vnfained and 〈◊〉 loue to the Religion which we professe and being greatly encouraged by the Noble Duke who is your Maiesties very Image in the constant profession and maintenance of Orthodoxall Veritie I became obedient to your sacred Commandement And now concluding I most humbly desire you who resemble him that dwelling on high despiseth not things below accepting euen the poore Widowes Mite and Goats hayre where greater substance is wanting to giue me leaue to consecrate this my Reply to your most serene Maiestie I confesse this Worke to be ouermeane
Doctrine by Principles of Diuine Reuelation because Humane Testimonie is not sufficient to myse Articles of Faith And I rest assured that each intelligent person will obserue by reading this Worke that the Aduerfarie notwithstanding he is well verst in Controuersie and hath in substance said as much as his Cause will permit yet he is deficient of Diuine proofe in euery Article and farre more specious in eluding our Arguments than happie in confirming his owne But if it be certaine that Popish Faith wanteth the Suffrage of Diuine Testimonie then we haue sufficient cause to reiect their Doctrine And if wee could not demonstrate that the Articles which they maintaine against vs were contra verbum Dei contradictorie to the Word of God yet if by deficiencie of proofe on their side it appeare they be extra praeter without or besides the Word of God they cannot be the obiect of Diuine Faith Lastly I entreat all of our part to prayse God for the benefit of true Religion maintayned in our Church to auoid Contention among themselues for in all Ages the same hath proued pernicious and scandalous Also to be as deuout in the way of Pietie as Aduersaries seeme to be in the way of Superstition And because it hath euer beene an Honor to our Profession to be loyall and obedient to higher Powers let this be still an indelible Caracter of euery true Brittish Protestant to reioyce in the peaceable and happy Gouernment of his most sacred Maiestie let vs all so far as it is possible by our feruent votes and prayers striue to adde encrease to his dayes and happines Far be it from any of our part in their secret thoughts to misconster his actions or to entertaine the least iealousie of any abatement of his wonted loue to true Religion planted among vs for assuredly he vnderstands the Mysterie of Poperie too well to thinke any otherwise of it than formerly he hath done and no subiect can lay the Cause of Religion more neere their heart than his most Religious Maiestie doth And we haue all great cause to glorifie God who hath blessed our Church with such a wise and constant Defender of the Faith Now my Conscience vrgeth me to deliuer thus much concerning his Maiestie because the Aduersarie in some passages of his ensuing Treatise as by reading you shall obserue rhetoriseth suspitiously intending no doubt to raise some iealousie in credulous minds contrarie to this which I haue spoken My selfe therefore through the gracious Clemencie of his Maiestie being admitted to approach so neere as to be an eare-witnesse of his admirable Iudgement and constant Resolution in point of Religion and hereby certainely knowing that the Jesuit departing from the King added no improuement to his Popish Cause but vanished with foile and disgrace J trust J shall incurre no Censure from men iudicious and louers of Truth for certifying that which J obserued by mine owne experience And thus commending my Labors to the blessing of the Almightie to the examination of my Superiors in the Church and to the perusall of those which desire to read them I addresse my selfe to the ensuing Disputation April 10. 1624. THE CATALOGVE OF QVESTIONS DISPVTED in this Worke. 1. WHether of all other it be the most important Controuersie to vnderstand the Qualitie of the Romane Church Fol. 1. 2. Whether Diuine Faith be resolued finally into vnwritten Tradition or into Scripture 12 3. Touching the Visibilitie and Notes of the Church in generall 49 4. Whether the Romane Church is the Onely Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church 103 5. Whether Protestants erre fundamentally in the Faith 146 6. Whether Protestants erre fundamentally about Tradition 149 7. Whether they doe the like in their Doctrine about Generall Councels 152 8. Whether they erre by denying Papall Supremacie 157 9. Whether they erre in point of Iustification 161 10. Whether they erre in point of Merit of Good Works 169 11. Whether they doe the like concerning the Sacrament of Baptisme 175 12. Whether they erre in the Doctrine of Reall presence 178 13. Whether they doe the like about Penance and Absolution 185 14. Whether they erre about the Article of the Catholique Church 193 15. Touching Worship of Images 209 16. Concerning Inuocation of Saints departed 287 17. Touching prayer of the ignorant in an vnknowne Tongue 365 18. Concerning repetitions of Pater-Nosters Aues and Creeds with reference to Merit 384 19. Concerning Transubstantiation 390 20. Of Communion in one kind 459 21. Of workes of Supererogation and Popes Pardons 510 22. Of deposing Kings and giuing away of their Kingdomes by Papall power directly or indirectly 569 IESVIT TO THE KINGS MOST EXCELLENT MAIESTIE Most Gratious and dread Soueraigne A Conference about Religion betweene Doctour White and me was occasion that your Maiestie called mee to your Gratious presence not disdaining to dispute with one so meane and vnworthie as my selfe imitating his benignitie whose Vicegerent you are and according to the phrase of holy Scripture his Angell And as it is the propertie of the good Angell first to strike feare and terrour into them to whom hee appeares but in the end to leaue them full of comfort In like sort your Maiestie For though the first salutation carried a shew of seueritie yet your dismissing me was benigne and gratious not onely pardoning my earnestnesse in defending the part of the Catholike Church but also saying You liked me the better ANSVVER MIrum est si in facie hominis tantum interuallum inter frontem linguam vt frons non comprimat linguam It is strange saith St. Augustine that there should be such a great distance betweene the front of a man and his mouth that the shame of his forehead should not represse the impudencie of his tongue It is vntrue that his Royall Maiestie at the Cloase of the Conference whereof you speake gaue you any applause or the least occasion to coniecture That hee was taken with any passage of your Disputation For you propounded nothing to demonstrate your owne Tenet or to confute ours worthie of the great Presence to which you were admitted But you kept your selfe within your Trenches and sometimes you were driuen to dissemble your owne Tenet other-while according to the Romish manner by wyre-drawne distinctions and euasions to elude the waight of his Maiesties Arguments making good the saying of Maxentius Mens contentioni Indulgens non sanari sed vincere cupiens auersa ab eis quae rectè dicuntur tantum intenta est in hoc vt inueniat quod pro partibus suis loquatur A contentious mind desirous of victorie and not willing to be reformed but auerse from right sayings only deuiseth how to elude Truth and to speake for his owne part And as for those words of his royal Maiestie I like you the better they were vttered vpon this occasion When the Iesuit being pressed about the point of Temporall authoritie c. did at the first
we should doe them ô but if the Iesuits were admitted into our bosome wee should haue as that King had presents sent of some Singularities c. Rare trinckets no doubt for which wee could not pay too deare though wee sold our Religion and Libertie for them But in the Example cited that which surpasseth is The Armie of learned Pennes which by thousands will march vpon the Plaine of Paper Monuments for extolling those which nurse vp that brood But would to God these men did not write sometimes with blood How they requited that Kings loue and what securitie hee enioyed by them the dolefull Catastrophe shewed Male ominatis Parcite verbis IESVIT No labours would wee spare nor any indeauours omit nor sticke to venter the losse of any thing deare vnto vs except the grace of God and our eternall saluation to purchase a small portion of that fauour your Maiesties meanest Subiects enioy that wee might in some sort cooperate to the felicitie of the Christian world which as wee are persuaded doth on your Maiesties person singularly depend For God rich in Mercie and Goodnesse as hee hath made your Maiestie partaker of his Power and Authoritis in gouerning this inferiour world so likewise hee hath adorned you with many excellent gifts as Wisedome Learning Authoritie with forraigne Princes and Common-wealths made you beloued of your Subiects that on you are cast the eyes of all Christian Countreys as on the Person whom the Prince of Peace hath beyond the rest inabled to ioyne together againe the parts of Christendome distracted one from another through Contiouersies of Religion ANSWER It is sufficient that you haue libertie to deprecate his Gratious Maiestie to forget things past against himselfe and the State and to thanke his Princely clemencie for the benefit of his mercifull Gouernment whereof you and others haue tasted beyond expectation But in stead heereof you discouer in your selues a restlesse minde neuer to be satisfied vntill that like the Serpent hauing once got in your head you winde in all your bodie Surely some euill Genius guideth you otherwise you could not be so impudent as to sollicite a most iuditious and resolute Prince to be an Apostata from his Faith and to expose his naturall and loyall Subiects to the grosse errours and sharking rapine of Romish Harpies And wherefore must his Maiestie condescend to these heauie conditions forsooth to ioyne together againe the parts of Christendome distracted that is in plaine English vnder pretext of Religion to establish lewd Superstition and Roman Tyrannie Libanius the Sophister in antient time vpon the like ground sollicited Iulian the Emperour to Apostasie but wee say with Saint Hilarie Speciosum nomen est pacis pulchra est opinio vnitatis c. The name of Peace is specious and the opinion of Vnitie carries a faire shew but there is no Euangelicall Peace without Christ that is without true Faith and Charitie in Christ. Saint Augustine saith Habet superbia appetitum quendam vnitatis c. Euen pride it selfe hath a certaine desire of vnitie that it might bee Omnipotent If Peace bee iust and honest saith Polybius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is a worthie possession and most profitable but if it bee dishonourable and base 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is of all things most shamefull and pernitious IESVIT If the requests of the pretended Reformers were such as the Roman Church might yeeld vnto them without ouerthrowing the very foundations of the vnitie of Faith If in stead of Catholicke Principles mis-liked by them they did propose such other of their owne as she might see some probabilitie or almost possibilitie of assured continued peace likely to follow vpon her yeelding in some Points feeling compassion in regard of the wound of discord bleeding in the heart of Christendome would mooue her to the vttermost approach towards Protestants that the Law of God can permit though with some disparagement to her honour ANSWER You should rather say If the request of Protestants among whom the King of Great Britaine is most emment were such as that the Romane Prelates might yeeld vnto without hazard of their vsurped Monarchie If Protestants would consent to sond the holy Scriptures packing and not reckon the same among Diuine Principles if they would purchase remission of sinnes by paying tribute into his Holinesse his Checker and not seeke to obtaine the same by the merits of the Lambe of God in a word if they would permit the Romane Nahash to plucke out their right eye that their deuotion might be framed according to the rule of implicite Faith and blinde Obedience sensible feeling of her owne reuiuing greatnesse and lucre would mooue the Romane Mother being tender-hearted to them which present her with Red and White to approach towards Protestants and to hugge them in her armes as Apes doe their Whelpes vntill with ouer-much kindnesse shee crush out their breath IESVIT But so it is that those that defre her Reformation bee so many for number and for Opinions so diuided amongst themselues that it is impossible shee should satis fie all Their Conditions of peace are That she reforme her selfe by forsaking definitions of generall Councells Customes Doctrines vniuersally receiued for many ages time out of minde confessedly without any knowne beginning since the Apostles In stead of these means so potent to stay staggering consciences and to keepe the Christian world in peace they present her with the Scriptures vnderstood by priuate illumination the source of discord from which an Ocean of strife must needes flow These things considered your most Iuditious Maiestie cannot but see that her yeelding would not compose debates alreadie begun but rather open a wide gap to innumerable new brawles and bring them into Kingdomes bitherto with such dissention vntoucht ANSWER Whosoeuer abideth in errour ought to reforme The Roman Church abideth in errour Ergo The Roman Church ought to reforme The Assumption is manifest by the repugnancie of Roman Doctrine against the Faith of the holy Scriptures and against the Doctrine of the Primatiue Church which shall hereafter be prooued in euery point of Difference betweene Romists and vs. But as the Synagogue of the Iewes hated reformation and persisteth in hardnesse of heart to this day so likewise Babylon will not be healed Ierem. 51.9 The Iesuit deliuereth three reasons why the Romane Church cannot yeeld to reformation The first is taken from the manifold diuisions of Protestants among themselues c. But this Argument to say nothing of the leading part thereof is inconsequent for if Romists erre then they ought to reforme whosoeuer they are that admonish them and conuince them of errour And when the antient Church abounded with Schismes and ruptures a meanes was vsed to restore vnitie to wit a common submission to free and lawfull Councells congregated not by Romane Popes but by Christian and religious Emperours and these
beleeued to bee Apostolicall because written in the Scripture of the New Testament and the Scriptures of the New Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles vpon the voice of perpetuall Tradition vnwritten then our resolution That our Faith is Apostolicall stayeth finally vpon Tradition vnwritten But the maine and substantiall points of our Faith are beleeued to be Apostolicall because they are written in Scriptures and the Scriptures c. are beleeued to come from the Apostles by perpetuall Tradition vnwritten Ergo Our resolution that our Faith is Apostolicall resteth finally vpon Tradition vnwritten ANSVVER If the second part of the Antecedent to wit And the Scriptures of the new Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles vpon the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Tradition vnwritten bee vnderstood without any further explication or addition then the sequell of the Maior is denied and if onely or principally bee added to vnwritten Tradition then the Assumption is false First although the Scriptures of the new Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles vpon the voyce of perpetuall Tradition yet because they are not beleeued thus to descend by the said voyce as vpon the onely or principall ground therefore it is inconsequent to inferre our resolution that our faith is Apostolicall stayeth lastly and finally vpon Tradition If the Argument be reduced to a Categoricall forme the defect will easily appeare That vpon whose voyce the Scriptures of the new Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles is the grouud whereupon our faith lastly and finally stayeth Perpetuall Tradition is that vpon whose voyce the Scriptures of the new Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles Therefore perpetuall Tradition is the ground whereupon our faith lastly and finally stayeth In this Argument the Maior proposition is false for that is not alwayes the last ground of Resolution vpon whose voyce and testimony we doe first of all or prioritate or dinis vel temporis in priority of time or order beleeue things because there may be other grounds of beleefe equall or of greater authoritie than the first voyce and the first voyce vpon which we beleeue may be only an introduction or motiue of credibility For example One may beleeue that Moses or the Prophets were the Authors of the Scriptures of the old Testament vpon the voyce and testimony of the Iewes yet this testimony is not the last ground of resolution c. One may beleeue vpon the testimony of Iosephus That Iesus Christ was a wise man yea more than a man and that hee wrought many great miracles and was crucified and appeared againe the third day aliue and was honoured by Iewes and Gentiles yet this voyce and Testimony of Iosephus is not the finall ground of faiths resolution If 〈◊〉 bee taken to these 〈◊〉 that they proceed 〈◊〉 from humane 〈◊〉 whereas the voyce of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 I 〈◊〉 ere two things First that the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of faith is not alwayes made into that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vpon whose voyce and 〈◊〉 as appeareth by St. Iohn Baptist for vpon his voyce and 〈◊〉 which did not finally and principally 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but into the voyce of Christ himselfe Iohn 5. 33 36. Secondly although the vocall Tradition of the Apostles themselues concerning the Scriptures of the new Testament when they deliuered or commended the same to their immediate hearers was totally and perfectly diuine both in regard of the matter testified and in respect of their owne persons who were witnesses immediatly sent and inspired of God yet the subsequent History and report of this former made by those which were remote from the Apostles age is not simply and perfectly diuine but onely in part for when it faithfully reporteth that which the Apostles said and did it is diuine in regard of the matter and thing testified but is humane in regard of the quality of the witnesses and the manner of testification because these succeeding witnesses were not equall in verity to the holy Apostles 〈◊〉 free from possibility of errour nor such as immediatly heard the Apostles Hereupon Aquinas himselfe holdeth that our faith doth onely rest vpon those reuelations which the Authours of the holy Scriptures published and Durand with many other Schoolemen saith that the faith which is grounded vpon the approbation of the Church is onely acquisite And if this be true then because the credit of vnwritten Traditions dependeth in respect of vs vpon the authority of the Church since the Apostles which Churches voyce being not formally diuine can of it selfe onely produce acquisite faith the last and finall resolution of diuine faith cannot bee made into the voyce of Tradition vnwritten And thus much concerning the sequel of the Maior proposition But if the Iesuite when he saith the Scriptures of the new Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles vpon the voyce of perpetuall Tradition vnwritten doe means that the said Scriptures are beleeued to 〈◊〉 from the Apostles vpon the voyce of vnwritten Tradition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the assumption is false for they are 〈◊〉 to come from the Apostles by written Tradition as well as by vnwritten and more principally vpon the voyce of the Apostles speaking in and by their Scriptures than vpon the onely testimony of vnwritten Tradition It is vsuall and common for one man to certifie another of such matters as he desireth he should know by an Epistle or writing So likewise the holy Apostles desiring that all the world for whose instruction they wrote should know that these Scriptures are their worke haue declared the same by their owne testimonie recorded in those bookes St. Iohn affirmes that hee is the Author of his Gospell and of the Reuelation Iohn 21 24. Reuel 1 4. St. Paul and other Apostles doe the like concerning the Epistles Rom. 1 1. 2. Cor. 10 10. Collos. 4. 18. 1. Pet. 1 1. Iam. 1 1. Iude v. 1. And that the holy Apostles and Euangelists doe speake vnto people of all ages by their bookes and writings is affirmed by the Fathers St. August saith Ipsum Paulum audi c. Heare thou euen Paul himselfe St. Chrysost. If thou desirest thou mayest heare Paul Peter Iohn and the whole company of the Prophets speaking vnto thee take the bookes of these blessed ones into thine hands reade their Scriptures and thou mayest heare not Paul onely but euen Pauls Lord speaking vnto thee by Pauls mouth But it is obiected against this by Bellarmine and others that counterfeit Authours may speake in the name and person of the Apostles to wit a Bastard Hereticke in the name of St. Bartholomew or St. Peter c. I answere with St. Augustine the same may be done in all humane and ecclesiasticall writings and yet sufficient meanes are found partly in the History of times partly in the writings of euery Authour to confute Impostors And concerning the holy Scriptures wee haue two
it was Apostolicall finally and principally into the authority of the present Church ANSWER Saint Augustine deliuers not the former and therfore the Iesuit cannot inferre the latter we haue indeed no stronger or more excellent morall proofe than the perpetual testimony of the Church succeeding the Apostles but we haue a stronger and more excellent diuine proofe to wit the Prophesie of Christ and his Apostles concerning the perpetuall preseruation of the Gospell vnto the end of the world also that the Aposcolical Scriptures were once incorrupt is manifest because they were giuen by diuine inspiration And it is apparant that they were not afterwards corrupted because no authority or sufficient Argument can be produced to procue them in whole or in part to haue been corrupted Now that which being once knowne by diuine testimony to haue beene incorrupt cannot be prooued afterwards to haue been corrupted doth by diuine testimony appeare to be incorrupt because the first diuine testimony standeth still in force The Text of the Gospell was once knowne by diuine testimonie to haue beene incorrupt and it cannot be prooued to haue beene afterwards corrupted Ergo It doth still appeare by diuine testimonie that the Text of the Gospell is incorrupt and the resolution of Faith finally and principally resteth vpon that diuine testimonie and not vpon the 〈◊〉 of the present Church Lastly the harmony coherence of the Gospel both with the Scriptures of the old Testament Lu. 24.27 Act. 28.23 and of the seuerall parts of the Gospel among themselues do manifest that the text of the new Testament is incorrupt For if the same were corrupted in any part corruption of words would produce alteration and difference of matter but we find at this day a perfect harmonie of all the parts of the Gospell among themselues and a perfect agreement of the same with the Scriptures of the old Testament And from the same being an inward Argument we may collect that the text of the Gospell is at this day incorrupt Now hauing so many Arguments besides the authoritie of the present Church to prooue the integritie of the text of the Gospell we do not flie neither is it necessarie to flie to priuat Spirit or particular Reuelation for assurance and that which our Aduersaries obiect against vs saying that we resolue our Faith and Religion into the priuat Spirit is a foolish calumniation for we resolue our Faith into the authoritie of Gods outward word expounded vnto vs by such helpes and meanes as both the Scripture it selfe and the antient Church require as into the diuine motiue and obiect of beleefe and we affirme that his grace and holy Spirit working by the outward meanes inableth draweth and persuadeth the conscience to assent Iohn 6.45 12.37 38.1 Cor. 2.12 c. 12.3 2. Cor. 3.5 Act. 16.14 1. Iohn 2.20.27 Esay 50.5 And herein we flie to no priuat Spirit or Reuelation but maintaine the ordinarie assistance of diuine grace according to the doctrine of the holy Scripture and of S. Augustine and the common Tenet of the Scholemen themselues IESVITS 2. Argument Secondly J 〈◊〉 that common vnlearned people the greatest part of Christianitie are persuaded about all substantiall points of Faith by Tradition not by Scripture Common vnlearned people haue true Christian Faith in all points necessarie and snfficient vnto Saluation but they haue not Faith of all these maine and substantiall points grounded on Scripture for they can neither vnderstand nor read any Scripture but translated into vulgar languages and so if they beleeue vpon Scripture they beleeue vpon Scripture translated into their mother tongue but before that they can know that the Scriptures are truely translated euen in all substantiall points that so they may build of it they must first know what are the maine and substantiall points and firmely beleeue them so that they would not beleeue the Scripture translated against them for if they knew them not before how can they know that Scriptures in places that concerne them are truely translated if they do not before hand firmely beleeue them why should they bee readie to allow translations that agree with them and to reiect the translations which differ from them Ergo Originally and before they know any Scripture they haue Faith grounded on the Tradition of their ancestors by the light whereof they are able to judge of the truth of Translations about such substantiall points as they firmely beleeue by Tradition ANSVVER The question which the Iesuit vndertaketh to prooue in his foure Arguments is that our resolution of Faith stayeth finally vpon the perpetuall Tradition of the Church and not vpon the Scripture His second argument to prooue this is taken from the manner of vulgar and illiterate people in resoluing their Faith For if these being the greater part of Christianitie do ground their Creed touching all points of doctrine necessarie to Saluation vpon Tradition of their ancestors andif they haue true Faith before they know and vnderstand the Scripture then Christian Faith at least-wise among the greater part of Christians is resolued finally into the Tradition of ancestors and not of the Scriptures And he prooueth that these vulgar people haue Faith touching all points necessarie to Saluation before they know the Scriptures because it is impossible for them to read or vnderstand Scripture vntill it be translated into their mother tongue and they are not able to iudge of translations or know them to be true vnlesse they first beleeue the principall points of Christian Faith and by comparing translations of Scripture with the said doctrines of Faith formerly by them beleeued be inabled to iudge of the Truth of Translations This Paralogisme hath certaine ambiguous or equiuocall termes which must be distinguished and then I will applie my answer First the terme of Scripture may be taken for the letter and text of the Scripture together with the names of the seueral Bookes Authors and Sections and secondly it may signifie the doctrine of the Scripture without mention of the particular Bookes Iohn 7.38 Rom. 1 2 3 4. Secondly Resolution of Faith is either distinct and explicite wherein beleeuers are able to declare the seueral reasons of their Faith and to proceed from one reason of beleeuing to another vntill they ascend by degrees to the principall ground or else Implicit and Vertuall wherein beleeuers cannot proceed distinct ly and with explication of the seuerall reasons and grounds of Faith but resting themselues vpon one prime and radicall ground are readie for the authoritie of the same to beleeue all other particular reasons and verities of Faith when they are declared vnto them Thirdly Tradition may signifie either doctrine of Faith and good manners not contained or written in holy Scripture expressely or inuoluedly or else the same doctrine which is found in holy Scripture deliuered by Ancestors or Teachers by word of mouth These distinctions premised I answer the obiection 1.
Catalogue of descent is duely examined all the passages are not so currant in it as they pretend Fourthly the principle of Aristotle vpon which the last Argument is grounded admitteth many exceptions That because of which another thing is such is it selfe much more such when both things are of the same order and pertake the same affection as Christ which sanctifieth is more holy than they which are sanctified Fire is hotter than water and other things warmed by it c. But it holdeth not in causes equiuocall or partiall or in causes by accident or of diuers order The Sunne causeth life in plants and yet the Sunne is without life A whetstone sharpeneth tooles and yet is dull it selfe Euill manners cause good lawes and yet euill manners are not good Daniels wisdome is reuealed to Baltasar by the queene Dan. 5. 10 11. yet Daniell is not made a 〈◊〉 man nor onely knowne to be such by that report so likewise the name of Christ his glorie his vertue and miracles are famously knowne of belecuers from age to age by reason of the Church and her preaching c. But all this concerning Christ is neither principally nor only made knowne to the world by the present Church nor by the Roman Church more effectually than by other Churches and the Church is a caufe of one kind and order and the Scripture of another The Church is veluti Preco Nuntius like a Cryer and Messenger but the holy Scripture is the Word Handwriting and Epistle of Christ into whose voice and authoritie all the faithfull resolue their beleese concerning Christ and all his actions and according to S. Agustine In sanctis libris manifestatur Dominus ibi eius Ecclesia declaratur In the holy bookes of Scripture the Lord is made manifest and in the same also his Church is declared and in another place In Scripturis diuinis Christum in Scripturis didicimus Ecclesiam In the Scriptures we haue learned Christ and in the Scriptures we haue learned the Church Now if the Scriptures manifest Christ and demonstrate his Church they are of greater authoritie and consequently more credible famous and illustrious than the Church according to the Iesuits Theorem out of Aristotle Propter quod vnum quodquè tale est illud magis IESVIT Fourthly the Church is one that is all the Pastors and Preachers thereof deliuer and consequently all her professors and children beleeue one and the same Faith ANSWER The visible Church in regard of the sound and liuing part thereof is one both in Faith and Charitie Ephes. 4.3.4 c. But this vnitie is more or lesse perfect at some times and in some persons than in other Vnitie in all Veritie and in all sanctitie of Vertue and Charitie is necessarie to Saluation in praeparatione animi in the purpose and intention of heart Rom. 12. 18. and actuall Vnitie in fundamentall points of Faith and in the maine offices of Charitie is simply necessarie to Saluation Heb. 12.14 but perfect cōcord excluding all discord is not perpetually found amongst the best members of the visible Church There was contention among the Disciples Luc. 22.24 and the Affrican and European Churches were diuided concerning rebaptising and the Eastrne and Westerne Churches about the day of Easter S. Augustine saith That good men being but proficients may be at strife Aquinas affirmeth That discord is not a sinne vnlesse it ouerthrow Charity or be corrupted with error concerning matters of Faith which are necessarie to bee knowne to Saluation or in smaller points with 〈◊〉 Also discord may happen in the visible 〈◊〉 by the pride ambition and faction of the in which case 〈◊〉 persons although they 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 all lawfull peace and 〈◊〉 yet through the 〈◊〉 of those which are enemies to peace they cannot 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 120.5 6 7. IESVIT For if the Preachers and Pastors of the Church disagree about matters which they preach as necessarie points of Faith how can their Tradition and Testimonie be of Credit therein or haue any Authoritie to persuade who will or canfirmely 〈◊〉 disagreeing witnesses vpon their words ANSWER First They which disagree in part and accord in the maine may haue substantiall 〈◊〉 although they want the prefection of vnitie and these are of credit and may persuade in those things wherein they consent as appeareth by S. Cyprian and his Colleagues disagreeing with the Romans touching Appeales and 〈◊〉 and yet conuerting many people to godlinesse Secondly When there is discord betweene 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 matters the Orthodox partie 〈◊〉 many 〈◊〉 all those whose hearts the Lord 〈◊〉 and mooueth to discerne and obey the truth Otherwise in the great Dissentions of the antient Church reported by Eusebius Lib. 2. cap. 60. 61. d. vita Constantini no people should haue beene conuerted to God Thirdly If 〈◊〉 take away all possibilitie of persuading from the Pastors of the Church then the Romans which 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 Ancestors in many points of Doctrine and haue had so many Schismes whereof some haue beene most bloudie and pernicious to the Christian World must want power to persuade The efficacie of persuasion dependeth vpon absolute concord onely as vpon a greater motiue of credibilitie and not as vpon a proper efficient and although Preachers should be contentious and factious yet the Word of Christ truly deliuered by any of them is in it selfe mightie in operation and able to persuade and conuert soules and God Almightie many times shewes his power in the Ministerie of infirme and imperfect Instruments Phil. 1. 16 17. IESVIT And this consent must be conspicuous and euident For if in outward appearance and shew Preachers dissent one from another in maine and materiall Doctrines their Authoritie is crazed and their Testimonie of no esteeme Howsoeuer perchance their Dissentions may by some distinctions so be coloured that one cannot conuince him that would boldly vndertake to defend as D. Field vndertakes for Protestants that their Dissentions are but verball But what is this to the purpose Doe the accused Dissentioners allow this Doctors Reconciliation 〈◊〉 they giue ouer Contention hereupon No but confesse that such Reconcilers misse of their meaning and that they disagree substantially about the very prime Articles of Faith How can these men be witnesses of Credit for substantiall Articles concerning which there is open confessed and professed Dissention among them ANSVVER The consent of Pastors according to one sence to wit expounding Must for 〈◊〉 Ought as 1. Tim. 3.2 is to be conspicuous and euident both in Faith and in Charitie and when this is fulfilled the testimonie of Pastors is of greater weight and credit among men But this perfection of Visitie is 〈◊〉 and therefore although the same be 〈◊〉 in part the Pastors of the Church are not despoyled of all Authoritie and credit in deliuering Christs Word if the better
grieuous penaltie to depart out of Babylon and spirituall Sodome Apoc. 18.4 and Chap. 11.8 Saint Paul speaking of such as teach diuerse doctrine from the Apostles saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Depart from such from their assembly and Church Reade Acts 19. 8. 1. Corinth 10. 14. 2. Cor. 6. 14 15 17. Hos. 10. 17. The Roman Church in those things wherein wee departed from it was shamefully corrupted it did not onely forsake bur depraue and persecute the truth of God the leprosie thereof was incurable for it would not iudge it selfe nor bee reprooued by others nor reforme the least errour but desperately followed the Canon Si Papa c And none might inioy life and breath within her Precincts which would not obey her Traditions These Romuleans vnlesse they were blinded like Elymas could not be ignorant at least of some of their errours and corruptions but they chose rather in their Tridentine Synode to proclaime and propugne apertly or couertly all their antient forgeries than to compassionate the distressed and 〈◊〉 Christian world by mittigating or condescending according to truth in the smallest matters It had beene most facile for them without any preiudice or dammage to themselues to haue permitted the Communion of the holy Eucharist in both kindes the publicke 〈◊〉 of God in a knowne and vnderstood Language to haue abolished the adoration of Images c. But their Luciferian pride and mallice was so transcendent that they rather presumed to obtrude new Scandalls vpon the Christian World than to vse the least Moderation for the peace of the Church And euer since that Synod they haue proceeded from euill to worse obscuring and out-facing the Truth with Forgerie and Sophistrie They haue conspired against Kingdomes and States they haue surpassed professed Infidels in perfidious Stratagemes and immane Crueltie Lastly whereas they expelled vs by Excommunication and chased vs away from them by Persecution yet this Romane Aduocate taxeth vs of Schisme and Apostasie neuer remembring what S. Augustine long since deliuered The Sacriledge of Schisme is then committed when there is no iust cause of separation Or what some of his owne part haue said The Sheepe are not bound to be subiect to any Shepheard which is become a Wolfe or is aduerse to the saluation of the Flocke IESVIT Which also plainely will appeare to any man of vnderstanding that casts vpon her an impartiall eye For is she not conspicuously one the professors thereof agreeing in all points of Faith howsoeuer they differ about small vndefined Questions ANSVVER Externall Vnitie is found amongst Infidels and the Turkes being more in number than Papists neuer disagree amongst themselues touching matters of their Religion Shall wee then say as the Iesuit doth It will plainely appeare to any man of vnderstanding that casts his eye vpon Turkie that the same hath Veritie because it is conspicuously one Saint Augustine saith That Iewes Heretikes and Infidels obserue Vnitie against Vnitie S. Bernard Alia est vnitas Sanctorum alia facinorosorum The Vnitie of Saints is one thing and the Vnitie of wicked men Deceiuers another S. Hilarie Vnitas fidei vnitas perfidiae There is Vnitie of Faith and there is likewise perfidious and faithlesse Vnitie S. Gregorie saith That the ministers of Antichrist shall cleaue together like the skales of Leuiathan Therefore because externall Vnitie is in it selfe a thing common and Iewes and Mahometists enioy the same more apparently than many Christians our Aduersarie must prooue that his Church hath Veritie before his argument taken from externall Vnitie can be of any force Neither is Papisticall Vnitie so entire and absolute as this man gloryeth for Papalls disagree both in Doctrine and Manners They differ concerning the supreame Authoritie of the Church Whether it be in the Pope or in the Generall Councell They differ in the matter of Free-will and Grace They differ concerning the manner of the Conception of the Virgin Marie There are three Opinions among them concerning the Temporall dominion of Popes Some say he hath direct Temporall power some say indirect some say hee hath none but by the free Donation of Princes and that Princes were euill aduised in yeelding him so much And moderne Popes disagree with the antient concerning the Dignitie of vniuerfall Bishop adoration of Images Transubstantiation Communion in both kinds and the merit of Good workes Also they themselues complaine of grieuous hatred and discord reigning generally among them and some of them say There is greater Concord among Gentiles And when they colour these palpable Dissentions pretending that they are readie to submit themselues to the iudgement of the Pope First this Iudge and Vmpire is many times a Peace-breaker and no Peace-maker an Ismael in the Christian World whose hand is against euerie man and euerie mans hand is against him Secondly Vnitie which is founded on blind Obedience is onely an Vnitie of Pollicie and not of true Faith Thirdly this submission maketh not actuall Concord and miserable Dissention both intestine and forraine at home and abroad rageth betweene Popes and Princes and betweene one Popish Faction and another The Guelphes and Gibellines the Papalls and Imperialls are as famous in Histories for their Discord as the sonnes of Cadmus and when Papistrie was most potent the Christian World was most distracted IESVIT Apparently vniuersall so spread ouer the World with Credit and Authoritie that whole Mankind may take sufficient notice of her and her Doctrine for the embracing thereof ANSWER The Roman is a particular Church and not vniuersall it is onely an vnsound member of the whole and not the whole Rom. 1. 6. S. Paul saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Among whom are yee also But a Church which is but one amongst the rest cannot be the whole and vniuersall Church It is as absurd to say that the Romane Church is the vniuersall Church as to affirme that England is the vniuersall World If the vniuersall Church be taken properly or absolutely it comprehendeth both the Triumphant and Militant Church Augustine Enchir. cap. 56. and 61. Couaruuias Resol Lib. 4. cap. 14. If it be taken restrictiuely it is the whole Church Militant of each Age. If Catholike be taken for that which is Orthodoxall in Faith and which holdeth no diuision with the common Bodie of Christianitie according to which notion the Fathers tearme particular Churches Catholike then neyther is this Title proper to the Romane Church alone neyther can Papists iustly assume the name of Catholike vntill they haue proued their Faith to be Orthodoxall and iustified themselues from being the Authors of Discord in the Christian World And to answere that which followeth although the Romane Church is spread ouer sundrie parts of the World because some people professing the Romane Faith trauaile or reside in many Countreyes and exercise their Religion where they trauaile or liue yet this
will not demonstrate that it is the Church vniuersall For both the Iewes and also sundrie Christians which are no Romists are largely diffused ouer the World and exercise their Religion in places where they make their abode and there is nothing more presumptuous than to make externall Fame and Amplitude which are things common and separable proper notes of a true Church and vpon this ground to reiect and censure smaller Churches which haue lesse fame in the World but more Veritie IESVIT Most manifestly Holy in all kind of high extraordinarie Sanctitie giuing notorious signes and tokens thereof striking admiration into carnall men that are not altogether prophane and diffusing abroad among Infidels the sweete Odour of Christ and the Christian Name ANSWER Passing by your boasting of Manifestly Holy in all kind of high and extraordinarie Holinesse notorious striking admiration c. And putting you in mind of Solomons Prouerbe There is a man that boasteth himselfe to be rich and yet hath nothing Prou. 13. 7. I answere the matter first You must be aduertised that Gregory Moral l. 33. c. 26. saith Praedicatores Antichristi sanctitatis sibi speciem arrogant sed tamen opera iniquitatis exercent Antichrists Preachers arrogate vnto themselues a shew of holinesse and practise the workes of iniquitie This will be verified in such as you are if your forme of externall holinesse bee not conioyned with holy and Orthodoxall Doctrine You must therefore first of all prooue your doctrine to be Orthodoxall in the Articles in question betweene the reformed Churches and you before your miracles and specious holinesse can stand you in any stead And there is no kind of externall holinesse which heretickes haue not pretended and practised in shew before men Secondly your owne friends and followers testifie That your Church hath beene for many ages notoriously defiled with the enormitie of vices Some of them say in generall tearmes that from the crowne of the head to the sole of the foot the vlcerous matter of enormous sinne hath defiled and deformed the whole body and state of Christianitie liuing vnder your profession Others affirme that all Ecclesiasticall and Christian discipline was in a manner extinguished in euery place Others say that oppression rapine adulterie incest and all pestilent vice did confound all sacred and prophane things and that the same beat S. Peters ship so impetuously that it began to hull or wallow vpon the to-side Others that vices were so exalted and multiplied that they hardly left any space to Gods mercie Others say there is no place wherein is found so little pietie and Religion as in those people which dwell neerest to Rome Others say that you haue not onely imitated and matched but surpassed all the auarice ambition lubricitie and tyrannie that was euer heard of amongst the heathen Sundrie of your owne part haue written volumes containing Narrations of the outragious wickednesse which raigned among 〈◊〉 They haue stiled your grand fathers Monsters of mankind The dregs of vice Incarnate deuils c One saith Nothing was more luxurious couetous and proud than Priests they spent the Churches patrimonie in gluttonie ryot vpon dogs and queanes and all their preaching was to Matthew Paris saith The 〈◊〉 of Rome seeke not to make people deuout but to fill their coffers with treasure they studie not to win soules but to 〈◊〉 vpon other mens reuenues they oppresse the godly and impudently vsurpe other mens right they haue no care of honestie or right King Iohn of England from whom Pope Innocent extorted fortie thousand markes at once and twelue thousand annually to absolue his kingdome being interdicted said That he had learned by wofull experience that the Pope was ambitious beyond all men liuing an insatiable gulfe and thirster after monie and readie for hope of gaine like waxe to be 〈◊〉 to any kind or degree of 〈◊〉 Aluares hath these words The mysticall Sion the Church which in her primitiue state was adorned of her spouse with such and so many royall graces is now clouded and eclipsed with the blacke mist of ignorance iniquitie and errour and we behold her cast downe from heauen and as a desart vnhabited of vertue and if any godly people remaine they are esteemed as Arabians and Saracens And in the same place The Prelates of the Church are an armie of deuils Potius depraedandis spoliandis scandalizandis hominibus quam lucris animarum operam dantes They rather labour to rob spoile and scandalise men than to win soules Honorius Angustodonensis who liued in the yeere 1120. hath these words Turne thee to the citisens of Babylon and obserue what manner of people they be and by what streetes they walke come hither to the top of the mountaine that thou mayest behold all the habitations of the damned citie Looke vpon her Princes and Iudges Popes Cardinals Prelates the verie seate of the beast is placed in them All dayes they are intent to euill 〈◊〉 occupied without satietie in the works of iniquitie they not onely themselues act but instruct others to flagitious wickednesse they make port-sale of things sacred they purchase that which is wicked and labour with all their might that they may not descend alone to hell Turne thy selfe to the Clergie and thou shalt see in them the tent of the beast they neglect Gods seruice they are slaues to worldly lucre they defile their Priesthood through vncleannesse they seduce the people by hypocrisie they deny God by euill workes they abandon all the Scriptures appointed for mans saluation they lay snares all manner of wayes to ruine the people and are blind guides going before the blinde to perdition Contemplate also the societies of Monkes and thou shalt discerne in them the tabernacles of the Beast by faigned profession they mocke God and prouoke his wrath they betrample their rule with vile manners they deceiue the world by their habit c. Many of them are deuoted to gluttonie and sensuall appetite they putrifie in the filth of vncleannesse Behold the habitation of Nunnes and thou shalt obserue in them a Bride-chamber prepared for the Beast These from their tender yeeres learne leaudnesse they associate many to them to accumulate their damnation They make haste to bee vailed that they may more freely let loose the reines of luxurie they are prostituted worse than any Harlots like an insatiable gulfe they are neuer satisfied with the dung of vncleannesse These insnare the soules of yong men and shee among them which transcendeth her fellowes in leaudnesse beares away the bell Thirdly the Roman Church hath many passages in the verie course of Doctrine to destroy or corrupt holinesse for to omit their grosse superstitions Pharisaicall Traditions and other impieties against God First They depriue people of the reading and hearing of the holy Scripture which is a principall meanes to destroy Vice and kindle
where they preached so 〈◊〉 was necessarie but that they made a large and entire Commentarie vpon all their Scriptures and deliuered the same to posteritie to continue perpetually is not prooued by the confession of Chemnitius and the discord which is in the Commentaries of the Fathers yea of Romists themselues vpon the Scriptures argueth the contrarie IESVIT Whereupon S. Augustine argueth That they that deliuer the Text of Christs Gospell must also deliuer the Exposition affirming That he would sooner refuse to beleeue Christ than admit any interpretation contrarie to them by whom he was brought to beleeue in Christ. For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense why may they not also deliuer a false Text as receiued from the Apostles An argument conuincing and vnanswerable ANSVVER Saint Augustine in the place obiected Lib. d. vtil Cred. cap. 14. confuteth the Manichees who condemned Faith and affirmed That people ought to credit nothing but that which is demonstrated by reason And hee argueth against these Heretikes first out of some of their owne grounds for they were compelled to beleeue something in their Religion vpon report of others and they required people to giue credit to certaine Narrations which could not be demonstrated by reason onely Secondly This Father prooueth the necessitie of Faith because without giuing credit to some report it was impossible to receiue the knowledge of Christ. Thirdly Whereas the Manichees required that men should learne to know Christs word from them Saint Augustine saith That if he had no better Guides to follow than such new and turbulent Companions as those Heretikes were he should sooner persuade himselfe not to beleeue in Christ than to beleeue vpon their bare report or to receiue this Faith from any other than from those by which he first beleeued But Saint Augustine in this place treateth not of the sense of the Scripture neither doth he say absolutely that he would sooner refuse to beleeue Christ than to admit any interpretation contrarie to them by whom he was brought to beleeue in Christ but he speaketh comparatiuely and according to humane reason hee should more easily be persuaded to beleeue nothing than forsaking the authoritie and testimonie of his first Teachers yeeld credit to these men vpon their Hereticall grounds It is cleare that Saint Augustine did not alwayes tye himselfe to the same exposition of Scripture which those that were before him had deliuered For in the questions of Grace and Free-will he found out many expositions by searching the Scriptures which both himselfe and other men before him were ignorant of vntill the heresie of Pelagius arose and in his worke De Doctrina Christiana he makes twofold charitie the modell of expounding Scripture and not the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall Teachers whom hee oftentimes expoundeth with mitigation or reiecteth with modestie and hee is most constant in aduancing the authoritie of Scripture before any Ecclesiasticall authoritie whatsoeuer IESVIT For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sence Why may they not also deliuer a false Text as receiued from the Apostles An argument conuincing and vnanswerable ANSWER The Iesuit imagineth that this Argument is inuincible But let not him that girdeth on his harnesse boast himselfe as hee that putteth it off 1. Kings 20. 11. And Sauls brags That God had deliuered Dauid into his hand prooued vaine 1. Sam. 23. 14. and 24. 5. The Argument reduced to forme will discouer its owne weakenesse If the Text of the Scripture may 〈◊〉 easily bee corrupted as the sence then all they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sence may also deliuer a false Text. But the Text of the Scripture may as easily bee corrupted as the sence Ergo All they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sence may also deliuer a false Text. The assumption of this Syllogisme which although it were concealed by the Paralogist yet it must bee added to make the Argument perfect is apparantly false and the contrary is true The Text of the Scripture cannot so easily bee corrupted as the sence and therefore it is not necessarie that they which following humane Tradition or their owne inuention may deliuer a false sence shall likewise deliuer a false Text. First the Text of the Scripture is contained in Records and Bookes which are dispersed throughout the whole Christian world and preserued in all Churches and the Coppies and Transcripts of them are innumerable Tradition is in the brest of a few and authentically as Papals affirme in the brest of the Pope and his Church onely Secondly when God Almightie would haue the knowledge and memorie of things to bee perpetuall he commanded that they should bee committed to writing Exod. 17. 14. and 34. 27. Deut. 31. 19. And although the law of nature was ingrauen in mans heart and might haue beene preserued for euer by vniforme succession yet God himselfe wrote the same in Tables Deut. 10.4 and inspired Moses to write it in Bookes Exod 20. Deut. 5. And although the Precepts of the Law of Nature were more firmely fixed in mans heart and the Tradition thereof was more generally diffused than any positiue Tradition can bee yet in processe of time many parts thereof were corrupted both in regard of knowledge and practise Thirdly experience of all ages testifieth that the Text of the Scripture hath beene preserued inuiolable euen among Iewes and Heretickes whereas the sence of the Scripture made knowne by Tradition onely is forgotten in part and they which disagree about the sence and some parcels of the Canon of the Scripture are at one concerning the verie letter of the Text. For although there were some which in antient time reiected the Epistle of St. Iames and the latter of St. Peters c. yet the literall Text of these Scriptures was faithfully preserued alwayes in the Church Fourthly whereas the Iesuite compareth vnanimous Tradition of the sence of Scripture with the written letter and Text of the Scripture vnlesse he equiuocate in the name terming that Tradition which is collected from the Scripture such vniforme Tradition as he boasteth of is verie rare for it must be such as in all ages and in all Orthodoxall Churches hath beene the same Now the most vndoubted and vniforme Tradition of all other is concerning the number and integritie of the Bookes of holy Scripture and yet in this difference hath beene betweene one Church and another and the later Romane Church disagreeth with the antient the one denying and the other affirming d the bookes of Macchabees to be Canonicall The Articles also of the late Popish Creed compiled by Pope Pius the fourth are not agreeable to the antient Tradition of the Catholike Church or to the Tradition of the elder Romane Church it selfe and among sundrie other matters in question betwixt vs this Iesuit is not able to shew by
by the Fathers but diuers obscure and difficill places out of their workes may be brought against them with such a shew that common people shall not know what to say For what Tradition more constantly deliuered by the Christian Doctours than our Sauiours consubstantialitie with his Father according to his diuine nature And yet the new reformed Arrians bring very many testimonies of antient Fathers to prooue that in this point they did contradict themselues and were contrarie one to another which places whosoeuer shall read will cleerely see that to common people they are vnanswerable yea that common people are not capable of the answeres that learned men yeeld vnto such obscure passages What then shall they doe They must answere that Antiquitie did neuer acknowledge such dissention among the Fathers in the point of our Sauiours consubstantiality which they would not haue omitted to doe had there beene any such reall dissention seeing they noted the Fathers opposition in lesser matters ANSWER That which was brought in after the daies of the Fathers could not be confuted by them particularly and in expresse tearmes neither could Antiquitie or fame of Tradition make report to Posteritie of those things which happened afterwards But yet many things vttered vpon other occasion are found in the writings of the Fathers which prooue that our present Romists are degenerated and entertaine a beleefe repugnant to the Primitiue Church But it is obiected that common people cannot know certainely the perpetuall Tradition of Gods Church by such places of the Fathers partly because the exact examining of the workes and sayings of the Fathers requires great labour and skill and so it exceedeth the abilitie of these people partly because many obscure and difficile passages are found in the writings of the Fathers which will rather perplex common people than resolue them whereunto I answere That the rule whereby common people must examine Doctrine is the plaine sentence of holy Scripture and further triall and examination of Controuersies by the Fathers and Ecclesiasticall Writers belongeth to the learned and principally to the Pastors and Doctors of the Church who are to vse their gifts to the instructing of the common people If the Aduersarie shall obiect that Heretickes and deceiuers may impose a false sence vpon the Scripture I answere That notwithstanding this sufficient matter is found in the Scripture to confute hereticall exposition and God alwayes stirreth vp some Pastours or other learned persons to assist common people which haue receiued the loue of truth in true vnderstanding of diuine veritie necessarie to their saluation Secondly If the Scripture may bee abused and prophaned by heretickes Tradition may with greater colour be pretended or abused by them as appeareth by the Pharisees Thirdly Tradition is founded vpon the authoritie of a present Hierarchicall Church which may erre by the confession of many learned Papists But the Scripture is founded onely vpon the authoritie of Christ and his Apostles and is acknowledged to bee sacred and diuine by all Christian Churches IESVIT In the same manner Catholickes doe sufficiently answere Protestants that bring places of Fathers against the receiued Traditions of the Church as the reall Presence Inuocation of Saints and other the like to wit that Tradition deliuered these Doctrines as the vniforme consent of the Fathers and neuer noted such oppositions as Protestants frame out of their writings which is a cleare signe that Protestants either mis-alleadge their words or mistake their meaning For were that contradiction reall Why did not Antiquitie famously note it as it noted and conueyed by fame to posteritie their differences about disputable matters This Answere is full and a certaine ground of persuasion else as I said common people could neuer know the assured Tradition of their Ancestours vpon which they as I prooued build their Christian beleefe seeing as Doctour Field also noteth there bee few and verie few that haue leasure and strength of iudgement to examine particular controuersies by Scriptures or Fathers but needs must rest in that doctrine which the Church deliuers as a Tradition neuer contradicted To discredit therefore a constant receiued Tradition it is necessarie to bring an Orthodox contradiction thereof not newly found out by reading the Fathers but a contradiction by the fame of Antiquitie deliuered vnto Posteritie which kind of contradiction they cannot find against any point of Catholike Doctrine For let them name but one Father whom Antiquitie doth acknowledge as a contradictor of Inuocation of Saints Adoration of the Sacrament Reall presence Prayer for the Dead they cannot certainely though they bring diuerse places to prooue a thing which Antiquitie neuer noted or knew of before that the Fathers be various and wauering about these Points ANSWER The Doctrine of Reall Presence by way of Transubstantiation and the Doctrine of Inuocation of Saints imposed as an Article of the Creed c. were neuer deliuered by any vniforme consent of the antient Fathers neither hath antient Tradition affirmed That the Fathers vniformely taught and beleeued these points And as for later Tradition the authoritie thereof is doubtfull deseruing no credit further than it confirmeth that which it deliuereth by the testimonie of Witnesses more infallible than it selfe They which haue liued in succeeding Ages haue no certaine meanes to assure them what the antient Fathers taught but either their owne Bookes and Monuments or the testimonie of their Coaeualls And later Traditioners may both corrupt the Writings of the Fathers and also by report impose a false Tenet vpon them Our Aduersarie therefore beats the ayre when he laboureth to gayne the Fathers vnto his part vpon the sole Testimonie of latter Tradition and vpon a Negatiue Argument taken from the silence of the Romane Church omitting in partialitie towards it selfe the Narration of such Collections and Oppositions as were made against the Doctrine thereof out of the Fathers But when wee charge the Papalls with Noueltie wee proceed vpon more euident grounds First wee prooue that the Romish Faith opposed by vs hath no foundation or warrant in sacred Scripture Secondly the same is an addition to the antient Rule of Faith Thirdly the said Doctrine is not deriued by perpetuall and vniforme Tradition from the Apostles Fourthly the primitiue Fathers vertually opposed this Doctrine For although these Popish Articles as they are now explicitely maintained were not in perfect being in the dayes of the antient Fathers and therefore they could not so punctually or literally oppose them as wee doe yet in their Disputations Tractats and exposition of Scripture they vtter many things from which wee may collect that they beleeued not these Articles and that the same were no part of the Catholike Faith in their dayes and that if such Opinions had beene thrust vpon the Church for Articles of Faith in their dayes as now they are they would haue opposed them But our Aduersarie pleaseth himselfe immoderately with his Negatiue
and magnifie the antient Oecumeniall Councells affirming that they honour them as the holy Euangelists yet when they make against them they regard them no more as one of their owne part affirmeth than a couent of women pratling and chatting in a common bath stoue or Weauers shop And this is apparant by their 〈◊〉 or falsifying the Councells of Nice Constantinople and Chalcedon when the same equal the Patriarke of Constantinople or other Patriarchall Seas to the Roman or forbid the imposition of single life vpon the Clergie as also by the Councells of Basill and Constance decreeing that the Popes sentence is fallible Cardinall Cusanus treating of generall Councells deliuereth these ten Positions following First That a perfect or compleate generall Councell consisteth of all the Patriarckes and prime Gouernours of the Church Secondly That a Councell which is celebrated by the Romane Pontife and those which are subiect to him onely or excluding others is a particular Councell Thirdly A generall Councell may bee celebrated although the Pope refuse to ioyne and concurre by his presence and consent Fourthly All which meet in Councells ought to haue free audience and libertie orderly to debate and determine matters in question Fiftly Whatsoeuer must oblige as diuine vpon the determination of Councells ought to be confirmed by the authoritie of holy Scripture Sixthly No Councells are legitimate wherein priuate respects are maintained vnder pretext of Faith and Religion Seuenthly The Romane Bishop hath not that power which many flatterers heape vpon him to wit that he alone is to determine and others onely to consult or aduise Eightly It is without all question That a generall Councell properly taken is both superiour to the rest of the Patriarchs and also to the Romane Pope Ninthly Experience of things doth manifest That a plenarie vniuersall Councell may be deficient and wee reade that many Councels lawfully assembled haue erred Tenthly Whiles we defend That the Pope is not vniuersall Bishop but onely the first Bishop ouer others and whiles wee ground the power of sacred Councels vpon the consent of the whole Assembly and not vpon the Pope we maintaine Truth and giue to euerie one his due honour And then concluding the former Positions the Cardinall saith I obserue little or nothing in antient Monuments which agreeth not to these my Assertions With this Cardinall agree many other famous Papists Occham Panormitan Almaine Cassander Ferus c. and among the rest Occham deliuereth these Positions First That all generall Councels are inferiour to the holy Scriptures and that when S. Gregorie saith That he honoureth the foure first generall Councels like as the foure Euangelists this must be vnderstood not of equalitie but of similitude Matth. 5. 48. Secondly Councels are not called generall because they are congregated by the authoritie of the Romane Pope and that if Princes and Lay-men please they may be present and haue to deale with matters treated of in generall Councels Thirdly Ecclesiasticall Dignitie as it maketh not men holy so it conferreth not infallibilitie of Iudgement Fourthly A generall Councell or that Congregation which is commonly reputed a generall Councell by the World may erre in matters of Faith Ioh. Ferus commenting vpon the Acts chap. 15. compareth the Apostles Councell with moderne and saith In matters of Faith and things which concerne the Conscience it is not sufficient to say We will and command but you must consider in what manner the Apostles deale in their Assembly They come together in simplicitie of heart seeking onely Gods glorie and the saluation of others no meruaile therefore if the Spirit of God was in this Councell But our meeting is in another manner namely with great pompe and seeking our selues and promising to our selues licence vpon fullnesse of Power to doe any thing And this being so how is it possible for the Spirit of God to approue such Assemblies Seeing therefore by the confession of these learned Papists latter Councels celebrated by the meere and absolute authoritie of the Pope are neither vniuersall nor of infallible Iudgement and as experience testifieth Papall Councels are neyther free nor proceed in debating and deciding matters controuerted according to the authoritie of the holy Scripture and that of later yeeres and especially since Pope Gregorie the seuenth they haue wholly intended their owne priuacie it is a malicious Censure which this Lojolist casteth vpon the Protestants in charging them with fundamentall Heresie for opposing the infallible authoritie of such Councels and consequently with deiecting the foundation of Vnitie in Gods Church Protestants haue alwayes desired a lawfull generall Councell for the concluding of differences in Religion and they are most readie and resolute to submit themselues to the determination thereof and they yeeld the same honour and authoritie to all such Councels which the antient Church in the dayes of Constantine the Great Theodosius and Martianus and which S. Augustine did yea which the more impartiall Romanes themselues in precedent Ages haue done But the present Papalls will not endure a lawfull and impartiall Councell and vnlesse themselues may be both Accusers and Iudges and proceed as their forefathers the Pharisees did against the Apostles determining all things by the Modell of their owne Cabala they will admit no tryall by Councels nor any other meanes of Pacification for restoring the common Vnitie of the Christian Church IESVIT THirdly their denying of the Primacie of S. Peter and his Successor the Foundation which Christ laid of his Church necessarie for the perpetuall gouernment thereof Matth. 16. 18. ANSWER PRotestants deny not the Primacie of S. Peter but they yeeld vnto him both as he was an Apostle Primacie of Spirituall Authoritie and Iurisdiction ouer the Vniuersall Church Matth. 28.20 Ioh. 20.21 And also respectiuely to the other Apostles which were his Compeeres and Equals in regard of all Apostolicall Authoritie Primacie of Calling Order Grace Gifts c. And the place of Saint Matthew chap. 16.18 prooueth not Saint Peter to haue beene a visible Monarch ouer the whole Church First Our Sauiour affirmeth not plainely and literally that hee will build his Church vpon him but vpon the Rocke which hee confessed verse 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vpon this Rocke and not vpon this Peter Non dictum est illi Tu es Petra sed Tu es Petrus Petra autem erat Christus It was not said vnto him Thou art the Rocke but Thou art Peter for the Rocke was Christ. August Retract Lib. 1. cap. 21. Secondly If hee had affirmed expressely That hee would build his Church vpon him yet hee saith not exclusiuely that hee would build the same onely vpon him but in other places hee conioyneth the
we erre fundamentally by making sauing Faith not only an intellectuall but also a fiduciall assent to the promise of the Gospell the 〈◊〉 must remember that many of his owne Doctours affirme the same Vega. d. Iustiff lib. 14. Fides in Scripturis 〈◊〉 idem est quod fidueia 〈◊〉 idem quod considere Faith in the Scriptures is many times the same that Trust and to beleeue the same that to trust Iansenius Concord Euang. cap. 32. The name of Faith in the Gospell when Saluation is ascribed vnto it containeth both firme assent c. and also considence and trust conceiued vpon the apprehension of his 〈◊〉 and goodnesse Adam Sasboth sup Rom. 1. v. 17. The word Faith in S. Pauls desputation containeth not only Assent but also Trust in Christ the Mediatour Ferus sup Math. Non semper Fides est quod nos Fidem dicimus c. That which we call Faith to wit to assent to such things as are reported in diuine Histories and which the Church propoundeth to beleeue is not alwaies Faith c. for the Scripture speaketh of Faith in another manner for according to it Faith is a trust in the diuine mercie promised by Christ with these also concurre Guilliaudus Fredericus Nausea and Suares saith Multi Catholici putant saepe accipi in Scriptura Fidem pro fiducia Many Catholicks think that Faith is oftentimes taken in holy Scripture for Trust. The Iesuit therefore wanted matter to fraught his papers when he obiected this Article against vs as a fundamentall errour For if his owne Doctours and the holy Scripture it selfe take the word Faith in this notion wherein haue we merited so grieuous a sentence But I haue produced many famous Doctours of his owne part which say expresly the same that we doe concerning the signification of the word Faith when it is said to iustifie and in steed of many other Texts I referre him to the places of Scripture following Iam. 1.6 Math. 9. v. 2. 22. cap. 14.31 Rom. 9.33 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Euery one that beleeueth vpon him 1. Pet. 2.6 Now in regard of the matter of our Doctrine the assurance of remission of sinnes which we teach is no other than S. Bernard Iohn Bacon the Carmelite Caietan Catherinus Ferus and many other Pontificians haue formerly taught Caietan sup Rom. 8. We haue from the holy Ghost and our owne a most sufficient testimonie to make vs beleeue that we are the sonnes of God for by this testimonie we cleerely discerne that we ought to beleeue that we are the sonnes of God And S. Bernard If thou beleeuest that he only can blot out thine offences whom thou hast offended it is well but ioine this also to the former that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is the testimonie which the holy Spirit yeeldeth in our hearts saying Thy sinnes are remitted vnto thee and in this sort doth the holy Apostle thinke that a man is freely iustified by Faith Now from the precedent positions I argue thus First That Doctrine concerning the nature and actions of Faith which is taught in holy Scripture and which hath the consent of many antient Fathers and which was deliuered by many learned Doctors of the Roman Church is not fundamentall Errour But such is the Doctrine of Protestants concerning iustifying Faith c. Secondly No Church erreth fundamentally which teacheth such a kind of iustifying Faith as Abraham Iob S. Paul and other iust persons commended in holy Scriptures had But Abraham Iob S. Paul and other iust persons commended in holy Scriptures had such a iustifying Faith as was both an intellectuall and fiduciall assent to diuine Veritie and Promises Ergo The Church of the Protestants erreth not fundamentally teaching such a iustifying Faith as is both an intellectuall and fiduciall assent to diuine Promises and Verities The assumption is prooued by Rom. 4.18 19 20 21. Iob 19. 25. Rom. 8.38 Gal. 2.20 2. Tim. 4.7 And whereas Pontificians bequarrel vs in this argument two waies First saying That these holy men had a particular promise made vnto them Secondly That they knew by extraordinarie Reuelation that they were indued with Faith Hope and Charitie which wee know only by coniecturall or morall persuasion I answer First we haue particular promises contained in the generall and the generall promises are particularly applied by the word of Absolution and the Sacraments and by the testimonie of the holy Ghost speaking in the conscience of true beleeuers by effects of Grace Secondly they which want miraculous Reuelation may vnderstand by ordinarie Grace that they haue Faith Hope and Charitie because the holy Scripture commandeth all Christian beleeuers to trie and examine themselues concerning these Graces 1. Cor. 11 28. 2. Cor. 13.5 And godly persons which liued in former daies knew they had these vertues Psal. 119. 97. Esa. 38.3 Iob 27.5 6. 29.14 Luc. 9.24 Ioh. 21.15 And the Apostle speaking of other people as well as of himselfe saith We know the things which are freely giuen vs of God 1. Cor. 2. 12. And S. Iohn saith That he which receiueth the hidden Manna knowes it Apoc. 2. 17. The Fathers also and many Doctors of the Roman Church affirme the same S. Augustine I see that I beleeue if I beleeue and in another place These two things are not vncertaine to me the goodnesse of God and mine owne Faith and in another place Let euerie man enter into his owne heart and if he find there brotherly Charitie let him be secure for he is passed from death vnto life and in a fourth place 〈◊〉 man knoweth the Charitie wherewith he loueth his brother better than his brother But to the end the difference betweene our Aduersaries and vs concerning this question may the better appeare I will deliuer our Doctrine in certaine propositions First We maintaine that such persons only can haue true assurance and certaintie of their Iustification which beleeue and repent and are resolued to obey Gods commandements Secondly A Christian of a contrite spirit beleeuing only that his sinnes are remissible and which earnestly desireth remission of sinnes by the merits of Christ and ioineth with this desire the exercise of vertue receiueth forgiuenesse although he be vexed with scruples and temptations and want assurance and persuasion in himselfe that his sinnes are remitted Thirdly The particular certaintie of remission of sinnes which iust persons attaine vnto vpon their Repentance Obedience and Faith is not equall in the firmitie of assent to that assurance which they haue about the common obiect of Faith to wit concerning the articles of Creation Trinitie Incarnation Resurrection or the like because these articles are immediately and totally reuealed in the holy Scripture but that his sinnes in particular are remitted vnto a penitent person dependeth vpon an Argument whereof one
quantitie of the worke 2. Cor. 9.6 Fourthly the reward is certaine and infallible yea more certaine than any temporall benefit which man presently inioies in the world Gen. 22.16 Fiftly there is in all good Works a dignitie not of desert or equiparance either in respect of God of whom we can deserue nothing or in respect of the reward but only of grace diuine similitude goodnesse and honour Phil. 4.8 Sixtly the reward of good workes is called a crowne of righteousnes 2. Tim. 4. 8. because it is bestowed on them which exercise righteousnes and in regard of their righteousnes but merit of condignitie and righteousnes are 〈◊〉 tstings as appeareth in Angels and Infants which haue righteousnes and are crowned with glorie and yet they doe not merit Seuenthly the antient Fathers maintained no merit of condignitie but by the word Mereri they vnderstood either to obtaine or to impetrate and this is manifest because they applie the word Merit not only to iust men but also to sinners saying that they merited Repentance remission of Sinnes the calling of Grace c. Eithtly the prime part of mans iustice is the remission of his sinnes and the righteousnes of Faith for without these there can be no true and liuing morall righteousnes and where these are found good Workes are neuer wanting IESVIT SIxtly Their errours against Baptisme the gate and entrance into Christian life whereof they deny the vertue to sanctifie men and the 〈◊〉 thereof for infants to whom they grant Saluation without Baptisme ANSWER ALthough some persons haue been Christians before their Baptisme as S. Augustine saith of Cornelius Euen as in Abraham the justice of Faith was precedent and the seale of Circumcision followed after so likewise in Cornelius spirituall Sanctification by the gift of the holy Ghost went before and the Sacrament of regeneration in the lauer of Baptisme succeeded yet notwithstanding the ordinarie gate and entrance into Christian life is Baptisme S. Ambrose siue Prosper d. vocat Gentium lib. 1. cap. 5 The beginning of true life and righteousnesse is laid in the Sacrament of Regeneration that looke where man is new borne there also the veritie of Vertues themselues may spring Neither do Protestants deny the vertue and efficacie of Baptisme to sanctifie men but according to the holy Scriptures Eph. 5.26 Tit. 3.5 Gal. 3.27.1 Pet. 3.21 Acts 22.16 Rom. 6.3 and the antient Church they teach and maintaine That this Sacrament is an instrument of Sanctification and remission of sinnes The Liturgie of the Church of England in the forme of administration of Baptisme hath these words Seeing now D. B. that these children be regenerate c. Wee yeeld thee heartie thankes most mercifull Father that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy holy Spirit to receiue him for thine owne child by adoption c. And master Hooker saith Baptisme is a Sacrament which God hath instituted in his Church to the end that they which receiue the same might therby be incorporated into Christ and so through his most pretious merit obtaine as wel that sauing Grace of Imputation which taketh away all former guiltinesse and also that infused diuine vertue of the holy Ghost which giueth to the powers of the soule their first disposition towards future newnesse of life Zanchius hath these words When the Minister baptiseth I beleeue that Christ with his hand reached as it were from heauen besprinkleth the child baptised with water with his bloud to remission of sinnes And in another place The holy Ghost mooueth vpon the water of Baptisme and sanctifieth the same making it to be a lauer of Regeneration Caluin saith Per Baptismum Christus nos mortis suae fecit participes vt in eam inseramur By Baptisme Christ hath made vs partakers of his death that we may be ingraffed into it And in another place If any man demand How can infants which want vnderstanding be regenerate I answer Although we are not able to fadome or vnfold the manner of this Worke of God 〈◊〉 it followeth not from thence that the same is not done And the same author with others of his part maintaine the former Doctrine concerning the efficacie of the Sacrament of Baptisme and they differ only from Lutherans and Pontificians First In that they restraine the grace of Sanctification only to the elect Secondly In that they deny externall Baptisme to be alwaies effectuall at the very instant time when it is administred But our Aduersaries must be ouer rigid if they shall censure questions of this nature which are touching circumstance so hardly as to make euery such difference a fundamentall errour especially because some among themselues as the Master of the schole reporteth affirme the same Thirdly whereas the Obiector addeth that Protestants denie the necessitie of Baptisme for Infants granting them Saluation without Baptisme he must vnderstand that necessitie is either absolute or else of precept and supposition We verily maintaine the latter necessitie of Baptisme for the saluation of Infants against the Pelagians and Anabaptists and the contempt and wilfull neglect of this holy Sacrament is damnable to such as are guiltie of this contempt and our Church prouideth diligently that all Infants if it be possible may receiue Baptisme before they depart this life But if it fall out ineuitable that new borne babes descending of Christian parents cannot receiue this Sacrament not onely Protestants but the antient Church it selfe and discreeter Papists haue thought it more pious to hope of Gods indulgence towards such infants than to aggrauate his vengeance with such rigour and extremitie as the Trent Fathers and their disciples do First the antient Church allotted onely two seasons in the yeare for Baptisme which they could not in their charitie haue thus restrained to set times if they had beene persuaded as moderne Papals are Secondly Gerson Biel and Caietan with many other famous Pontificians affirme That Infants departing this life without Baptisme may be saued by the speciall Grace of God and by the prayers and faith of their parents And the words of Thomas Elysius a late Pontifician are very remarkeable saying Opinio quam tenent Theologi plurimi Ecclesia secundum communem legem est satis dura onerosa non conformis preceptis Christi quae sunt suauia leuia The opinion of many Diuines which is commonly holden by the Church concerning the damnation of Infants deceasing without Baptisme is ouer hard and rigid and in no sort conformeable to the precepts of Christ which are sweet and easie And the same Authour Non est haeretica cum non sit contra Fidem Catholicam sea ei conformis maxime secundum fidei pietatem This opinion which propugneth the saluation of Infants vnbaptised is not hereticall for it is conformeable and not
Christ to his heauenly Father are thereby made most highly venerable But the Crosse Nailes and Lance were those things which at the instant time of Christs Passion had a residence in Christs bodie and were ioined thereunto as instruments of his Passion and were offered by Christ to his heauenly Father Ergo The Crosse Nailes and Lance are thereby made most highly venerable Both Propositions are false in whole or in part First those things which at the instant time of Christs Passion had a residence in his bodie and were ioined thereunto per contactum phisicum as instruments of his Passion were not thereby made most highly venerable because there is no diuine authoritie or any other snfficient reason to prooue this assertion Secondly these things were seperate instruments and not perpetually conioined to his person and if none did worship them when they were actually conioined there is no reason to thinke that they are to be worshipped being diuided If apparrell when it is ioined to an honourable person may be coworshipped with the person yet when it is diuided from the person and hangeth in a wardrobe or is worne by a Page it is otherwise Whiles God appeared to Moses in the bramble bush the ground whereon Moses stood is called holy Exod. 3.6 But this holinesse being only relatiue transitorie and denominatiue and not inherent or durable the former vision and apparition being finished the ground whereon Moses stood returned to his old condition The like may be said of the water of Iordan considered when Christ was baptised with it and againe considered when his baptisme was finished and out of the vse An Embassador during his embassage is a publicke and honourable person when his office ceaseth the honour consectarie and dependant vpon his office ceaseth also Secondly the latter branch of the assumption to wit the Crosse Nailes and Lance were offered by Christ to his heauenly Father at his Passion is impiously false for nothing was offered by Christ to his heauenly Father at his Passion but himselfe and part of himselfe Heb. 7.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he offered vp himselfe Heb. 9. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through the eternall Spirit he offered himselfe without spot to God c. Heb. 10. 10. Wee are sanctified through the offering of the body of lesus Christ once for all 1. Pet. 2.24 Col. 1.22 Heb. 9.12 By his owne bloud he entred once into the holy place c. 1. Pet. 1. 19. And if the Crosse Nailes and Lance were offered by Christ to his Father then we were redeemed with corruptible things contrarie to the Apostles doctrine 1. Pet. 1. 18 and Wood Nailes and Yron were a part of the propitiatorie Sacrifice for the sinnes of the whole world which is a Iesuiticall or rather an Antijesuine doctrine that is a doctrine ascribing to dead creatures Yron Wood Steele Nailes c. that which is most proper to the pretious blood of Iesus This doctrine maintained by Loiolists is most sacrilegious and more to be abhorred than Iudas his lips But it is fulfilled in these men which Clement Alexandrinus saith of heathen Idolaters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are they not prodigious monsters which adore stockes and stones IESVIT Out of which J may conclude that Christ Iesus being a true man his Image hath a most euident and vndeniable right to represent him and so to be honoured for his sake ANSVVER Conclusions borrow their strength from their premises but the former premises haue no power to inforce this conclusion For although Christ is a true man yet his painted Image wanteth euident and vndeniable right to represent him because such right presupposeth diuine institution The same represents him and stands for him only by humane imagination which is all the Aduersarie is able to prooue but religious worship must haue a more sound and certaine foundation otherwise we must say to Papals when they are thus prodigall in giuing Christs honour to Idols 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioh. 4. 22. ye worship ye know not what If in ciuile worship one should frame an Image or chaire of State in honour of a king and commaund people to kneele and bow to it none will be so foolish as to obey vnlesse such commandement be deriued from the kings authoritie or law But in things religious and heauenly men haue not the same libertie of deuising and commanding as appeareth by Gedeons Ephod Iudg. 8.27 Lastly if it should be granted that artificiall Images did represent figure or teach Christ Iesu by diuine institution as fully as the Bookes of holy Scripture or as the inward conceits and images of the mind yet it were inconsequent to inferre that the same were therefore to be worshipped in such manner as Papals require They were indeed to be vsed with reuerence but reuerent vsing and adoration are diuers actions IESVIT §. 2. THis Worship was euer since the Apostles in the Church without beginning ANSVVER IF it had no beginning how can this man prooue that the Apostles were the Authors IESVIT The disagreeing of Protestants about the time when Worship of Jmages began is a sufficient Argument That there is no beginning thereof assigneable ANSVVER The Iesuits Proposition is Worship of Images hath beene practised in the true Church euer since the Apostles c. His first Argument to confirme this is If Protestants disagree in assigning the time when the worship of Images first began in the Church Then the worship of Images was practised vniuersally and perpetually from the Apostles dayes But Protestants disagree in assigning the time when the Worship of Images first began in the Church Ergo The worship of Images was practised vniuersally and perpetually from the Apostles dayes and consequently the same worship is to be receiued and practised in these dayes First The consequence of the Maior Proposition is denied For is it not ridiculous to argue in this manner Learned Papists disagree in assigning the time when Heathenish Idolatrie first began Therefore Heathenish Idolatrie had his beginning in Paradise But learned Papists Bellarmine Pererius Barradias c. disagree in assigning and pointing foorth the moment of time when Heathenish Idolatrie fist began The time when people first began to offer their sonnes and daughters to diuells is not assigneable And who can certainely report when barbarous people first began to eate mans flesh or when the Assyrian matrons began first to prostitute themselues at the temple of Venus Is it therefore consequent that these customes had their beginning from Noahs dayes because their originall is not assigneable Our aduersaries Achilles therefore Protestants are not able out of approoued Historians to assigne the persons and time who and when began the worship of images in the Church Ergo the said custome is originally from the Apostles rather deserueth contempt and derision than an accurate solution 2. The assumption of the former argument is also denyed For Protestants disagree not in
sufficiently 〈◊〉 ANSVVER Polydores words are Touching the beginning of Images wee haue treated before now here we will speake of their worship which not onely men of contrarie Religion but as Saint Hierom witnesseth almost all the antient holy Fathers condemned for feare of Idolatrie c. The Obiectour saith That this place is falsified and his reason is Polydore speaketh of the Fathers of the Old Testament to wit of Moses Daniel Ieremie and the Prophets and he saith That they condemned worship of Images because Christ was not as then incarnate c. But this is not all that Polydore speaketh for among those Fathers hee placeth Gregorie the Great writing to Serenus And although Christ was not made man in the dayes of the Prophets yet he had appeared in the similitude of man and Abraham Moses Elias and the Prophets being men their Pictures might haue beene worshipped if Adoration of Images had beene lawfull And besides Polydore Cassander and many other Pontificians affirme that the antient Fathers in the Primatiue Church abhorred or at least abstained from the hauing and worshipping of Images which is also confirmed by their Testimonies IESVIT Neither can our Aduersarie bring any cleare Testimonie of Antiquitie against this custome For the Decree of the councell of Eliberis that no Picture should be made in the Church least that which is worshipped or adored bee painted in walles which the Minister much vrgeth clearely signifieth the contrarie For may not Images painted on Tables be in Churches and yet neither made in the Church nor painted on walls which kinde of Images this Councell doth not forbid And why doth the Councell forbid Images to be made in the Church as pertinent to the fabrike thereof or to be painted on walls but out of reuerence vnto Images for they being holy things and so to be honoured for their Prototypes sake the Councell thought it vnworthy of their dignitie they should bee made on walls where they may easily be defaced and deformed and by persecutors for that Councell was held in time of persecution abused ANSWER No testimonies can be so cleere which Sophisters will not labour to peruert and elude Otherwise what is clearer against Image worship than the words of the Councell of Elliberis and Epiphanius It is lost labour to contest with men Qui sola pertinacia pugnaces neruos contra perspicuam veritatem intendunt as Saint Augustine speaketh which vpon sole pertinacie bend their vttermost force to gainesay perspicous veritie First the Councell of Elliberis is so cleere against Image worship that many Pontificians of great note acknowledge the same and therupon condemne or eleuate the authoritie of that Councell Secondly If that Councell forbad the being of Images in Churches then it did much more hold the worship of them to be vnlawfull but the beginning of the Canon apparently shewes that Placuit in Ecclesijs picturas esse non debere It 〈◊〉 vs of the Councell that Pictures may not be in Churches IESVIT He doth also much insist vpon Epiphanius but relates according to his fashion both his fact and words vnsincerely Epiphanius saith he finding an Image painted on a cloath hanging in a Church rent it do wne and said it was against the authority of the Scriptures that any image should be in the Church Thus he vnsincerely as I said not expressing what kind of Image that was that Epiphanius in peeces for Epiphanius saith Cum iuuenissem Imaginem hominis pendentem in Ecclesia tanquam Christi aut alicuius Sancti nescio enim cuius erat When I bad found an Image of a man hanging in the Church as of Christ or of some Saint for I know not of whom the image was Epiphanius doth by this relation more than insinuate that this was the Image of some prophane man hanging in the Church as if it had beene a sacred image of Christ or some Saint which is gathered by this reason When I saw saith he against the authoritie of Scriptures the image of a man hanging in the Church not absolutely any image as Mr. White citeth him for euen by Gods expresse command Images were placed in the Temple but the image of a man Why doth Epiphanius so much vrge the impietie of the fact in regard that it was the image of a man but that he vnderstood by the word Man a meere ordinarie prophane man not a blessed Saint For certainely it might seeme more against the authoritie of Scriptures to make and set vp in Churches the image of God than the image of holy men and the image of Christ according to his Godhead than as he is man so that there was no cause why Epiph. should put so much Emphasis in the word Man had he not vnderstood a prophane man For some Christians in those dayes being newly conuerted from Paganisme and so reteyning some relikes thereof did out of affection vnto their deceased friends and parents vse to paint their images and offer vnto them oblations of Frankincense and other the like heathenish honours specially on their Anniuersary dayes vpon their Sepulchre These men S. Augustine reprehends and not the worshippers of Saints Images vnder the title of Sepulchrorum picturarum Adoratores who to the Ghosts of their parents defunct did though Christians offer that heathenish worship which the Poet exhorteth vnto Non pigeat tumulis animas excire paternis Paucaque in extructos mittere thura rogos Parua petunt manes ANSVVER This place of Epiphanius is a thorne in the Papists sides and they are so distracted about the clearing of it that Vasques saith It is an irkesome thing to report what each of them hath spoken Some of them reiect the Epistle saying that it was a counterfeit worke But this opinion is reprooued and confuted by the learned of their owne part and what can be more improbable than that Saint Hierome would translate a counterfeit worke Others say that Epiphanius did this in a preposterous zeale Ferdinandus Velosillus or Velosius as Posseuine calleth him saith as followeth Epiphanius against the Colliridian haeresie inueigheth bitterly against Statues and Images of men and against their worship And againe in his Epistle to Iohn Bishop of Hierusalem he taunteth them currishly or despitefully dente canino mordet perhaps this man is excuseable by reason of ignorance and because he wrot against Idolaters wherefore he is not ranked among Haeretikes Others affirme that Epiphanius did this because of the abuse of superstitious people committed about that Picture Others say he did thus because the contrarie was not as then defined by the Church But Vasques himselfe and before him Marianus Victorius insist vpon this poore shift which our Aduersarie followeth in this place to wit that this vale or curtaine which Epiphanius defaced and rent asunder contayned an Image or Picture of some prophane man hanging in the Church as if
it had beene a sacred image of Christ or of some Saint and which was worshipped by some Christians newly conuerted from Paganisme with heathenish honours But if this glosse had beene likely it is very improbable that Cardinall Bellarmine and some other also who haue written since Vasques would haue esteemed it so lightly And Epiphanius his text will not beare this exposition For he saith that at the time when he wrote that Epistle he did not remember to wit perfectly whose image this was but if Epiphanius himselfe did not remember whose image it was whether of Christ or of a Saint or of some other man how knowes this Iesuit that it was the image of a prophane person Besides if it had beene the picture of some prophane person or Pagan superstitiously worshipped wherefore was Epiphanius silent in relating hereof considering that the bare narration of so grosse a fact would most apparently haue iustified the whole proceeding but he affirmeth only in defence of his action That entring into an Oratorie and there espying a vaile or hanging whereon was figured the image of a man which he did not when he wrote the Epistle remember whether it were Christ his picture or any other of the Saints he cut the same in peeces and withall commanded that no such painted vayles should hereafter be suffered to hang in the Church IESVIT Wherefore seeing this Minister so much esteemed in the Church of England saying what he can deuise in proofe of the Romane Churches change about Images brings nothing but manifest falshoods so many in so few lines any indifferent man may conclude that worship of Images hath continued without change euer since the Apostles For if any change in such matter as this had beene made it would haue beene most euident when and by whom so great a Noueltie was introduced ANSVVER The Minister whom you depraue was no otherwise esteemed in the Church of England than 〈◊〉 an ordinarie Student and professour of Theologie neither was his authoritie in handling of controuersies greater than the waight of his argument and disputation should deserue And your Hyperbole saying That he bringeth nothing but manifest falshoods is rather an vndigested cruditie of rayling words than a true censure of him against whom you are better able to declame then dispute But your threadbare argument whereby you labour to prooue That worship of Images hath continued without change euer since the Apostles because it would haue beene most euident when and by whom so great a noueltie was introduced hath at the least three lame feet First The Antecedent is false for it is euident to iudicious men when and by whom this noueltie was brought in as for those which are blinded with superstition and haue a feared conscience nothing is euident to such Secondly This Argument presupposeth that Worship of Images was generally practised among Christians in the dayes of the Apostles and in the Primatiue Church for otherwise why shall Protestants be bound explicitely to assigne the time of Alteration If this practise was not Apostolicall and Primatiue the succeeding practise whensoeuer it began and whether we can assigne or not assigne when and by whom maketh not the same lawfull Thirdly Ab ignoratione rei ad negationem non sequitur It is inconsequent to argue Protestants cannot out of humane Historie assigne the moment of time when worship of Images first began to be practised in the Church Ergo This practise is not an Innouation For Papists cannot assigne the moment of time when Heathens first began to worship Baal and Ashtaroth or when the Progenitors of Abraham began to serue other Gods Iosh. 24. 2. And yet they will iudge the consequence to be absurd which should inferre because Papists cannot assigne when and by whom such Innouations began therefore they were perpetuall Wee expect diuine Reuelation to warrant Adoration of Images for vnlesse that appeare the same cannot bee a necessarie dutie in Religion But the Iesuit would ambush himselfe in the Laborinth of Historicall Discourse which can produce onely humane beleefe when it is plaine and certaine but being also vncertaine and not faithfully kept it may perplex and deceiue and beget contention whereas on the contrarie Diuine Reuelation settles the conscience and makes the Truth manifest IESVIT §. 3. The places of Exodus and Deuteronomie with no probabilitie vrged against the worship of Images by Protestants that make them Against Image worship Protestants bring in the place of Exodus Chap. 20. ver 4. 5. and of Deuteron cap. 5. ver 6. 7. Thou shalt not haue false gods before me Thou shalt not make to thy selfe a grauen Jmage nor any likenesse either in the heauen aboue or on the earth below or of things that are vnder waters or vnder ground Thou shalt not adore nor worship them Which place I wonder they can thinke strong enough to ouerthrow a Custome in which the rules of Nature the principles of Christianitie the perpetuall Tradition of Gods Church doth settle Christians for this place makes against them or not against vs which I prooue thus The Images we are forbidden to worship we are forbidden to make Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Jmage thou shalt not adore them nor worship them Contrariwise The Jmages we may lawfully make we may also lawfully adore or worship if they be Images of venerable and adorable persons But the Images which we worship of Christ Protestants make yea some to wit Lutherans set them vp in their Churches and they are Images of an adoreable person Ergo They cannot condemne our Adoration of Jmages except likewise they condemne their making them as against Gods Law ANSVVER The places of Scripture alleaged by Protestants against Adoration of Images Exod. 20. 5. Deut. 5.8 are a part of the Morall Law therefore if the worshipping of Images was prohibited vnto the Israelites in the same it is also forbidden Christians and to worship Images is vnlawfull in the state of the New Testament The Aduersarie wondreth why Protestants should thinke that the 〈◊〉 places of Exodus and 〈◊〉 are strong enough to ouerthrow Image Worship being 〈◊〉 vpon 〈◊〉 of Nature Christianitie and Tradition First This latter Clause is onely a vaine ostentation and repetition of that which is formerly confuted Secondly The reason whereupon he groundeth his confident speech saying Which place I wonder they can thinke strong enough is wonderous weake as it will appeare by the Resolution and Answer of his Obiection This Argument in forme is If all worship of Images is prohibited Exod. 20. c. then all making them is also prohibited for the same Precept which saith Thou shalt not bow downe to them nor worship them saith in the former part Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image c. But all making of Images is not prohibited Exod. 20. Because Protestants themselues allow some kinde of Image making Ergo All worship of
of Saints and Angels IESVIT I Haue ioyned these two Controuersies together hoping I might doe it with your Maiesties good liking the maine difficultie of them both being the same to wit Worship and Inuocation of Angels and Saints For I am most fully persuaded that if your Maiestie did allow Inuocation of any Saint you would neuer denie that Deuotion vnto the Blessed Virgin Mother of God whom you honour and reuerence aboue the rest though perchance you may dislike some particular formes of our Prayers that seeme to giue her Titles aboue that which is due to a Creature about which I shall in the end of this Discourse endeuour to giue your Maiestie satisfaction ANSVVER ALthough it were granted that some kind or manner of Petition or Compellation made by the Church Militant to the blessed Saints and Angels were lawfull and that we might request them to be Comprecants and to make intercession to God in our behalfe yet the Inuocation of them according to the practise of the Romane Church wherein they pray first of all to Saints and in the last place to Christ and their excessiue worship by Vowes Oathes Offertures conioyning their satisfactions with Christs and confidence in their merits and adoring their Images cannot be iustified for this manner of Deuotion hath no foundation expresse or infolded in Diuine Reuelation and the Primitiue Church did not appoint or practise the same And it encroacheth so neerely vpon the Office of Christ our sole Redcemer Mediator and Aduocate that without expresse and manifest Precept or approbation of the Holy Ghost wee may not esteeme it lawfull The Doctrine of our Church concerning Inuocation and Adoration of the blessed Trinitie our accesse to God by Supplications and Prayers in the name of Iesus Christ our dependance vpon the sole Merits and Satisfactions of our all-sufficient Redeemer and Sauiour haue Precept Example Promise Reasons and Warrantie deliuered in the expresse manifest and indubitate Word of God Ioh. 14. 13 14. cap. 16.24 1. Ioh. 2.1 Heb. 4. 15 16. 1. Pet. 2.5 Heb. 13.15 Also wee haue certainetie of Faith That Christ Iesus our Intercessor and Aduocate hath distinct and perfect knowledge particular and generall of our qualitie state and actions Heb. 4.13 His office is to make intercession for vs Rom. 8.34 Heb. 7. 25. He inuiteth vs most louingly to come vnto him Math. 11.28 Our heauenly Father alwayes heareth him Iohn 11. 42. His compassion towards vs exceedeth the pietie of any creature Ioh. 10. 11. 15. 13. Heb. 4 15. Wee may more safely and with greater comfort speake to our Sauiour than to any Saint or Angell the holy Spirit helpeth our infirmities and teacheth vs to make intercession according to the will of God Rom. 8.26 27. Therefore our praying to God in the name of Christ onely our supplication to the Father to accept vs for the sole merits of our Sauiour is a most safe and faithfull deuotion and our assurance is grounded vpon the word of faith and hauing such promises we cannot be deceiued in our hope 2. Tim. 2.13 Tit. 1. 2. But on the contrarie Romish inuocation directed to Saints Angells and the blessed Virgin their oblation of the merits and satisfaction of creatures with many other branches of their holy seeming deuotion haue neither precept example or promise in the large booke of God notwithstanding the same booke is most abundant in teaching the dutie and forme of prayer And some of our best learned Aduersaries confesse that the doctrine of inuocation of Saints is neither expresly nor infoldedly taught in holy Scripture Therefore his most excellent Maiestie our Soueraigne Lord and King to whose sacred person the Iesuit directeth his former speech may with vnspeakeable ioy and comfort glorie that he is in this article a defender and propugner of that faith which is taught from heauen by the holy Ghost and Papisticall inuocation is no plant growing in the Paradise of holy Scripture by their owne confession neither haue they any meanes infallible to ascertaine themselues and others that the same is a plant which the heauenly Father hath planted or that their deuotion in this kind is necessarie profitable or acceptable to God IESVIT In which question I will suppose without large and particular proofe being able to prooue it by testimonies vndeniable if neede be That worship and inuocation of Saints hath beene generally receiued in the whole Christian Church at least euer since the dayes of Constantine A thing so cleere that Chemnitius doth write in this sort Most of the Fathers as Nazianzen Nissen Basill Theodoret Ambrose Hierome Austin c. did not dispute but auouch the soules of Martyrs and Saints to heare the petitions of those that prayed they went often to the monuments of Martyrs and inuocated Martyrs by name And seeing these Fathers praysed and practised this custome as receiued from Ancestours and as a matter of faith condemning the contradictors thereof as Nouelists and Heretikes to wit Aerius and Vigilantius as is confessed I may further conclude that that custome did not then begin but was come downe from the Apostles which is confirmed by testimonie of the Magdeburgians in acknowledging that in the Fathers next 〈◊〉 the Apostolicall times were found Non obscura vestigia Inuocationis Sanctorum as appeareth by the testimonie of Saint Ireneus tearming the 〈◊〉 Virgin the aduocate of Eue that is of her children ANSVVER You presuppose that which notwithstanding your facing you will neuer bee able to prooue to wit That innocation of Saints according to the doctrine and practise of the late Roman Church hath beene generally and vniuersally receiued as an article of faith or necessarie dutie euer since the dayes of Constantine neither hath Chemnitius whom you alleadge affirmed this but rather said the contrarie First he saith That in the Primitiue Church vntill two hundred years after Christ this doctrine and practise was vtterly vnknowne Secondly he affirmeth that about the yeare 240. some seedes of this doctrine began to be sowne in the Church by Origen Thirdly He saith expresly that for three hundred and fiftie yeeres and vpward the publike practise of Inuocation was vnknowne in the Church And then about the yeere 370 it began to be spoken of in publicke assemblies by Basil Nyssen and Nazianzen vpon occasion of their Panegyricall Orations Fourthly He addeth That notwithstanding these Orations it was not generally and vniuersally receiued in those times but both doubted of and also reprooued and condemned by some and about the 400. yeere Saint Chrysostome interposed and laboured to reduce people to the antient forme of Inuocation And proceeding in his Historicall Narration he sheweth out of Nicephorus lib. 15. cap. 28. that Petrus Gnapheus Anno 470 condemned by the first vniuersall Synode of Heresie was the first Author among the Grecians of mixing
secrets nor to concurre with him in all actions of Emperie IESVIT Secondly S. Paul saith Now wee know but in part wee prophesie but in part but when that of perfection shall come that of part shall be euacuated I now know but in part then I shall know as I am knowne By which words the Apostle signifies that all Knowledge both Humane and Diuine particularly the gift of Prophesie is contained eminently in the Beatificall Light So that the blessed Saints haue the gift of Prophesie in a more excellent degree than had the Prophets in this world But by the light of Prophesie holy men vnited with God could see the secrets of hearts as S. Paul saith By the gift of Prophesie the secrets of hearts are manifested and also see things absent being present by Light of Vnderstanding from whence they were absent according to their substance The Prophet Elizeus saw in absence what passed betwixt his seruant Gehezi and Naaman to whom he said My heart was there present with thee With farre greater reason saith S. Augustine the Saints of God euen with eyes of bodie closed vp shall see all things not onely present but also from which they are corporally absent This is that which Saint Hierome doth so earnestly defend against Vigilantius That the soules of the Martyrs are present where their Shrines and Reliques are and neuer absent but still readie to heare the prayers of their suppliants not thinking as Dr Field imposeth vpon him that they are present in so many places substantially according to their soules but that they are present as Elizeus was present vnto Gehezi in spirit beholding what passed as cleerely as if they were corporally present ANSWER That the blessed Saints in Heauen haue the gift of Prophesie formally eminently or in actu exercito in respect of all indiuiduall Obiects is neither expressely affirmed by S. Paul neither can it be collected from his Doctrine for the vse and end of this gift was the edification of the Church Militant 1. Cor. 12. 10. Eph. 4. 11 12. And because this end ceaseth in regard of the blessed Saints Apoc. 14. 13 therefore wee haue no certaintie that they ordinarily and perpetually enioy the same And if it were graunted that they had this gift eminently yet it followeth not that they haue the exercise of it according to euerie materiall Obiect it had in this life for some Obiects of Prophesie are contingent and accidentally belonging to Propheticall Grace and euerie act of knowledge belongeth not to the perfection of the glorified state Imperfection of knowledge to wit in respect of the manner of knowing and the Obiect knowne and the Subiect vnderstanding shall be remooued in the blissefull state But where doth S. Paul affirme That the blessed by Diuine Vision or Reuelation vnderstand all particular Obiects which they knew in this life Aquinas himselfe hath these words To know all particular or indiuiduall things and the cogitations and actions of the same belongeth not to the perfection of a created vnderstanding neither doth his naturall desire affect this Also the same Author with Hugo Lyra and others commenting vpon S. Pauls words 1. Cor. 13. 12. Then shall I know euen as also I am knowne expoundeth them of the intuitiue knowledge which B. Saints in Heauen shall haue of God himselfe and not of all other created Obiects But from hence it followeth not That Saints deceased shall intuitiuely or by reuelation know all other inferiour things as I haue formerly prooued in my Answer to the Iesuits second Paragraph S. Augustine d. Ciuit. Dei Lib. 22. cap. 29 Prosper d. Vit. Cont. Lib. 1. cap. 4. speake of the knowledge of blessed men after their resurrection affirming That when they shall be all of them together in Heauen their hearts shall be open each of them to other but that the hearts of them which remaine vpon Earth are open to the 〈◊〉 Saints is not affirmed by these Fathers S. Hierome against Vigilantius speaketh in heat of Disputation but he affirmeth in another place That because Iesus knew the thoughts of some of the Scribes he did thereby shew himselfe to be God IESVIT Thirdly It is clearely to be prooued by Scripture That holy Angels see the Prayers and Actions and Affections of men In the Apocalypse an Angell offered vnto God the Prayers of men which he could not haue done had he not knowne them ANSVVER First The place of S. Iohn Apocal. 8.4 prooueth not either clearely or obscurely that holy Angels heare the Prayers or see the Actions and Affections of men For the Angell mentioned is expounded by the antient Expositors and by the Romists themselues not of an Angell by Nature but of an Angell by Office and by some of them of an Angell by Type Albertus in his Commentarie S. Iohn saith Another Angell that is Christ who is the Angell of the Couenant Esay 9. Dionifius Carthusian Catholike Doctors c. by this Angell vnderstand Christ who is the Angell of the great Councell and which by the Mysterie of his Incarnation came into the world and stood vpon the Altar of the Crosse. Blasius Viegas a Iesuit Wee may easily perceiue that this Angell is Christ because the things here spoken of him can agree to no other but Christ for who but he can with so great Maiestie offer vp to God the Incense that is the Prayers of the vniuersall Church Who besides him is able out of the Perfuming Panne to send downe into the Earth the fierie Coales of Diuine Charitie and to inflame people with the burning Graces of the holy Spirit With these agree Ambrose Primasius Ansbertus Beda Haimo Hugo Cardinalis and the Glosses But if it were granted that this Angel were a created or ministring Spirit it cannot be prooued that Angels vnderstand the secret cogitations of mans heart any further than the same are manifested by signes neither is it consequent that people ought to pray vnto them for Priests offer the prayers of the Church to God and yet no man doeth therefore inuocate Priests IESVIT Our Sauiour witnesseth That the Angels reioyce at the conuersion of a sinner so they must needes know it nor can they know it without knowing the sinners heart conuersion not being true nor worthie of ioy except it proceed from the heart ANSWER Not onely the Angels of God but holy men on earth reioyce at the conuersion of a sinner Luke 15.24 2. Cor. 7.9 Likewise Parents Ministers and 〈◊〉 reioyce c. and yet it followeth not from hence That holy men on earth which reioyce at the conuersion of a sinner see the secrets of the heart 1. Cor. 2.11 So likewise Angels which are ministring Spirits Heb. 1.14 may vnderstand by the signes and fruits of true repentance the conuersion of diuers sinners and consequently they may reioyce without intuitiue
surely this Captiue should be redeemed and deliuered through the ransome paid by the King not by the merits of the Noble man interceding for him whose merits concurred thereunto onely remotely and afarre off To apply this similitude Christ Iesus hath paid an abundant price for mans Redemption yet none inioy the benefit thereof but they to whom by especiall grace he applyeth the same Sinners beseech him by the merits of Saints that made them gracious in his sight that he will vouchsafe to apply the merit of his Passion vnto them for the obtaining of fanours conducing vnto eternall life Christ grants their Petition and request and thereupon applies his merits vnto them These men cannot be properly said to be saued through the merits of Saints but only through the merits of Christ specially because euen the merits of Saints that concurred thereunto proceed originally from the merits of Christ. ANSWER First You are ignorant of the manner and particular matter of Saintly Intercession and it is more than you can prooue that blessed Saints pray expresly and distinctly for the remission of mens particular sinnes Secondly Blessed Saints by their Intercession in heauen can merit nothing for themselues or others for they are not in the state of meriting but of possessing the full reward promised to their labours neither can they apply their former merits to other men because they themselues haue reaped the full reward of them and how can the merits of a creature being finite and already requited beyond their desert and dignitie be imputed to others Your similitude of a King is nothing to the purpose because the ground whereupon you build it is false Kings grant fauours and pardons for the merits and intreatie of such as are gracious in their sight but God bestoweth his graces and pardons for the sole merit and intercession of Christ and we are sufficiently qualified on our owne part to receiue his benefits when we performe that which himselfe requireth and vse the meanes which he appointeth But it is not yet prooued that Inuocation of Saints is in the number of those meanes IESVIT §. 6. How it is lawfull to appropriate the obtaining of Graces and Cures vnto Saints OVr Aduersaries finding our inuocation of Saints for substance practised in Gods Church euer since the primatiue times take exceptions at some circumstances thereof which they thinke new and not iustisiable by antiquitie which are principally three whereon are grounded other three causes of Protestants dislike ANSWER IF inuocation of Saints hath not beene practised vniuersally in Gods Church euer since the Apostles times then the same is not Catholicke or originally diuine therefore you trifle and beg the question when you declame saying Our Aduersaries finding our inuocation of Saints for substance practised in Gods Church euer since the Primatiue times First you dare not say euer since the Apostles times but you equiuocate in the tearme of Primatiue Secondly you leaue out Vniuersally for you cannot demonstrate that the same was practised in all Churches or maintained generally by the Fathers Thirdly you seeke an euasion by a distinction of Substance Circumstance and acquaint vs not what shall be of the one and what of the other publicke and priuate freely and of necessitie may be circumstances yet they are such circumstances as varie the state of the question and Protestants dispute against your present doctrine and manner of inuocation which hath neither ground in the Apostles doctrine nor in the Tradition of the antient Church IESVIT The first of these circumstances whereupon they ground the sixt reason of their dislike is that we distribute amongst Saints offices of curing diseases and seeke some kind of fauour of one some of another of which practise there is no example in Antiquitie yea it seemes to resemble the leuity of Heathenish superstition who did multiplie gods according to the multitude of the things they thought to obtaine of them I answer that to seeke some fauours by the intercession rather of one Saint than another was the iudgement of the Fathers in S. Austines time which he himselfe did practise vpon this occasion In the towne of Hippo one of the familie of S. Augustine accused a Priest of an hainous crime making his accusation good by oath which the other did reiect in like manner purging himselfe by oath The fact being open and scandalous seeing of necessitie the one of them was periured S. Augustine sent them both into Jtalie to the Shrine of S. Foelix at Nola at whose reliques periured persons were vsually discouered In defence of which fact he writes an Epistle to his people of Hippo allowing of this proceeding to seeke recourse rather to one Saint than another wondring at the secret prouidence of God therein Although saith he men by experience see this to be true yet who is able to discouer the counsell of God why in some place such miracles are done in others they are not For is not Africa stored with shrines of blessed Martyres and yet do we not know any such myracles to be done here by their intercessions For seeing as the Apostle saith all Saints haue not the gift of curing diseases nor all the knowledge to discerne Spirits so likewise at the shrines of all Martyres these things are not done because He will not haue them euery where done who giueth to euery one particular gifts according to his pleasure ANSVVER To impose offices vpon Saints deceased and to attribute cures deliuerances opitulations power and actions to them vpon mans owne imagination and to persuade people which ought to seeke vnto God Psal. 121.2 Esa. 8.17 1. Sam. 17.37 to depend vpon creatures in their perils and aduersitie changing the names onely is Heathenish superstition And what doe Papists else in substance when they make Saints yea some perhaps which are in Hell particular regents of countries cities religious orders yea of the elements fire water c. and of beasts c. when they appoint vnto them distinctly and by name seuerall opitulations Apollonia is for the tooth ach Otilia for bleared eyes S. Rochus for the poxe Erasmus for the iliake passion Blasius for the quinsie Petronella for feauers S. Wendeline is for sheepe and oxen S. Antonie for hogs S. Gertrudis for mice and rats S. Nicholas is the patrone of sailers S. Clement of bakers S. George of horsemen S. Eulogius of smiths S. Luke of painters S. Cosmas of physitians c. There is no doubt but that this base superstition was deriued from the Pagans although it be now varnished and mantled by Papals with the habit of deuotion for S. Augustine d. Ciuit. Dei lib. 4. cap. 22. saith That Varro maintained it was profitable to know the power and working of euerie god in particular that men might be able to sue vnto them according to their seueral offices for euerie distinct or particular benefit least otherwise they might aske water of Bacchus the god of
succeeded them for certaine ages continued in their Doctrine and exercised the deuotion of Prayer according to the forme appointed by them And concerning latter times our exception is the same with our Sauiours in another case Math. 19.8 From the beginning it was not so and we say with Saint Cyprian to all latter examples If veritie be changed or leane a toside wee must looke backe and returne to Diuine Euangelicall and Apostolike Tradition and deriue the order of our Action from the originall ground where it first began And Tertullian saith If a custome proceeding from ignorance or simplicitie be confirmed by vse of succession and opposed against veritie we must obserue that neither space of time nor priuiledge of persons may prescribe against truth for Christ is eternall and before all and in like sort veritie is most antient IESVIT I answer That the Primmar or Office so tearmed of our Ladie is not an Office properly and principally directed vnto her but an Office containing praises of God taken out of holy Scripture wherein commemoration of her is made so as I dare say That the Prayers of the Office of our Ladie that are directed towards her make not the hundred part thereof And seeing it is most certaine that the Christian Church in her best times did frequently pray vnto Saints what reason haue wee to thinke that in her set forme of Prayers she did not vse to craue the intercessions of Saints If it be lawfull pious and profitable when we pray vnto God to pray also to Saints by their Mediation offering our Prayer to him why should any dislike the doing of this in a set forme that is allowed by the Church why should this displease rather than an extemporall forme But further wee can prooue That the Church in her best times did pray vnto Saints in set formes as Catholickes now doe euen with a kinde of Lettanies a forme of Prayer acknowledged and confessed by the Magdeburgians to haue beene in vse euen in the fourth age after Christ. Jn which age the foure first generall Councells were held ANSWER You denie that the Primar or Office of our Ladie is an office properly and principally directed to her c. But the reason whereupon you ground this denyall is slight for although there is a mixture of Prayers and Praises to God contained in this Office yet the Virgin Marie is as directly and properly inuocated therein as God himselfe or Iesus Christ besides you haue many Psalters and Primers of our Ladie and in some of them the Virgin Marie is the most speciall Obiect and matter of the seruice The Romane Breuiarie saith In this day of solemnitie and gladnesse wee call vpon the sweet name of Marie And to the Apostles O yee to whose command the health and infirmitie of all is subiect heale all those that bee sicke in manners restoring vs to vertues To Thomas Didimus O Thomas Didimus by Christ whom thou deseruedst to touch we beseech thee with our loud sounding Prayers to succour vs wretches that wee be not damned with the wicked in the comming of the Great Iudge To the blessed Virgin Wash away our offences that we being redeemed by thee may be able to obtaine the seate of euerlasting glorie Also All haile holy Virgin the medecine of all our sorrowes by whom death was expelled and life brought in The Romane Breuiarie teacheth vs to pray That the merits of the Saints Abdon and Senon interceding we may deserue to be deliuered from all our necessities And for Leo his merits interceding absolue vs from all sinnes Also By the sword of sorrow which went thorow the Virgins heart and the compassion of teares which she shed vnder the Crosse haue mercie on vs. Also Let the Host to be consecrate bee pleasing vnto thee by the celebritie of the Martirs Primus and Faelicianus that by their glorious merits and Prayers it may purge our sinnes and reconcile to thee the Prayers of thy seruants The like superlatiue boldnesse was in the enditing and publishing Bonauentures Psalter wherein God and Christ are sacrilegiously robbed yea blasphemously dishonoured to embelish the Virgin Marie yet all this the Church of Rome digesteth permitteth authoriseth c. In that Psalter these and the like formes of Prayer are extant Oh blessed Lady my Sauiour I will put my confidence in thee and I shall not need to feare Oh blessed Ladie our Saluation is placed in thy hands who thou pleasest shall be saued and they shall perish eternally from whom thou turnest away thy face Blessed art thou my Lady the mother of the God of Israell who by thee hath visited and sent redemption vnto his people and hath raised vp the horne of Saluation euen thy chastitie in the house of Dauid thy seruant c. Thou ô Marie shalt be called the Prophet of God by thee hath he giuen the knowledge of Saluation for the remission of sinnes by the bowels of the multitude of thy mercies Visit vs ô thou day starre arising from an high Thou art the gate of Paradise the ladder of Heauen the Arke of Pietie and Grace the spring of Mercie the Mediatrix of God and men And in the same Psalter these words are found Whosouer will be saued aboue all things he must haue stedfast Faith of the Virgin Marie and the right Faith is among other Articles God assumed her bodily into Heauen where she sits on the right hand of Christ c. Secondly the Iesuit prooueth that set formes of prayers to Saints are lawfull by this Argument If it be lawfull to make intercessions to Saints then it is lawfull to performe this in a set forme But the first is true for the Primitiue Church did this and the Magdeburgians confesse That a kind of Letanie to Saints was vsed in Primitiue times Ergo c. I answer That if by Primitiue Church be vnderstood the Church Primitiue comprehending the Apostles and their immediate successours then the proofe of the assumption is false for that Primitiue Church vsed no such deuotion And if by Primitiue Church be vnderstood extensiue exclusiue the Church after the three hundred yeares inuocation of Saints was not vsed by the whole Church for three hundred yeares more neither can the practise of any Church excluding the Apostles produce doctrine of Faith or of necessarie duetie The Magdeburgians rehearse out of a counterfeit worke fathered vpon Athanasius a set prayer vsed to the Virgin Marie but they adde apparet multa esse deprauata supposita in istorum doctorum scriptis It is apparant that many things depraued and supposititious are found among the writings of these Doctors IESVIT But they will perchance say that they do not so much dislike set formes of prayer vnto Saints as some phrases and speeches in our praying bookes that seeme to giue too much vnto creatures as our calling the blessed Virgin Mother of
Luc. 18 38 39. Esa. 6. 3. Psal. 136. Math. 26. 39. to 45. Marc. 14.39 Luc. 22. 42. Ergo Repetition of Paternosters Creedes and Aues according to the formes prescribed in the Romish Primers and Rosaries are pious and lawfull I answer Granting that repetitions in prayer and thanksgiuing which agree with the examples of sacred Scripture are pious and lawfull but the Illation from these to the Roman Battalogees is inconsequent because the repetitions in question differ from the patterne expressed in holy Scripture First in the kind and obiect for this latter are in part directed to creatures and not onely to the Creator and of this deuotion there is no example in Scripture Secondly they are multiplyed to an excessiue and portentuous number and doubtlesse the Romists exceede and transcend their brethren the Pharisees in the number and vaine repetition of such superstitious Orisons Thirdly the Creed and Aue-maries are no prayers or thanksuings either formally or vertually Fourthly our A duersaries maintaine That if these repetitions be vsed without vnderstanding of the words and consequently without present actuall attention they are pious and effectuall But the Romists cannot produce approoued examples out of holy Scripture of such repetitions and therefore their argument from example concludeth not It is also apparent that the repetitions which are practised among Papals in manner aforesaid doe rather resemble the superstitious Battalogie of the Pharisees Math. 6.7 than the deuout prayers and thanksgiuings recorded for our instruction in holy Scripture IESVIT Jf any thinke to merit by reason of the number of his prayers hee is ignorant of the doctrine of the Catholike Church which attributes no merit to prayers in regard of their number further than the number awakes in vs deuout thoughts which is the onely thing that by the number we aime at Wee say Paters Aues and Creedes to the number of three in memorie of the blessed Trinitie seeking Gods fauour and grace by glorifying that incomprehensible Mystery to the number of fiue in memorie of the fiue speciall wounds our Sauiour receiued that pierced into and through his sacred body to the number of 33 in remembrance of the 33 yeares our Sauiour wrought our saluation vpon earth giuing him thankes for his labours desiring the application of his merits stirring vp our selues to the imitation of his vertues The like reason mooueth vs to pray in the number of sixtie three Angelicall salutations to call to mind the yeeres the Mother of God liued on earth according to one probable opinion And because the opinion that she liued seuentie two yeeres now begins to be much followed many Catholickes therupon particularly in Spaine haue thereupon increased the Corone of our Ladie to seuentie two Aue-Marias a manifest signe that they neuer attributed merit vnto the number of sixtie three but onely to the deuout memories of the blessed Virgins vertues exercised in the yeeres shee conuersed in this world giuing to God thankes for his great graces bestowed on her The Psalter of our Ladie and the Iesus Psalter containe one hundred and fiftie repetitions of Prayers the one of Aue-Marias the other of Iesu Iesu Iesu in imitation of the deuout Royall Prophet whose Psalter containes Psalmes in Gods praise to the samè number ANSVVER The true Catholicke Church which the Roman is not maketh no Prayer meritorious in condignitie for what can be imagined more absurd than to maintaine that beggers doe merit by crauing and receiuing almes And the number of Pater Nosters Aues and Creeds which moderne Romists prescribe is a nouell Inuention and was of small esteeme vntill the dayes of Friar Dominicus It was expected that the Iesuit would haue confirmed his Romish deuotion by the Testimonie of antiquitie and by the practise of Apostolicall Churches in the best ages thereof But in place hereof hee reciteth onely what the practise of the moderne Romists is in repeating Pater Nosters Aues and 〈◊〉 to the number of three fiue and thirtie three sixtie three seuentie two c. But these deuices are voluntarie and grounded vpon vncertaine causes for what connexion is there betweene the Antecedent to wit the fiue wounds of Christ and sixtie three or seuentie two yeeres of the blessed Virgins Temporall life and the deuotion inferred and proportioned because Christ had fiue wounds and the Virgin Marie liued seuentie two yeeres in the world therefore it is a seruice pleasing God and such a meanes to honour the blessed Virgin as God accepteth for satisfaction merit and impetration There appeareth small difference betweene the former practise and that which some Romane Casuists censure as superstitious to wit to place vertue and to ascribe effects to the precise number of words and syllables when the same is not appointed by God IESVIT Neither are we in this point of repeating Prayers vpon Beades or little stones in a certaine number for the causes before mentioned destitute of the example of Saints that liued in the best ages of the Church Palladius in his Historie setteth downe some examples of Saints praying in this kinde yea the Centurie Writers and Osiander acknowledge the example of Saint Paul a most holy Monke liuing in the fourth age after Christ that In dies singulos trecentas orationes Deo velut tributum reddidit 〈◊〉 ne per imprudentiam in numero erraret trecentis lapillis in sinum coniectis ad singulas preces singulos eijcit lapillos consumptis igitur lapillis constabat sibi orationes lapillis numero pares abs se expletas esse Which example of so great a Saint so knowne and notorious and neuer censured by any Father may more than abundantly suffice for satisfaction in a matter of no more moment than this for wee are not curious in this point nor doe require of any man that he say his Prayers in a certaine number so as that he may not say more or lesse as his deuotion serues him ANSVVER Palladius his writings are of small credit and this Authour was long agoe censured by the Antient Paulus the Monke in Sosomene made three hundred Prayers to God but not any to the blessed Virgin and his vsing of stones when he said his Prayers is an onely example not paralelled in Antiquitie But singular examples are no rule neither doe they alwayes prooue the thing done to be lawfull for Batheus a Monke in the same Historie vsed such abstinence that wormes bred in his teeth Pior another Monke refused after fiftie yeres absence to looke vpon his naturall sister Ammonius being sollicited to bee a Bishop cut off his owne eare to make himselfe vncapable These and the like examples are not censured by the Historian reporting them and yet it is more than probable that it is not safe for others to imitate them In like sort Paulus his beades are a matter of singularitie rehearsed by Sozomene rather for noueltie than
euerlasting life Ioh. 6.49.50 51.54.56 Seauenthly if our Sauiours words were literall regular and plaine as Papists pretend then they themselues could not bee distracted and diuided about the sence thereof But they are notoriously diuided First Some of them say that the Pronoune This signifieth nothing Others say it signifies the Bread Alex. Hales Hocest corpus meum sensus est signatum hoc signo quod est panis transubstantiandus in corpus meum est corpus meum that is The sence of these words This is my body is the Bread presently to bee transubstantiate into my body is my body Some say it signifieth the Accidents and formes of Bread others it signifieth the body of Christ. Some say it signifieth confusedly that which is contayned vnder the formes And euery of these opinions hath sundry crookes windings and limitations Secondly Touching the Verbe substantiue est is some expound it by continetur vnder these formes my bodie is contained Others expound it by Erit This shall be my bodie when the sentence is ended Some say it signifieth Transmutatur It is changed and conuerted Thirdly Touching the words Corpus meum my Bodie Some say it is Materia prima The first matter of Christs Bodie Others The materiate Bodie with the reasonable soule Others A Bodie organicall without reference to being a liuing Bodie or a dead Others A liuing Bodie Some say it is a Bodie without quantitie dimensions or parts Others A Bodie hauing quantitie without extension figure order of parts Others A bodie hauing quantitie without extrinsecall reference to place an immateriall Bodie like vnto Angels and Spirits and they resemble the same by the Image of mans face reflecting in a glasse A Bodie hauing the stature of a man and yet contained in euerie crumme of bread Thus whiles Romists denie that there is a figure in our Sauiours words they fall into innumerable absurdities in stead of the true and perfect bodie of Christ crucified for vs and communicated in the holy Eucharist they reach vs a fantasticall bodie and a very vaine shadow and Image of Christs reall bodie But the Aduersarie to make the contrarie Tenet appeare Catholicke affirmeth That the antient Church expresly denied our Sauiours words to be figuratiue and in his Margen he pointeth out certaine Authours Euthymius Theophilact Damascene c. I answere although these Authours being none of them antient but post nati affirme that Christ in the holy Eucharist deliuereth not onely a figure of his bodie but his true bodie which is also our Tenet yet they say not that there is no trope or figure in our Sauiours words Theophylacts words are Non tantum figura exemplar est corporis Christi c. It is not onely a figure or similitude of Christs bodie Euthymius Esaias beheld a fierie coale the coale was not simply or onely wood but fierie wood such is this fierie coale in this great Mysterie Secondly It is to be obserued that these Authours teaching that bread and wine are Sacramentally or mystically conuerted doe also maintaine that the said Elements remaine in their materiall substance and that Christs bodie and blood are receiued into the spirituall powers of the soule and they say farther That Christ changeth the worthie Receiuers into his Bodie IESVIT As for some places of Fathers brought to the contrarie how they are to be vnderstood your Maiestie is not ignorant Saint Augustine saying That Christ gaue to his Disciples a figure of his Bodie and Blood spoke not of a bare emptie figure but of the figure of a thing really present as likewise in another place when he saith Christ affirmed it was his Bodie when he gaue a signe of his Bodie though there he may seeme to speake in the opinion of the Manichees who held That Christ had not true flesh but a meere figure shape and shaddow of flesh against whom in that place he vndertakes to prooue That the figure of a thing may bee tearmed the thing it selfe Argumento ad hominem that Christ said This is my Bodie when hee gaue but a figure of his Bodie to wit as you thinke Tertullian hath this speech Christ taking bread into his hands and distributing it to his Disciples made the same his Body saying Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis mei where figura corporis mei is referred not vnto corpus meum as an explication thereof but vnto hoc in this maner hoc id est figura corporis mei est corpus meum This to bee Tertullians meaning appeares by the drift of his discourse in that place for Tertullian is to shew that whereas in the Old Testament Bread was afigure of the Bodie of Christ as appeares by the words of the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem eius id est crucem in corpus eius Christ in the New Testament made this figure to be truely and really his Bodie taking Bread into his hands saying this that is This figure of my Bodie is my Bodie as if he said Bread which antiently was a figure of my Bodie I doe now make to be truely and really my Bodie and this is an vsuall phrase in Tertullian who not to interrupt the sentence of holy Scripture addeth his explication of the subiect not presently but after the Attribute as when he said Christus mortuus est id est vnctus the sence whereof is Christus id est vnctus mortuus est ANSWER Many of the Fathers treating of the Sacramentall signes call them Figures Representations Similitudes Memorials Antitipes c. of the Bodie and Blood of Christ. But that which is a figure similitude and representation of a thing is not properly the same Saint Augustine It is a figuratiue speech commanding vs to be partakers of the Lords Passion and sweetly and profitably to keepe in minde that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. The Lord did not sticke to say This is my bodie when hee gaue the signe of his bodie Origen This I speake of the typicall and figuratiue bodie Saint Ambrose Which is the figure of the bodie and blood of the Lord Iesus Saint Chrysostome In the sanctified vessell there is not the true bodie of Christ but a mysterie of his bodie is there contained Gratians Glosse The Diuine bread which representeth the flesh of Christ is called The bodie of Christ but improperly Beda Substituting his flesh and blood in the figure of bread and wine Druthmarus The blood of Christ is aptly figured thereby Bertram Bread and Wine is figuratiuely the Bodie and Blood of Christ. And Tertullian more antient than any of these saith That Bread representeth the Bodie of Christ And he saith in two places That it is a figure of Christs Bodie The Iesuit in his answer to these plaine testimonies taketh notice onely of S.
Augustine and Tertullian and concerning the first he saith that S. Augustine spake not of a bare and emptie figure but of the figure of a thing really present but this answere is deceitfull for the Sacramentall elements are a true and liuely figure and not a bare and emptie signe of the Bodie and Bloud of Christ. And although the Bodie and Bloud of Christ are not essentially contained and inclosed in the shapes or materiall substance of the elements yet they are really communicated by the holy Ghost at and by the faithfull and worthie receiuing of these diuine mysteries The second place of S. Augustine admitteth not the Iesuits solution for one difference betweene the Manichee and this Father was concerning Moses his words Deut. 12.23 Thou shalt not eat the Bloud for the Bloud is the Soule S. Augustine saith Possum interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum I may expound that commandement by saying it was set downe in a signe for Christ doubted not to affirme This is my bodie when he gaue a signe of his Bodie In these words S. Augustine teacheth that as the Bloud is called the Soule after the manner of a signe so likewise the Bread in the holy Eucharist is called the bodie of Christ because it is a signe of his bodie This similitude prooueth that S. Augustine held our Sauiours words This is my Bodie to be a siguratiue enunciation which is the thing affirmed by vs. Tertullian affirmeth expressely of Bread which he receiued into his hand and distributed to his disciples that it is a figure of Christs Bodie And the Aduersaries 〈◊〉 expounding his words in this manner The figure of my bodie is my bodie is voluntarie or rather sophisticall for the words immediately following are he called bread his Bodie and in other places he maketh bread the subiect of the proposition This is my Bodie But the accidents and shape of bread are not bread neither did our Sauiour when he said This is my Bodie demonstrate the forme only of Bread or command the formes only of Bread and Wine to be corporally receiued for he did demonstrate that which was sacramentally changed but the accidents of Bread and Wine are not changed into Christs Bodie and Bloud by the confession of Papists themselues IESVIT This supposed I inferre that the bodie of Christ is present in the mysticall Supper not onely to the faithfull that receiue the Sacrament nor onely to the place or Church where the holy Synaxis is celebrated but vnder the formes of Bread in the verie same place therewith This manner of presence is cleerely consequent vpon the precedent and that granted this cannot be denyed For the reason for which Christians hold the bodie of Christ to be really truly present in the Sacrament is because they cannot otherwise in proper and plaine sence verifie the word of Christ to say of Bread this is my bodie Wherefore we must either put no real presence at all or els put such a real presence as is able to verifie the foresaid speech in proper and rigorous sence But if the bodie of Christ be not in the same place with the consecrated Bread contained vnder the formes thereof it cannot be said to be verily and really the body of Christ. For though we should suppose the Body of Christ to leaue heauen and be substantially present in the Church where the Sacrament is giuen yet this supposed presence would no waies further the verifying of the words of Christ This is my Bodie except his bodie be vailed and couered with the sensible accidents of Bread so that it be demonstrated by them and pointing vnto them one may truely say This is the Body of Christ. For why should consecrated Bread be tearmed truely and substantially the Bodie of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with it Wherefore the Fathers affirme that Christ is so in this Sacrament as he is vailed with the semblances of Bread as S. Cyrill of Hierusalem in his Booke highly commended by Dr. Whitaker saith Let vs therefore with all certitude receiue the Bodie and Bloud of Christ For vnder the forme of Bread is giuen Thee his Bodie Yea Caluin saith In the supper Christ Jesus to wit his Bodie and Bloud is truely giuen vnder the signes of Bread and Wine ANSVVER Although the mysticall words be not vnderstood properly and rigorously yet we may truely and really though spiritually eat the Flesh and drinke the Bloud of the sonne of man by a liuing Faith Ioh. 6.54 1. Cor. 10.16 The food which entreth into the bodie must be locally present but this food entreth not into the bodie but it is the bread of life which nourisheth the substance of the soule saith S. Ambrose But the Obiector demandeth Why consecrated bread should be tearmed truely substantially the body of Christ if his bodie be not so much as in the same place with it Our answer is because of the Sacramentall vnion betweene the signes and the bodie of Christ represented and spiritually communicated to the worthie receiuor by that signe As a Kings crowne may be called a kingdome because it is a signe thereof and the placing thereof vpon the head may be a meanes of conferring a kingdome So likewise in Sacramentall speeches the outward signe is called by the name of the thing signified because it representeth it and is by diuine institution an effectual instrument to applie and communicate the same 1. Cor. 10.16 And by the same reason Christs Bodie may be said to be in the bread and his Bloud in the Cup not by locall presence or as wine is contained in a vessell which S. Cyrill affirmeth not but vertually and by relation and spirituall donation because when the Minister deliuereth the outward signe and the Communicant receiueth the same The holy Ghost deliuereth and communicates the thing signified to the beleeuing soule IESVIT Whence it is also consequent that the whole bodie of Christ is contained vnder a consecrated Host be the same neuer so little for by this mysterie the bodie of Christ is demonstrable by the sensible accidents so that consecrated bread may be termed truly really substantially the bodie of Christ not a parcell or part thereof only But were not the bodie of Christ wholly and entirely vnder the formes of bread consecrated bread could not truely and properly be tearmed the bodie of Christ but a sole part and 〈◊〉 thereof Againe we haue no reason to beleeue the bodie of Christ is truely and really present in the Sacrament but only to the end that it may in the Supper be truely and really eaten to nourish and feed mens soules And if he be eaten onely mentally by Faith we haue no ground to thinke that he is present more than mentally by Faith the presence of his bodie being ordained vnto the manducation thereof for else why did he institute this Sacrament
of Bread which was once substantially Bread cannot become substantially the bodie of Christ except it bee substantially conuerted into his bodie or personally assumed by the same bodie And seeing this second manner of vnion betweene Bread and Christs Bodie is impossible and reiected by Protestants as well as by Catholickes Wee may conclude that the mysterie of Christs reall presence cannot be beleeued in truth by them that deny Transubstantiation specially seeing our Sauiour did not say here is my Bodie which speech may be verefyed by the presence of his Bodie locally within the Bread but This is my Bodie which imports that not onely his Bodie is truely and substantially present but also that it is the substance contained immediately vnder the accidents of Bread ANSWER First if a substance be either by nature humane Custome or diuine Ordination appointed to containe another substance then demonstrating the externall substance which containes we may signifie the hidden substance contained But according to that Tenet which maintaineth Consubstantiation the substance of bread is by diuine Ordination appointed to containe the substance of Christs bodie therefore demonstrating by words the substance of bread one may signifie the hidden substance which is Christs bodie Secondly Scotus Durand and Paludanus affirme that although the substance of Bread remaine yet because the substance of Christs bodie is also present it might truely and properly be said by our Sauiour This is my Bodie Now if such profound Scholemen haue weighed the Iesuits obiection do find the same light the propugnors of Consubstantiation haue smal reason to regard it Thirdly the former obiection is nothing to vs which maintaine a true mysticall presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist and refuse both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation for we beleeue and are able to demonstrate that our Sauiours words are figuratiue in part and yet the true Bodie and Bloud of Christ are really and verely communicated according to the manner formerly declared pag. 405. IESVIT Jf any man say that by this Argument it appeares that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture but from the words of the Jnstitution subtilly deduced and so may perchance bee numbred inter scita Scholae not inter dogmata Fidei I answer That the consequence of this Argument is not good as is euident in the example of the Incarnation The Doctrine that the vnion of natures in Christ is proper not Metaphoricall substantiall not accidentall personall not essentiall is no where expressely set downe by Scripture but by subtile deduction inferred from the mysterie which Scripture and Tradition deliuers Notwithstanding because these subtile deductions are proposed by the Church as pertinent vnto the substance of the foresaid mysterie they cannot be denied without preiudice of Faith In this sort the Doctrine of Transubstantiation though not in tearmes deliuered by the Scripture but deduced by subtile and speculatiue inference may not be denied by them that will be perfect beleeuers because the Church hath declared the same to pertaine to the proper sence of Christ his words and substance of the mysterie ANSVVER I know at whom you glance when you say inter scita Scholae but your solution from the Doctrine of Incarnation is not leuell to the scope for illations are of two sorts some are immediate formall necessarie euident and illustrious to wit Christ Iesus is a true and perfect man therefore he hath an humane will some are obscure contingent remote and sophisticall to wit Christ said This is my bodie Ergo the consecrate host is Christs substantiall bodie by Transubstantiation Christ said Do this in remembrance of me Ergo he made his Disciples sacrificing Priests That which is deriued from Scripture the first way is Doctrine of Faith that which is inferred the other way may be loose vncertaine infirme and many times ridiculous and apparantly false Now let me intreate you vntill you prooue your deduction necessarie to ranke your Popish Masse and Transubstantiation among this latter kind of deriuatiue Articles Neither can the swelling vsurpation of Romish Prelates which you stile the Church make euery subtile speculation of Schoolemen and nice figment of humane wisedome an Article of Christian Faith any more than a bragging 〈◊〉 can by outfacing conuert copper into gold for Articles of Faith come downe from heauen by the holy Ghost and are such onely from their forme and originall causes As for your Romane Synode of Pope Nicholas and your Laterane vnder Innocent the third These were your owne Idols the definitions that passed in them were the breath of the Popes nostrils and therefore why are you so fantasticall as to enammell them with the title and authoritie of the Catholicke Church And in one of these conuenticles your Pope hath so rudely and grossely determined the Question of Reall presence that Romists themselues are now ashamed and forced to Glosses and strained Expositions to metamorphise and new mould those vndigested crudities IESVIT §. 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers IT is certaine the Fathers acknowledge a Transmutation of bread into the Bodie of Christ and that they meant Transubstantiation that is not onely a mysticall and significatiue but also a reall and substantiall change appeares by these fiue Circumstances of their Doctrine in this point ANSWER THat we may rightly vnderstand the testimonies of Fathers alleadged in this question wee are in the first place to examine what transubstantiation is according to Papalls The Trident Councell saith It is a conuersion of the whole substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of Christs body and bloud wrought by the words of consecration First by the whole substance they vnderstand the whole substantiall matter and forme Secondly they affirme that the whole substance of Bread and Wine is destroyed or ceaseth to be Thirdly the substance of Christs body and bloud are placed vnder the accidentall shapes of Bread and Wine Fourthly by the force of the words of consecration the substance of Bread and Wine ceasing the body and blood of Christ acquire a new manner of being vnder the externall formes differing from his being in heauen Fiftly the shapes and accidents of Bread and Wine subsist without any materiall subiect of inherencie and affect the senses and nourish in like manner as formerly they did This doctrine of Popish Transubstantiation is new according to the iudgement of many learned Schoolemen and the Primitiue Fathers neuer taught the same for many of them maintaine expresly That the substance of Bread and Wine remaine and none of them affirme either that the substance of Christs body and bloud are placed vnder the naked formes and shapes of Bread and Wine or that the Accidents haue no materiall subiect of inherencie or that the body and bloud of Christ acquire a new being in the Sacrament differing from that which they had
Heb. 7.23.27.28 ca. 10. 21. Neither is there any word or sentence in our Sauiours Doctrine concerning any reall sacrifice but only of himselfe vpon the Crosse neither was any altar vsed and ordained by Christ and his Apostles And if in all reall sacrifices the matter of the oblation must be really destroyed and changed and no physicall destruction or change is made in the bodie of Christ or in the elements of Bread and Wine by Transubstantiation then Romists haue deuised a reall sacrifice in the new Testament which hath no diuine Institution Secondly There is no created vertue inhaerent in the Sacramentall words as they are pronounced by a Priest to make the bodie of Christ locally present in the holy Eucharist but when all the words and all the actions are lawfully performed which Christ commanded the holy Ghost is assistant to his owne ordinance and deliuereth vnto faithfull people the crucified Bodie of Christ and the Bloud of Christ shed for our sinnes vpon the crosse And although the crucified bodie of our Sauiour was seuered from the soule yet the deitie euen then remained vnited to that bodie which then was not dead in regard of merit and satisfaction and all they which receiue that bodie by operatiue faith are made partakers of the merit and satisfaction thereof and by this receiuing are more and more ingraffed into Christ. IESVIT Thirdly If vnder the forme of bread were onely the bodie of Christ and his soule and bloud were not by concomitancie there the communicants should receiue the body of Christ but not truely Christ as our Aduersaries grant Caluin specially saying Quis sanus sobrius Christi corpus Christum esse sibi persuadeat And againe Ne fando quidem auditum est corpus Christi aut sanguinem Deum hominem appellari But Fathers affirme most constantly that not onely the bodie of Christ but also Christ himselfe is in the Sacrament that we take in the Dominicall refection The word made flesh that by the consecration of the Mysteries wee receiue the verie Sonne of God that vnder the forme of Bread we lodge within vs the Soueraigne King and that we see Christ feele Christ eate Christ Non regium puerum sed ipsum vnigenitum Dei filium An hundred other places might be brought where the Fathers call the consecrated Bread Christ and consequently they did not thinke there was the meere Bodie without Blood and Soule seeing as Caluin doth confesse Jt is an absurd manner of speech to terme Christ the meere bodie of Christ and such a forme of speech was neuer heard of hitherto in the world Ergo Concomitancie that is Christs reall and entire Bodie Soule Flesh Blood to be vnder the forme of Bread was acknowledged by the Fathers ANSVVER It is granted that worthie Communicants in the holy Eucharist receiue Christ Ioh. 6. 33 35 48. but Sacramentall eating his flesh and drinking his blood is the meanes by which they are vnited and incorporated with Christ himselfe therefore the Obiection to wit if the soule and blood were not in Christs bodie by Concomitancie Communicants should receiue the bodie of Christ but not truely Christ is inconsequent because by receiuing the one they receiue the other and the former is the instrumentall cause of the latter So in this kinde of spirituall Concomitancie neither the Fathers nor Caluin nor we nor you need be at any difference IESVIT This Principle which is no lesse certaine than the true reall Presence supposed I inferre the lawfulnesse of Communion vnder one kinde to wit vnder the sole forme of Bread by this Argument If Communion vnder one kinde be not against the substance either of Christs Institution or of his Sacrament or his Precept or of the Practise of the Primitiue Church it is lawfull iustifiable and for iust Reasons may be commanded by the Church This Proposition is true because there neither are other causes of dislike that may not be reduced to these foure neither doe Christs Institution or Sacrament or Precept or the Primitiue practise bind vs to keepe them further than in substance the accidentall Circumstances of Institutions Sacraments Precepts Primitiue Customes being variable according to the variable disposition of things vnto which the Church Militant in this life is subiect Now I assume Concomitancie being supposed it may be made euident that Communion vnder one kind is not against the substance either of Christs Institution or of the Sacrament or of his Precept or of his Primitiue practise For the substance of these foure Obligations is one and the same to wit that we be truly and really partakers of the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour which is fully done by Communion vnder one kind as I will shew in the foure consequent Sections ANSWER If Concomitancie which is stiled in this place by the name of a Principle were graunted yet Communion in one kind is not iustifiable For although it depriue not people of Christs Bloud as it is a bodily part contained in the veines yet it depriueth them of the Bloud of Christ as it was shed and poured out and offered in Sacrifice for them To the maine Argument I answer denying the Assumption For Communion in one kind is repugnant to the first Institution of the Eucharist by Christ who hallowed two materiall Elements Bread and Wine appointed them a distinct signification deliuered them indifferently to all the Communicants and annexed a Promise to the reception of the one as well as to the sumption of the other Secondly It is repugnant to the expresse Precept of Christ saying Drinke yee all of this and to S. Pauls Precept 1. Cor. 11. 28. Thirdly The practise of the holy Apostles and of the Primitiue Church is against it Fourthly The people which receiue in one kind receiue onely a Moitie and piece but not the whole and entire Sacrament IESVIT § 2. Communion vnder one kind not against the substance of the Institution of Christ. DIuine Institution is an Action of God whereby hee giues being vnto things with reference vnto some speciall end This end is twofold the one corporall and temporall for which God hath instituted agreeable 〈◊〉 meanes that men may be borne into this world he did institute marriage and for maintenance of the said life being had hee or dained many sorts of meate The other end is spirituall for which God hath instituted Sacraments as for the first obtaining of grace and spirituall life the Sacrament of Baptisme and Penance and for the preseruing of grace and increasing therein particularly the Sacrament of the Eucharist That a man bee bound to vse the Jnstitution of God two things are required First that the end thereof bee necessarie and hee bound to indeuour the attaining thereof Hence it is that though marriage bee the Jnstitution of God appointed to propagate mankinde yet euery man is not bound to marry because he is not bound to propagate
Cup the Blood of Christ. And Paschasius after him saith That the Flesh or Bread is not lawfully receiued without the Cup or Blood But whatsoeuer our Sauiour himselfe and his Apostles and their successours and the antient Church by perpetuall succession taught and practised a thousand yeeres and vpward yea euen the Latine Church it selfe and the Easterne Churches to this day the Romish generation exalting it selfe aboue God not onely presumeth to commit Sacriledge at home but it censureth the followers of Christs Testament of damnable Heresie Now that they may with some colour aduance their owne Tradition against the Ordinance of Christ they prie into euery corner and inuent friuolous Glosses and Pretexts as wee shall further perceiue by that which followeth in our Aduersaries Discourse IESVIT Hence wee may probably inferre That Christ gaue no speciall Precept thereof because Christ hath commanded no more concerning the vse of the Eucharist than what by the substance of the Institution and nature of the Sacrament we are bound vnto leauing accidentall circumstances belonging thereunto to be ordained by the Apostles and Pastours of the Church as S. Augustine noteth saying Our Lord did not appoint in what order the Sacrament of the Eucharist was to be taken afterward but left authoritie to make such appointments vnto his Apostles by whom he was to dispose and order his Church So clearely doth S. Augustine speake that Christ gaue no commandement to his Church concerning the vse of the Sacrament besides such as are contained in the substance of the Institution of the Sacrament of which kinde Communion vnder both kinds cannot be as hath beene prooued which will farther appeare by pondering the places alleadged to prooue a Precept ANSVVER Ecclesiasticall power to adde detract or alter any thing about Sacraments is confined to things adiaphorous and Saint Augustine in the place obiected speaketh expresly of these but the materiall parts of Sacraments belong to their substance euen as the matter of the heauens is of the substance of the heauens and the matter of the Scripture is of the substance of the Scripture And if in the holy Eucharist the Element of Wine is not of the substance thereof then the Eucharist may bee administred without wine also the kinde of the Element may be changed and milke or broath substituted in the place of wine and the Communion may be celebrated in wine without bread In all compounded things the moitie of the matter is the moitie of the substance and whatsoeuer Iesuited Romists teach I see not how their Laickes can truely say that they haue at any time in all their liues beene partakers of this Sacrament for if halfe a man be not a man then likewise halfe a Communion is not a Communion If they except That they receiue the Blood of Christ Consecutiue or by Concomitancie I reply This Answere solueth not the difficultie for I dispute of the materiall Element and the direct receiuing thereof and not of receiuing the blood of Christ spiritually or any other way Now the wine is a moitie of the substantiall outward matter of the Eucharist and therefore if they receiue not the wine they receiue not the one halfe of the substantiall outward matter of the Eucharist and consequently they receiue no Eucharist for as the poope of a ship the prowe being broken away is no ship and as halfe a cloake is not a garment to keepe a man warme so likewise halfe a Communion is no Sacrament And concerning the being of Christs Blood in the bread by Concomitancie I answere If this were granted they receiue not Christs blood Sacramentally but some other way for nothing is receiued Sacramentally but that which is caused by the words of consecration Ergo It is not there Sacramentally and consequently it is not receiued Sacramentally IESVIT The words of Christ Doe this in remembrance of me doe no wayes inferre a Precept of both kinds First because he said Doe this in remembrance of me onely of the Sacrament in forme of bread of the forme of wine not absolutely but conditionally Doe this as often as you drinke in memorie of me that the Aduersaries of the Church might not haue any the least plausible shew to complaine of her neglecting Gods Precept For this Precept Doe this being the onely Precept giuen by Christ to his Church as shall afterwards appeare and giuen absolutely of the forme of Bread conditionally of the forme of Wine there is no colour to accuse the Church of doing against Christs Precept by Communion vnder one kinde ANSWER The first reason vpon which you presume that our Sauiours words Doe this in remembrance of me are not Preceptiue in regard of Communion in both kinds is an emptie shadow without substance of matter Our Sauiour in your Tenet saith not Doe this as often as you Lay men communicate but whensoeuer you receiue the cup and drinke then doe it in remembrance of me But if this be the whole sence then Christs words must be resolued against sence in this manner As often as you Lay people drinke which needeth neuer to be done by you according to Romish Diuinitie Doe this nothing in remembrance of me Secondly Quotiescunque biberitis as often as you drinke maketh not the Precept conditionall in respect of the cup more than of the bread for in the very next verse it followeth Quotiescunque ederitis panem hunc as often as you shall eate this bread and therefore if as often as you shall drinke restraineth the speech in regard of the cup then as often as you shall eate restraineth the Precept in regard of the bread And Haimo saith Idem sensus est c. There is the same sence of Doe this being referred to the cup as of Doe this being referred to the bread But Doe this referred to the bread is a Precept Ergo Doe this referred to the cup is also a Precept But the Romanist infatuated with this conceit croweth as followeth That the Aduersaries of the Church might not haue the least plausible shew c. The Vermine is deceiued in calling vs Aduersaries of the Church for wee are fast friends to the true Catholicke Church and we are Aduersaries to Romists an vnsound Church no otherwise than Saint Paul was to the Galathians when he said Am I therefore become your enemie because I tell you the truth Gallat 4. 16. And touching the fancie of this Obiectour I adde That euen as when Saint Paul said 1. Cor. 10. 31. Whether yee eate or drinke or whatsoeuer thing else ye doc doe all to the glorie of God If these words should be resolued in this manner As often as ye eate and drinke doe this to the glorie of God the placing of this word As often restraineth not the speech from being a Precept so likewise when Saint Paul saith As often as ye shall drinke doe this in remembrance of me this manner of speaking altereth not his words from
being a commandement IESVIT Secondly suppose Christ spake these imperatiue words Doe this after the giuing of the Cup yet are they to be vnderstood with this restriction Doe this that is all things that belong to the essence and substance of this Action in memorie of me for if we extend the Precept Doe this further than the substance of the Action vnto the Accidentarie circumstances thereof in which Christ did then institute and gaue the Sacrament many absurdities will follow By this rule wee must alwayes celebrate and receiue the Eucharist after supper as Christ did especially seeing this circumstance of after supper was chosen of Christ as being verie proper and mysterious for thereby is signified that this is the sacrifice which succeedes the Paschall Lambe that was offered in the euening the sacrifice whereof the royall Prophet saieth in the person of Christ Eleuatio manuum mearum Sacrificium vespertinum The Sacrifice instituted in the Euening of the World to continue vntill the end thereof We should also by this rule be bound stil to celebrate in Azime that is vnleauened Bread in which Christ did celebrate and giue the Sacrament saying Do this which circumstance was also mysticall signifying the puritie of our Sauiours virginall bodie and person which was without any leauen of finne And befides the Priest might not giue the Sacrament vnto any but such whose feet he had washedafore seeing Christ gaue the Eucharist with this preparatiue Circumstance which doubtlesse is verie pertinent and mysterious to signifie with what puritie of conscience men ought to approach vnto the sacred Table If to bind men to obserue these circumstances of our Sauiours Action though mysterious and Sacramentall were absurd as without doubt it is most absurd then we must not extend the Precept Doe this to the Circumstances of Christs Action but acknowledge that the Precept Do this onely includes the doing of that which pertaines to the substance of the Sacrament and so not to the giuing of both kinds the substance thereof being entire in one onely kind as hath beene prooued ANSVVER This precept is not extended to things adiaphorous and accidentall circumstances such as was the time after supper the place and vpper roome the persons men onely and no women the qualitie of the bread vnleauened the gesture of the receiuers the preuious washing of feet c. but it commandeth onely that which was of the substance of the holy Eucharist And the sacramentall signes of Bread and Wine or such as hath formerly beene prooued pag. 482. c. IESVIT The second Text much vrged for the giuing of the Cup vnto all men is the words of our Sauiour Bibite ex hoc omnes wherein some note our Sauiours prouidence saying That he foreseeing that some would take the Cup from the Laitie granting them the consecrated Bread said of the Supper Bibite ex hoc omnes but not of the Bread Manducate ex hoc omnes I answere The words of our Sauiour be plaine Drinke ye all of this but the difficultie is to whom they are spoken and who are these all Luther would haue all men for whom the bloud of Christ was shed whence is followes that as the Bloud of Christ was shed for all men euen Infidels Iewes Turkes Infants the Cup also should be giuen vnto all these which to say were verie absurd Others restraine the word All to the Faithfull come to the yeares of discretion who must drinke of the Cup all of them But what shall we say of them that are by nature abstemij who cannot indure the tast of any wine yet are not to be excluded from the Sacrament Wherefore the trueth is that these wordes were spoken vnto all the Apostles and to them All only And though it be enough for Catholickes to say it and put their Aduersaries to prooue their pretended precept which they call of the eternall King for the Cup and so long as they cannot cleerely conuince the contrarie good reason the word of the Church defined by Councels should stand yet exabūdanti we can very probably shew out of the sacred Text that the particle All concernes all the Apostles only First what one Euangelist saith was commanded vnto all Bibite ex hoc omnes Drinke yee all of this another relates to haue beene answerably performed by them all biberunt ex eo omnes all dranke thereof But the second All is restrained to all the Apostles and to them all onely What reason then is there to extend the words Drinke yee all of this further than to all the Apostles ANSVVER That which S. Stephen spake to the vnfaithfull Iewes Yee do alwaies resist the holy Ghost Act. 7. 51. is verified in the Pharisees of Rome for no light of heauenly veritie is so illustrious which this generation in fauour of their owne impietie will not indeauour to cloud Is it possible for any thing to be more euident for Communion in both kindes than this precept of Christ Drinke yee all of this especially when the same is expounded by the immediat practise of our Sauiour and by the practise of the holy Apostles and of the Primitiue Church But the sonnes of darkenesse hauing renounced veritie and chosen the way of errour blunder and grope in the cleere light and verba recta ac veritatis luce fulgentia tortuosis interpretationibus obscurare deprauare moliuntur as S. Augustine long since spake of the Pelagians The Iesuits euasion or starting hole is the words of Christ Math. 26.27 Drinke yee all of this containe a precept not generall to all Communicants but speciall or singular to the Apostles onely The reasons of this assertion are First if the precept were generall then all men for whom the Bloud of Christ was shed euen Infidels Iewes Turkes and Infants must receiue the Cup. A profound obiection and such as will take away the Bread as well as the Cup from Lay people For at the instant when Christ ordained and administred the holy Eucharist none were present for ought we know but only the Apostles And there is extant a speciall rule touching people of riper yeares and for Christians onely to receiue this Sacrament 1. Cor. 11.28 c. cap. 10.17.21 and Cardinall Caietan concludeth the same out of our Sauiors precept Math. 26.26 The consequence of this Obiection to wit the Precept of Christ is not generall in respect of all Christians rightly disposed because when the Eucharist was first administred and these words vttered none were present but the Apostles is like vnto these which follow None were present but the Apostles and the words were in speciall directed to them when Christ said Watch and pray least yee fall into temptation Math. 26.41 Ergo this precept concerneth the Apostles onely and not Lay men Also when our Sauiour said Math. 18.3 Vnlesse yee bee conuerted and become as little children yee shall not enter into the kingdome of God the Apostles onely were
present and the Doctrine was personally pronounced to them alone Also Math. 18.9 15.22 the like is found concerning other doctrines and precepts and yet these doctrines and precepts are common to all Christians The Romists if they were not partiall could distinguish betweene personall precepts deliuered to the Apostles onely as they were by office Pastors of the Church and betweene common precepts deliuered vnto them as Christians and as they represented the whole body of the Church But the Obiectour addeth That we are not able to demonstrate that this Precept Drinke yee all of this was common I answere First if that which Christ said to the Apostles S. Paul spake to the whole multitude of Beleeuers then Christs words vttered to the Apostles were common But the first is true 1. Cor. 11. 28. And S. Hierome inferreth vpon the same Oportet Coenam dominicam esse communem quià ille omnibus Discipulis suis qui aderant equalitèr tradidit Sacramenta The Lords Supper ought to be common because Christ deliuered the Sacraments of his Bodie and Bloud equally to all the Disciples that were present Secondly If Communion in both kinds hath not foundation in Christs words vttered to the Apostles then Communion in one kind wanteth foundation in Christs words and institution and if it haue not foundation in Christs words then it wanteth all foundation for S. Paul grounds his whole Doctrine touching the holy Eucharist vpon our Sauiours words and institution 1. Cor. 11.23 Thirdly If the reason why the Apostles receiued the Cup was because they were Priests then all Priests being present at the communion ought to receiue in both kinds although they administer not but this is repugnant to the practise of the Romane Church Fourthly It is not certaine that the Apostles were Priests when Christ ordained and administred the Eucharist for that they were not Priests Math. 18. is affirmed by our Aduersaries and that they were made Priests Luke 22. by the words Hoc facite as Bellarmine Suares Henriques Hosius Canisius c. say can neuer be prooued for what force is there in Hoc facite to conclude Priestly Ordination and if Hoc facite prooueth Priesthood then Lay men are made Priests when the words Doe this in remembrance of mee are spoken to them in part or respectiuely Hitherto we haue found nothing in our Aduersaries but Sophistrie of words and Theomachie against Diuine Institution and Apostolicall Tradition But to hold correspondence with the rest the Iesuit addeth IESVIT Secondly These words Accipite manducate bibite Take eate drinke were certainely spoken vnto the same persons and they runne so together in rancke that no man can with probabilitie make the one outrunne the other But the command Accipite which signifies Take with your hands for it is a Precept distinct from Manducate which is take with your mouth was giuen to the Apostles onely not vnto all the faithfull else wee must say That all Communicants were bound to take the consecrated Bread and Cup with their hands who euer heard of such a Precept in the Christian Church ANSWER This Argument truely propounded is All persons commanded to eate were commanded to take None but the Apostles were commanded to take for if Lay men were commanded to take they must alwayes receiue the Eucharist in their hands Ergo None but the Apostles were commanded to eate This Obiection fighteth against Lay mens receiuing in one kinde which vntill 〈◊〉 we supposed Papists had permitted but it seemeth that they will haue the whole vse of the Sacrament depend vpon the Popes deuotion and pleasure But touching the Argument I denie the Assumption for Lay men were commanded to take that is to receiue at least into their mouthes and then to manducate that is to chew or swallow and to let the Element receiued passe into their stomack To take with the hand is agreeable to Christs manner of Administration and it was vsed in the Primitiue Church but the same is not of absolute necessitie for some Communicants may want hands or the naturall vse thereof but to receiue into the mouth and then to manducate or drinke is commanded The Iesuit imagineth that all taking is by the hand and thus he prooueth himselfe to be neither good Grammarian nor Diuine Virgill saith Illos porticibus rex accipiebat in amplis where accipio is to entertaine S. Paul saith Per quem accepimus gratiam Rom. 1. 5. By whom we haue receiued grace and Apostleship ca. 8.15 Ye haue receiued 〈◊〉 the spirit of Adoption The Angell said Ioseph thou sonne of Dauid feare not to take Mary thy wife Math. 1. 20. His Bishopricke let another man take Act. 1.20 IESVIT The third reason is because there was a peculiar and personall cause Why Christ should giue that particular Councellor Admonition for the imperatiue word doth not euer signifie a precept but often an aduise or a permission as your Maiestie well knowes to his Apostles at that time to wit because he would haue them all not onely drinke of his bloud but also would haue them drinke of the same Cup without filling and consecrating the same anew this is more manifest in the Protestants opinion who thinke the Chalice whereof Christ said in S. Mathew Bibite ex hoc omnes to be the same whereof he said in S. Luke Accipite diuidite inter vos non enim bibam amplius de hoc genimine vitis For this being supposed the words Drinke ye all of this imports the same as Diuide this Cup amongst you But Diuide this Cup amongst you was a personall precept giuen to all the Apostles importing that euery one should drinke but a part of that Cup and that also in such measure as the Cup without new filling and consecration might suffice for all to drinke therof What All men in the world Or all Christians that should succeede them to the Worlds end Christ neuer intended that one Cup for all nor is it indeed diuided or parted with vs but the Apostles dranke it vp amongst them Wherefore referring my saying to your Maiesties learned censure I conclude that to me it seemes cleere that the precept or rather direction Drinke ye all of this was but personall confined vnto the number of all there then present ANSWER The Precept Drinke ye all of this saith the Iesuit was personall and concerned the Apostles onely because our Sauiour commanded them All to drinke of the same Cup without filling and consecrating it anew But if Drinke ye all of this had imported a generall duty then Christ could not haue stinted them to one single Cup. This obiection is grounded vpon a false Principle which is all Precepts are Personall in regard of their substance wherein any circumstance is Personall Nothing can be more absurd and false than this Position for in the Decalogue it selfe some things were Personall as appeareth by the Preface Exod. 20.2 Likewise in many generall or common
Preepts of the old and new Testament some personall circumstances may be noted and yet the substance of the Commandement is generall 1. Cro. 28.9 Pro. 30.1.3 Math. 18.2.3 Ioh. 13.13 14. Also we may consider a twofold vnitie of the Cup Specifical and Indiuiduall to drinke of the same indiuiduall Cup euen as to eate of the same indiuiduall loase is an accidentall circumstance But to drinke and receiue the common kind to wit the fruit of the Wine this is the substance of the Commandement If we parallell the Obiection the defect is manifestly ridiculous It is not of the substance of Christs Commandement That lay People shall receiue consecrated Bread at the Communion because the Bread which Christ gaue his Disciples was of one Indiuiduall loafe but the bread of one indiuiduall loafe will not suffice all men in the world therefore the Precept of receiuing consecrated Bread was Personall and concerned the Apostles only Now if a man should vse this Argument which in substance is the same with the Iesuits he had in my opinion more cause to blush for shame than to glory before the Presence of a most iudicious and learned King as this vaine Boaster doth IESVIT Another text of Scripture some vrge to prooue That Communion vnder one kind is commanded to wit the famous place out of the sixt chapter of S. Iohn Except ye eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in you Where our Sauiour vnder the penaltie of loosing eternall life commands not onely eating but also drinking Perchance your Maiestie doth not stand much vpon this as not beleeuing that chapter of S. Iohn to concerne the Sacramentall sumption of our Sauiours Flesh as also some learned Catholikes hold Not withstanding though we grant that Chapter to concerne the eating and drinking in the Sacrament as most of the Fathers teach yet this obiection may be easily satisfied by the former Principles for as we distinguish in the Sacrament the substance and the manner The substance being to receiue the body of Christ the manner in both kinds by formall eating and drinking so the same distinction is to be made in our Sauiours Precept about this Sacrament For howsoeuer his words may sound of the manner of receiuing in both kinds yet his intention is to command no more than the substance to wit that we really receiue his body and bloud which may be done vnder one kind This is made cleere by the Precept by our Sauiour giuen about another Sacrament to wit Baptisme where though his words seeme to define the manner yet his mind was but to determine the substance He saith to his Apostles Baptise all nations in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost To baptise signifies the same that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not to wet or sprinkle with water but to put and plunge into the Water by immersion bathing them in water in which respect Baptisme is tearmed by the Apostle the Lauer or Bath of the renouation of the holy Ghost And yet because the Church teacheth Baptisme by 〈◊〉 or sprinkling to be sufficient and substantiall Baptisme no lesse than Baptisme by immersion Christians must and doe so interpret the words of Christ Baptize that is plunge into the water all Nations to command onely cleansing and washing in substance not the manner thereof by immersion as his words may seeme to import and the Primitiue Church did the first sixe hundred yeares practise Jn this like sort the words Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke of his bloud you shall not haue life in you be preceptiue no further than they signifie reall receiuing of his body and bloud not the manner of both kinds as may appeare by the intention of the Commaundement For as Christ gaue this Precept of Eating and Drinking onely to the end that wee might haue life in vs so likewise he meant to command the same no further than it was necessary to this end But eating formally the body of Christ vnder the forme of Bread and vertually and implicitly his bloud as contayned within his Sacred body suffiseth that we may haue life in vs as he promiseth in the same place He that eateth this Bread shall liue for euer What necessitie then is there to vnderstand this Precept of formall receiuing in both kinds But further I adde the coniunctiue particle and signifies disjunctiuely the same that vel or as Argentum aurum non est mihi and particularly of this Sacrament He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh damnation the sence is disjunctiue eateth or drinketh vnworthily In this sort the words of Christ Except you eate and drinke is to be vnderstood disjunctiuely Except you eate the flesh or drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in you Which disjunctiue sence to be the sence intended in this place may be prooued because else Christ should be contrary to himselfe for seeing in the ver 59. of this Chapter He promiseth life eternall to eating onely Qui manducat panem viuit in aeternum If in the foure and fiftie verse of the same Chapter he require vnto himselfe life euerlasting eating and drinking both he should in the space of a few lines speake contraries And because this is impossible wee interprete the place disiunctiuely vnlesse you eate or drinke c. ANSWER Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth that the Text of Saint Iohn cap. 6. is to be expounded of the holy Eucharist and not onely of spirituall receiuing but also of Sacramentall eating and drinking the Bodie and Blood of Christ And hee saith that although some Catholickes to wit Gabriel Biel Cusanus Caietan Ruard Tapper Hesselius and 〈◊〉 expound this Chapter of spirituall Receiuing yet other Pontificians hold as himselfe doth with Bellarmine also agree Suares Vasques Gregorie Valence Salmeron Barradius c. From this Exposition it followeth That Communicants when they partake the holy Eucharist ought to receiue in both kindes for our Sauiour saith Iohn 6.54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood c. 55. My flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke indeed 56. Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him 53. Except ye eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Sonne of man c. Our Aduersarie after some staggering about the place Ioh. 6. condescendeth at last to Bellarmines Tenet and admitting that Saint Iohn treateth of Sacramentall Receiuing answeres the former places by a distinction of substance and manner saying That howsoeuer Christs words may sound of the manner of Receiuing in both kinds yet his intention is to command no more than the substance and he prooueth this by the example of Baptisme wherein although according to the letter dipping and plunging
into the water is required yet according to the Intention sprinckling is sufficient But heere I demand of the Romist Whether any thing touching the manner of receiuing the Eucharist is deliuered in Christs words or not And if nothing then our Sauiour treateth not either of Spirituall or Sacramentall eating or drinking for both these belong to the manner and if hee speake about the manner then the Blood of Christ must be Sacramentally receiued as well as his Bodie but it is not receiued Sacramentally vnder bread alone because to receiue Sacramentally is to receiue vnder the proper and indiuiduall signe representing the Blood receiued which is Wine And implicite and vertuall receiuing of Christs Blood is spirituall drinking and this is performed out of the Sacrament and not onely in the same The last euasion is That in the words of Christ Et is taken for Aut that is vnlesse you eate the flesh or drinke the blood of the Sonne of man ye haue no life c. This poore Cauill borrowed from Claudius de Saincts is against the letter of the Text and if it be admitted then it will follow That it is not necessarie to drinke the blood of the Sonne of man implicitely and vertually and the reason why Christ nameth bread alone vers 51. is in opposition to Manna for the Sonne of God descended from heauen by incarnation and propounded himselfe incarnate as an obiect of Faith and because he was the spirituall Life and food of mans soule by donation of his Word and Grace and heerein excelled Manna which was onely corporall bread But in the sacred Eucharist Christ is represented as hauing perfected mans saluation and this representation is made by two sensible signes wherein his suffering of death by separation of bodie and soule and of bodie and blood is visibly proposed and whosoeuer receiueth him Sacramentally as he was sacrificed on the Crosse must receiue him by both the signes because in both and not in one alone there is a representation of his Passion and of the effusion of his blood As for the Iesuites instance in the manner of Baptising whether by plunging or by sprinckling the same is not to purpose For in our Question the Dispute is about taking away one of the Elements and materiall parts of a Sacrament in Baptisme onely a circumstance in the manner of applying and vsing the Element was altered by the Church But from alteration of a thing accidentall or of circumstance to inferre a libertie to defalcate a substantiall part is sophisticall IESVIT §. 5. Communion vnder one kinde not against the Practise of the Primitiue CHVRCH CErtaine it is that the Primitiue Church did very often and frequently vse Communion vnder both kindes so that Lay men had by prescription a right to receiue in both kindes yea they were bound thereunto by the Obligation of custome not by Diuine Precept ANSWER THe Primitiue Church in all her publicke Assemblies and congregations administred the holy Eucharist to the people in both kinds perpetually and not frequently onely or often as the Iesait minseth And Iustin Martir saith That the Apostles prescribed this as commanded by Christ and Saint Cyprian hath these words Lex esum sanguinis prohibet Euangelium precipit vt bibatur Whereas the old Law forbade the eating of blood the Gospell commandeth to drinke the blood and in his 63 Epistle Many Bishops c. depart not from that which our Master Christ commanded and performed Praecepit iussit but others of ignorance and simplicitie In Calice Dominico sanctificando 〈◊〉 ministrando In consecrating and ministring the Cup to the people doe not that which Christ our Lord and God performed and taught Petrus de Occhagauia saith that the words Et plebi ministrando Deliuering it to the people are not St. Cyprians But this man went by heare-say as appeareth both by the elder later Edition of Cyprian And that this was the constant Doctrine of this Father is manifest by other places cited in the Margen Therefore it is palpably vntrue which the Iesuit venteth They were bound thereunto by Obligation of Custome and not by Diuine Precept IESVIT Also because the Manichees being impiously per suaded that wine was the gall of the prince of darknesse did superstitiously abstaine from the Chalice The Church in detestation of this errour commaunded for a time Communion vnder both kinds Vpon which ocasion Gelasius Pope made the decree recorded by Gratian aut integra Sacramenta suscipiant aut ab integris arceantur And why because such Abstinents 〈◊〉 qua superstitione docentur astringi that is were superstitious not abstaining out of any deuotion but out of impious persuasion of the impuritie of Gods creature Wherefore the crime with which some Protestants charge vs That our receiuing vnder the sole forme of Bread is to iumpe in opinion with the Manichees we may as Doctor Morton confesseth reiect as injurious saying That it was not the Manichees 〈◊〉 from wine but the reason of their for 〈◊〉 that was iudged hereticall This custome was the cause that Cyprian saieth That the Law 〈◊〉 the eating of bloud but the 〈◊〉 commaunds the same should be drunke not only because some Christians to wit Priests are bound to 〈◊〉 the Bloud of Christ but also because Christ in his 〈◊〉 did 〈◊〉 the Sacrament of his Bodie and Bloud in both kinds Whence grew the custome of the Primitiue Church to receiue in both kinds and by custome there grew further an Oligation to drinke of the 〈◊〉 there were some iust cause of 〈◊〉 as in the sicke and in some that by nature loathed wine ANSVVER One errour begets another It was formerly said that Communion in both kinds was vsed by the Fathers as a matter of custome onely and not because of precept now it is added that this was done only because of the errour of the Manichees I answere First before euer the Manichees appeared in any number Communion in both kinds was in practise as appeareth by the Apostles and by Ignatius Dionysius Iustin Martyr Ireneus Tertullian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Saint Cyprian Secondly although Pope 〈◊〉 in his Sermon speaketh of the Manichees yet Vasques the Iesuit saith That he commanded not the vse of the Cup because of them but required that these Heretickes which feigned themselues Catholickes and came to the holy Communion receiuing the Bread and taking the Cup into their hands pretending that they drunke the Wine and yet did not should carefully be obserued Thirdly touching the place of Pope Gelasius the same Author saith That whereas some of his part applie the same to the Manichees yet this exposition agreeth not with the last branch of the Canon for therein Gelasius teacheth that the mysterie of the Eucharist is of that nature in regard of it selfe that without grieuous sacriledge it cannot be diuided and seuered
giue the sicke only the Bread Secondly if Paulinus of whom Erasmus saith it is the same Craftsman which hath corrupted so many things in the writings of S. Hierome and S. Augustine report truely touching S. Ambrose this prooueth not That Communion in one kind was in ordinary vfe but that S. Ambrose being speechlesse and without vnderstanding and deceasing instantly after the Bread was put into his mouth and consequently being preuented by death receiued by reason of this accident one materiall part of the Sacrament onely IESVIT Secondly it was an antient custome in the Church to giue the Sacrament vnto Lay men especially vnto Eremites to be carryed in most pure linnen corporalls home to their houses to be taken in the morning before all other meates but there is no signe or token in Antiquity That the Faithfull together with the consecrated Bread did carry away with them consecrated Wine yea diuers Histories shew the onely forme of Bread was carryed away and consequently that the Church did not then esteeme of Communion 〈◊〉 one kind as of a Sacrilegious mayming of the Sacrament as Protestants now doe ANSVVER It was an antient custome to send the Communion to Persons absent in both kinds as appeareth by the Historie of Exuperius in S. Hierome And Gregorie Nazianzen saith of his sister Gorgonia if her hand had laid vp any Portion of the types or tokens of the pretious body and of the bloud c. And as touching sicke persons Why should we not iudge that the same order and proportion was kept in sending the Sacrament to them at their houses as was obserued when sicke persons came to the Communion Table or Altar in the Church IESVIT Thirdly it was an antient custome in the Graecian Church to consecrate the holy Eucharist on Saturdayes and Sundayes and on the other dayes of the weeke to communicate Ex praesanctificatis of the praesanctified forme st hat is consecrated on the Saturday or Sunday before Now it is not probable that they did consecrate Wine to indure fiue or sixe dayes long for feare specially in such hot Countreyes the same should grow sower Wherefore for the most part they did communicate vnder one kind ANSWER The Office of the Greeke Church making mention of the Sacramentall signes consecrated or sanctified before they were vsed nameth Bread and Wine For thus wee reade in the same That after the Priest hath sanctified the Bread hee powreth Wine and Water into the sacred Cup and rehearseth the accustomed words c. And the Liturgie Praesanctificatorum of the Presanctified signes according to Genebrards 〈◊〉 speaketh both of the body and of the bloud presented in the mysticall signes It appeareth also by Balsamon vpon the 52 Canon of the Synod in Trullo that both the Elements were consecrated at least vpon two seuerall dayes in the weeke and Baronius acknowledgeth That in antient times the Eucharist was reserued in both the kinds now if it was consecrated and reserued in both kinds Why should we imagine that it was not deliuered and receiued in both kinds IESVIT Fourthly the Manichees liued in Rome and other places shrouding themselues among Catholikes went to their Churches receiued the Sacrament publikely with them vnder the sole forme of Bread and yet they were not noted nor there discerned from Catholikes A manifest signe that Communion vnder one kind was publikely in the Church permitted at the least vpon some iust causes that might be pretended For how could the Manichees still refusing the Cup haue beene hidden among these antient Christians if they had beene persuaded as now Protestants that receiuing vnder one kind only is a Sacriledge If one in the Church of England should refuse the Cup but once in a publike Communion in the Church would he not be incontinently noted ANSWER The holy Eucharist in the dayes of Pope Leo the first was administred in both kinds and Romists could neuer as yet produce any one sufficient testimonie or example that so much as any one congregation of Christians in antient times receiued in the open Church vnder one kind And although the place obiected out of Leo doth in speciall concerne the Manichees yet it sheweth plainely that the present doctrine and practise of the Roman Church is not consonant to the antient practise of the same Church Neuerthelesse our peruerse Aduersary argueth against vs out of this place of Leo saying That if the Communion had not sometimes beene administred vnder one kind the Manichees practise in refusing the Cup could not haue passed vnmarked but must necessarily haue beene obserued I answer First The Manichees were espied and discouered otherwise how could the Pope reprooue their practise Secondly Vasques the Iesuit saith That these Heretikes receiued the Cup into their hand but dranke no Wine and among a multitude of Communicants some few might hold the Cup to their mouth and make shew of drinking and yet receiue no Wine IESVIT The last Argument is practise of the Apostles that is of the first Christians vnder them of whom wee reade in the Acts of the Apostles Erant perseuerantes in Doctrina Apostolorum communicatione fractionis Panis Orationibus speaking of sucred Eucharisticall Bread the taking whereof was ioyned with Prayer which vnto the newly baptised was straight giuen after Baptisme and yet there is no mention of Wine So that Protestants if they will haue these Christians to haue Wine they must out of their owne liberalitie by way of interpretation bestow it vpon them seeing the words of the Text doe not affoord it them To this Apostolicall practise wee may adde the example of Christ who gaue to his two Disciples in Emaus the Sacrament vnder the sole forme of Bread That the Bread Christ gaue was Eucharisticall and consecrated the words of the Text insinuate some learned Fathers affirme and the miraculous effect of opening their eyes to know Christ and their returne to Hierusalem and the Church of the Apostles in all hast confirmes it That they receiued at the hands of Christ the Sacrament vnder one onely kind of Bread is euident by the context of the Holy Narration which saith That vpon our Sauiours breaking and giuing them Bread they knew him and bee straight vanished out of their sight So that here also if Protestants will haue Wine giuen to these Disciples they must by the superabundance thereof in their Expositions supply 〈◊〉 want thereof in Scripture yea the Scripture in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 capable of that Exposition the Apostles acknowledging of Christ in the verie fraction and giuing of Bread and our 〈◊〉 departing in the same moment leaues not-time for him to giue them Wine after the Bread ANSWER Your last Argument is poore and drowsie and perhaps you imagine that at this your Feast if yet we may be said to drinke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sine Calice we haue drunke well before and therefore in the
conclusion you giue vs that which is worst Iohn 2. 8. The Antecedent or leading part of your Argument is dubious and the Consequence also is infirme First you are not able to prooue out of the Texts Act. 2.42 or Luk. 24.30 that Christ and his Apostles in those places administred the holy Communion for there may be Prayer and breaking of Bread and yet no Sacrament 1. Tim. 4. v. 3.4.5 Also the place Act. 2. 42. may be vnderstood of dealing bread by Eleemosinarie dole to the poore And although some of the Fathers apply these Scriptures to the Eucharist according to the mysticall sence yet other Fathers are contrarie yea many Pontificians expound these Texts of common food or bread and not of the Eucharist But if the first Exposition were true yet Communion in one kinde cannot be hence inferred for either the words are proper or figuratiue If Romists will presse them according to the letter then no wine at all was then vsed by Christ Luc. 24. or by the Apostles Act. 2. and consequently it followeth 〈◊〉 If they will yeeld that there is a 〈◊〉 in the words then euen as when wee reade in sundrie places of Scripture That people meet together to 31.34 〈◊〉 2.10 wee vnderstand by a part of the 〈◊〉 the whole not 〈◊〉 wine or other in the 〈◊〉 Texts making literall mention of bread onely must be vnderstood as mentioning a part of the spirituall Feast for the whole Neither is there any force in the Argument ensuing which is Their eyes were opened to know Christ Ergo They 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread for the eyes may be opened by Miracle Grace and by Donation of Faith Act. 10. 14. without receiuing Eucharisticall Bread The holy Eucharist is not a sole or 〈◊〉 cause of grace 〈◊〉 there are other caufes and meanes besides and therefore the Illation is inconsequent 〈◊〉 an effect which may proceed from diuers and fundrie 〈◊〉 to one speciall and determinate efficient cause But the Aduersarie proceedeth saying That after breaking of bread Christ straight way vanished out of their sight and they hastened to Hierusalem with all speed Therefore there was no space after receiuing the Bread for the sumption of Wine The Reader may perceiue by these and other such like writhings of the Text vpon what foundation Popish Faith is builded First The word Straight wayes is not in the Narration Luke 24. Secondly The receiuing a small quantitie of Wine could neither hinder our Sauiours expedition nor the Apostles iourney to Ierusalem Thirdly How appeareth it that receiuing Eucharisticall Bread made the Disciples more agile in bodie and prompter in minde to trauell to Hierusalem for two Disciples ranne to the Sepulchre with as much allacritie and expedition as was possible 〈◊〉 20. 4 and yet they had at that present time receiued no Eucharisticall Bread Yea on the contrarie the Apostles of Christ after the receiuing of the holy Eucharist doe all of them flie away and forsake their Master Math. 26.58 This collection therefore The Disciples hasted to Hierusalem Ergo They receiued the Eucharist is dissolute and not much vnlike that of Pope Boniface the eight God said Let vs make two great lights Ergo The Pope is greater than the Emperour IESVIT These bee the Warrants that Communion vnder one kinde hath being the greatest that may bee whereby appeares that the Roman Church is furnisht with all kinde of proofe in this point in which she doth seeme to her Aduersaries to be most forsaken of Antiquitie Now supposing Communion vnder one kinde to be good and lawfull That the Church could preseribe it and That shee had iust reasons to prescribe it J will let passe without proofe as a thing not doubted of by your Maiesties excellent wisedome ANSVVER All your warrants for halfe Communions are meere Impostures and audacious words and figments Commota semel excussa mens ei seruit à quo impellitur saith Seneca The mind which is disordered and put out of frame becomes a slaue to that which impells it This is verified in you you want all kinds of iust defence for your Sacriledge in mangling and dismembring the holy Communion yet hauing once ouershot your selues and become slaues to your owne conceit of not being subiect to errour Litigare magis quam sanari vultis you chuse rather to make warre with heauen than to retract your errour for they warre with heauen which oppose the Testament of the Sonne of God the Tradition of the holy Apostles and the practise of the Primitiue Church and this is your case although you list not to see it or rather seeing to acknowledge it THE EIGHT POINT WORKES OF SVPERERROGATION SPECIALLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE TREASVRE OF THE CHVRCH IESVIT IT is hard if not impossible to giue satisfaction in this point vnto any that is not aforehand persuaded of the Catholicke Doctrine of Merit ANSVVER THe word or name of merit is taken in two notions First properly strictly and vniuocally Ro. 4.4 Deu. 7.10 Secondly improperly largely and equiuocally Eccle. 16.15 The first is tearmed by Schoolemen Merit of Condignitie and the latter Merit of Impetration or of Congruitie If the Iesuit maintaine Merit according to the first acceptation then out of all question the Doctrine of Merit is not Catholicke If he maintaine Merit according to the second notion then Popes pardons and workes of Supererogation cannot be inferred or concluded from the doctrine of Merit for how can that action bee applied to other persons as satisfactorie which is rewarded by God of his free fauour and grace aboue the desert of the person himselfe which hath wrought it IESVITS §. 1. The Doctrine of Merit declared THis Doctrine is much misliked by Protestants as proud and arrogant yet not so much misliked as misunderstood their dislike growing from misconstruction thereof For Catholickes hold that no worke is meritorious with God of it owne nature but to make the same meritorious many graces are required and those most diuine and excellent particularly these seuen ANSVVER CAn any thing be more arrogant and foolish than for a miserable begger and sinner whose iustice is rather in remission of sinnes than in perfection of vertues to maintaine that God should be vniust if he rendred not heauen to mans good workes And yet this proud Doctrine is deliuered by the Rhemists and by some other Romists But our Aduersarie laboureth by distinction to salue this Pharisaisme saying Good workes are not meritorious by their nature but by many graces c. I answer If he should maintaine that Good workes merit iustification or perseuerance not by their Nature but by Grace this distinction would not free his Tenet from error so likewise it is erroneus to maintaine that Good works merit glorie by Grace for that which is of Merit is not of Grace but of debt And diuine grace doth not eleuate vertuous actions by adding vnto them a force of meriting but
〈◊〉 sinne after Baptisme are renewed by the vertue of Repentance Luc. 22. 62. But it is erroneous that there are two distinct kinds of Repentance one before and the other after Baptisme the one a Vertue onely the other both a Sacrament and a Vertue For where there is the same definition there is also the same thing in kind But Repentance before and after Baptisme hath the same definition and integrall parts to wit Contrition for sinnes committed Confession to God and if need require Confession to men according to the qualitie of the fault Amendment of Life and humble Supplication by Prayer of Faith for reconciliation with God and for remission of sinnes Matth. 3.6 Luc. 3.10 Act. 3. 19. cap. 8.22 cap. 26.20 Also the Grace and promise of Remission is made to Repentance before and after Baptisme Act. 3. 19. 5.31 8.22 Apoc. 2. 5. 16. And if Repentance before Baptisme is no Sacrament What causeth it to be such after Baptisme For no visible Element or signe is added neyther is any promise of a different kind from the former annexed And although the Apostles 1. Cor. 5.3 2. Cor. 2 3. c. cap. 7.8 and also the Primitiue Church vrged a stricter manner and degree of Humiliation vpon notorious Delinquents after Baptisme than before yet this Discipline changed not the kind or substance of Repentance but encreased onely the quantitie and measure thereof IESVIT Fourthly the Romane Church holds That God by Penance forgiuing the eternall punishment doth in lieu thereof manie times appoint a Taske of temporall paine to be endured by the Penitent This reserued penaltie is greater or lesser according to the multitude and grieuousnesse of the sinnes committed and is that for which Penitents may and must satisfie And why may not the Penall Workes performed by the children of God beautified by so manyafore-named excellent Graces be sufficient to deserue of God the remission of this temporall Mulct and cancell the Debt of enduring transitorie paine I could bring Testimonies of the most antient Fathers in great number for the necessitie we haue of suffering these voluntarie afflictions for sinnes and of the efficacitie thereof to expiate sinne with the verie name of Satisfaction there being scarce anie antient Father that hath not taught both the thing and the word ANSWER When God pardons a sinner he doth it not by way of Exchange or Parcelling but remitteth all punishment of Malediction or pure Reuenge For that which is so forgiuen as that after pardon it is not mentioned or remembred and which is cast behind Gods backe and throwne into the bottome of the Sea and which can no where be found and is blotted out of the Debt-Booke of the Almightie is not taken away by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesse but by a free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment But the holy Scripture and the Primitiue Fathers teach such a remission of sinnes on Gods part to the Penitent Ezech. 18.22 Esa. 38. 17. ca. 43. 25. 44. 22. Mich. 7.19 Ier. 50.20 Heb. 8. 12. 10. 17. Col. 2. 14. Matth. 18.32 S. Augustine If God hath couered sinnes hee will not obserue hee will not thinke vpon them to punish them hee will not take knowledge but rather pardon Gregorie the Great Ignoscendo impunita relinquit By pardoning he leaueth them vnpunished Cassiodorus Remittere est debitum relaxare non causae alicuius interuentu sed pietatis intuitu To remit is to release the Debt not by entercourse of any cause on mans part but by aspect of Pietie Neuerthelesse after great and enormious offences committed by his people God doth chastise them with the Rod of Correction Psal. 89. 33. 1. Cor. 11. 31 32. And this Correction is a paine of Castigation Lament Ierem. 3.39 but not a punishment of Malediction Galath 3. 13. a worke of Gods Mercie rather than of his Iustice. The difference betweene Pontificians and vs in this Doctrine is That we beleeue a remainder of Temporall affliction after remission of the guilt of sinne in this life onely and that for chastisement erudition and probation They maintaine a remainder of temporall punishment after sinne remitted not onely in this present life but after the same in Purgatorie Further we beleeue That the affliction or paine of Chastisement inflicted vpon penitent sinners may by prayer of Faith exercise of Vertue Humiliation and Mortification be eyther remooued or else mitigated and conuerted to the encrease of grace and glorie in those which with patience and holinesse endure the same in this life But wee denie eyther that any paine followeth iust persons after their decease or that in this life they can by Prayer Mortification or any good workes merit release of any Temporall Mulct or satisfie the Diuine Iustice for the least fault or guilt of any sinne on their owne behalfe much lesse for others And whereas the Iesuit affirmeth That he can produce Testimonies of the antient Fathers in great number both for our necessitie of suffering voluntarie afflictions and also for the efficacitie thereof to expiate sinne and to satisfie I answer First That the Fathers and holy Scriptures require workes of Humiliation and Mortification not as meritorious but onely as meanes and causes impetrant or deprecant to appease Gods wrath for sinne Secondly The Fathers vnderstand not the word Satisfaction strictly and in rigor for satisfaction of condignitie as Romists doe but improperly and largely to wit for satisfaction of deprecation congruitie or impetration And according to their acceptation and vse the word Satisfaction comprehendeth Contrition and Confession and not Sacramentall Satisfaction onely Also they require Satisfaction as a remedie against the guilt of Mortall sinne and not onely as a Purgatiue of Veniall sinne or as a remedie against Temporall paine onely But to the end the Reader may euidently perceiue the Popish fraud in peruerting the Sentences of the Fathers concerning Satisfaction I will in this place distinctly compare their Doctrine with the present Romish Tenet First It is consessed That many Fathers vse the word Satisfaction and require penitent Persons to performe the same to God and men Secondly Within the name of Satisfaction they include and comprehend contrition to God confession and amendment of life Thirdly they require satisfaction for the fault and eternall guilt of sinne and not onely for remoouall of temporall punishment Fourthly the word Satisfaction is taken in two notions First strictly for a iust and equall compensation of the iniurie committed against God which Schoolemen tearme Satisfaction of condignitie Secondly for an interpretatiue compensation as Durand tearmeth it grounded vpon Diuine fauour and acceptation and not vpon the compleat dignity of the action The Schoolemen tearme this latter satisfaction of 〈◊〉 and Impetration because God in his fauourable indulgence 〈◊〉 more on mans part as necessarie to
culpae poenae of whose merits the Church in the Primitiue times did make most account to whom afterwards succeeded another kind of Martyrdome Horrore quidem mitius sed diuturnitate molestius Of holy Confessours specially of many most holy Eremites These manifold afflictions endured by Saints farre aboue the measure of the temporall penaltie which after the eternall was graciously remitted did remaine due to their offences did not perish nor were forgotten but were laid vp in the memorie of God ANSVVER In this Section two things are affirmed by the Aduersarie First That many Saints to wit the B. Virgin S. Iohn Baptist the Prophets the holy Apostles the Martyrs Confessors and Eremites endured many more penalties in this world than were necessarie for the expiating and recompensing the temporall paine due to their sinnes And the reason or proofe hereof is Some of these were free from Actuall sinne Veniall and Mortall others were guiltie of no mortall sinne Secondly The superabundant Passions of these Saints perished not but was layd vp in the memorie of God I answer It is a manifest vntruth that any of these Saints were free from all sinne For S. Iohn speaking in the person of all the Elect saith 1. Ioh. 1. 8. If wee say wee haue no sinne wee deceiue our selues and there is no truth in vs vers 10. If wee say wee haue not sinned wee make him a lyar and his Word is not in vs Also the B. Virgin reioyced in God her Sauiour and hee is Iesus a Sauiour to saue his people from their sinnes Shee vsed the Lords Prayer together with other Beleeuers Act. 1.14 But one Petition of this Prayer is Forgiue vs our Trespasses Matth. 6. 12. Lastly the sacred Scripture teacheth not that any of these Saints were free from all sinne neyther is there any other sufficient Argument to confirme this Assertion And S. Augustine saith It is against the Catholike Faith that any besides Christ suffered Death without the merit of Death But if it were yeelded that these Saints were free from all sinne and that they endured more Pressures and Calamities in the World than themselues deserued and that their superabundant Passions did not perish but were layd vp in the memorie of God it followeth not that their Passions were reserued to rayse a Treasurie of Satisfactions for redemption of other mens sinnes But euen as God in this World appointed these Afflictions to be matter and occasion of greater Sanctitie and Vertue in them and proposed these Persons to be Lights and Examples to others in their Actions and Sufferings so likewise he layd vp these things in the Treasurie of his eternall Memorie that he might crowne and dignifie them aboue other Saints with a large augmentation of Glorie and Blisse Matth. 19.28 So we see vpon how weake and rotten ground is built this imaginarie Castle of Church-Treasure IESVIT The third Proposition the Treasure of the Church consisteth principally of the superabundant Satisfaction of Christ who did endure much more than was necessarie for the Redemption of man wherewith are ioyned the Satisfaction of Saints Wee ioyne the Satisfaction of Saints with the Satisfaction of Christs in the Churches Treasure not because we beleeue the Bloud of Christ to be insufficient alone to satisfie for sinnes Nisi velut arescentis exhausti defectus aliunde suppleatur sufficiatur as mistakingly not to say calumniously Caluin reporteth of vs. For Pope Clement the sixt whom Protestants accuse as the first Author of this Treasure affirmes euen in his constitution about this matter That the Bloud of Christ is of an infinite price and euerie drop thereof sufficient to cancell the sinnes of the whole World ANSWER First If the Bloud of Christ is of infinite price To what purpose doe you conioyne the bloud of Martyrs and the voluntarie Passions of Creatures to the same For is any man so foolish as to adde the Light of a Candle to the cleare Light of the Sunne If you answere They are conioyned not in equalitie but by Subordination I demand Where hath the Sonne of God appointed this And if you couple humane Satisfactions to Christs expiation of veniall sinne and the temporall paine of mortall you may vpon as good warrant doe it for the attonement of the eternall punishment because according to your former Tenet by mysticall Vnion the Actions and Passions of the Members are the Actions and Passions of the Head and consequently they may partake vertue of satisfying with the Passions of Christ. Secondly Although one drop of Christs Bloud euen when he was Circumcised and whipped might haue beene sufficient for mans Redemption if God had so ordayned yet presupposing the Diuine Decree and Ordinance to the contrarie one drop of Christs Bloud is not sufficient to make Satisfaction for our sinnes because Sufficiencie in this kind is to be measured by the Wisedome Will and Acceptation of the Ordayner which requireth as much as himselfe appointed and decreed should be and neyther more nor lesse It is remarkable how these Romane Higlars with one 〈◊〉 both magnifie and debase the price of Christs Bloud For one while they say That one drop thereof is sufficient to satisfie for all the sinnes of the World and then againe they inferre That it is fit it should be eeked out with an addition of Saintly Satisfactions to rayse a Stocke to redeeme Soules out of Purgatorie Else why stint they not this Treasure vpon the maine Reuenue of Christs Passions onely Their detected meaning is Christs Bloud alone yea one drop thereof is all-sufficient to saue Soules but the same is insufficient to impregnate his Holinesse his Coffers The Bloud of Christ hath abundant vertue in it to cleanse sinnes but it must emendicate Vertue to fill Purses and to satisfie the Auarice of the Horse-leaches of Rome Therefore good cause had Caluin and so haue wee to vindicate the honour of our Sauiour and to protest against your derogating from the merit of his Bloud which impietie although you endeauour to colour your Doctrine yet the practise of your people by you tollerated madding vpon the merits of Saints and contemning the merits of Christ accounting the same drie and exhaust is intollerable and execrable IESVIT The Reasons of this Coniunction are these three First That Poenall workes of Saints as they are satisfactorie be not without fruit for being satisfactorie and not hauing the effect of satisfaction in their owne innocent and vndefiled persons they will be without this fruit and effect except they be applyed vnto others that are poore and needie in whom satisfaction is scant and the debt of temporall abounds ANSWER First It cannot be prooued by Diuine Reuelation that Saints haue super-aboundant Satisfactions for whatsoeuer affliction and pressure they endured in this life was necessarie or expedient to set foorth Gods glorie to confirme and consummate their owne vertue to edifie
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those things which are behind or wanting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the afflictions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ in my flesh 〈◊〉 his body which is the Church The first part of these words prooueth that S. Paul suffered for the Collossians But because he might suffer for the confirmation of their faith or as an example of patience or by way of persecution because he preached the Gospell to them and other Churches it cannot be concluded that hee suffered to make satisfaction for their sinnes Secondly The next words conclude not Satisfaction for Christs Afflictions and Passions are of two kinds Some Personall and in his owne flesh Some By Sympathie and compassion in his members The first are satisfactorie the second are exemplarie purgatiue probatiue or for the edifying of the Church S. Paul supplyed not or perfected not the first Esa. 63.3 for then Christs sufferings vpon the Crosse were imperfect but both S. Paul and all other iust persons which patiently beare affliction and indure the Crosse supply and accomplish that which is yet wanting in Christ as he is considered in a mysticall vnion to his Church Christ saith to Saul Act. 9.4 Saul Saul Why persecutest thou me and v. 5. I am Iesus whom thou persecutest S. Augustine and S. Gregorie say That Christ and the Church are one mysticall Body Therefore when the members suffer the head suffers and the afflictions of the members are the afflictions of Christ 2. Cor. 1. 5. 1. Cor. 12. 12. It is also remarkeable that not onely the Fathers but the maior part of Popish Doctors expound this Scripture in such sort that it serueth not at all to maintaine Papall Indulgences And Estius a moderne Pontifician saith That whereas 〈◊〉 of his part straine the Text of S. Paul to prooue Satisfactions and Indulgences himselfe is of mind that the said Doctrine cannot effectually be prooued by this place The other place 2. Cor. 12. 15. I wil verie gladly spend and be spent for you or as the Rhemists translate I most gladly will bestow and will my selfe moreouer be bestowed for your soules affoordeth no argument for Satisfactions and Pardons Caietan Estius Iustinian and other Popish expositors themselues deliuer the sence of this Text in manner following S. Paul manifesteth his paternall affection to the Corinthians saying I am readie not only as a Father to bestow all that I haue vpon you so farre am I from seeking any thing of yours but also to spend my life for you Now by what Art or Engine can Papists extort Pardons or Satisfactions out of this Text doth it follow that if Saint Paul be readie to spend himselfe life and state for the good of his flocke therefore there is a rich stocke and treasure of superabundant Passions and Satisfactions laid vp by S. Paul to bee spent by the Corinthians at their need Surely our Aduersarie intended rather to deride the world than to giue men satisfaction when he presented vs with such inconsequent stuffe But the Iesuit secondeth his former inference by a testimonie of Origen I answer Origen in the place obiected speaketh of purging sinne it selfe by the passions of Martyres and not of the temporall mulct or paine of sinne onely But the bloud of Martyres purgeth not sinne it selfe by way of condigne Satisfaction our Aduersaries being witnesses but at the vttermost by way of Deprecation now Deprecation and Satisfaction properly taken are of diuers natures The place of S. Augustine is strained against his meaning for this Father speaketh of all the members of Christ which suffer for their Masters cause But in our Aduersaries Tenet all that suffer for Christ haue not superabundant Satisfactions but onely some And this Father is so farre from maintaining workes of Supererogation as that he saith Pro modulo nostro exoluimus quod debemus pro posse virium nostrarum quasi canonem passionum inferimus c. According to our small measure we pay that which we are obliged vnto and according to our power we cast in as it were the stint of our passions but they which pay a stint and render that whereunto of right they are obliged haue not superaboundant Passions or workes of Supererogation IESVIT This was the practise of the Primitiue Church which at the petition of constant confessours in prison did release the penalties that sinners were inioined to performe to satisfie non onely the discipline of the Church but also the wrath of God after the remission of sinne still continuing vnto the infliction of temporall paine as appeareth by the testimonie of S. Cyprian And that this relaxation of temporall paine was done by applying the abundant satisfaction of holy Confessours and designed Martyres vnto the poenitents that receiued indulgence at their intercessions appeares by Tertullian For hee falling from the Church into the errours of Montanus whereof one was That for Christians sinning after Baptisme there was no remission of sinne refutes the Catholique custome of remitting penalties vnto sinners for the merits of Martyres speaking thus Let it suffice the Martirs that they haue cancelled and satisfied their owne sinnes Jt is ingratitude or pride for one prodigally to cast abroad vpon others that which as a great benefit was bestowed vpon him And speaking vnto the Martir saith Jf thou bee a sinner how can the oyle of thy lampe suffice both for thee and mee By which haereticall impugnation appeares that the Catholicke Doctrine then was that men might satisfie one for another and that the abundant satisfactions of some that suffered exceedingly as Martirs were applied for the Redemption of some others more remisse and negligent not from eternall but onely temporall punishment ANSWER You are an vnfaithfull Relatour of the practise of the Primitiue Church which was as followeth After foule and enormous knowne offences committed by Christians and especially after denying the Faith or Sacrificing to Idols offendours were put to a grieuous and long Penance It fell out sometimes that there was iust reason why the rigour of Penance should be mittigated either in respect of the kinde of duresse imposed or in regard of the length and continuance Which fauour the Bishops and Pastours of each Church not the Romane onely had authoritie by the Canons to grant as they saw iust cause This mitigation and relaxation of Penance was called by the name of Pardon and Indulgence and in the same there was no buying or selling no reference to Purgatorie Secondly Whereas you pretend that Popes Pardons were in vse in the Primitiue Church many of your owne part controll your impudencie to wit Durand Antonine Maior Roffensis Angelus de Clauasio Cassander And 〈◊〉 denyes That the Church hath any Treasurie 〈◊〉 of the merits of Christ and of the Saints The 〈◊〉 is maintained by Angelus de Clauasio
Cardinall 〈◊〉 saith That indulgences are granted onely for pennance imposed by the Church and so according to this opinion they release people onely of saying a certaine number of 〈◊〉 or from fasting certaine houres or from bestowing a few pence on the poore And it was a common opinion in the dayes of Albertus and Henricus de 〈◊〉 that Popes Pardons were onely pious Fraudes What indulgence is it then for 〈◊〉 Pontificians to Father this Popish Cosenage vpon the holy Apostles and Primitiue Church Thirdly I haue perused the place of S. Cyprian obiected by the Aduersarie and two other Epistles of the like argument wherein I finde that the Martyrs intreated the Church for mitigation of Paenance imposed vpon some offenders but neither doe the Martyrs themselues affirme That they had made Satisfaction for the temporall paine of sinne neither did S. Cyprian grant any other indulgence than from the paenance inioyned by the Canons of the Church in manner before rehearsed But if the Iesuit will obtaine his purpose he must prooue out of Antiquitie that the Church in those dayes maintained a common treasure of Satisfactions an application of the same to people defunct whose soules were frying in Purgatorie and that the Roman Pope was the onely or principall Key-bearer and Barterer of this Treasurie I reade of certaine Popes that they granted pardons of 〈◊〉 hundred dayes and of foure thousand dayes and of eleuen thousand yeares to all people which should rehearse S. 〈◊〉 his prayer and the 〈◊〉 Maria and one other Prayer to the blessed Virgin Our Aduersarie is reputed learned by his owne part and perhaps he hath the gift of working wonders I intreat him out of his owne vast reading or else from Father 〈◊〉 his storehouse to parallell this Romish liberall practise with some historie out of Antiquitie And if he please further to demonstrate that the antient Church had taxes and 〈◊〉 for summes of money vpon particular crimes to be solued to the Publicans of the Ecclesiasticall Roman Tribute in lieu of Pardons or for absolution he shall by disclosing to the world in what old Wall or Vault such vncouth Iewels are to be found highly aduance the reputation of his Roman pennance and pardons and for my part he shall haue leaue to squeese from his spirituall children what money he can vnder that title whereas in the meane time he and his fellowes by false pretence of Antiquitie doe but cheate their simple Lay-Catholikes of their coyne whereof no small summes are transported out of the Kingdome by such like glosses and trickes Fourthly for want of better testimonie the Obiector would prooue the antient vse of Pardons out of lapsed Tertullian for if this man being fallen from the Church opposed them then they were in vse in that age I answer the Aduersary might haue learned of Pamelius That the Indulgences which Tertullian oposed were the same whereof Cyprian speaketh Epist. 10 11 12. to wit relaxation of Canonicall censures and paenance to Adulterers and other notorious sinnes vpon the request of Martyrs being in prison and yet aliue Now it seemed to this Father to be vnlawfull both that the Martyrs should be Intreatours and that the Church should graunt Absolution tosuch persons or vse relaxation of censures imposed by the discipline of those times And it is to be obserued that this Father speaketh of liuing Martyrs and not of Martyrs defunct and of releasing censures and forgiuing faults in this world onely and not in Purgatorie But the Aduersarie is so farre from being able to prooue Popes pardons in Tertullians dayes that he cannot prooue the same to haue had any being in the dayes of Peter Lombard or Hugo Victor IESVIT I shall not need particularly to refell the vulgar obiections against this Doctrine which all proceed vpon mistaking and impugne what we neuer dreamed of They prooue that Christ onely dyed for the world and redeemed Mankind and not any Saint who doubts therof That we are sanctifyed and washed from the staine of sinne by the blood of the Lambe not of any Saint We confesse it They bring the testimonies of S. Leo and of S. Augustine That the Saints receiued Crownes of God gaue not Crownes vnto others but onely Christ we neuer did nor will deny it That onely in Christ we dye to sinne and are raysed againe soule and body vnto eternall life we neuer taught the contrarie for the Satisfactions of Saints haue not vertue to redeeme the world nor to satisfie for the guilt of sinne nor to take men out of the power of darkenesse nor to iustifie soules by infusion of grace nor to purchase for men crownes of Glorie nor to rayse men from life to death but only shew they are auaileable vnto one transitory effect which men might were they feruent obtaine by their owne industrie ioyned with diuine grace to wit the Remission of temporall paine which vertue also comes from the merits of Christ and his most pretious blood in and by the Satisfactions of Saints applyed to worke the aforesaid temporall releasement from which temporall seruitude the children of God may through his gratious assistance by good workes redeeme themselues or by Satisfactions of their fellow Citizens and Saints be redeemed Though this temporarie Redemption compared with the Redemption of Christ deserue not that Tytle ANSWER It is an errour to ascribe any effect to the operations of men which is proper to the death of Christ But to make Satisfaction to diuine Iustice for any punishment of sinne eternall or temporall is an effect proper to the death of Christ. For the holy Scripture teacheth expresly that all spirituall redemption is immediately wrought by the bloud of Christ Heb. 1. 3. When he had by himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purged our sinnes Col. 2. 15. triumphing ouer them in himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And whereas our Aduersaries restraine these and the like places to the staine and eternall guilt of sinne the Apostle Col. 2. 14. affirmeth That Christ blotted out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hand writing of decrees contayned in the law that was against vs and tooke it out of the way nailing it to his Crosse and that by himselfe Heb. 1.3 Col. 2.15 but the temporarie punishment of sinne is contayned within the latitude of the Law Leuit. 26.14 Deut. 28.15 c. Therefore Christ Iesus our Sauiour immediately and by himselfe and not mediately by the passions of Saints wiped out and remooued out of the way the malediction of temporarie punishment as well as the guilt of eternall When Daniel himselfe one of the most holy Prophets prayed for the remission of his owne sinnes and of the transgressions of his people and made supplication to God for remission of temporall paines and plagues he offereth not his owne merits or Satisfaction but saith Dan. 9.7 Oh Lord righteousnesse belongeth vnto thee but
by a voluntatrie and prouisionall Mandate touching Recicide vnlesse you were otherwise proni ad rem bent to mischiefe Et luxato hoc freno and this Paper bridle being broken to broach and inculcate it If this your Masters hand shall cast Crosse in stead of Pile what shall we expect from such Gamesters Quibus ludus sunt capita diademata Regum IESVIT This onely I hope J may with your Maiesties good liking affirme That our Catholicke Doctrine in this Point is nothing so preiuditiall to Princes as are the Opinions of most Caluinists and Lutherans expressed in their Writings whereof we haue in this age but ouer-euident and lamentable examples to the world and your Maiestie not vnknowne And had the Authours of the Gunpowder Treason which from my soule I abhorre kept themselues within the bounds of Catholicke Doctrine they had neuer vndergone that most odious and abominable enterprise ANSWER By a draught of Sea water one may iudge of the brackishnesse of the whole His gratious Maiestie hath tasted alreadie of some fruits of Popish loyaltie and the Gunpowder Treason animalised by Iesuits but now disauowed for it succeeded not is a Watchword for prudent men not to confide in them whom the leuen of Superstition hath sowred But is the wit of a Iesuit growne so barren Haue you no other euasion but by recrimination and that impertinent For as concerning your Flim-flam of Caluinists and Lutherans I answere His Maiestie and the State of England hath felt no such disturbance but haue obserued by long experience that it cannot enter into any true Protestants heart vpon any occasion whatsoeuer to lift vp their heads against the Lords Annointed and if any vnsound or equiuocall member appeare among them diuerse from the true bodie let them receiue censure according to their demerits IESVIT As for the other Question which your Maiestie proposeth particularly to my selfe viz. What I thinke Subiects ought to doe in the case of Papall deposition of their Prince I can giue no better Councell vnto others than what J am resolued to take my selfe First to pray for peace and tranquilitie and true concord betweene both parties Secondly to exhort all to doe all other good offices tending thereunto and rather to suffer with patience than any way concurre to the preiudice of the Prince or disturbance of the Commonwealth Thirdly J doe protest before Almightie God that I would rather offer my selfe to die than any way to bee accessarie to your Maiesties death All which things most sincerely vttered by mee I humbly beg your Maiestie would vouchsafe to receiue as issuing from the conceits and hearts of all my Profession whose institutes particularly commandeth respect and obedience to all in authoritie as in the beginning of this Discourse I made plaine vnto your Maiestie vnto whom wee especially who are your borne subiects doe beare so vnfained affection that we should thinke our selues happie if your Maiestie would vouchsafe but to make tryall thereof not doubting but your Excellent Iudgement would soone discouer vs to be not onely as loyall as any other of your Subiects but more willing to imploy our wits pennes and labours euen with hazard of our liues in performing your Maiesties Commandements than many who inioying the fauour of the time make faire shewes of their owne affections and fidelitie and vncharitably traduce vs as capitall enemies to your Maiestes Person State and Dignitie ANSWER It is needlesse to make many words for if your heart and pen accord testifie the same by taking the Oath of Allegiance and by renouncing the pestilent opinion of Equiuocation therwise your Insinuations and Blandishments are but Maskes and Tectures of latent perfidiousnesse and they which are acquainted with Romish guile must still suspect that you play the Foxe Astutam vapido gestans sub pectore vulpem Ore aliud retinens aliud sub pectore Condens Now concerning this precedent passage let it bee obserued how the Iesuit hath not answered but declined his Maiesties Question And we must hold him to stand mute as one not daring to put himselfe to his Countrey lest he be found guiltie For the question is What ought the subiect to doe in case a Pope depose the King The Iesuits answere is I pray for peace I exhort others I would rather die c. Hansome complements but no securitie If his Holinesse send another wind you which haue vowed strict obedience to the Pope must turne your sailes your Votes and Prayers must bound another way you must exhort others to execute the Popes pleasure and if they and you perish in the Popes quarrell you die Martirs and goe to heauen in a string The IESVITS Conclusion HAuing performed your Maiesties will and pleasure in seeking to giue satisfaction about the Nine principall points that withhold your Royall assent from ioyning vnto the Roman Church my poore indeauours prostrate at your Maiesties feet to receiue their doome humbly beseech this fauor That your charitie and desire of the vnitie of the Church may ioyne together with your excellent Wisdome and Learning to pronounce the sentence Although I be confident that examining Religion by the meere rigour of only Scripture the Catholicke Doctrines would get the victorie more cleare and expresse Testimonies standing on our side than any that Protestants can bring for themselues as by the former Discourse may appeare although also I be much more confident in the Tradition perfect practise of the Church interpreting Scripture which by so full consent deliuers the Roman Doctrines that partialitie it selfe duely pondering can hardly in heart and in wardly iudge against them yet my chiefest hope is in those charitable thoughts and desires of Peace and Vnitie in the whole Christian world which the holy Ghost hath inspired into your Religious brest ANSVVER You deceiue your selfe touching his Maiestie for not onely these Nine points but many other detaine his royal assent from ioyning with the Romane Faith Secondly Your ostentation of proouing these Articles by the meere rigout of sole Scripture is Vanitas Vanitatum A vanitie beyond vanitie for the learned of your owne part acknowledge that many of your Romish Articles are neither expresly nor inuoluedly contained in holy Scripture Neither againe can your Faith subsist if it be tried by Genuine and Orthodoxall Tradition for your selfe in this Treatise wherein you performe as much in substance as your cause will beare haue made no demonstration of any one Article by the Testimonie of perpetuall Tradition and it seemeth to me that you are conscious hereof because in your Conclusion you fall vpon a new Disputation and seeke to inferre a necessitie of reducing all Controuersies to the meere and absolute determination of the Romane Church and Pope who will not faile to be fast friends to themselues IESVIT For suppose that praeconceit instilled into tender minds against them thinke comparing Catholickes with Protestants that Scriptures stand equally on both sides yea sifting
the matter by Scripture onely that Protestants may seeme to haue the vpper hand yet Charitie will mooue this Question Whether the Testimonies and Arguments they bring from Scripture are so vndeniably cleare and so vnauoidably strong that no answere or euasion may bee found but the Romane Church must bee refused notwithstanding so much discord and dissention so much inconstancie and incertainetie about Religion which as reason prooueth must and as experience sheweth doth thereupon ensue ANSWER First Protestants doe not onely bring Arguments and Testimonies of Scripture against the Roman faith but also the testimonie of Antiquitie and all other grounds of veritie Secondly their arguments from Scripture are such as cannot be auoided but onely by Sophistrie and in this manner the very arguments of Christ for the resurrection Matth. 22. 32. and the testimonies which Councells and Fathers vse 〈◊〉 Arrians Pelagians and sundry other Heretikes may receiue appearing and seeming solutions Thirdly if the Scripture it selfe and the doctrine of the Primitiue Church with other grounds of learning cannot as our Aduersarie obiecteth de facto or presupposing the malice of some persons 〈◊〉 all discord and inconstancie of Religion much lesse can the determination of the Roman Church effect this For if men will not regard Moses and the Prophets c. If an Angell come from heauen or if one rise from the dead they may still cauill and refuse to beleeue But for the externall repressing of petulant Spirits a free and lawfull Councell were to be desired and a disposition of heart in Christian Princes and in other worthy members of the Church to submit themselues to a Tryall by the holy Scripture and the doctrine of the Primitiue Church and vpon the same to conclude a common Peace in Christianitie and to represse by Discipline and Authoritie factious and turbulent Incendiaries either of the Romish or Protestant part IESVIT For if you cast away the Roman Church and her authoritie no Church is left in the World that can with reason or dares for shame challenge to be infallible in her definitions and if such a Church be wanting What meanes is left either to keepe the learned certainly in peace or to giue vnto the ignorant assurance what is the Doctrine of saluation the Apostles first preached ANSWER You doe well to name Daring and 〈◊〉 for if the Papall faction had not passed all shame they had not to their vsurpations of iurisdiction added the forgerie and vaunt of absolute intallibilitie a priuiledge which I make no doubt no Pope without or with his Papall Councells euer in his inward conscience thought himselfe to haue But as for Ecclesiasticke decisions and determinations we say that although the absolute authoritie of the Roman Church be refused and although no other Church in the world can truely challenge absolute infallibilitie of iudgement but conditionall onely or restrictiue so farre as it propoundeth and confirmeth doctrine out of the Sacred Scriptures yet the learned may be preserued in peace and the ignorant in assurance of veritie First The Holy Ghost hath already determined all questions of faith necessary for the Church to vnderstand by his owne immediate decisiue voice deliuered in Sacred Scripture expresly or deriuatiuely Secondly if any other question arise touching History matter of Fact naturall or morall Veritie Ceremonies and externall Policie c. the same may bee sufficiently decided by Christian prudence working vpon the principles of Reason humane Historie rules of Art and by the examples of former times and principally by the generall rules of holy Scripture and many questions are raysed by the curiositie and subtletie of men wherein if the Church be ignorant and vnresolued there ensueth no preiudice in respect of faith Thirdly if contentious persons lust to continue such the determination of the Roman Church or Councell cannot quell or stifle contention but onely as an humane Iudge and by the same authoritie with other Churches It is also remarkeable that the definitions of the Roman Church it selfe are vncertaine ambiguous mutable and such as Defacto leaue matter of strife among those persons which submit themselues to the resolution thereof The Dominicans and Iesuits contend egerly at this day concerning the sence and Exposition of the Trent Councell in the question of Grace and Free-will Suares and Vasques two prime Iesuits are diuided about the sence of that Councell in the matter of Merit and Satisfaction the like differences are found among many moderne Schoolemen touching the manner of worshipping Images and concerning the presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist whether the same be there by adduction or production wherein Bellarmine holdeth the first and Suares the latter opinion And if our Aduersarie eleuate these dissentions pretending them to be small surely they are as waightie as the differences amongst Protestants And lastly whatsoeuer Romists pretend to the contrarie the transcendent Authority of Popes is no sufficient or Soueraigne means to preserue vnitie either of faith or charitie in the Christian world for when the Papacie was most predominant the Christian world was distracted with contentions about Religion to wit between the Romans Graecians and other Churches and it was imbroyled with bloudy wars betweene Popes and other Princes and Emperours and the Roman See it selfe was rant into Factions by occasion of Antipopes Neither was the transcendent authority of the Roman Church any effectuall meanes to promote common vnitie but the Ambition and Oppression thereof was a perpetuall Seminarie and incentiue of mischiefe and discord therefore the meanes for his most excellent Maiestie to cause vnitie in the Christian world is not the aduancing of Papall Supremacie which is a firebrand of contention but the maintaining of the Supreame authoritie of the Scripture and the procuring if it might be of a free and lawfull Councell wherein the word of Christ may haue Preheminence and wherein the Pope may be a Subiect as well as other Pastours IESVIT A Church fallible in her teaching is by the learned to be trusted no further than they doe see her Doctrine consonant vnto Scripture and so they may neglect her Iudgement when they seeme to haue euidences of Scripture against her and if this libertie of Contradiction be granted What hope of vnitie remaines when a priuate man may wrangle eternally with the whole Church and neuer be conuinced apparently of teaching against the Scriptures whereof we haue too many examples ANSWER A Church fallible in Iudgement is to be trusted when it confirmeth her doctrine by the word of God which is an infallible witnesse And although a Church be subiect to possibilitie of Errour and although the doctrine thereof wanting Diuine proofe is not to be receiued of the learned as matter of Faith yet no libertie of contesting the lawfull authoritie of the same when it confirmeth her sayings by Gods word is hereby permitted to contentious Spirits and it is more probable That Pastors of the
enough not spared to say That what the B. would not acknowledge in this cause you would wring and extort from him then indeed you said as before that it had erred And this no man denyed But euerie Error denyes not Christ the Foundation or makes Christ denie it or thrust it from the Foundation F. The B. said That the Error was not in Point fundamentall B. The B. was not so peremptorie His speech was That diuers learned men and some of your owne were of opinion That as the Greekes expressed themselues it was a Question not simply Fundamentall The B. knowes and acknowledges that Error of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne to be a grieuous Error in Diuinitie And sure it would haue grated the Foundation if they had so denyed the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne as that they had made an inequalitie betweene the Persons But since their forme of speech is That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Sonne and is the Spirit of the Sonne without making any difference in the consubstantialitie of the Persons the B. dares not denie them to be a true Church for this though he confesses them an erroneous Church in this particular Now that diuers learned men were of opinion That à Filio per Filium in the sense of the Greeke Church was but a Question in modo loquendi in manner of speech and therefore not fundamentall is euident The Master and his Schollers agree vpon it The Greekes saith hee confesse the holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Sonne with the Apostle Galat. 4. and the Spirit of Truth S. Ioh. 16. And since Non est aliud It is not another thing to say The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and the Sonne then that he is or proceeds from the Father and the Sonne in this they seeme to agree with vs in eandem Fidei Sententiam vpon the same Sentence of Faith though they differ in words Now in this cause where the words differ but the sentence of Faith is the same 〈◊〉 eadem euen altogether the same Can the Point be fundamentall You may make them no Church as Bellarmine doth and so denie them saluation which cannot be had out of the true Church but the B. dares not It ought to be no easie thing to condemne a man of Heresie in foundation of Faith much lesse a Church least of all so ample and large a Church as the Greeke especially so as to make them no Church Heauen Gates were not so easily shut against multitudes when S. Peter wore the Keyes at his owne Girdle And it is good counsaile which Alphonsus à Castro one of your owne giues Let them consider that pronounce easily of Heresie how easie it is for themselues to erre Or if you will pronounce consider what it is that seperates from the Church simply and not in part onely I must needs professe that I wish heartily as well as others that those distressed men whose Crosse is heauie alreadie had beene more plainely and moderately dealt withall though they thinke a diuerse thing from vs than they haue beene by the Church of Rome But hereupon you say you were forced F. Whereupon I was forced to repeat what I had formerly brought against Dr. White concerning Points Fundamentall B. Hereupon it is true that you read a large discourse out of a Booke printed which you said was yours The particulars all of them at the least the B. tells me he doth not now remember and is sure he did not then approoue But if they be such as were formerly brought against 〈◊〉 White they are by him formerly answered The first thing you did was the righting of S. Augustine Which Sentence the B. doth not at all remember was so much as named in the third Conference much lesse was it stood vpon and then righted by you Another place of S. Augustine indeed was which you omit but the place of it comes after about Tradition to which I remit it But you tell vs of a great proofe made out of this place These words containe two Propositions One That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall The other That this is prooued out of this place of S. Augustine 1. For the first That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall It was not the least meanes by which Rome grew to her Greatnesse to blast euerie Opposer shee had with the name of Heretike or Schismatike for this serued to shriuell the credit of the persons and the persons once brought into contempt and ignominie all the good they desired in the Church fell to dust for want of creditable persons to backe and support it To make this proceeding good in these later yeeres this course it seemes was taken The Schoole that must maintaine and so they doe That all Points defined by the Church are thereby Fundamentall necessarie to be beleeued of the substance of the Faith and that though it be determined quite Extra Scripturam And then leaue the wise and actiue heads to take order that there be strength enough readie to determine what is fittest for them But since these men distinguish not nor you betweene the Church in generall and a Generall Councell which is but her Representation for determinations of the Faith the B. though he be very slow in sifting or opposing what is concluded by lawfull generall and consenting Authoritie though hee giue as much as can be giuen to the definitions of Councels truly generall nay suppose hee should graunt which hee doth not That Generall Councels cannot erre yet this cannot downe with him That all Points euen so defined are Fundamentall For Deductions are not prime and Natiue Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations That which is a Foundation for all cannot be one and another in different Christians for then it could be no constant Rule for any nor could the soules of men rest vpon a shaking Foundation No If it be a true Foundation it must be common to all and firme vnder all in which sense the Articles of Christian Faith are Fundamentall And Irenaeus layes this for a ground That the whole Church howsoeuer dispersed in place speakes this with one mouth Hee which among the Guides of the Church is best able to speake vtters no more than this and lesse than this the most simple doth not vtter Therefore the Creed of which hee speakes is a common is a constant Foundation and an Explicite Faith must be of this in them which haue the vse of Reason for both Guides and simple people all the Church vtter this Now many things are defined by the Church which are but Deductions out of this which suppose them deduced right mooue farre from the Foundation without which Deductions explicitely beleeued many millions of Christians goe to Heauen and cannot therefore be Fundamentall in the Faith True
Deductions from the Article may require necessarie beleefe in them which are able and doe goe along with them from the Principle to the Conclusion but I doe not see either that the Learned doe make them necessarie to all or any reason why they should Therefore they cannot be Fundamentall Besides that which is Fundamentall in the Faith of Christ is a Rocke immooueable and can neuer bee varied Neuer Therefore if it be Fundamentall after the Church hath defined it it was Fundamentall before the definition else it is mooueable and then no Christian hath where to rest And if it be immooueable as indeed it is no Decree of a Councell be it neuer so generall can alter immooueable Verities no more than it can change immooueable Natures Therefore if the Church in a Councell define any thing the thing defined is not Fundamentall because the Church hath defined it nor can be made so by the definition of the Church if it be not so in it selfe For if the Church had this power shee might make a new Article of the Faith which the Learned among your selues denie For the Articles of the Faith cannot encrease in substance but onely in explication Nor is this hard to be prooued out of your owne Schoole for Scotus professeth it in this verie particular of the Greeke Church If there be saith he a true reall difference betweene the Greekes and the Latines about the Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost then either they or we be vere Haeretici truly and indeed Heretikes And he speakes this of the old Greekes long before any decision of the Church in this Controuersie For his instance is in S. Basil and Greg. Nazianz. on the one side and S. Ierome Augustine and Ambrose on the other And who dares call any of these Heretikes is his challenge I denie not but that Scotus addes there That howsoeuer this was before yet ex quo from the time that the Catholike Church declared it it is to be held as of the substance of Faith But this cannot stand with his former Principle if hee intend by it That whatsoeuer the Church defines shall be ipso facto and for that determinations sake Fundamentall For if before the determination supposing the difference reall some of those Worthies were truly Heretikes as hee confesses then somewhat made them so and that could not be the Decree of the Church which then was not Therefore it must be somewhat really false that made them so and fundamentally false if it had made them Heretikes against the Foundation But Scotus was wiser than to intend this It may be hee saw the streame too strong for him to swim against therefore hee went on with the Doctrine of the time That the Churches Sentence is of the substance of Faith but meant not to betray the Truth for hee goes no further than Ecclesia declarauit since the Church hath declared it which is the word that is vsed by diuers Now the Master teaches and the Schollers too That euerie thing which belongs to the exposition or declaration of another intus est is not another contrarie thing but is contayned within the bowels and nature of that which is interpreted from which if the declaration depart it is faultie and erronious because in stead of declaring it giues another and a contrarie sense Therefore when the Church declares any thing in a Councell either that which she declares was Intus or Extra in the nature and veritie of the thing or out of it If it were Extra without the nature of the thing declared then the declaration of the thing is false and so farre from being fundamentall in the Faith If it were Intus within the compasse and nature of the thing though not expert and apparant to euerie Eye then the declaration is true but not otherwise fundamentall than the thing is which is declared For Intus cannot be larger or deeper than that in which it is if it were it could not be Intus Therefore nothing is simply fundamentall because the Church declares it but because it is so in the nature of the thing which the Church declares And it is a slight and poore euasion that is commonly vsed That the declaration of the Church makes it fundamentall quoad nos in respect of vs for it doth not that neither for no respect to vs can varie the Foundation The Churches declaration can bind vs to peace and externall obedience where there is not expresse letter of Scripture and sense agreed on but it cannot make any thing fundamentall to vs that is not so in the nature of it For if the Church can so adde that it can by a Declaration make a thing to be fundamentall in the Faith that was not then it can take a thing from the foundation and make it by declaring not to be fundamentall which all men graunt no power of the Church can doe For the power of adding any thing contrarie and of detracting any thing necessarie are alike forbidden Now nothing is more apparant than this to the eye of all men That the Church of Rome hath determined or declared or defined call it what you will very many things that are not in their owne nature fundamentall and therefore neither are not can be made so by her adiudging them 2. For the second That it is prooued by this place of S. Augustine That all Points defined by the Church are fundamentall You might haue giuen me that place cited in the Margin and eased my paines to seeke it but it may be there was somewhat in concealing it For you doe so extraordinarily right this place that you were loth I thinke any 〈◊〉 should see how you wrong it The place of S. Augustine is this against the Pelagians about Remission of Originall sinne in Infants This is a thing founded An erring Disputor is to be borne with in other Questions not diligently digested not yet made firme by 〈◊〉 Authoritie of the Church their Error is to be borne with but it ought not to goe so farre that it should labour to shake the Foundation it selfe of the Church This is the place but it can neuer follow out of this place I thinke That euerie thing defined by the Church is Fundamentall For first he speakes of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture not a Church definition This appeares for few Lines before he tells vs There was a Question mooued to S. Cyprian Whether Baptisme was concluded to the eight day as well as Circumcision And no doubt was made then of the beginning of Sinne and that out of this thing about which no Question was mooued that Question that was made was answered And againe That S. Cyprian tooke that which he gaue in answere from the Foundation of the Church to confirme a Stone that was shaking Now S. Cyprian in all the Answer that he giues hath not one
word of any definition of the Church therefore Ea Res That thing by which he answered was a Foundation of prime and settled Scripture Doctrine not any definition of the Church Therefore that which he tooke from the Foundation of the Church to fasten the Stone that shooke was not a definition of the Church but the Foundation of the Church it selfe the Scripture vpon which it builded as appeareth in the Mileuitan Councell where the Rule by which Pelagius was condemned is the Rule of Scripture Rom. 5.12 Therefore S. Augustine goes on in the same sense That the Disputor is not to be borne any longer that shall endeuour to shake the Foundation it selfe vpon which the whole Church is grounded Secondly If S. Augustine did meane by Founded and Foundation the definition of the Church because of these words This thing is founded This is made firme by full authoritie of the Church and the words following these To shake the foundation of the Church yet it can neuer follow out of any or all these Circumstances and these are all That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall in the Faith For first no man denyes but the Church is a Foundation That things defined by it are founded vpon it And yet hence it cannot follow That the thing that is so founded is Fundamentall in the Faith for things may be founded vpon humane Authoritie and be verie certaine yet not Fundamentall in the Faith Nor yet can it follow This thing is founded therefore euerie thing determined by the Church is founded Againe that which followes That those things are not to be opposed which are made firme by full Authoritie of the Church cannot conclude they are therefore fundamentall in the Faith For full Church Authoritie is but Church Authoritie and Church Authoritie when it is at full Sea the time that included the Apostles being past and not comprehended in it is not simply Diuine therefore the Sentence of it not fundamentall in the Faith And yet no erring Disputor may be endured to shake the Foundation which the Church in Councell layes But plaine Scripture with euident sense or a full demonstratiue argument must haue roome where a wrangling and erring Disputor may not be allowed it And there 's neither of these but may conuince the definition of the Councell if it be ill founded And the Articles of the Faith may easily prooue it is not fundamentall if in deed and veritie it be not so And the B. hath read some bodie that sayes Is it not you That things are fundamentall in the Faith two wayes One in their Matter such as are all things as be so in themselues the other in the Manner such as are all things that the Church hath defined and determined to be of Faith And that so some things that are de modo of the manner of being are of Faith But in plaine truth this is no more than if you should say Some things are fundamentall in the Faith and some are not For wrangle while you will you shall neuer be able to prooue That any thing which is but de modo a consideration of the manner of being onely can possibly be fundamentall in the Faith And since you make such a Foundation of this place I will a little view the Mortar with which it is laid by you it is a venture but I shall find it vntempered Your assertion is All Points defined by the Church are fundamentall your proofe this place Because that is not to be shaken which is setled by full authoritie of the Church Then it seemes your meaning is that this Point there spoken of The remission of 〈◊〉 sinne in Baptisme of Infants was defined when S. Augustine wrote this by a full Sentence of a Generall Councell First If you say it was Bellarmine will tell you it is false and that the Pelagian Heresie was neuer condemned in an Oecumenicall Councell but only in Nationalls But Bellarmine is deceiued for while they stood out impudently against Nationall Councels some of them defended Nestorius which gaue occasion to the first Ephesine Councell to excommunicate and depose them And yet this will not serue your turne for this place For S. Augustine was then dead and therefore could not meane the Sentence of that Councell in this place Secondly And if you say it was not then defined in an Oecumenicall Synod plena Authoritas Ecclesiae the full Authoritie of the Church there mentioned doth not stand properly for the Decree of an Oecumenicall Councell but for some Nationall as this was condemned in a Nationall Councell and then the full Authoritie of the Church here is no more than the full Authoritie of this Church of Africke And I hope that Authoritie doth not make all Points defined by it to be Fundamentall You will say Yes if that Councell be confirmed by the Pope And I must euer wonder why S. Augustine should say The full Authoritie of the Church and not bestow one word vpon the Pope by whose Authoritie onely that Councell as all other haue their fulnesse of Authoritie in your iudgement An inexpiable omission if this Doctrine concerning the Pope were true F. Secondly J required to know what Points the B. would account Fundamentall Hee said All the Points of the Creed were such B. Against this I hope you except not For since the Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the two Regular Precepts by which a Diuine is gouerned about the Faith since your owne Councell of Trent decrees That it is that Principle of Faith in which all that professe Christ doe necessarily agree Et Fundamentum firmum vnicum not the firme alone but the onely Foundation since it is Excommunication ipso iure for any man to contradict the Articles contained in that Creed since the whole body of the Faith is so contained in the Creed as that the substance of it was beleeued euen before the comming of Christ though not so expressely as since in the number of the Articles since Bellarmine confesses That all things simply necessarie for all mens saluation are in the Creed and the Decalogue What reason can you haue to except And yet for all this euerie thing Fundamentall is not of a like neerenesse to the Foundation nor of equall Primenesse in the Faith And the B. graunting the Creed to be Fundamentall doth not denie but that there are Quaedam prima Credibilia Certaine prime Principles of Faith in the bosome whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded vp One of which since Christ is that of S. Iohn Euery Spirit that confesseth Iesus Christ come in the flesh is of God And one both before the comming of Christ and since is that of S. Paul He that comes to God must beleeue that God is and that he is a
rewarder of them that seeke him F. I asked How then it happened as Mr Rogers saith that the English Church is not yet resolued what is the right sense of the Article of Christ's descending into Hell B. The English Church neuer made doubt that I know what was the sense of that Article The words are so plaine they beare their meaning before them Shee was content to put that Article among those to which she requires subscription not as doubting of the sense but to preuent the Cauills of some who had beene too busie in crucifying that Article and in making it all one with the Article of the Crosse or but an Exposition of it And sure the B. thinkes and so doe I That the Church of England is better resolued of the right sense of this Article than the Church of Rome especially if she must be tryed by her Writers as you trie the Church of England by Mr Rogers For you cannot agree whether this Article be a meere Tradition or whether it hath any place of Scripture to warrant it Scotus and Stapleton allow it no footing in Scripture but Bellarmine is resolute that this Article is euerie where in Scripture and Thomas grants as much for the whole Creed The Church of England neuer doubted it and S. Augustine prooues it And yet againe you are different for the sense For you agree not whether the Soule of Christ in triduo mortis in the time of his death did goe downe into Hell really and was present there or virtually and by effects onely For Thomas holds the first and Durand holds the latter Then you agree not whether the Soule of Christ did descend really and in essence into the lowest Pit of Hell and place of the Damned as Bellarmine once held probable and prooued it or really only into that place or Region of Hell which you call Limbum Patrum and then but virtually from thence into the Lower Hell to which Bellarmine reduces himselfe and giues his reason because it is the common opinion of the Schoole Now the Church of England takes the words as they are in the Creed and beleeues them without further dispute and in that sense which the antient Primitiue Fathers of the Church agreed in And yet if any in the Church of England should not be throughly resolued in the sense of this Article Is it not as lawfull for them to say I conceiue thus or thus of it yet if any other way of his Descent be found truer than this I denie it not but as yet I know no other as it was for Durand to say it and yet not impeach the Foundation of the Faith F. The B. said That Mr Rogers was but a priuate man But said I if Mr Rogers writing as he did by publike Authoritie be accounted onely a priuate man c. B. The B. said truth when he said Mr Rogers was a priuate man And I take it you will not allow euerie speech of euerie man though allowed by Authoritie to be printed to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome This hath beene oft complained of on both sides The imposing particular mens Assertions vpon the Church yet I see you meane not to leaue it And surely as Controuersies are now handled by some of your partie at this day I may not say it is the sense of the Article in hand but I haue long thought it a kind of descent into Hell to be conuersant in them I would the Authors would take heed in time and not seeke to blind the people or cast a mist before euident Truth least it cause a finall descent to that place of Torment But since you hold this course Stapleton was of greater note with you than Rogers is with vs and as he so his Relection And is it the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which he affirmes The Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell and that there is a Catholike and an Apostolike Church If it be then what will become of the Pope's Supremacie ouer the whole Church Shall hee haue his power ouer the Catholike Church giuen him expressely in Scripture in the Keyes to enter and in Pasce to feed when he is in and when he hath fed to confirme and in all these not to erre and faile in his ministration And is the Catholike Church in and ouer which he is to doe all these great things quite left out Belike the Holy Ghost was carefull to giue him his power Yes in any case but left the assigning of his great Cure the Catholike Church to Tradition And it were well for him if hee could so prescribe for what he now claymes But what if after all this Mr Rogers there sayes no such thing as in truth he doth not His words are All Christians acknowledge he descended but in the interpretation of the Article there is not that consent that were to be wished What is this to the Church of England more than others And againe Till wee know the natiue and vndoubted sense of this Article is Mr Rogers Wee the Church of England or rather his and some others Iudgement of the Church of England F. But if Mr Rogers be onely a priuate man In what Booke may wee find the Protestants publike Doctrine The B. answered That to the Booke of Articles they were all sworne B. What was the B. so ignorant to say The Articles of the Church of England were the publike Doctrine of all the Protestants or That all Protestants were sworne to the Articles of England as this speech seemes to implie Sure he was not Was not the immediate speech before of the Church of England And how comes the subiect of the speech to be varyed in the next Lines Nor yet speake I this as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest Doctrines against which they ioyntly take exceptions against the Romane Church as appeares by their seuerall Confessions Nor did the B. say That the Booke of Articles onely was the Continent of the Church of Englands publike Doctrine Shee is not so narrow nor hath shee purpose to exclude any thing which shee acknowledges hers nor doth shee wittingly permit any crossing of her publike declarations Yet shee is not such a Shrew to her Children as to denie her Blessing or denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some particulars remoter from the Foundation as your owne Schoolemen differ And if the Church of Rome since shee grew to her greatnesse had not beene so fierce in this course Christendome I persuade my selfe had beene in happier peace at this day F. And that the Scriptures onely not any vnwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith B. The Church of England grounded her Positiue Articles vpon Scripture and her Negatiue Refute where the thing affirmed by you is not affirmed in Scripture nor directly
question it can both prooue and approoue it selfe His words are So that vnlesse besides Scripture there be c. Besides Scripture therefore he excludes not Scripture but calls for another proofe to lead it in namely Tradition which no man that hath braines about him denyes In the two other places Brierly falsifies shamefully for folding vp all that Hooker sayes in these words This other meanes to assure vs besides Scripture is the Authoritie of Gods Church he wrinkles that worthie Author desperately and shrinkes vp his meaning In the former place abused by Brierly no man can set a better state of the question betweene Scripture and Tradition than Hooker doth His words are these The Scripture is the ground of our Beleefe The Authoritie of man that is the name he giues to Tradition is the Key which opens the doore of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture I aske now when a man is 〈◊〉 and hath viewed a house and by viewing likes it and vpon liking resolues vnchangeably to dwell there doth he set vp his resolution vpon the Key that let him in No sure but vpon the goodnesse and commodiousnesse which he sees in the house And this is all the difference that I know betweene vs in this Point In which doe you grant as yee ought to doe that wee resolue our Faith into Scripture as the Ground and wee will neuer denie that Tradition is the Key that lets vs in In the latter place Hooker is as plaine as constant to himselfe and Truth His words are The first outward motiue leading men so to esteeme of the Scripture is the Authoritie of Gods Church c. But afterwards the more we bestow our labour in reading or learning the Mysteries thereof the more we find that the thing it selfe doth answer our receiued opinion concerning it so that the former inducement preuailing somewhat with vs before doth now much more preuaile when the verie thing hath ministred further reason Here then againe in his iudgement is Tradition the first inducement but the farther Reason and Ground is the Scripture and resolution of Faith euer settles vpon the farthest Reason it can not vpon the first inducement So that the state of this Question is firme and plaine enough to him that will not shut his eyes The last thing I shall trouble you with is That this method and manner of proouing Scripture to be the Word of God is the same which the antient Church euer held namely Tradition or Ecclesiasticall Authoritie first and then internall Arguments from the Scripture it selfe The first Church of Christ the Apostles themselues had their warrant from Christ their Tradition was euerie way Diuine both in the thing they deliuered and in the manner of their witnessing it But in after-times of the Church men prooue Scripture to be the Word of God by internall Arguments as the chiefe thing vpon which they resolue though Tradition be the first that mooues them to it This way the Church went in S. Augustine's time He was no enemie to Church-Tradition yet when he would prooue that the Author of the Scripture and so of the whole knowledge of Diuinitie as it is supernaturall is Deus in Christo God in Christ he takes this as the all-sufficient way and giues foure proofes all internall to the Scripture first The Miracles secondly That there is nothing carnall in the Doctrine thirdly That there hath beene such performance of it fourthly That by such a Doctrine of Humilitie the whole World almost hath beene conuerted And whereas ad muniendam fidem for the defending of the Faith and keeping it entire there are two things requisite Scripture and Church-Tradition Vincent Lirinensis places Authoritie of Scriptures first and then Tradition And since it is apparant that Tradition is first in order of Time it must necessarily follow that Scripture is first in order of Nature that is the chiefe vpon which Faith rests and resolues it selfe And your owne Schoole confesses this was the way euer The woman of Samaria is a knowne resemblance but allowed by your selues For quotidie dayly with them that are without Christ enters by the Woman that is the Church and they beleeue by that fame which she giues c. But when they come to heare Christ himselfe they beleeue his words before the words of the woman For when they haue once found Christ they doe more beleeue his words in Scripture than they doe the Church which testifies of him because then propterillam for the Scripture they beleeue the Church and if the Church should speake contrarie to the Scripture they would not beleeue it Thus the Schoole taught then and thus the Glosse commented then And when men haue tyred themselues hither they must come The Key that lets men in to the Scriptures euen to this knowledge of them that they are the Word of God is Tradition of the Church but when they are in they heare Christ himselfe immediately speaking in Scripture to the Faithfull And his Sheepe doe not onely heare but know his voyce To conclude then wee haue a double Diuine Testimonie altogether infallible to confirme vnto vs that Scripture is the Word of God The first is the Tradition of the Church of the Apostles themselues who deliuered immediately to the World the Word of Christ the other the Scripture it selfe but after it hath receiued this Testimonie And into these wee doe and may safely resolue our Faith As for the Tradition of after ages in and about whom Miracles and Diuine power were not so euident we beleeue them because they doe not preach other things than those former the Apostles left in scriptis certissimis in most certaine Scripture And it appeares by men in the middle ages that these Writings were vitiated in nothing by the concordant consent in them of all succeedors to our owne time And now by this time it will be no hard thing to reconcile the Fathers which seeme to speake differently in no few places both one from another and the same from themselues touching Scripture and Tradition and that as well in this Point to prooue Scripture to be the Word of God as for concordant exposition of Scripture in all things else When therefore the Fathers say Wee haue the Scripture by Tradition or the like either they meane the Tradition of the Apostles themselues deliuering it and there when it is knowne we may resolue our Faith or if they speake of the present Church then they meane that the Tradition of it is that by which wee first receiue the Scripture as by an according meanes to the prime Tradition But because it is not simply Diuine wee resolue not our Faith into it nor settle our Faith vpon it till it resolue it selfe into the prime Tradition of the Apostles or the Scripture or both and there we rest with it And you cannot shew an ordinarie consent of Fathers nay Can you or any
Yet wee say after Tradition hath beene our Introduction the Soule that hath but ordinarie Grace added to Reason may discerne Light sufficient to resolue our Faith that the Sunne is there This Principle then being not absolutely and simply euident in it selfe is presumed to be taught vs otherwise and if otherwise then it must be taught in and by some superior Science to which Theologie is subordinate Now men may be apt to thinke out of reuerence That Diuinitie can haue no Science aboue it but your owne Schoole teacheth me that it hath The sacred Doctrine of Diuinitie in this sort is a Science because it proceeds out of Principles that are knowne by the Light of a superior Knowledge which is the Knowledge of God and the blessed in Heauen In this superior Science this Principle The Scriptures are the Oracles of God is more than euident in full Light This superior Science deliuers this Principle in full reuealed Light to the Prophets and Apostles The infallible Light of this Principle made their Authoritie Diuine by the same Diuine Authoritie they wrote and deliuered the Scripture to the Church Therefore from them immediately the Church receiued the Scripture and that vncorrupt And since no sufficient reason hath or can be giuen that in any substantiall thing it hath beene corrupted it remaines firme to vs at this day prooued in the most supreame Science and therefore now to be supposed at least by all Christians That the Scripture is the Word of God And therefore the B. his answere is good euen in strictnesse That this Principle is to be supposed Besides the Iewes neuer had nor can haue any other proofe that the Old Testament is the Word of God than wee haue of the New For theirs was deliuered by Moses and the Prophets and ours was deliuered by the Apostles which were Prophets too The Iewes did beleeue their Scripture by a Diuine Authoritie for so the Iewes argue themselues We know that God spaeke with Moses And that therefore they could no more erre in following Moses than they could in following God himselfe Now how did the Iewes know that God spake to Moses How Why apparently the same way that is before set downe first by Tradition So S. Chrysostome We know Why by whose witnesse doe you know By the Testimonie of oùr Ancestors But he speakes not of their immediate Ancestors but their Prime which were Prophets and whose Testimonie was Diuine into which namely their Writings the Iewes did resolue their Faith And euen that Scripture of the Old Testament was a Light and a shining Light too and therefore could not but be sufficient when Tradition had gone before And therefore though the Iewes entred this way to their beleefe of the Scripture yet they doe not say Audiuimus Wee haue heard that God spake to Moses but Wee know it So they resolued their Faith higher and into a more inward Principle than an Eare to their immediate Ancestors and their Tradition F. And that no other answere could be made but by admitting some Word of God vnwritten to assure vs of this Point B. I thinke I haue shewed that the B. his answere is good and that so no other answere need be made If there were need I make no question but another answere might be made to assure vs of this Point though wee did not admit of any Word of God vnwritten I say to assure vs and you expresse no more If you had said to assure vs by Diuine Faith your Argument had beene the stronger But if you speake of assurance onely in the generall I must then tell you and it is the great aduantage which the Church of Christ hath against Infidels a man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiasticall and humane proofe Men that neuer saw Rome may be sure and infallibly beleeue that such a Citie there is by Historicall and acquired Faith And if consent of humane storie can assure me this Why should not consent of Church-storie assure me the other That Christ and his Apostles deliuered this Bodie of Scripture as the Oracles of God For Iewes enemies to Christ they beare witnesse to the Old Testament and Christians through almost all Nations giue in euidence to both Old and New And no Pagan or other enemies of Christianitie can giue such a worthie and consenting Testimonie for any Authoritie vpon which they relye or almost for any Principle which they haue as the Scripture hath gayned to it selfe And as is the Testimonie which it receiues aboue all Writings of all Nations so here is assurance in a great measure without any Diuine Authoritie in a word written or vnwritten A great assurance and it is infallible too onely then we must distinguish infallibilitie For first a thing may be presented as an infallible Obiect of Beleefe when it is true and remaines so For Truth 〈◊〉 tale as it is Truth cannot deceiue Secondly a thing is said to be infallible when it is not onely true and remainesso actually but when it is of such invariable constancie and vpon such ground as that no degree of falsehood at any time in any respect can fall vpon it Certaine it is that by humane Authoritie Consent and Proofe a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is the Word of God by an acquired habite of Faith Cui non 〈◊〉 falsum vnder which nor error nor falsehood is But he cannot be assured infallibly by Diuine Faith Cui subesse non potest falsum into which no falsehood can come but by a Diuine Testimonie This Testimonie is absolute in the Scripture it selfe deliuered by the Apostles for the Word of God That which makes way for this as an Introduction and outward motiue is the Tradition of the present Church but that neither simply Diuine nor sufficient alone into which we may resolue our Faith And now to come close to the particular The time was before this miserable rent in the Church of Christ which I thinke no true Christian can looke vpon but with a bleeding heart that you and we were all of one beleefe That beleefe was tainted in tract and corruption of time very deepely A diuision was made yet so that both parts held the Creed and other common Principles of Beleefe of these this was one of the greatest That the Scripture is the Word of God for our beleefe of all things contained in it depends vpon it Since this diuision there hath beene nothing done by vs to discredit this Principle nay we haue giuen it all honor and ascribed vnto it more sufficiencie euen to the containing of all things necessarie to saluation with satis superque enough and more than enough which your selues haue not done doe not And for begetting and settling a beleefe of this Principle wee goe the same way with you and a better besides The same way with you because wee allow the Tradition of the
iustifie their departure How could he say this since he did not graunt that they did depart There is difference betweene departure and causelesse thrusting from you for out of the Church is not in your power to thrust vs Thinke on that And so much the B. said expressely then That which the B. did ingenuously confesse was this That Corruption in Manners onely is no sufficient cause to make a seperation in the Church Nor is it It is a truth agreed on by the Fathers and receiued by Diuines of all sorts saue by the Cathari to whom came the Donatist and the Anabaptist against which Caluin disputes it strongly And Saint Augustine is plaine There are bad Fish in the Net of the Lord from which there must be euer a seperation in heart and in manners but a corporall seperation must be expected at the Sea shore that is the end of the World And the best Fish that are must not teare and breake the Net because the bad are with them And this is as ingenuously confessed for you as by the B. For if Corruption in Manners were a iust cause of actuall seperation of one Church from another in that Catholike Bodie of Christ the Church of Rome hath giuen as great cause as any since as Stapleton graunts there is scarce any sinne that can be thought by man Heresie onely excepted with which that Sea hath not beene foulely stayned especially from eight hundred yeeres after Christ. And he need not except Heresie into which Biel grants it possible the Bishops of that Sea may fall And Stella and Almain grants it freely that some of them did fall and so ceased to be Heads of the Church and left Christ God be thanked at that time of his Vicars Defection to looke to his Cure himselfe F. But saith he beside Corruption of Manners there were also Errors in Doctrine B. This the B. spake indeed And can you prooue that he spake not true in this But the B. added though here againe you are pleased to omit That some of her Errors were dangerous to saluation For it is not euerie light Error in disputable Doctrine and Points of curious Speculation that can be a iust cause of seperation in that admirable Bodie of Christ which is his Church for which he gaue his Naturall Bodie to be rent and torne vpon the Crosse that this Mysticall Bodie of his might be One. And S. Augustine inferres vpon it That he is no way partaker of Diuine Charitie that is an enemie to this Vnitie Now what Errors in Doctrine may giue iust cause of seperation in this Bodie were it neuer so easie to determine as I thinke it is most difficult I would not venture to set it downe least in these times of Discord I might be thought to open a Doore for Schisme which I will neuer doe vnlesse it be to let it out But that there are Errors in Doctrine and some of them such as endanger saluation in the Church of Rome is euident to them that will not shut their eyes The proofe whereof runs through the particular Points that are betweene vs and so it is too long for this discourse which is growne too bigge alreadie F. Which when the generall Church would not reforme it was lawfull for particular Churches to reforme themselues I asked Quo Iudice Did this appeare to be so B. Is it then such a strange thing that a particular Church may reforme it selfe if the generall will not I had thought and doe so still That in point of Reformation of either Manners or Doctrine it is lawfull for the Church since Christ to doe as the Church before Christ did and might doe The Church before Christ consisted of Iewes and Proselytes this Church came to haue a seperation vpon a most vngodly Policie of 〈◊〉 so that it neuer pieced together againe To a Common Councell to reforme all they would not come Was it not lawfull for Iudah to reforme her selfe when Israel would not ioyne Sure it was or else the Prophet deceiues me that sayes exactly Though Israel transgresse yet letnot Iudah sinne And S. Hierome expresses it in this verie patticular sinne of Heresie and Error in Religion Nor can you say that Israel from the time of the seperation was not a Church for there were true Prophets in it Elias and Elizaeus and others and thousands that had not bowed knees to Baal And there was saluation for these which cannot be where there is no Church And God threatens to cast them away to wander among the Nations and be no Congregation no Church therefore he had not yet cast them away into Non Ecclesiam into no Church And they are expressely called the people of the Lord in Iehu's time and so continued long after Nor can you plead that Iudah is your part and the Ten Tribes ours as some of you doe for if that be true you must graunt that the Multitude and greater number is ours And where then is Multitude your numerous Note of the Church But you cannot plead it For certainely if any Calues be set vp they are in Dan and Bethel they are not ours Besides to reforme what is amisse in Doctrine or Manners is as lawfull for a particular Church as it is to publish and promulgate any thing that is Catholike in either And your Question Quo iudice lyes alike against both And yet I thinke it may be prooued that the Church of Rome and that as a particular Church did promulgate an Orthodoxe Truth which was not then Catholikely admitted in the Church namely The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne If shee erred in this Fact confesse her Error if shee erred not Why may not another Church doe as shee did A learned Schooleman of yours saith she may The Church of Rome needed not to call the Grecians to agree vpon this Truth since the Authoritie of publishing it was in the Church of Rome especially since it is lawfull for euerie particular Church to promulgate that which is Catholike Nor can you say he meanes Catholike as fore-determined by the Church in generall for so this Point when Rome added Filioque to the Creed of a Generall Councell was nor And how the Grecians were vsed in the after Councell such as it was of Florence is not to trouble this Dispute but Catholike stands there for that which is so in the 〈◊〉 of it and fundamentally Nor can you iustly say That the Church of Rome did or might doe this by the Popes Authoritie 〈◊〉 the Church For suppose he haue that and that his Sentence be infallible I say suppose both but I giue neither yet neither his Authoritie nor his 〈◊〉 can belong vnto him as the particular Bishop of that See but as the 〈◊〉 Head of the whole Church And you are all so lodged in this that Bellarmine professes he can neither tell the
Church of which a Councell be it neuer so generall is a verie little part Yea and this verie Assistance is not so absolute nor in that manner to the whole Church as it was to the Apostles neyther doth Christ in that place speake directly of a Councell but of his Apostles Preaching and Doctrine 2. As for Christs being with them vnto the end of the World the Fathers are so various that in the sense of the antient Church wee may vnderstand him present in Maiestie in Power in Aid and Assistance against the difficulties they should find for preaching Christ which is the natiue sense as I take it And this promise was made to support their weakenesse As for his presence in teaching by the Holy Ghost few mention it and no one of them which doth speakes of any infallible Assistance further than the succeeding Church keepes to the Word of the Apostles as the Apostles kept to the guidance of the Spirit Besides the Fathers referre their speech to the Church vniuersall not to anie Councell or Representatiue Bodie And Maldonate addes That this his presence by teaching is or may be a Collection from the place but is not the intention of Christ. 3. For the Rocke vpon which the Church is founded which is the next place wee dare not lay any other Foundation than Christ Christ layd his Apostles no question but vpon himselfe With these S. Peter was layd no man questions And in prime place of Order would his clayming Successors be content with that as appeares and diuerse Fathers witnesse by his particular designement Tu es Petrus But yet the Rocke euen there spoken of is not S. Peters person eyther onely or properly but the Faith which hee professed And to this beside the Euidence which is in Text and Truth the Fathers come in with very full consent And this That the Gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it is not spoken of the not 〈◊〉 of the Church principally but of the not falling away of it from the Foundation Now a Church may erre and daungerously too and yet not fall from the Foundation especially if that of Bellarmine be true That there are many things euen de Fide of the Faith which yet are not necessarie to saluation Besides euen here againe the promise of this stable edification is to the whole Church not to a Councell at the least no further than a Councell builds as a Church is built that is vpon Christ. 4. The last place is Christs Prayer for S. Peters Faith The 〈◊〉 sense of which place is That Christ prayed and obtained for S. Peter perseuerance in the grace of God against the strong temptation which was to winnow him aboue the rest But to conclude an infallibilitie from hence in the Pope or in his Chaire or in the Romane See or in a Generall Councell though the Pope be President I find no antient Fathers that dare aduenture it And Bellarmine himselfe besides some Popes in their owne Cause and that in Epistles counterfeit or falsely alledged hath not a Father to name for this sense of the place till he come downeto Chrysologus Theophylact and S. Bernard of which Chrysologus his speech is but a flash of Rhetorike and the other two are men of Yesterday compared with Antiquitie and liued when it was Gods great grace and our wonder the corruption of the time had not made them corrupter than they are And Thomas is resolute that what is meant here beyond S. Peters person is referred to the whole Church And the Glasse vpon the Canon Law is more peremptorie than he euen to the denyall that it is meant of the Pope And if this place warrant not the Popes Faith Where is the infallibilitie of the Councell that depends vpon it And for all the places together weigh them with indifferencie and either they speake of the Church including the Apostles as all of them doe and then all graunt the voyce of the Church is Gods voyce Diuine and Infallible or else they are generall vnlimitted and applyable to priuate Assemblies as well as Generall Councels which none graunt to be infallible but some mad Enthusiasts or else they are limitted not simply into All Truth but All necessarie to Saluation in which I shall easily graunt a Generall Councell cannot erre if it suffer it selfe to be led by this 〈◊〉 of Truth in the Scripture and take not vpon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit For suppose these places or any other did promise Assistance euen to Infallibilitie yet they graunted it not to euerie Generall Councell but to the Catholike Bodie of the Church it selfe And if it be in the whole Church principally then is it in a Generall Councell but by Consequent as the Councell represents the whole And that which belongs to a thing by consequent doth not otherwise nor longer belong vnto it than it consents and cleaues to that vpon which it is a Consequent And therefore a Generall Councell hath not this Assistance but as it keepes to the whole Church and Spouse of Christ whose it is to heare his Word and determine by it And therefore if a Generall Councell will goe out of the Churches Way it may easily goe without the Churches Truth 4. Fourthly I consider That All agree That the Church in generall can neuer erre from the Faith necessarie to saluation No Persecution no Temptation and no Gates of Hell whatsoeuer is meant by them can euer so preuaile against it For all the members of the Militant Church cannot erre either in the whole Faith or in any Article of it it is impossible For if all might so erre there could be no vnion betweene them as members and Christ the Head And no vnion betweene Head and members no Bodie and so no Church which cannot be But there is not the like consent That Generall Councels cannot erre And it seemes strange to me that the Fathers hauing to doe with so many Heretikes and so many of them opposing Church Authoritie in their condemnation this Proposition euen in tearmes A Generall Councell cannot erre should be found in none of them that I can yet see Suppose it were true That no Generall Councell had erred in any matter of moment to this day which will not be found true yet this would not haue followed that it is therefore infallible and cannot erre I haue not time to descend into particulars therefore to the Generall still S. Augustine puts a difference betweene the Rules of Scripture and the definitions of men This difference is Praeponitur Scriptura That the Scripture hath the Prerogatiue That Prerogatiue is That whatsoeuer is found written in Scripture may neither be doubted nor disputed whether it be true or right But the Letters of Bishops may not onely be disputed but corrected by Bishops that are more learned and wise than they or by
so plaine set downe in the Scripture If about the sense and true meaning of these or necessarie deduction out of these prime Articles of Faith Generall Councels determine any thing as they haue done in Nice and the rest there is no inconueuience that one and the same Canon of the Councell should be beleeued as it reflects vpon the Articles and Grounds indemonstrable and yet knowne to the Learned by the Meanes and Proofe by which that deduction is vouched and made good And againe the Conclusion of a Councell suppose that in Nice about the Consubstantialitie of Christ with the Father in it selfe considered is or may be indemonstrable by Reason There I beleeue and assent in Faith but the same Conclusion if you giue me the ground of Scripture and the Creed and somewhat must be supposed in all whether Faith or Knowledge is demonstrable by naturall Reason against any Arrian in the World And if it be demonstrable I may know it and haue a habit of it And what inconuenience in this For the weaker sort of Christians which cannot deduce when they haue the Principle graunted they are to rest vpon the Definition onely and their assent is meere Faith yea and the Learned too where there is not a Demonstration euident to them assent by Faith onely and not by Knowledge And what inconuenience in this Nay the necessitie of Nature is such that these Principles once giuen the vnderstanding of man cannot rest but it must be thus And the Apostle would neuer haue required a man to be able to giue a reason and an account of the Hope that is in him if he might not be able to know his account or haue lawfull interest to giue it when he knew it without preiudicing his Faith by his Knowledge And suppose exact Knowledge and meere Beleefe cannot stand together in the same person in regard of the same thing by the same meanes yet that doth not make void this Truth For where is that exact Knowledge or in whom that must not meerely in points of Faith beleeue the Article or Ground vpon which they rest But when that is once beleeued it can demonstrate many things from it And Definitions of Councels are not Principia Fidei Principles of Faith but Deductions from them 7. And now because you aske Wherein wee are neerer to Vnitie by a Councell if a Councell may erre Besides the Answer giuen I promised to consider which Opinion was most agreeable with the Church which most able to preserue or reduce Christian Peace the Romane That a Councell cannot erre orthe Protestants That it can And this I propose not as a Rule but leaue the Christian World to consider of it as I doe 1. First then I consider Whether in those places of Scripture before mentioned or other there be promised and performed to the present Church an absolute infallibilitie or whether such an infallibilitie will notserue the turne as Stapleton after much wriggling is forced to acknowledge One not euerieway exact because it is enough if the Church doe diligently insist vpon that which was once receiued and there is not need of so great certaintie to open and explicate that which lyes hid in the Seed of Faith sowne and deduce from it as to seeke out and teach that which was altogether vnknowne And if this be so then sure the Church of the Apostles required guidance by a greater degree of infallibilitie than the present Church which if it follow the Scripture is infallible enough though it hath not the same degree of certaintie which the Apostles had and the Scripture hath Nor can I tell what to make of Bellarmine that in a whole Chapter disputes 〈◊〉 Prerogatiues in certaintie of Truth that the Scripture hath aboue a Councell and at last concludes That they may be said to be equally certaine in infallible Truth 2. The next thing I consider is Suppose this not Exact but congruous infallibilitie in the Church Is it not residing according to power and right of Authoritie in the whole Church and in a Generall Councell onely by power deputed with Mandate to determine The places of Scripture with Expositions of the Fathers vpon them make me apt to beleeue this S. Peter saith S. Augustine did not receiue the Keyes of the Church but in the person of the Church Now suppose the Key of Doctrine be to let in Truth and shut out Error and suppose the Key rightly vsed infallible in this yet this infallibilitie is primely in the Church in whose person not strictly in his owne S. Peter receiued the Keyes Here Stapleton layes crosse my way againe He would thrust me out of this Consideration He graunts that S. Peter receiued these Keyes indeed and in the person of the Church but that was because he was Primate of the Church 〈◊〉 therefore the Church receiued the Keyes finally but S. Peter formally that is if I mistake him not S. Peter for himselfe and his Successors receiued the Keyes in his owne Right but to this end to benefit the Church of which he was made Pastor But I am in a Consideration and I would haue this considered where it is euer read That to receiue a thing in the person of another is onely meant finally to receiue it that is to his good and not in his right I should thinke he that receiues any thing in the person of another receiues it indeed to his good and to his vse but in his right too And that the primarie and formall right is not in the receiuer but in him whose person hee sustaines while he receiues it This stumbling-blocke then is nothing and in my Consideration it stands still That the Church in generall receiued the Keyes and all Power signified by them and by the assistance of Gods Spirit may be able to vse them and perhaps to open and shut in some things infallibly when the Pope and a Generall Councell too forgetting both her and her Rule the Scripture are to seeke how to turne these Keyes in their Wards 3. The third thing I consider is Suppose in the whole Catholike Church Militant an absolute infallibilitie in the prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessarie to saluation and that this power of not erring so is not communicable to a Generall Councell which represents it but that the Councell is subiect to error This supposition doth not onely preserue that which you desire in the Church an Infallibilitie but it meets with all inconueniences which vsually haue done and doe perplexe the Church And here is still a remedie for all things For if priuate respects if Bandies in a Faction if power and fauour of some parties if weakenesse of them which haue the managing if any mixture of State-Councels if any departure from the Rule of the Word of God if any thing else sway and wrinch the Councell the whole Church vpon euidence found in expresse Scripture or demonstration of this
miscarriage hath power to represent her selfe in another Bodie or Councell and to take order for what was amisse eyther practised or concluded So here is a meanes without infringing any lawfull Authoritie of the Church to preserue or reduce Vnitie and yet graunt as the B. did and as the Church of England doth That a Generall Councell may erre And this course the Church tooke did call and represent her selfe in a new Councell and define against the Hereticall Conclusions of the former as in the case at Ariminum and the second of Ephesus is euident 4. The next thing I consider is Suppose a Generall Councell infallible in all things which are of Faith If it prooue not so but that an Error in the Faith be concluded the same erring Opinion that makes it thinke it selfe infallible makes the Error of it seeme irreuocable And when Truth which lay hid shall be brought to light the Church who was lulled asleepe by the Opinion of Infallibilitie is left open to all manner of Distractions as it appeares at this day And that a Councell may erre besides all other instances which are not few appeares by that Error of the Councell of Constance And one instance is enough to ouerthrow a Generall be it a Councell Christ instituted the Sacrament of his Bodie and Bloud in both kinds To breake Christs Institution is a damnable Error and so confessed by Stapleton The Councell is bold and defines peremptorily That to communicate in both kinds is not necessarie with a Non obstante to the Institution of Christ. Consider with me Is this an Error or not Bellarmine and Stapleton and you too say it is not because to receiue vnder both kinds is not by Diuine Right No no sure For it was not Christs Precept but his Example Why but I had thought Christs Institution of a Sacrament had beene more than his Example onely and as binding for the Necessaries of a Sacrament the Matter and Forme as a Precept Therefore speake out and denie it to be Christs Institution or else graunt with Stapleton It is a damnable Error to goe against it If you can prooue that Christs Institution is not as binding to vs as a Precept which you shall neuer be able take the Precept with it Drinke yee All of this which though you shift as you can yet you can neuer make it other than it is A Binding Precept But Bellarmine hath yet one better Deuice than this to saue the Councell Hee saith it is a meere Calumnie and that the Councell hath no such thing That the Non obstante hath no reference to Receiuing vnder both kinds but to the time of Receiuing it after Supper in which the Councell saith the Custome of the Church is to be obserued Non obstante notwithstanding Christs Example How foule Bellarmine is in this must appeare by the words of the Councell which are these Though Christ instituted this venerable Sacrament and gaue it his Disciples after Supper vnder both kinds of Bread and Wine yet Non obstante notwithstanding this it ought not to be consecrated after Supper nor receiued but fasting And likewise that though in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued by the faithfull vnder both kinds yet this Custome that it should be receiued by Lay-men onely vnder the kind of Bread is to be held for a Law which may not be refused And to say this is an vnlawfull Custome of Receiuing vnder one kind is erroneous and they which persist in saying so are to be punished and driuen out as Heretikes Now where is here any slander of the Councell The words are plaine and the Non obstante must necessarily for ought I can yet see be referred to both Clauses in the words following because both Clauses went before it and hath as much force against Receiuing vnder both kinds as against Receiuing after Supper Yea and the after-words of the Councell couple both together in this reference for it followes Et similiter And so likewise that though in the Primitiue Church c. And a man by the Definition of this Councell may be an Heretike for standing to Christs Institution in the very matter of the Sacrament And the Churches Law for One kind may not be refused but Christs Institution vnder Both kinds may And yet this Councell did not erre No take heed of it But your Opinion is yet more vnreasonable than this For consider any Bodie Collectiue be it more or lesse vniuersall whensoeuer it assembles it selfe Did it euer giue more power to the Representing Bodie of it than binding power vpon all particulars and it selfe too And did it euer giue this power any otherwise than with this Reseruation in Nature That it would call againe and reforme yea and if need were abrogate any Law or Ordinance vpon iust cause made euident to it And this Power no Bodie Collectiue Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill can put out of it selfe or giue away to a Parliament or Councell or call it what you will that represents it And in my Consideration it holds strongest in the Church For a Councell hath power to order settle and define Differences arisen concerning the Faith This Power the Councell hath not by any immediate Institution from Christ but it was prudently taken vp in the Church from the Apostles Example So that to hold Councels to this end is apparant Apostolicall Tradition written but the Power which Councels so held haue is from the whole Catholike Church whose members they are and the Churches Power from God And this Power the Church cannot further giue away to a Generall Councell than that the Decrees of it shall bind all particulars and it selfe but not bind the Church from calling againe and in the after calls vpon iust cause to order yea and if need be to abrogate former Acts I say vpon iust cause For if the Councell be lawfully called and proceed orderly and conclude according to the Rule the Scripture the whole Church cannot but approoue the Councell and then the Definitions of it can neuer be questioned after And the Power of the Church hath no wrong in this so long as no Power but her owne may meddle or offer to infringe any Definition of hers made in her representatiue Bodie a lawfull Generall Councell And certaine it is no Power but her owne may doe this Nor doth this open any gappe to priuate spirits For all Decisions in such a Councell are binding And because the whole Church can meet no other way the Councell shall remaine the Supreame Externall Liuing Temporarie Ecclesiasticall Iudge of all Controuersies Onely the whole Church and shee alone hath power when Scripture or Demonstration is found and peaceably tendered to her to represent her selfe againe in a new Councell and in it to order what was amisse Nay your Opinion is yet more vnreasonable For you doe not onely make the Definition of a Generall Councell but the Sentence
c. Hanc Catholicam fidem extra quam nemo saluus esse 〈◊〉 c. b Sentent Card. Baron sup excom venetorum b Gretsar Def. Bellarm. d. verb. Dei pag. 1713. Regula non dicit id esse Traditionem Apostolicam quod vniuersa Ecclesia semper omni tempore credidit sed quod tota Ecclesia Papa cum Concilio vel sine Concilio Colloq Ratisbon p. 35. credit amplectitur in presenti a Sixt. 〈◊〉 Biblioth Ep. Dedicat ad Piū 5. Deinde expurgari emaculari curasti omnia Catholicorū Scriptorum ac precipue veterum patrum scripta Haereti corum nostrae aetatis foecibus contaminata venenis 〈◊〉 In the summe of the Conference before his Maiestie pa. 〈◊〉 a Summe Confer at Hampton Court Ianuar. 14. 1603. pag. 75. This being his constant resolution That no Church ought further to seperate it selfe from the Church of Rome either in Doctrine or Ceremonie than she had departed from herselfe when she was in her flourishing and best estate and from Christ her Lord Head b Aug. d. Bapt. c. Donat. li. 6. ca. 44. Ipsi Gentiles si quid diuinum rectum c. Orig sup Exod. Hom. 11. Basil. Hexam Hom. 5. Clem. Alexand. Strom. li. 1. c Symb. Othonis Imp. pax cum hominibus cum vitijs bellum d There is difference betweene the mother-Mother-church which fignifieth a Church out of whose wombe all other Churches issue and a mother-Mother-Church which as Turtullian calleth Matrices Ecclesias importeth not fingularitie of One Holy c. but only Veritie and Prioritie before others whereof it was a Mother e Gratian. Dist. 12. ca. 1. Non decet à capite membra discedere sed iuxta sacrae Scripturae testimonium omnia membra caput sequantur Nulli vero dubium est quod Apostolica Ecclesia mater est omnium Ecclesiarum à cuius vos regulis nullatenus conuenit deuiare sicut Dei filius venit facere voluntatem patris sic vos voluntatem vestrae impleatis matris quae est Ecclesia cuius caput vt praedictum est Romana existit Ecclesia a Theod. Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 9. Matris omnium 〈◊〉 Hierosolomitanae reuerendistimum Dei 〈◊〉 Cyrillum Episcopum esse vobis significamus b Sarisbur Policrat li. 6. ca. 24. c Espenc Digres in 1. Timoth. li. 1. ca. 11. Fides ex diuini verbi auditu Ro. 10. Vbi ergo id nec legitur nec auditur fidem perire ac labefactari necesse est 〈◊〉 hodie 〈◊〉 dolor omnib ' fere locis cernimus vt ad tempora propinquare videamur de quib ' Dominus putas filius hominis veniens fidem inueniet super terram August tr 3. in ep Ioh. Est mater Ecclesia vbera eius duo testamenta Scripturarum diuinarum c. d Iren. li. 3. ca. 19. 〈◊〉 d. fid Orthod c. Arian c. 1. Vt Gypsum aqua permixtum lac colore mentitur ita per verisimilem confessionem Traditio inimica suggeritur e Espenceus in 2. Timoth. 4. digr 21. pa. 150. 151. sup 1. Tim. digress lib. 1. ca. 11. Maiores nostri tanta licet quanta nos erga sanctos deuotione iustum tamen non putarunt tot sanctorum gestarecitari vt legi non possint sacra vtriusquè Testam volumina Facilius Augiae Stabulum quam talibus fabellis c. Ludouic Viues lib. 2. d. corrupt artium in fine Ib. li. 5. f Nauar. Enchir. ca. 11. n. 6. In vniuersa Repub. Christiana tanta est circa haec 〈◊〉 dia vt multos passim inuenias nihil magis in particulari explicite de hijs rebus credere quam Ethnicum quendam Philosophum sola vnius Dei naturali cognitione 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 d. vnit Eccles. cap. 3. Non audiamus hec dico haec dicis sed audiam ' haec dicit Domin ' Sunt certi libri dominici quorū authoritati vtriquè consentimus vtrique credimus vtriquè seruimus ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam ibi discutiam ' causam nostram Ibid. Auserantur illa de medio quae aduersus nos inuicem nō ex diuinis Canonicis libris sed aliunde recitam ' Nolo humanis documentis sed diuinis oraculis Ecclesiam demonstrari Ib. ca. 16. Ecclesiam suam demonstrent si possunt non in sermonibus rumoribus Afrorum non in concilijs Episcoporum suorum c. sed in praescripto legis c. in ipsius Pastoris vocib ' c. hoc est in omnibus Canonicis sanctorum librorum authoritatibus b Canus loc Theolog. li. 11. ca. 4. Praetèr Authores sacros nullus Historicus certus esse potest c. Horant loc lib. 5. cap. 3. Gillius d. Deo sacr Doctr. li. 1. tr 7. ca. 15. August d. Ciuit. Dei li. 18. ca. 38. 40. li. 21. ca. 6. c Read a late Treatise touching the visibilitie of the 〈◊〉 Sect. 15. pa. 68.69 how Papists burned the workes of 〈◊〉 and others which were opposite to them d The Storie of Pope 〈◊〉 affirmed at least by thirtie Popish Historians and other Doctors and of late stifly opposed by other Papals Vid. Ioan. Wolph memorabil An. Dom. 854. 〈◊〉 loc 〈◊〉 5. d. Ecclesia sect 197. And by the Storie touching Pope 〈◊〉 who is affirmed to haue beene an Hereticke by antient Historie and by many Papals yet the same is stifly contradicted by Modernes Albertus Pighius Bellarmine Baronius Andradius c. e Bellarm. d. Concil li. 1. ca. 2. Libri ipsi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conseruati sunt multis vitijs scatent c. Espenc sup 1. Timoth. Digress li. 1. ca. 11. pag. 223. Argumentum est conciliorum acta non vbiquè integra esse f Paramo d. Orig. Inquisit lib. 3. d. pontif author in Temporal q. 1. Opinio 1. num 95. pag. 436. Nec curandum est de opinione historia Eusebij cum ab Ecclesia sit reprobara vt inquit Gelasius d. 15. c. Sancta Romana vel eo quià Arrianus Arrianorum protector fuit c. g 〈◊〉 Anal. tom 1. praefat Idem Anno 395. n. 41. anno 400. n. 42. Idem Anno 774. n. 10.12.13 〈◊〉 Anno 996. n. 54. Idem An. 1048. num 1. h Bannes 22. quest 1. ar 10. pa. 58. Et certè 〈◊〉 est quod post 900. 〈◊〉 Albertus Pighius inuenerit testes illos falsarios 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 d. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 273. 〈◊〉 Resp. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5. pag. 140. Nequè enim patres censentur cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod ab Ecclesia 〈◊〉 acceperunt vel scribunt vel docent 〈◊〉 Mus. Comment Rom. c. 14. Ego vt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plus vni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 crederem in hijs quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tangunt quam mille 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregorijs c. pa. 606. 〈◊〉 Prier li. d. Mod. Inquir Reg. 6. Dimitte Doctores doctores esse Ecclesiam 〈◊〉 necesse est illi possunt errare Ecclesia non potest errare b 〈◊〉 Dialog pa. 1. lib. 4. ca. 9. lib. 5. cap. 7. 〈◊〉 Arms.
such power in Scripture inspired of God that the maiestie of God shineth in it And this speech is the same in effect with that of Constantine the great reported by Theoderet Hist. li. 1. ca. 24. Obseruans fidem diuinam adipiscor lumen veritatis sequens lumen veritatis agnosco diuinam fidem Marking the diuine Faith I obtaine the light of Truth and following the light of Truth I acknowledge diuine Faith Quod est manifestatiuum alterius simul potest manifestare seipsum sicut lux quo actu prodit colores prodit seipsam cum ego quicquam loquor eadem locutione manifesto rem loguelam sayth Petrus de Lorca 22. q. 1. ar 1. disp 4. n. 8. That which is a manifestator of another thing may together manifest it selfe as appeareth inlight which doth manifest it selfe by the same act whereby it sheweth colours and by speech for when I speake by one and the same speech I manifest the thing spoken and mine owne speaking The same is affirmed by Peresius Canus Fra. Petigianus and it is so farre from being vnlikely that the holy Scripture when it is receiued doth manifest it selfe and his author that it is most absurd to imagine the contrarie for the Scripture is a diuine light Psal. 119.105.2 Pet. 1.19.2 Cor. 4. 6. And it is the voice and speech of God Luc. 1. 71. And the Iesuit cannot persuade any reasonable man to thinke that God almightie who bestowed tongues and voices vpon men with abilitie so to expresse themselues that others might vnderstand their voice and know them by it should speake himselfe in the Scripture so darkely and secretly that people when they are eleuated by grace cannot discerne the same to be his word or voice We know other creatures to be Gods worke by footsteps of his power wisdome and goodnesse appearing in them The holy Scripture excelleth all created things in wisdome and perfection it cannot therefore be destitute of signes and impressions to manifest vnto them which are inspired with grace vnto beleeuing that God himselfe is the author IESVITS 3. Argument If the mayne and substantiall points of Christian faith must be firmely knowne and beleeued before we can securely reade and truely vnderstand the holy Scriptures then the mayne and substantiall points of faith are beleeued not vpon Scripture but vpon Tradition precedently vnto Scripture This is cleare because true faith is not built but vpon Scripture truely vnderstood of man neither can Scripture vntill it be truely vnderstood of a man bee to him a ground of assured persuasion But we cannot vnderstand the Scripture securely and aright before wee know the substantiall Articles of faith which all are bound expresly to beleeue the summarie comprehension of which point is tearmed The rule of faith Tertul. de prescrip c. 13. ANSVVER The sequel of the Maior is denied It followeth not that although the mayne and substantiall points of faith must be firmely knowne and beleeued before we can securely reade and truely vnderstand the holy Scriptures in the particular texts and sections thereof therefore the said substantiall points are not beleeued vpon Scripture but vpon Tradition vnwritten The reason of the inconsequence is for that the mayne and substantiall points of faith may be knowne and beleeued by the doctrine of the Scripture touching the said points deliuered to people by those which haue faithfully collected the same into a Summarie out of the particular and distinct sentences of the holy Scriptures And they that beleeue this doctrine of the Scriptures may attaine the knowledge and faith of substantiall points of Christianity before themselues can reade and vnderstand the said Bookes yet they resolue not their faith into vnwritten Tradition according to the Popish meaning where by vnwritten Tradition is vnderstood doctrine of faith neither expresly nor inuoluedly contained in holy Scripture but into the doctrine of the Scripture collected and deliuered vnto them by others and vertually and immediately into the holy Scripture it selfe as I haue formerly shewed in answer to the second Argument That which followeth in the obiection touching the rule of faith prooueth not that Christian beliefe is resolued lastly and finally into vnwritten Tradition because the rule of faith is not such vnwritten Tradition as is neither exprefly nor by consequent contained in Scripture but a Summarie of the principall Articles of Christian 〈◊〉 contained in the Apostles Creed and which may be gathered out of the plaine texts and sentences of holy Scripture and therefore all they which resolue their faith into the said rule refolue the same also into the plaine doctrine of the Scripture And that the rule of faith is such it appeareth First by the branches and Articles of that rule which are I beleeue in God the Father Almighty c. And in Iesus Christ his onely Sonne our Lord c. With the rest of the Articles of the Apostles Creed reade 1. Cor. 15.1 2 3.1 Tim. 3.16 And Tertull. in the place alleaged by the Iesuite and in his Booke d. vel virg rehearsing the ancient rule of faith doth not mention any one Article which is not expresly or by deriuation contained in holy Scripture Secondly the rule of faith extendeth not it selfe beyond the bounds of the Gospel Gallath 1.8 Tertul. de prescript c. 6. but all the mayne and substantiall Articles of faith necessary to bee beleeued generally to saluation are contained in the plaine places of Euangelicall Scripture as both 〈◊〉 Augustine and learned Papists themselues affirme wherefore if the rule of faith be only a summarie comprehension of the mayne and substantiall Articles of Christianity and all these Articles are contained in holy Scripture then it followeth that the rule of faith is not vnwritten Tradition alone according to the Popish meaning but a Summarie of beleese contained in the plainer sentences of holy Scripture either expresly or by deduction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 li. 3. d. doct Christ. c. 2. saith Let a man seeke the rule of faith which he hath learned of 〈◊〉 places of Scripture and of the authoritie of the Church now the plainer places of Scripture are a part of Scripture and the authority of the Church exceedeth not the bounds of the Scripture according to St. Hierom. com Mich. c. 1. And Durand the famous Schooleman 2. dist 44. q. 3. n. 9. Out of the former definition of the rule of faith it followeth That because according to our Aduersaries doctrine the beleefe of Christians touching all maine and substantiall points of faith is resolued into the rule of faith and the said rule exceedeth not the limits of holy Scripture being onely a summarie comprehension of the principall heads of Christian doctrine collected from the plainer places of Scripture and propounded by the authority of the Church confined to Scripture that therefore the finall resolution of faith is not made into Tradition vnwritten
as the same signifies Doctrine neither expresly nor inuoluedly contained in holy Scripture but into the Scripture or doctrine of the Scripture it selfe IESVITS 4. 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 Dr. Field acknowledgeth wrote to them they had formerly taught more at large that were instructed and grounded in all substantiall and necessarie points of faith that knew the common necessary obseruations of Christianitie Ergo they that reade and presume to iuterpret the Scriptures without first knowing and firmely beleeuing by Tradition at the least all necessary substantiall points of faith cannot with assurance vnderstand them but may euen in manifest points mightily mistake for the blessed Apostles writing to Christians that were before hand fully taught and setled in substantiall Christian doctrines and customes doe ordinarily in their writings suppose such things as aboundantly knowne without declaring them anew onely tuching them cursorily by the way and therefore 〈◊〉 so that the already taught might well vnderstand their sayings and no other ANSWER The question is Whether the last and finall resolution of Faith is made into vnwritten Tradition and not into Scripture The fourth Argument produced by the Aduersarie to prooue this is taken from the necessitie of vnwritten Traditian to expound the Scripture And the summe of the Argument is Without a precedent instruction or teaching by Tradition vnwritten the necessarie and substantiall points of Faith wee cannot be firmely assured that we haue the right sence of the Scripture as appeareth by the example of the Primitiue hearers of the Apostles who were formerly instructed by them and had the right Faith taught them more at large and then being thus informed and prepared they receiued the Scripture and we haue no reason to promise vnto our selues more vnderstanding than the Apostles immediat hearers And the Scriptures without Tradition are obscure and do onely cursorily touch matters formerly taught more at large Ergo The last and finall resolution of Faith is made into vnwritten Tradition and not into Scripture In the Antecedent or leading part of this Argument some things cannot be admitted without distinction and some parts hereof are false and the Argument it selfe is inconsequent First they which in our daies vnderstand the Scripture aright must be such as they were to whom the Apostles wrote and deliuered the Scriptures c. not simply and in all things for many things are requisit for the first plantation of Faith which are not necessarie for the future continuance and propagation thereof but in such things onely as are common and ordinarie for all ages Wherefore they which in our daies vnderstand the Scriptures aright must ordinarily haue a preuious introduction by the teaching of others and also there must be in them a mind desirous of Truth and a resolution and diligence to vse the meanes appointed by God to learne the same but that they must be instructed in the same manner as the Apostles hearers were or learne all the necessarie points of Faith before they begin to read the Scriptures without any certaine vnderstanding is affirmed by the Aduersarie but not prooued Also many of the Apostles hearers read part of the Scriptures to wit the Scriptures of the Old Testament with profit and some right vnderstanding before they were generally taught all the grounds of the Gospell for otherwise how could they haue examined the Doctrine of the Apostles by the Scriptures Acts 17.11 And to what purpose did our Sauiour command the Iewes to search the Scriptures Ioh. 5.39 And why did the Apostles preaching both to Iewes and Gentiles confirme their Doctrine by the testimonie of the Scriptures Ro. 9.9 25 29 33. ca. 10.11.13.16 19. ca. 11.2.8.9 cap. 4.3.6.17 Iam. 2.23 1. Pet. 2.6 if the people to whom they preached could at all haue no right vnderstanding of the Scriptures before they were fully and perfectly grounded in the knowledge of all necessarie and substantiall points of Christian Faith Secondly whereas the Iesuit addeth for confirmation of his Antecedent That the Scriptures without Tradition are obscure and that the Apostles did in them onely cursorily touch matters formerly taught both those assertions according to the Popish meaning are false We acknowledge that many particular Texts and passages of holy Scripture are obscure and hard to be vnderstood 2. Pet. 3. 16. But in such points as are necessarie for Christians to vnderstand because they are primarie or fundamentall and in such things as are necessary for the declaring and applying that which is fundamentall the same is not so obscure but it may by diligent reading and vsing ordinarie meanes and helpes of knowledge be rightly vnderstood by the learned and also in a competent measure by the vnlearned after the same is expounded and declared vnto them For if the Scripture were generally and absolutely obscure to the vnlearned then God would not haue commanded them to read the same nor required them to heare the reading thereof much lesse would he haue said That by hearing the same they and their children might learne to feare him and keepe his commandements Deut. 31.11 12 13. And that the holy Scripture is in this manner perspicuous the antient Fathers constantly affirme S. Gregorie and S. Bernard compare the holy Scriptures to a Riuer wherein the Elephant may swim and the Lambe may wade S. Ireneus saith that some things in Scripture are apertly and cleerely without ambiguitie manifested to the eyes of our vnderstanding Saint Augustine Some things are set downe so plainely in the Scriptures that they rather require a hearer than an expositar And in another place Although some things are vailed with mysteries yet againe some things are so manifest that by the helpe of them obscure things may bee opened And againe All matters which containe faith and good manners are found in those things which are manifestly placed in the Scriptures Saint Chrysostome In diuine Scriptures all necessary things are plaine To the like purpose speaketh St. Hierom Fulgentius Hugo Victor Theoderit Lactantius Theophilus Antiochenus Clem. Alexandrinus and the same is the common Tenet of the Primatiue Fathers And Gregory Valence confesseth that such places of Scriptures as containe Articles of faith absolutely necessary are almost all of them plaine The like is affirmed by Aquinas Vasques and Gonzales The other clause of the Iesuits speech to wit That the Apostles in their Scripture did onely touch matters cursorily formerly taught is false First this Assertion is repugnant to Saint Augustine who speaking of the doctrine and deeds of our Sauiour saith Quicquid ille de suis factis dictis nos legere voluit hoc scribendum illis tanquam manibus suis imperauit Whatsoeuer Christ would
of your Quarter shew me any one Father of the Church Greeke or Latine that euer said Wee are to resolue our Faith that Scripture is the Word of God into the Tradition of the present Church And againe when they say wee are to relye vpon Scripture onely they are neuer to be vnderstood with exclusion of Tradition in what causes soeuer it may be had Not but that the Scripture is abundantly sufficient to it selfe for all things but because it is deepe and may be drawne into different senses I haue said thus much vpon this great occasion because this Argument is so much pressed without due respect to Scripture I will not say to the weakening our beleefe of it Now out of this I will weigh the B. his Answer and your Exception taken against it F. The B. said That the Bookes of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and needed not to be prooued B. Why but did the B. say That this Principle The Bookes of Scripture are the Word of God is to be supposed as needing no proofe at all to a naturall man or to a man newly entring vpon the Faith yea or perhaps to a doubter or weakeling in the Faith Can you thinke the B. so weake It seemes you doe But sure hee knowes that there is a great deale of difference betweene Ethnicks that denie and deride the Scripture and men that are borne in the Church The first haue a farther way about to this Principle the other in their very Christian education sucke in this Principle and are taught so soone as they are apt to learne it That the Bookes commonly called the Bible or Scripture are the Word of God The B. dealt with you as with a Christian though in Error while you call Catholike The words before spoken by the B. were That the Scripture onely not any vnwritten Tradition was the Foundation of Faith The Question betweene vs and you is Whether the Scripture doe containe all such necessarie things of Faith Now in this Question as in all Nature and Art the Subiect the Scripture is and must be supposed the Quaere betweene the Romane Catholikes and the Church of England being onely of the Predicate the thing vttered of it namely Whether it containe all Fundamentalls of Faith all necessaries for Saluation within it Now since the Question proposed in verie forme of Art prooues not but supposes the subiect I thinke the B. gaue a satisfying answere That to you and him and in this Question Scripture was a supposed Principle and needed no proofe And I must tell you that in this Question of the Scriptures perfect continent it is against all Art yea and Equitie too in reasoning to call for a proofe of that here which must goe vnauoidably supposed in this Question And if any man will 〈◊〉 familiar with Impietie to question it it must be tryed in a preceding Question and Dispute by it selfe Yet here not you onely but Bellarmine and others run quite out of the way to snatch at aduantage F. Against this I read what I had formerly written in my Replie against Mr Iohn White wherein I plainely shewed that this answere was not good and that no other answere could be made but by admitting some Word of God vnwritten to assure vs of this Point B. Indeed here you read out of a Booke which you called your owne a large discourse vpon this Argument but some bodie told me the B. vntyed the Knot of the Argument and set you to your Booke againe Besides you doe a great deale of wrong to Mr Hooker and the B. that because they call it a supposed or presumed Principle among Christians you should fall by and by into such a Metaphysicall discourse as the B. tells me you did to prooue That that which is praecognitum foreknowne in Science must be of such Light that it must be knowne of and by it selfe alone and that the Scripture cannot be so knowne to be the Word of God Well I will not now enter into that discourse more than I haue how farre the Beame which is verie glorious especially in some parts of Scripture giues Light to prooue it selfe You see neither Hooker nor the B. nor the Church of England for ought I know leaue the Scripture alone to manifest it selfe by the Light which it hath in it selfe but when the present Church hath prepared and led the way like a preparing Morning-Light to Sunne-shine and then indeed wee settle not but in that Light Nor will I make needlesse enquirie how farre or in what manner a praecognitum or supposed Principle in any Science may be prooued in a higher to which that is subordinate or accepted in a Prime nor how it may in Diuinitie where prae as well as post cognita things fore as after-knowne are matters and vnder the manner of Faith and not of Science strictly nor whether a praecognitum a presupposed Principle in Faith which rests vpon Diuine Authoritie must needs haue as much and equall Light to Naturall Reason which prime Principles haue in Nature while thy rest vpon Reason Nor whether it may iustly be denyed to haue sufficient Light be cause not equall Your owne Schoole grants That in vs which are the subiects both of Faith and Knowledge and in regard of the Euidence giuen in vnto vs there is lesse Light lesse Euidence in the Principles of Faith than in the Principles of Knowledge vpon which there can be no doubt But I thinke the Schoole will neuer grant that the Principles of Faith euen this in question haue not sufficient euidence And you ought not to doe as you did without any distinction or any limitation denie a Praecognitum or prime Principle in the Faith because it answers not in all things to the prime Principles in Science in their Light and Euidence a thing in it selfe directly against Reason Well though I doe none of this yet I must follow you a little for I would faine make it appeare as plainely as such a difficultie can what wrong you doe Truth and your selfe in this case When the Protestants therefore answere to this Argument which as I haue shewed can properly haue no place in the Question betweene vs about Tradition they which grant this as a Praecognitum and thing fore-knowne as the B. did were neither ignorant nor forgetfull That things presupposed as alreadie knowne in a Science are of two sorts Either they are plaine and fully manifest intheir owne Light or they are prooued and granted alreadie some former knowledge hauing made them euident This Principle then The Scriptures are the Oracles of God wee cannot say is cleare and fully manifest to all men simply and in selfe-Light For as is formerly said if it were so euident then all that heare it reade it and doe but vnderstand 〈◊〉 tearmes could not but presently assent vnto it as they doe to Principles euident in themselues which hourely experience tells vs is not so