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
Granting that some vulgar people and nouices in Faith may attaine beleefe concerning such verities of Christian Doctrine as are absolutely necessarie to Saluation by the Tradition of their Ancestors and Teachers without distinct and explicit resoluing their Faith into the Text of holy Scripture or the particular Bookes or Sections thereof But withall I deny that they can haue sauing Faith without resoluing the same into the doctrine of the Scriptures For example It is an Article of Faith necessarie to be beleeued by all Christians of riper yeres that Iesus Christ is the 〈◊〉 of the World and the same Article is reuealed and taught in many Texts of holy Scripture If a simple rurall person beleeue this Article taught him by his parents and other teachers he beleeueth the Doctrine of the Scripture and vertually grounds his Faith vpon the Scripture although hee know not the Bookes of the Scripture or the particular sentences contained in the same A man which drinketh water flowing from a fountaine or seeth day light although he haue no distinct knowledge of the fountaine or sight of the Sunne which is the cause of light yet hee receiueth water mediatly from the fountaine it selfe and his light principally from the Sunne so likewise rude and illiterate Christians reape the benefit and fruit of the Scriptures and vertually ground their Faith vpon them although they be not able distinctly to looke into them or to resolue their Faith into the seuerall parts and testimonies contained in them OBIECTION Vulgar andilliterate persons do not know or vnderstand the Scriptures neither can they be certaine by their owne knowledge that the same are truely translated in such points as the y are bound to beleeue therefore they cannot ground their Faith finally and lastly vpon the Scriptures ANSVVER 1. If this Obiection were good vulgar people could not ground their diuine Faith vpon Tradition because they haue not distinct knowledge of Tradition or of the qualitie or deriuation thereof Therefore I distinguish of Knowledge out of Bonauenture that the same is two fold to wit either confused and generall or distinct and speciall and a thing may be knowne two waies either in it selfe or in another If vulgar and illiterate people could know and vnderstand the Scriptures neither confusedly nor distinctly neither in themselues nor in any other thing then it were impossible that they should resolue their Faith into them but if they may know them by teaching of others and vnderstand the Doctrine of the Scriptures to be diuine by the light of heauenly veritie resplendent in the same and by the inward testimonie of the holy Spirit co-working with that Doctrine then it is possible for them to resolue their Faith into the Scripture because they which actually resolue their Faith into the Doctrine of the Scripture doe virtually and mediatly resolue the same into the verie Scripture euen as he that actually beleeueth the kings proclamation doth virtually beleeue the kings authoritie although he know the king or his authoritie confusedly and in generall only The Text of holy Scripture and the distinct sayings and sentences thereof are the principall and finall externall ground whereupon the whole bodie of the Church must ground their Faith But as there is a diuersitie of the members of the Church 1. Cor. 12.20 so likewise there is a difference betweene them in the manner of resoluing Faith for the stronger and firmer members are able to resolue their Faith distinctly into Scripture but the weaker members whose Faith as Bonauenture speaketh is diminuta seeble and imperfect in respect of the distinct apprehension of the obiect of Faith are guided by the stronger as children by a nurse And these little ones are taught the truth of heauenly Doctrine 1. By their parents or ecclesiasticall teachers and they know the Scriptures to be truely translated not by their owne skill but by crediting others which are able to iudge But being thus farre directed and persuaded by humane meanes then the light of Gods word it selfe by the power of Grace persuadeth them as a diuine cause to yeeld full assent to all such verities as are necessarie to be beleeued by them to saluation IESVIT And this is that which Protestants must meane if they haue any true meaning when they say that the common people knew Scriptures to be truely translated by the light of the Doctrine shining in true Translations to wit by the light of Doctrine receiued by Tradition of Ancestors and thereupon so firmely beleeue as they will acknowledge Scriptures to be truely translated so farre and no farther than they perceiue them consonant with the Faith deliuered vnto them so that their last and finall resolution for substantiall points is not into Scripture truly translated into their vulgar tongue but into Tradition by the light whereof they discerne that their Translations are true more or lesse according to the measure of knowledge they haue by Tradition ANSVVER The summe of the former obiection is Vnlearned people are not able without the helpe and instruction of others to resolue their Faith into the Scriptures Therefore the Scripture is not the finall and greatest stay and ground of Faith The Argument is denied for as in Arts and Sciences an vnskilfull person cannot resolue his knowledge into the first principles vntill he be taught the meaning of words and the sence of rules and precepts but when he is taught and vnderstandeth these then he maketh resolution into the very first principles themselues So likewise in beleeuing the Obiect of Faith must be taught the sence of the words and matter declared the grounds and reasons of credibilitie deliuered and then the beleeuer principally and immediately settles the resolution of his Faith not vpon these helps and instruments which are only dispofitiue and adiuuant causes but vpon the first principles themselues expressely or deriuatiuely contained in holy Scripture And whereas Dr. Ioh. Wh. is produced affirming in the behalfe of all Protestants that common people know Scriptures to be truely translated by the light of the Doctrine shining in true Translations First Dr. Wh. in the place assigned speaketh not in particular of common people but of the true Church in which are found many persons skilfull and learned Secondly he deliuereth other meanes besides the light of Doctrine whereby the Church may know that Translations are true to wit knowledge of Tongues rules of Art ministerie of the Word to which I adde analogie of Faith the testimonie of the 〈◊〉 Church and best learned in all ages All these are helpes and instruments of right Translations and when the Scriptures are translated they manifest their Author and sacred authoritie to such as in a right manner are conuersant in hearing or reading them And this is not only the Tenet of Protestants but besides the antient Fathers of moderate Papists themselues There is saieth one of them
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
heauier if wee mis-lead on eytherside than theirs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vs. But I see I must looke to my selfe for you are secure For F. Dr White said I hath secured me that none of our Errors be damnable so long as wee hold them not against our Conscience And I hold none against my Conscience B. It seemes then you haue two Securities Dr Whites Assertion and your Conscience What Assurance Dr White 〈◊〉 you I cannot tell of my selfe nor as things stand may I rest vpon your Relation It may be you vse him no better than you doe the Bishop And sure it is so For I haue since spoken with Dr White and hee auowes this and no other Answere Hee was asked in the conferense betweene you Whether Popish Errors were Fundamentall To 〈◊〉 hee gaue 〈◊〉 by distinction of the persons which held and professed the Errors namely That the Errors were Fundamentall reductiue by a Reducement if they which embraced them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adhere to them hauing sufficient 〈◊〉 to be better enformed nay further that they were materially and in the verie kind and nature of them Leauen Drosse Hay and Stubble Yet hee thought withall that such as were mis-led by Education or long Custome or over-valuing the 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 Church and did in 〈◊〉 of heart embrace them might by their generall 〈◊〉 and Faith in the Merit of Christ attended with Charitie 〈◊〉 other Vertues find mercie at Gods hands But that hee should say Signanter and expressely That none eyther of yours or your fellowes 〈◊〉 were damnable so long as you hold them not against Conscience that hee vtterly disauowes You deliuered nothing to 〈◊〉 such a Confession from him And for your selfe hee could obserue but small loue of Truth few signes of Grace in you as hee tells mee Yet hee will not presume to iudge you or your Saluation it is the Word of Christ that must iudge you as the latter Day For your Conscience you are the happier in your Error that you hold nothing against it especially if you speake not against it while you say so But this no man can know but your Conscience For no man knowes the thoughts of a man but the spirit of a man that is within him to which I leaue you But yet you leaue not For you tell me F. The doubting partie asked Whether shee might be saued in the Protestants Faith Vpon 〈◊〉 Soule said the B. you may Vpon my Soule said I there is but one sauing Faith and that is the Romane B. So it seemes the B. was confident for the Faith professed in the Church of England else hee would not haue taken the Saluation of another vpon his Soule And sure hee had reason of his Confidence For to beleeue the Scripture and the Creeds to beleeue these in the sense of the antient Primitiue Church to receiue the foure great Generall Councels so much magnified by Antiquitie to beleeue all Points of Doctrine generally receiued as Fundamentall in the Church of Christ is a Faith in which to liue and die cannot but giue Saluation And therefore the B. went vpon a sure ground in the aduenture of his Soule vpon that Faith Besides in all the Points of Doctrine that are controuerted betweene vs. I would faine see anie one Point maintained by the Church of England that can bee prooued to depart from the Foundation You haue manie dangerous Errors about it in that which you call the Romane Faith But there I leaue you to looke to your owne Soule and theirs whom you seduce Yet this is true too That there is but one sauing Faith But then euerie thing which you call De Fide Of the Faith because some Councell or other hath defined it is not such a breach from that one sauing Faith as that hee which expressely beleeues it not nay as that hee which beleeues the contrarie is excluded from Saluation And Bellarmine is forced to graunt this There are manie things de Fide which are not absolutely necessarie to Saluation Therefore there is a Latitude in Faith especially in reference to Saluation To set a Bound to this and strictly to define it Iust thus farre you must beleeue in euerie particular or incurre Damnation is no worke for my Penne. These two things I am sure of One That your peremptorie establishing of so manie things that are remote Deductions from the Foundation hath with other Errors lost the Peace and Vnitie of the Church for which you will one day answere And the other That you are gone further from the Foundation of this one sauing Faith than can euer bee prooued wee haue done But to conclude you tell vs F. Vpon this and the precedent Conferences the Ladie rested in iudgement fully satisfied as shee told a confident friend of the Truth of the Romane Churches Faith Yet vpon frailetie and feare to offend the King shee yeelded to goe to Church For which shee was after verie sorrie as some of her friends can testifie B. This is all personall And how that Honourable Ladie is settled in Conscience how in Iudgement I know not This I thinke is made cleare enough That that which you said in this and the precedent Conferences could settle neyther vnlesse in some that were settled or setting before As little doe I know what shee told anie Friend of the Romane Cause No more whether it were frailetie or feare that made her yeeld to goe to Church nor how sorrie shee was for it nor who can testifie that sorrow This I am sure of If shee repent and God forgiue her other sinnes shee will farre more easily bee able to answere for her comming to Church than shee will for the leauing of the Church of England and following the Superstitions and Errors which the Romane Church hath added in point of Faith and worship of God I pray God giue her Mercie and all of you a Light of his Truth and a Loue to it first that you may no longer be made Instruments of the Popes boundlesse Ambition and this most vnchristian braine-sicke Deuice That in all Controuersies of the Faith hee is infallible and that by way of Inspiration and Prophesie in the Conclusion which hee giues To due consideration of this and Gods Mercie in Christ I leaue you FINIS Optat. lib. 3. c. Parmen Aug. c. Cresc lib. 3. ca. 51. Isid. d. sum bon lib. 3. ca. 53. Aug. Epist. 48. ad Vincent Idem Ep. 52. ad Macedon Idem Ep. 61. ad Dulcit Euseb. Hist. Eccles li. 10. ca. 9. Et d. vit Const. li. i. ca. 37. Ministrorum Dei coegit Concilium lib. 2. c. 43. lib. 3. ca. 6 10 12 16 17 18 23. Interdum 〈◊〉 quae ad Ecclesiarum Dei commodū spectabant prescribendo ib. ca. 63. lib. 4. c. 14. c. 18. Festos dies instituit ca. 22 23 27. Episcoporū Decreta cōfirmauit Theoderit Hist. Eccles li. 1. cap. 7. August d. Ciu. Dei li. 5. c. 25. Tertul. ad
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
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
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
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.
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
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
men indeed haue forged in their owne braines an axiome to serue their owne turne to wit That Christians must haue speciall ground out of Scripture for all circumstantiall actions and decencies vsed in diuine worship These we refute or better instruct to bring them into the middle way and wee teach as followeth First that nothing is to be receiued as a part of Catholike faith nor yet to be imposed in religion as a dutie immediately commanded by God which is expresly or deriuatiuely contained in holy Scripture Secondly outward ceremonies and things adiaphorous haue generall warrant in the Scripture in the doctrine of Christian libertie and in the doctrine of the authoritie of the Church And concerning things adiaphorous it is sufficient to make them lawfull that they are consonant vnto the generall rules and principles of Scripture But the Romish doctrine of inuocation of Saints and offering their merits vnto God c. are imposed by them as matters of faith and as a seruice immediately appointed by Christ and his Apostles and they which refuse this worship are condemned as Heretikes with a solemne Anathema Also the said worship is made meritorious and satisfactorie yea many times preferred before that which hath expresse warrant in Gods vndoubted word IESVIT This onely we require that ignorant people bee not Iudges of such inferences an office so farre aboue their capacities as I am persuaded no vnlearned man that hath in him any sparke of humilitie or any mediocritie of Iudgement will vndertake it for no man is competent to iudge assuredly of arguments by deduction from Scripture that hath not exact skill as well of Scripture to know the false sence from the true as of Logicke to distinguish Syllogismes from Paralogismes being able to giue sentence of the truth of Principles by the one and of the inferences by the other a thing so hard as euen learned Diuines doe much suspect their owne sufficiencie to iudge of Deductions and dare not absolutely pronounce their sentence but referre the same to definitions of authoritie which besides skill of Scripture and Logicke hath the promise of Gods perpetuall assistance in teaching the Christian Church ANSWER We are farre from appointing ignorant persons to be Iudges of that which exceedeth their modell and skill 1. Cor. 12. 29. and the tractation of matters obscure and difficile must be referred to the iuditious and learned But the promise of Christ to assist his Ministers in teaching and gouerning their flocke belongeth to other Pastours as well as to the Romane Bishop and his associates to whom we may say as S. Hierome doth in another case Are you alone the Church and is euery one excluded from Christ which offendeth you may you betrample the right of the Church and yet whatsoeuer you doe it must be a rule of Doctrine IESVIT Wherefore if Protestants will binde vs to bring expresse Scripture for the worship of Images adoration of the Sacrament inuocation of Saints they must themselues likewise be bound to bring expresse Scripture against Anabaptists for Christening of infants for their keeping of the Sunday in lieu of the antient Sabbaoth day for their dedicating of dayes in memorie of the Apostles with religious solemnitie for the crosse in Baptisme and other such things obserued in their Religion not expressed in Scripture And if deduction from Scripture or consonancie therewith be sufficient to warrant these customes Why should they mislike the worship and inuocation of Saints for which besides the iudgement of the most flourishing and learned antiquitie that euer was since the Apostles dayes to wit the Fathers of the fourth age confessedly consenting with vs we bring more cleare warrant from scripture than they can bring for the before mentioned obseruation of them religiously kept ANSWER If you will maintaine Inuocation of Saints as a matter of faith or necessarie dutie appointed immediately by God you must confirme the same either by expresse Scripture or by arguments out of the Scripture orby some other reuelation which is infallibly diuine besides the Scripture But if you vrge the same onely as a thing adiaphorous it is sufficient to make the practise lawfull if it be not repugnant to the Scripture But this latter imposeth no necessitie vpon other Churches which haue libertie to prescribe their owne adiaphorous rights The instances which you present vnto vs of infants Baptisme keeping Sunday in liew of the legall Sabboath and the figne of the Crosse in Baptisme arguing from them that some things are of necessarie obseruation and practised by our selues without expresse Scripture to warrant them are answered as before First baptinng of infants is deduced euidently from the Scriptures by the confession of your learned Cardinall Secondly there is expresse mention of the Lords day and of the religious obseruing thereof in the text of the new Testament Act. 20.7 1. Cor. 16.2 And the Primitiue Church immediately succeeding the Apostles testifieth expresly the obseruation of this day to haue beene grounded vpon Apostolicall institution But Romish inuocation of Saints wanteth the former of these totally and Papists can hardly name one authenticall Authour of the first 500 yeare which affirmeth that inuocation of Saints is a diuine or Apostolicall tradition Thirdly the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme is an antient ceremonie but yet adiaphorous and therefore expresse Scripture is not necessarie to warrant the vse of it But your inuocation of Saints and Image worship are made matters of faith and for the practise so inuiolable that the liuing Saints and Images of God must be destroyed and consumed in the topheth of your inquisition if they will not bend and bow the knee according to your tradition IESVIT § 2. Knowledge of Prayers made to them communicable and communicated vnto Saints THe second cause why Protestants dislike praying to Saints is for that they thinke by teaching that Saints heare our Petitions we attribute vnto them knowledge proper to God onely for Saints cannot know all Prayers made to them without seeing at once what is done in euery part of the world nor know the sincere deuotion wherewith they are done without seeing the secret affections of mens hearts but to know what is done in all parts of the world and the secrets of hearts is knowledge proper to God Therfore we cannot teach that they heare our Petitions without attributing to them knowledge proper to God To this exception answere is made That knowledge proper to God is of two kinds the one so proper as it is altogether incommnnicable with any creature and such is the comprehension of his diuine essence The second is proper so that naturally creatures are not capeable thereof yet the same may be imparted vnto them by supernaturall light eleuating them to a high and diuine state aboue the possibilitie of nature In this kinde is the vision of the diuine essence face to face which being granted vnto Saints
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
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
whole Councell depended vpon him and his confirmation was then vnknowne and I verily thinke at this day not beleeued by your selues 5. Fiftly it must be considered If a Generall Councell may erre Who shall iudge it S. Augustine is at priora à posterioribus Nothing sure that is lesse than a Generall Councell Why but this yet layes all open to vncertainties and makes way for a Whirlewind of a priuate spirit to ruffle the Church No neither of these First all is not open to Vncertainties For Generall Councels lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a great and an awfull Representation and cannot erre in matters of Faith if they keepe themselues to Gods Rule and attempt not to make a new of their owne and are with all submission to be obserued by euerie Christian where Scripture or euident Demonstration come not against it Nor doth it make way for the Whirlewind of a priuate spirit For priuate spirits are too giddie to rest vpon Scripture and too headie and shallow to be acquainted with demonstratiue Arguments And it were happie for the Church if shee might neuer be troubled with priuate spirits till they brought such Arguments I know this is hotely obiected against Hooker The Author calls him a wise Protestant yet turnes thus vpon him If a Councell must yeeld to a demonstratiue proofe Who shall iudge whether the Argument that is brought be a Demonstration or not For euerie man that will kicke against the Church will say the Scripture he vrges is euident and his Reason a Demonstration And what is this but to leaue all to the wildnesse of a priuate spirit Can any ingenuous man reade this passage in Hooker and dreame of a priuate spirit For to the Question Who shall iudge Hooker answers as if it had beene then made An Argument necessarie and demonstratiue is such saith hee as being proposed to any man and vnderstood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent vnto it So it is not enough to thinke or say it is demonstratiue The light then of a Demonstratiue Argument is the euidence which it selfe hath in it selfe to all that vnderstand it Well but because all vnderstand it not If a Quarrell be made who shall decide it No question but a Generall Councell not a priuate spirit first in the intent of the Author for Hooker in all that discourse makes the Sentence of the Councell binding and therefore that is made Iudge not a priuat spirit And then for the Iudge of the Argument it is as plaine For if it be euident to any man then to so many learned men as are in a Councell doubtlesse And if they cannot but assent it is hard to thinke them so impious that they will define against it And if that which is euident to any man is not euident to such a graue Assembly it is no Demonstration and the producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church Nor is this Hookers alone nor is it newly thought on by vs It is a ground in Nature which Grace doth euer set right neuer vndermine And S. Augustine hath it twice in one Chapter That S. Cyprian and that Councell at Carthage would haue presently yeelded to any one that would demonstrate Truth Nay it is a Rule with him Consent of Nations Authoritie confirmed by Miracles and Antiquitie S. Peters Chaire and Succession from it Motiues to keepe him in the Catholike Church must not hold him against Demonstration of Truth which if it be so clearely monstrated that it cannot come into doubt it is to be preferred before all those things by which a man is held in the Catholike Church Therefore an euident Scripture or Demonstration of Truth must take place euerie where but where these cannot be had there must be submission to Authoritie And doth not Bellarmine himselfe graunt this For speaking of Councels he deliuers this Proposition That Inferiors may not iudge whether their Superiors and that in a Councell doe proceed lawfully or not But then hauing bethought himselfe that Inferiors at all times and in all causes are not so to be cast off hee addes this Exception Vnlesse it manifestly appeare that an intollerable Error be committed So then if such an Error be and be manifest Inferiors may doe their dutie and a Councell must yeeld vnlesse you will accuse Bellarmine too of leaning to a priuate spirit for neither doth hee expresse who shall iudge whether the Error be intollerable This will not downe with you but the Definition of a Generall Councell is and must be infallible Your fellowes tell vs and you can affirme no more That the voyce of the Church determining in Councell is not Humane but Diuine That is well Diuine then sure infallible Yea but the Proposition stickes in the throat of them that would vtter it It is not Diuine simply but in a manner Diuine Why but then sure not infallible because it may speake loudest in that manner in which it is not Diuine Nay more The Church forsooth is an infallible Foundation of Faith in a higher kind than the Scripture For the Scripture is but a Foundation in testimonie and matter to be beleeued but the Church as the efficient cause of Faith and in some sort the verie formall Is not this Blasphemie Doth not this knocke against all euidence of Truth and his owne grounds that sayes it Against all euidence of Truth For in all ages all men that once admitted the Scripture to be the Word of God as all Christians doe doe with the same breath graunt it most vndoubted and infallible But all men haue not so iudged of the Churches Definitions though they haue in greatest obedience submitted to them And against his owne grounds that sayes it For the Scripture is absolutely and euerie way Diuine the Churches Definition is but suo modo in a sort or manner Diuine But that which is but in a sort can neuer be a Foundation in a higher degree than that which is absolute and euerie way such Therefore neyther can the Definition of the Church be so infallible as the Scripture much lesse in altiori genere in a higher kind than the Scripture But because when all other things faile you flye to this That the Churches Definition in a Generall Councell is by Inspiration and so Diuine and infallible my hast shall not carrie me from a little Consideration of that too 6. Sixtly then If the Definition of a Generall Councell be infallible then the infallibilitie of it is either in the Conclusion and in the Meanes that prooue it or in the Conclusion not the Meanes or in the Meanes not the Conclusion But it is infallible in none of these Not in the first The Conclusion and the Meanes For there are diuers deliberations in Generall Councels where the Conclusion is Catholike but the Meanes by which they prooue it not firme therefore not infallible Not
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
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
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
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
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
none of the antient Fathers maintained Romish Transubstantiation and I haue not obserued one expresse Testimonie produced by Romists wherein the Primatiue Fathers nay where Damascene or Theophilact affirme That the whole materiall substance and forme essentiall of bread and wine being destroyed the bare accidents and quantitie of bread and wine remaine or that the abstracted figures and qualities of those creatures are receiued into the mouth and stomacke and are tasted felt and conferre nourishment without any earthly matter conioyned to them But on the contrarie many Fathers affirme That after consecration bread and wine remaine Theoderet saith That they lose not their proper nature but remaine after they are sanctified in their former essence figure and kinde Gelasius saith Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to bee Bertram saith Secundam creaturarum substantiam quod fuerunt ante consecrationem hoc postea consistunt According to the substance of creatures they persist the same before and after consecration Ireneus teacheth That bread which is from the earth receiuing diuine calling or sanctification is not common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two seuerall things or matters one earthly and the other coelestiall Saint Chrysostome Before Sanctification wee call it bread onely but when diuine Grace hath sanctified it it is deliuered from the name of bread and is counted worthie of the Appellation of the Lords bodie although the nature of bread remaine in it still Damascene saith As a fierie coale is wood and fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not onely bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but bread vnited to the Diuinitie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is apparent that when fire is vnited to a coale that the materiall substance of wood remaineth at least in part The Aduersarie in answere to Theoderit and Gelasius pretendeth that these Fathers by the words Substance Nature and Kind vnderstand onely the naturall qualities and accidents which flow from the Nature and Essence of Bread and Wine and he yeeldeth a reason saying That in ordinarie speech the naturall properties and qualities of things are tearmed the nature of the thing c. But this Answere is insufficient because it might perhaps salue the Obiection grounded vpon the word Nature but the Fathers affirme also that the Sacramentall signes remaine in their essence substance and kinde and they adde farther that they may bee sensibly tasted and felt and haue force of nourishing the bodie and that they are compounded of many cornes and of many grapes which make one substantiall bodie of bread and wine Now these things cannot truely bee said of the naked shapes and accidents of bread and wine suspended and diuided from their materiall substance Besides the Fathers deliuer the foresaid Doctrine to prooue the veritie and distinction of the two substantiall natures in Christ by making a comparison betweene the holy Eucharist and the two natures in Christs Person but if the substance of bread and wine cease and are changed into the very bodie and blood of Christ then the former comparison would rather confirme the false beleefe of the Hereticke than maintaine the Orthodoxall Faith of Christs humanitie remaining euen after his Ascension for the Hereticke might inferre vpon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation two errours about the humane nature of Christ. First That as in the Eucharist there is onely the outward shape and forme of bread and not the reall substance euen so in Christ there was the shape and forme of flesh but not the verie nature Secondly Euen as in the Eucharist the essentiall forme and materiall substance of bread and wine are swallowed vp and conuerted into the bodie and blood of Christ so likewise after Christs Ascension the humane nature is absorpt and conuerted into the Deitie IESVIT § 4. The seeming repugnancies this Mysterie hath with sence should incline Christians the sooner to beleeue it THe former proofe of Transubstantiation might satisfie were this Mysterie easie and not accompanied with many seeming absurdities and repugnances against sense 〈◊〉 these foure First That a bodie as big as our Sauiours remayning still truely corpulent in it selfe should be contained within the compasse of a round Hoast scarce an inch long and broad Secondly That a bodie so glorious should be combined vnto corruptible elements and so made subiect vnto the indignities and obscenities that may befall vnto them Thirdly That the same bodie may be in heauen and on earth in innumerable places at once Fourthly That the substance of bread being conuerted into Christs bodie the sole accidents remaine by themselues performing the whole office of substance no lesse than if it were present euen to the nutrition of mans bodie These difficulties so scandalize Protestants that some condemne Transubstantiation as impossible yea as absurd ridiculous barbarous others professe they cannot subdue their vnderstandings to beleeue it as a 〈◊〉 of Faith To giue full satisfaction in this point I set downe this Proposition That these seeming absurdities should not auert but rather incline a true Christian minde to beleeue this Mysterie In proofe whereof I present vnto your Maiestie these three Considerations ANSVVER WEe measure not supernaturall Doctrine by humane sence or reason neither can any seeming repugnances of reputed Philosophie to Diuine Reuelation hinder our Faith where the holy Ghost commaunds vs to beleeue as appeareth in the articles of the sacred Trinitie Incarnation Resurrection c. Est quidem de communibus sensibus sapere in Dei rebus sed in testimonium veri non in adiutorium falsi quod sit secundum diuinam non contrà diuinam dispositionem saith Tertullian We must haue vnderstanding in the things of God out of common sence but this must serue to testifie truth and not to patronise errour according to diuine disposition Reuelation not against it So farre as sence and reason are not repugnant to diuine veritie but subseruient we may giue credit to them and euerie good Christian saith S. Augustine Vbicunque inuenerit veritatem Domini sui intelligat esse Wheresoeuer he findeth veritie taught either by nature or grace must vnderstand that it is his masters The question betweene the Romists and vs is not Whether if Transubstantiatiō be reuealed by God we may notwithstanding therefore refuse to beleeue it because the matter is difficill to be conceiued or because it hath manie seeming repugnances to sence for if they be able to demonstrate the first we must renounce the latter But the question is Whether Transubstantiation hauing no certaine and manifest ground in diuine Reuelation and many repugnances to common sence and reason and besides being expressely repugnant to the letter of the Scripture we are to beleeue the same First the holy Scripture calleth consecrated Wine the fruit of the Vine and consecrated Bread by the name of verie Bread
probabilitie be alleadged in fauour of reall Presence by Consubstantiation than for Transubstantiation Lastly The mysticall vnion betweene Christ and his members is ineffable and the manner incomprehensible and the Protestant Doctrine teaching a reall donation of the bodie and blood of Christ and a mysticall coniunction by the operation of the holy Ghost with the soules of faithfull Receiuers and that dead and corruptible creatures can be a meanes and instrument heereof is a great mysterie of godlinesse incredible to prophane persons and therefore the Primitiue Church which beleeued this Doctrine might iustly require that this Mysterie should not be manifested before Infidels and other infirme Christians vntill they were first instructed in the rudiments of Christianitie IESVIT Yea the Fathers did not feare to declare vnto Catechumens this Sacrament so farre as it was commemoratiue of Christ and his Passion as appeareth by the Treatises of Saint Augustine vpon Saint Iohn made before Catechumens out of which Treatises Protestants for their meere commemoratiue presence alleadge many Sentences to little purpose For he there explicates spirituall manducation by Faith and he excludes the grosse imagination of eating Christs bodie in his proper shape tearing it in pieces with the tooth but denies not yea rather insinuates another kind of spirituall manducation not onely by Faith but by reall sumption though to conceale the Mysterie from Catechumens he speakes not so clearely thereof Wherefore as the Palme tree the heauier the waight is that is laid vpon it the more it riseth vpwards as it were ioying in difficulties so a true Catholicke Christian feeling in the doctrine of Transubstantiation many seeming absurdities that presse carnall imagination to the ground groweth thereby more strong to beleeue it imbracing these difficulties as manifest signes that this doctrine was beleeued by the Primitiue Apostolicall Church On the other side Protestants finding the Presence of Christs body by Faith to be deuoyd of such difficulties may by the very lightnesse thereof suspect it is not the doctrine which the Fathers concealed from Jnfidells as more absurd to humane Imagination than any other mystery of Christian Religion ANSWER You obiect that the Fathers declared to Catechumens that is to Nouices in Christianitie a commemoratiue presence in the holy Eucharist but not a corporall presence by Transubstantiation and from hence you would inferre that the Fathers held two kinds of Presences of Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist the one soly spirituall by intellectuall apprehension the other corporall by reall sumption of Christs body into the mouth and stomacke of the receiuer and you pretend that S. Augustine was of this iudgement But you must remember that you are not now to deale with Aduersaries which will credite your bare words and proofes you haue none Therefore I answer First that the Fathers taught no other kind of Presence to them which were baptised and receiued the holy Eucharist than to Catechumens or vnbaptised Christians although they instructed the one sort more fully than the other Secondly S. Augustine teacheth not that Christs body is receiued inuisibly insensibly and according to the nature of a spirit by the mouth and stomacke of each Communicant but he teacheth onely two kinds of manducation in the Sacrament one both corporall and spirituall wherein the body of man receiueth the externall elements of Bread and Wine and the soule receiueth the true body and bloud of Christ by faith the other corporeall onely wherein the receiuer partaketh the outward signe and not the thing signified Panem Domini non panem Dominum the visible Sacrament of Christs body but not his very body and he affirmeth not vpon the sixt chapter of S. Iohn That a malicious sinner continuing such receiueth the very body and blood of Christ. Thirdly Protestants beleeue not onely a commemoratiue but also an exhibitiue presence of the thing signified together with the outward signe according to the manner formerly declared pag. 405. and this Presence is mysticall and such as may seeme incredible to vnbelceuers because of sundry difficulties repugnant to common sence to wit That Christs flesh by the vnspeakeable power of the holy Ghost should be after a sort incorporated into the soule and that corruptible and dead creatures should be eleuated and made effectuall instruments to apply and communicate Iesus Christ and the vertue of his death to faithfull Communicants IESVITS 2. Consideration This consideration is drawne from the qualitie of the difficulties obiected against this Mysterie which be such as a Christian in honour should neglect them For if it be the part of a prudent and intelligent man not to permit Imagination to preuaile against his Reason What a disgrace is it for a Christian that his faith should be conquered by these kind of difficulties For that the seeming absurdities of this misterie be not in respect of naturall Reason but meerely of Jmagination may hence appeare that some naturall truths be in a manner as difficile and incredible which will be seene if we compare the foure aboue mentioned difficulties with the difficulties some truths euident in nature haue ANSWER When difficulties obiected arise from experience of sence and principles of nature and there is no expresse or manifest word of God sufficient to mooue vs to beleeue the contrarie it is the part of each intelligent and prudent man rather to credite that which is apparent to sence and common reason than to beleeue Paradoxes vpon no true ground and reason IESVIT First we cannot imagine that the whole body of Christ can be contained in the compasse of a small Hoast But it is not more incredible that in a thing of small quantititie for example the wing of a Flye there should be so many parts as vnfolded and laid together would couer the whole face of the world both of heauen and earth And yet it is demonstrable in Philosophy That euen in the wing of a Flye there are so many parts as broad and long as the wing though still thinner and thinner that Almightie God separating and vnfolding them may therewith couer the whole world For certaine it is that some finite number of such parts so separated each of them as long and as broad as a Flyes wing would couer the face of the whole world certaine also it is That the wing of the Flye is still diuisible into more and more such parts so that no finite number is assignable but God may still separate from that wing a greater number without any end therefore it is certaine that in the wing of a Flye there is so much quantity as is sufficient to couer the face of the whole world both of heauen and earth if God would but separate and vnfold the same Is not this Secret of Philosophy as incredible to carnall Imagination as the being of Christs body within a small Hoast Wee that cannot comprehend things we see with eyes and feele with hands certainely we shall haue much adoe
kernell of an Apple a great tree may bee made and nourished by the force and vigour proceeding from the same did not we see by daily experience the same to be true that ashes may be made of glasse that stones in the stomacke of a Doue yron in the belly of an Ostridge be turned into flesh that of a rotten barke of a tree falling into the water should be bred and produced a perfect bird to me seemes more incredible than that God should make the accidents of Bread separated from their substance to nourish mans body for the dead barke of a tree may seeme to haue no more efficacie of it selfe to produce a liuing creature specially so perfect a bird as Barnacles than haue the accidents of Bread to feede and breede the flesh of a liuing man Yea many Philosophers teach and in my iudgement conuince that in substantiall generations where no cause coequall in perfection to the effect produced is present God by his Omnipotencie doth supplie deficiencie of naturall causes Why then should any man so much mislike our Doctrine that in this Mysterie where the substance of Bread wants God by the secret operation of his power supplies the defect thereof seeing by the opinion of many learned Philosophers his prouidence by the like secret speciall working doth ordinarily daily and hourely supply the manifold defects of substantiall secondarie Agents Neither is the manner how God can doe this difsicile to explicate For he may inable the quantitie of Bread to receiue and sustaine the working of mans nutritiue power and when in that quantitie there is the last accidentall disposition to the forme of flesh he can secretly produce againe Materiam primam that was of the Bread and combine the same with the prepared quantitie and the substantiall forme of Flesh What reason is there why God may not doe this yea doe it sooner than we speake it Wherefore the seeming absurdities of this mysterie being as J haue shewed meerely imaginarie and not like those against the Trinitie and the Incarnation wherein not so much imagination as reason findes difficultie it is the part not onely of sincere Christian faith but also of a cleere excellent wit to conceiue them and not to permit wandring vnruly fancie destitute of reason to controll our beleefe about the literall sence of Christs words so many waies by the grauest testimonies of Antiquitie recommended vnto vs. ANSVVER That Accidents may subsist and haue their naturall force and operation without a subiect of support or inhaerencie implies a contradiction for it is of the being and definition of Accidents to be in another or to be in their subiect And none of the Examples taken from a Kernell Ashes Iron in the belly of an Ostridge the barke of a tree c. are ad idem for these are not Accidents without a substance but reall bodies hauing by nature a proportion and propension to produce their owne effects either as seminall causes or true materials conuerted by heate fire and art or things putrescent formed and animated by the heate of the Sunne and other secret and naturall causes That an Akorne should become an Oake is wonderfull as the workes of God are yet it is as naturall as that a Lyon begets a Lyon nay as that the Sunne or fire shineth That of ashes is made glasse what is it but that a transparent bodie is made of a bodie not transparent so Yee of Snow c. And concerning Stones Iron c. I doe not thinke that these feed or nourish Doues Hawkes Struthiocameles c. but onely coole or cleanse them and this I count not impossible in nature that vegetatiue heate should in short time dissolue stones The Barnacles are generatio ex putri as are Mice Frogs and Serpents but what is this to accidents nourishing without matter and substance Now for all the former wee know the truth and certaintie by naturall reason and by experience of our sences but there is no naturall or supernaturall rule or Law no manifest demonstration either to sence or reason no reuelation of Faith that the abstracted formes of bread and wine subsist without a subiect and haue power to nourish and may bee tasted and felt and also putrifie but Romists presumptuously forme these Chimera's and Idols in the forge of their owne deceiued brest and they deserue to bee fed onely with accidents like Birds that pecked at the painted grapes which thinke to feed any intelligent Reader with such improper and extrauagant accidents IESVITS 3. Consideration Thirdly to make Christians incline to 〈◊〉 this Mysterie so difficile to carnall imagination this Consideration may be very potent to wit that in beleeuing the same on the one side there may be great merit and excellent faith if it be a truth and on the other side though which is impossible it should be false yet in beleeuing it we shall not fall into any damnable errour For although we suppose this an vnpossible case yet what can be laid to our charge which wee may not defend and iustifie by all the rules of equitie and reason if we be accused that we tooke Bread to be the body of Christ adoring the same as God so committing Idolatry we may defend that both for soule and body we are innocent herein For seeing the body is not made guiltie but by a guiltie mind euen our body may pleade not guilty seeing our mind our thoughts or deuotion were fully and totally referred vnto Christ whom we truely apprehend by faith as vailed with the Accidents of Bread and so may repell the reproach of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bread Worshippers with saying Quae nouit mens est pani nil vouimus illa Neither did we beleeue that the Bread was changed into Christs body vpon sleight reasons or mooued by the fancies of our owne head but contrary to our fancies out of Reuerence to the expresse words of Christ This is my body A sense declared by most antient Fathers defined by many generall Councells deliuered by full consent of our Ancestors so practised in the Church for many ages without any knowne beginning finally confirmed with the most credible and constant report of innumerable most euident miracles Can a Christian beleeue any points of Religion vpon surer grounds And if God at the day of iudgement will condemne none but such as liuing in this world wronged him in his honour Why should Catholikes feare any hard sentence in respect of their prompt Credulitie of Transubstantiation that is of Gods Word taken in the plaine proper sense Js it an 〈◊〉 to his veritie that they denie their senses correct their imaginations reforme their discourses abnegate their iudgements rather than not to beleeue what to them seemeth his Word Js it an iniury to his power to be persuaded he can doe things incomprehensible without number put the same body in innumerable places at once Make a body occupy no place and yet remaine a quantitatiue substance
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
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
which it can comprehend Now the vse of Reason is verie generall and man doe what he can is still apt to search and seeke for a Reason why he will beleeue though after he once beleeues his Faith growes stronger than either his Reason or his Knowledge and great reason for this because it goes higher than eyther of the other can in this life In this particular the Bookes called the Scripture are commonly and constantly reputed to be the Word of God and so infallible Veritie to the least Point of them Doth any man doubt this The World cannot keepe him from going to weigh it at the Ballance of Reason whether it be the Word of God or not To the same Weights he brings the Tradition of the Church the inward motiues in Scripture it selfe all Testimonies within which seeme to beare witnesse to it and in all this there 's no harme the danger is when a man will vse no other Scale but Reason for the Word of God and the Booke containing it refuse not to be weighed by Reason But the Scale is not large enough to containe nor the Weights to measure out the true vertue and 〈◊〉 force of either Reason then can giue no supernaturall ground into which a man may resolue his Faith That Scripture is the Word of God infallibly yet Reason can goe so high as it can prooue that Christian Religion which rests vpon the Authoritie of this Booke stands vpon surer grounds of Nature Reason common Equitie and Iustice than any thing in the World which any Infidell or meere Naturallist hath done doth or can adhere vnto against it in that which he makes accounts or assumes as Religion to himselfe The antient Fathers relyed vpon the Scriptures no Christians more and hauing to doe with Philosophers men verie well seene in all the subtleties which naturall Reason could teach or learne they were often put to it and did as often make it good That they had sufficient warrant to relye as much as they did vpon Scripture In all which Disputes because they were to deale with Infidels they did labour to make good the Authoritie of the Booke of God by such arguments as vnbeleeuers themselues could not but thinke reasonable if they 〈◊〉 them with indifferencie And it is not altogether impossible to prooue it euen by Reason a Truth infallible or else to make them denie some apparant Principle of their owne For example It is an apparant Principle and with them That God or the absolute prime Agent cannot be forced out of any possession for if hee could be forced by another greater he were neither Prince nor Absolute nor God in their owne Theologie Now they must graunt That that God and Christ which the Scripture teaches and wee beleeue is the onely true God and no other with him and so denie the Deitie which they worshipped or else denie their owne Principle about the Deitie That God cannot be commanded and forced out of possession For their Gods Saturne and Serapis and Iupiter himselfe haue beene adiured by the name of the true and onely God and haue beene forced out of the bodies they possessed and confessed themselues to be foule and seducing Deuils And their confession was to be supposed true in point of Reason for they that were adored as Gods would neuer belie themselues into Deuils to their owne reproach especially in the presence of them that worshipped them were they not forced This many of the vnbeleeuers saw therefore they could not in verie force of Reason but they must either denie their God or denie their Principle in Nature Their long Custome would not forsake their God and their Reason could not forget their Principle If Reason therefore might iudge among them they could not worship any thing that was vnder command And if it be reasonable to doe and beleeue this then why not reasonable also to beleeue that the Scripture is his Word giuen to teach himselfe and Christ since there they find Christ doing that and giuing power to doe it after which themselues saw executed vpon their Deuill_Gods Besides whereas all other written Lawes haue scarce had the honour to be duly obserued or constantly allowed worthie approbation in the particular places where they haue beene established for Lawes this Law of Christ and this Canon of Scripture the container of it is or hath beene receiued in almost all Nations vnder Heauen And wheresoeuer it hath beene receiued it hath beene both approoued for vnchangeable Good and beleeued for infallible Veritie This persuasion could not haue beene wrought in men of all sorts but by working vpon their Reason vnlesse wee shall thinke all the World vnreasonable that receiued it And certainely God did not giue this admirable facultie of Reasoning to the Soule of man for any cause more prime than this to discouer or at least to iudge and allow of the way to himselfe when and howsoeuer it should be discouered One great thing that troubled Rationall men was that which stumbled the Manichee an Heresie it was but more than halfe Pagan namely That somewhat must be beleeued before much could be knowne Wise men vse not to beleeue but what they know And the Manichee scorned the Orthodox Christian as light of beleefe promising to lead no Disciple after him but vpon euident knowledge This stumbles many but yet the Principle That somewhat must be beleeued before much can be knowne stands firme in Reason still For if in all Sciences there be some Principles which cannot be prooued if Reason be able to see this and confesse it if almost all Artists haue granted it Who can iustly denie that to Diuinitie A Science of the highest Obiect God himselfe which he easily and reasonably grants to inferior Sciences which are more within his 〈◊〉 And as all Sciences suppose some Principles without proouing so haue they almost all some Text some Authoritie vpon which they relye in some measure and it is Reason they should For though these make not their Texts infallible as Diuinitie doth yet full consent and prudent examination and long continuance haue woon reputation to them and settled reputation vpon them verie deseruedly For were these Texts more void of Truth than they are yet it were fit to vphold their credit that Nouices and young beginners in a Science which are not yet able to worke strongly vpon Reason nor Reason vpon them may haue Authoritie to beleeue till they can learne to conclude from Principles and so to know Is this also reasonable in other Sciences and shall it not be so in Theologie to haue a Text a Scripture a Rule which Nouices may be taught first to beleeue that so they may after come to the knowledge of those things which out of this rich Principle and Treasure are deduceable I yet see not how right Reason can denie these grounds and if it cannot then a meere naturall man may be thus farre conuinced That the
Si 〈◊〉 Rationi veritat 〈◊〉 videntur in precio habete c. de Mysterijs Religionis 〈◊〉 Martyr Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rationis c. Tertull. li de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 18. Rationabile est 〈◊〉 Deum esse Autorē Scripturae Henr. a Gand. Sum. q 9. q. 3. c Hook lib 3. §. 8. Si Plato ipse 〈◊〉 me 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 c. S. Aug. de vera 〈◊〉 c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ratio potest progredi à 〈◊〉 ad inuisibilia c. Ibid. c. 29. a Si vim spectes Deus valentissimus est Aristot. de Mundo c. 7. Don. ini moderatores omnium Cic. 2. de Leg. b Ipse Saturnus 〈◊〉 Iupiter quicquid 〈◊〉 colitis victi dolore quod sunt 〈◊〉 Nec vtique in turpitudinē sui nonnullis praesertim vestrorū assistentib ' ment untur Ipsis testib ' esse eos Daemones de se verum confitentib ' credite 〈◊〉 enim per 〈◊〉 verum solum inuiti c. Arnob. 8. contra Gent. c S. Matth. 12.22 d S. Matth. 16.17 e Si Libri quoquo modo se habent sancti tamen Diuinarum rerum pleni propè totius generis humani confessione diffamantur c. S. Aug. de Vtil Cred. c. 7. Scriptura summa dispositione prouidentiae super omnes omnium gentium literas omnia sibi genera ingeniorum humanorum Diuina Excellens authoritate subiecit S. Aug. 11. de Ciuit. Dei c. 1. At in omni Orbe terrarum in omni Graecia vniuersis Nationibus innumeri sunt immensi qui relictis Patrijs Legibus c. ad obseruantiam Mosis Christi c. Origen 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 1. a Irridere in Catholicae fidei disciplina quod iuberétur homines credere non autem c. S. Aug. 1. 〈◊〉 c. 14. b And therefore S. Aug. 2. de Doctr. Christ. c. 8. would haue men make thēselues persect in reading the letter of the Scripture 〈◊〉 before they vnderstood it Eas notas habeat etsi nondum intellectu tamé 〈◊〉 duntaxat No question but to make thē readie against they vnderstood it a L. 1. contr Epis. Fund c. 5. Ego vero non crederē Euangelio nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae cōmoueret autoritas b 〈◊〉 Dial. p. 1. l. 1. c. 4. 〈◊〉 solum de Ecclesia quae fuit tempore Apostolorum c Biel Lect. 22. in C. Missae A tempore Christi Apostolorum c. And so doth S. Aug. take Eccles cont Fund d Siue Infideles siue in fide Nouitij Can. loc lib. 2. cap. 8. 〈◊〉 omnino nescienti Scripturam Stap. Relect. cont 4. q. 1. A. 3. a Et ibid. Quibus obtemperaui dicētibus Credite Euangelio Therefore he speaks of himselfe when he did not beleeue b Psal. 119.105 Sanctarum Scripturarum Lumen S. Aug. L. de Vera Relig. c. 7. Quid Lucem Scripturarum vanis vmbris c. S. Aug. L. de Mor. Eccl. Cathol c. 35. c 1. Cor. 2.14 d Orig. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1. went this way yet was he a great deale neerer the prime Tradition than wee are for being to prooue that the Scriptures were inspired from God be saith De hoc assignabimus ex ipsis diuinis Scripturis quae nos cōpetenter mouerint c. a Principaliter tamen etiam hic credimus propter Deum non Apostolos c. 〈◊〉 à Gand. Sum. A. 9. q. 3. Now if where the Apostles themselues spake vltimata resolutio fidei was in Deum not in ipsos per 〈◊〉 much more shall it be in 〈◊〉 than in praesentem Ecclesiam and into the writings of the Apostles than into the words of their Successors made vp into a Tradition b Calu. Instit. 1. c. 5. §. 2. Christiana Ecclesia Prophetarum Scriptis Apostolorum praedicatione initio fundata fuit vbicunque reperietur ea Doctrina c. a 1. Cor. 2.14 b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 11. 1. c Henr. à Gand. sum A. 10. q. 2. d Heb. 11.1 e 1. Cor. 13.12 a Lib. 3 de Eccl. c. 14. Credere 〈◊〉 esse Diuinas Scripturas non est omninò necessarium ad salutem I will not breake my discourse to 〈◊〉 this speech of Bellarmine it is bad enough in the best sense that fauour it selfe can 〈◊〉 it For if he 〈◊〉 by omninò that it is not altogether or simply necessarie to beleeue there is Diuine Scripture and a written Word of God that 's false that being granted which is among all Christians That there is a Scripture And God would 〈◊〉 haue giuen a supernaturall vnnecessarie thing And if he meanes by omninò that it is not in any wise necessarie then it is sensibly false For the greatest vpholders of Tradition that euer were made the Scripture verie necessarie in all the 〈◊〉 of the Church So it was necessarie because it was giuen and giuen because God thought it necessarie Besides vpon Roman Grounds if I haue skill enough to stand firme vpon them this I thinke will follow That which the Tradition of the present Church deliuers as necessarie to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omninò necessarie to saluation But that there are Diuine Scriptures the Tradition of the present Church deliuers as necessarie to beleeue therefore to beleeue there are Diuine Scriptures is omninò be the 〈◊〉 of the word what it can necessarie to saluation So Bellarmine is foule and vnable to stand vpon his owne ground b Lib. 1. §. 14. c Protest Apol. Tract 1. §. 10. n. 3. d Lib. 2. §. 4. e Lib. 2. §. 7. lib. 3. § 8. f S. Ioh. 5. 31. De seipso homine loquitur nam aliter S. Ioh. 8.13 a Lib. 2. §. 7. b Lib. 3. §. 8. c Nec ijs principaliter credendum 〈◊〉 propter authoritatem Christi Dei in Christo. Heur 〈◊〉 Gand. sum a. 9. q. 3. a Lib. 13. contr Faust. c. 5. Probat per internum argumentum impletionem Prophetarum Scriptura quae fidē suā rebus ipsis probat quae per temporum successiones haec impleri c. Et Hen. à Gand. sum a. 9. q. 3. citat S. Aug. L. de Vera Relig. in quo L. haec quatuor simul posita non leguntur sed adimplent scopum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b Duplici modo munire fidem c. primò diuinae Legis 〈◊〉 tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione contr Haer. cap. 1. c S. Ioh. 4. d Henr. à Gand. sum a. 10. q. 1. Sic quotidie apud illos qui foris sunt intrat Christus per 〈◊〉 i. Ecclesiam eredunt per istam famā c. in Glos. in S. Ioh. cap. 4. e Jbid. Plus vebis Chrsti in Scriptura credit quam Ecclesiae testificanti Quia propter illam iam credit Ecclesiae si ipsa quidem 〈◊〉 Scripturae diceret ipsi non crederet c. f In sacra Scriptura ipse immediatè loquitur fidelib ' Ibid. g S. Ioh. 10.4 h Quod autem 〈◊〉