errour and so fallible that euery particuler man of the people for feare of being deceaued (o) Iohn white way pag. 116. must examine her teaching yea your selfe affirme (p) Reply pag. 136. lin 20. c. that not whosoeuer contradicteth the whole Church is to be held as an Heathen and Publican but only such as oppose the whole Church rashly without cause or inordinatly Ergo Protestants acknowledge the authority giuen to the Church by the word of God and consequently her lawfull authority Pag. 169. The Iesuit doth charge you to extenuate the value of our Lords passion in saying that the same doth not purchase and merit true inward purity and sanctity to mens soules and actions Against this you say (q) Reply pag. 169. lin 20. No Christian Church euer prized the oblation and merits more highly and religiously then we Great prayse or rather pride euen the Church of the Apostles were not more religiously deuout vnto nor more highly conceyted of Christ Iesus his passion then you are Well how proue you it Heb. 10.14 it is written with one oblation he did consummate his sanctifyed for euer Iohn 1.29 Behold the Lambe that taketh away the sinns of the world This is euen iust as if an Arian should argue in this sort It is written Iohn 10.30 I and and my Father are one Ergo Neuer Christian Church prized the diuinity of Christ nor thought more highly or religiously of his Equality with his Father then we Would not this argument should an Arian vse it proue him to be more ridiculous then religious And the same force hath this your argument as will appeare if we put togeather into forme the propositions thereof the one Scriptures the other your Assertion It is written that Christ is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world who by his one oblation on the Crosse did consummate the sanctifyed for euer Protestants (r) Caluin Antidot Trident in sess 5 Permaneâ— verè peccatuÌ„ in nobis neque per BaptismuÌ„ vno die extinguitur lib. 3. Institut c. 14. §. 9. NulluÌ„ à sanctis exire potest opus quod non mereatur iustaÌ„ opprobrij mercedem say that Christ taketh not away the sinnes of the world but that the same doth truly and properly remayne in iustifyed persons and is only hidden and not imputed yea your selfe affirme pag. 170. and 171. That sinne is still adiacent vnto all the vertuous actions of iust men and that this imperfection sinfulnes is only couered by Christ his merits and purity that it be not imputed Ergo Protestants prize the value of Christs passion for the effectuall and perfect sanctification cleansing and consummation of saints and their actions as highly and religiously as euer did any Christian Church Scriptures abused and falsifyed §. 9. I Will conclude this section with some few Examples of fraud and falshood in your citing of Scriptures where you help the dice by addition or subtraction of some particle or word to make the Scripture found on your side Although I do not doubt but your scoring vp in cyphers of so many impertinent Texts though being discouered it be ridiculous was also not without fraud by you vsed that you might make shew of Scriptures for such articles of your doctrine for which you know in coÌ„science that no true proofe from Scripture can be produced The text Iohn 5.39 abused Search the Scriptures To begin with the Scriptures themselues with a falshood more then once repeated in your Booke you would shew that the sacred Scripture is so easy as Vnlearned people may vnderstand the sense thereof without relying on the Churches Tradition Exposition To this purpose you say Pag. 9. lin 9. Our Sauiour commanded euen simple people to vse the Scripture Ioan. 5.39 One would according to this your citation thinke that the sacred Text did expresly say that Search the Scriptures was spoken vnto simple people And yet this is a fancy by you cunningly foysted into the text against the playne euidence therof which sheweth that Search the Scriptures was sayd not to the simple people but to the Church-magistracy of the Iewes as these three arguments euince First the word Iewes in the Ghospel of S. Iohn doth signify the Magistracy of the Iewes excluding the simple people This might be proued by forty exaÌ„ples but this may suffice Iohn 7.13 Ioan. 1.9 2.18.20 5.15.16.18 7.1.11.35 8.22.48 9.18.22 There was much muttering about him our Sauiour amongst the coÌ„mon people yet none durst speake openly of him for feare of the Iewes Behold the Iewes opposed coÌ„distinguished against coÌ„mon people feared of them wherby it is manifest that by the Iewes the Gospel of S. Iohn doth vnderstand the Magistracy of the Iewes But certayne it is that our Sauiour sayd search the Scriptures to the Iewes according to the signification of that word in the Gospell of S. Iohn Dixit Iesus Iudaeis Scrutamini Scripturas c. Iohn 5.32 Therefore the wordes were sayd to the Magistracy of the Iewes the common people being excluded Secondly our Sauiour doth testify that he sayd search the Scriptures vnto them that sent the Embassage vnto Iohn to know what he was Iohn 5.34 vos misistis ad Ioannem But cleere it is that the authours of this Embassage were not the simple people but the Church-magistracy of the Iewes Ergo Not vnto simple people but vnto Church-men and Church-magistrates did our Sauiour say search the Scriptures Thirdly our Sauiour sayd search the Scriptures vnto men highly persuaded of the sole-sufficieÌ„cy of the Scripture thinking in them to haue eternall life This appeareth by the text Ibid. vers 33. TestimoniuÌ„ perâ—ibuit veritati Ibid. vers 36. opera quae facio testimonium perhibent Ibid vers 37. Pater qui misit me testimonium perhibuit mihi search the Scriptures because in them you thinke to haue eternall life Hence they would not belieue in our Sauiour neyther vpon the testimony of Iohn nor vpon the testimony of his workes and miracles nor vpon the testimony of his Fathers voyce from heauen Now that the simple people were thus conceyted of Scriptures agaynst the miracles of our Sauiour we haue no grouÌ„d to think whereas that the Church-magistracy of the Iewes was thus conceyted the Gospell doth expressely declare There we reade how they appealed from his miracles to Moyses his bookes bidding such as were lead away by his workes Ioan. 7 52.5â— Scrutare Scripturas vide quia à Galilaea Propheta non surgit to search the Scriptures see that our Sauiour could not be the Prophet Therfore to these men standing vpon the testimony of Scripture sole-sufficiency therof vnto eternal life not to simple People did our Sauiour say Search the Scriptures because in them you thinke that you haue eternall life without me wheras euen these giue testimony of me Hence appeareth another falsificatioÌ„ of this place by cogging in your own conceyt as it were the very Text to wit that our Sauiour by these words gaue a command to vse scriptures For it is cleere he did not by way of command say to the Iewes search the Scripturs but by way of permission in respect of their obstinacy whereby they would not without Scripture belieue in him vpon other most sufficient diuine testimonies So that search the Scriptures because in them you thinke to haue eternall life hath this sense Seing you
will not be wonne to belieue vpon the testimony of Iohn nor of my miracles nor of my Fathers voyce from heauen but appeale from these testimonyes vnto Scriptures thinking that in them you haue eternall life search the Scriptures in Gods name I am content 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not superficially looke vpon theÌ„ but search deeply into them for being thus searched into they yield testimony vnto me Certainly if our Sauiour had been of the Protestants mind and would haue giuen the precept they pretend he would not haue sayd to the Iewes search the Scriptures because in them you thinke that you haue eternall life but search the scriptures because in them only eternall life is to be had or because nothing necessary vnto eternall life is to be belieued vntill it be cleerly proued by them This he doth not say but rather rebuketh the Iewes for this their Ministerial coÌ„ceite that nothing is to be belieued vpon any other testimony without Scripture He did not therfore command theÌ„ to vse the Scriptures but seing them obstinatly addicted vnto only Scripture he permitted them to proceed in their own way Euen as wheÌ„ Protestants caÌ„not be wonne to belieue neither the testimony of Iohn that is the consent of Fathers nor the testimony of Christs works that is of myracles done daily in his Church nor the Fathers liuely voyce from heauen that is Gods word vnwritten we at last say vnto them Search the Scriptures for euen they giue testimony vnto the Catholike doctrine Hence two thinges appeare First that your two assertions that Christ saying search the Scriptures did command and command euen simple people to vse Scriptures be two fancyes of your owne foysted into the Scripture not by way of interpretation but by way of Historical Relation of the sacred text which is grosse abuse thereof Secondly that if we search deepely into this text Search the Scriptures the same doth cleerly condemne the Protestant fancy that only Scripture is the rule of fayth and shewes this to haue been the ground and principle of Iewish Infidelity The text Matth. 24.24 That euen the elect be deceaued were it possible grossely applied THVS you write pag. 586. Although the Tradition and teaching of the Church be fallible yet vnlearned people where they inioy the free vse of Scripture as in ancient times all people did and if they be carefull of their saluation and desire to know the truth God blesseth his owne Ordinance and ordinarily assisteth them by grace in such sort as they shall not be seduced to damnation Math. 24.24 Thus you encourage simple people to be proud and obstinate in their priuate fancies agaynst the teaching and tradition of the Church For in this speach you assure theÌ„ that reading their vulgar Bible if they be carefull of their saluation and desire to know the truth though they will not regard the Church as the pillar ground and infallible Mistresse of truth yet God will so blesse and assist them as they shall not be seduced into daÌ„nable errour Now what is the bane of Christianity but this false and proud persuasion inserted into the heads of Sots Trinitarians Anabaptists Arians Brownists Familians do they not desire to know the truth who to that end so studiously peruse their Bible Be they not carefull of their Saluation that goe so readily to the fyre rather then abandon the doctrine which by their skill in the Vulgar Bible they iudge to be the sauing Truth In these Wretches you may see how in men desirous to know the truth God blesseth the ordinaÌ„ce of reading the vulgar Bible without regard had to the Church as an infallible Mistresse And as your doctrine is the seed springe of heresy so is the text of Scripture Matth. 24.24 most violently drawne to confirme it For what sayth the text They the false Prophets shall doe great signes wonders that euen the elect be induced into errour if it be possible By which text it is cleere that the elect people of God cannot be finally intrapped in damnable errour This is vnderstood as Deuines speake in sensu composito that is they cannot be deceaued because God ordaynes and foresees that they shall vse the meanes to know sauing Truth which meanes is to cleaue vnto the Tradition of the Church not trusting their owne skill Now then with what engines can you from this truth wrest your Paradoxe that men desyrous of the truth reading the vulgar Bible cannot be damned Are all men desirous of the truth that reade the Bible Gods elect If Heretiks dispute in this manner The Elect cannot be seduced vnto damnation Ergo If they presume on their skill in the Bible not respecting the Churches doctrine as infallible they shall not be seduced vnto damnation Why may not murderers argue in like sort The elect cannot be damned Therefore if they commit murder euery day and so perseuer vntill the end they cannot be damned This argument is as good as yours For the contemners of the Church can no more be saued theÌ„ murderers if our Sauiour say true who so heareth not the Church let him to thee as a Heathen and Publican The text Act. 17.11 about the Beroeans abused TO the same purpose of encouraging simple People to follow their fancyes gotten by reading their vulgar Bible you say pag. â—87 Vnlearnâ—d people by comparing the doctrine of the Church with the Scripture may certainly know whether it erreth or not Act. 17.11 Thus you What sayth the text that thence you may make such deductioÌ„s These were more Noble then those of Thessalonica who receaued the word with all readines of mind searching dayly whether these thinges were so Now behold your manifold abuse of this sacred Narration First the text doth not say these Beroeans were vnlearned how then can you hence conclude any thinge for the ability of vnlearned people to search the Scriptures Agayne the Text doth not say that by comparing the doctrine of Paul with Scripture they came to know certaynly that the doctrine of Paul was true but only that belieuing his doctrine they searched the Scriptures about the same without mention of the successe of their search And if they were resolued by Scripture this was only in one poynt to wit whether Iesus were the Messias about which the Scriptures are cleere and expresse How theÌ„ can you hence proue that vnlearned people may know certainly whether the doctrine of the Church be true by comparing the same
〈◊〉 Tradition vnwritten that this is the prime ground of â—ayth more fundamentall then Scripture you most larâ—ely labour to refell and tearme it pag. 91. an Anti-â—hristian and impudent assertion to depresse the written â—ord of God exalt the prophane bastardly Apocriphal â—â—aditions of the Pope This is bitter inough yet cerâ—â—ynly you teach that there be traditions maintayâ—ing and vpholding the Scripture in authority or 〈◊〉 you speake ineptly not knowing what you affirâ—e For some two pages before this your reprochfull words to wit pag. 89. you thus distinguish about Traditions The Church hath no perpetuall Traditions but such as are EYTHER contayned in Scripture OR which are subseruient to MAINTAINE the Fayth Verity and AVTHORITY of the Scripture the doctrine thereof Thus you I demand of you These subseruient Traditious about fayth and doctrine be they contayned in Scripture or not If they be your distinction is senselesse one member thereof not being condistinct agaynst the other for if subseruient traditions be traditions coÌ„tayned in Scripture what more inept then to say traditions eyther contayned in Scripture or subseruient If they be not contayned in Scripture but condistinct from them then according to your distinction there be some traditions not contayned in Scripture which maintayne and vphold the authority of Scripture and the verity and doctrine thereof If you grant this as you must vnlesse you will grant your distinction be voyd of iudgment then must you also grant tradition to be more fundamentall then Scripture For thus I argue That which is the ground of the authority of Scripture is more fundameÌ„tall then Scripture That which doth mantayne and vphold the authority of Scripture is the ground and foundation of the authority of Scripture Ergo That which doth vphold and mantayne the authority of Scripture is more fundamentall then Scripture Now your selfe ascribe vnto Tradition subseruient condistinct agaynst written Tradition the office of mantayning the authority of Scripture So that eyther you know not what you doe write or else by your owne distinctions you are conuinced to establish that very doctrine which elsewhere you so sharpely censure as Antichristian impudeÌ„t prophane bastardly Certainly you are a seely Disputant about matters of Theodogy No more sense or iudgement is there in the distinctioÌ„ you make of holy Belieuers into triumphant militant pag. 49. The tearme Church say you is taken in the holy Scripture for the vniuersall number of holy belieuers in all ages and more strictly for the whole number of holy belieuers vnder the new Testament Hebr. 12.23 Apoc. 5.9 Ephes. 5.25.27 And thus it comprehendeth both the Church militant triumphant Thus you distinguishing the Church of belieuers into militant and Triumphant whence it is consequent that the Triumphant Saynts in heauen are belieuers What more ridiculous and agaynst the prime and knowne Notion of Triumphant Saynts It may be God permitted you to stumble vpon this grosse simplicity through want of reflexion that you might thereby be warned to reflect vpon the foulenes of another doctrine which wittingly willfully you mantayne though being no lesse exorbitant then this The doctrine is that your Protestant Militant Church is a multitude who (a) Iohn White in his Defence pag. 309. by diuine illumination see manifestly the truth of thinges belieued of the Blessed Trinity and other mysteryes that you are like not vnto men (b) Francis White Orthodoxe pag. 108. which see a farre off a certayne obscure glimmering of the light but vnto men that coming to the place where the light is behold the sayd light in it selfe Verily to tearme the Church militant a multitude of BEHOLDERS resolued of truth by manifest light euidence is as Exoticall and as idle Gibberish in Christian Theology as to call the Church triuÌ„phant a multitude of BELEEVERS that warre and walke by Fayth As for your Protestant triuÌ„phant Church if they did not formerly belieue in this life the word of God without seing the light lustre and resplendant verity of the doctrine thereof as you pretend they did not I do not doubt but they are belieuers in the next world to wit in the number of them of whom the Apostle writeth Ioan. 2.9 credunt contremiscunt Ignorance in Scripture SECT IV. CONCERNING Holy Scripture you brag intollerably in euery page of your Reply how the same standeth cleerly on your side and that the Iesuit hath not been able to proue any of the Nine Poynts by Scripture How vaine this your vant is doth appear by the Reioynder wherin you are proued almost in euery controuersy to forsake the litterall and plaine sense of Scripture and to deuise now figuratiue typicall and mysticall interpretations How idlely also you dispute out of Scriptures for matters of greatest moment which you most confidently maintayne in your Religion is made euident by what hath been shewed concerning your arguing for the preteÌ„ded Diuine Ordinance binding ignorant Laymen to read the Scripture Notwithstanding that your ignorance herin may more indeniably appeare I will add here some other arguments and tokens of the same to wit vnto what shamefull shifts you are forced to answere Scriptuâ—es brought by your Aduersary in the behalfe of Caâ—holicke doctrine You deny the Text and Context of Scripture §. 1. FIRST many times you are enforced by your aduersary when you cannot answere to deny the â—ext context of Scripture wherof I alleadge two â—xamples The Iesuit pag. 480. to proue that Christ â—romised eternall life vnto the worthy participant â—f the sacrament vnder the forme of bread bringeth â—he words of our Sauiour Iohn 6. Qui manducat hunc â—anem viuet in aeternum he that eateth this bread shall â—ue for euer You in the place quoted answere The â—cripture Iohn 6.51 saith not whosoeuer eateth sacraâ—entall bread without wine shall liue for euer but if any â—â—te this bread which came downe from heaueÌ„ to wit Christ â—â—sus incarnate shall liue for euer And then it followeth â—nlesse you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke 〈◊〉 blood you shall not haue life in you Iohn 5.53 Thus 〈◊〉 Now marke vnto what straytes maugre your â—â—agging you are brought by the Iesuite First you are not acknowledge these words cited by the Ieâ—â—ite he that eateth this bread liueth for euer to be our â—â—uiours but onely those If any shall eate c. Wherâ—â— they be our Sauiours the expresse text of Scripâ—â—re in so many words syllables Iohn 6.59 which â—â—yth He that eateth this bread liueth for euer Seâ—â—ndly you are compelled to answere that Christ â—â—ter he had said he that eateth this bread liueth for â—â—er said Vnlesse you eate the flesh and drinke the â—â—oud of the sonne of man you shall not haue life in â—ou By which ensuing senteÌ„ce he did as you thinke â—eclare the former If any eate this bread c. that it must not be vnderstood of Sacramentall bread without wine This is
Christians behaued thēselues towards it sayth Flecte genu lignumque Crucis venerabile adora Bow knee adore the Crosses sacred wood Origen Homil. 6. in Epist. ad Rom. So great is the power of the Crosse that if it be placed before the eyes and faythfully retayned in mind fixed vpon the death of Christ the army of sinne flesh is conquered S. Gregory called Illuminator who conuerted Armenia did as Euthim. panop part 3. tit 20. relates place wooden Images of the Crosse vpon the shrines of Martyrs bidding the multitude of people that thither resorted to giue worship vnto God by the Adoration of the Crosse. S. Procopius Martyr as doth witnes Nicephorus l. 7. c. 15. did adore a golden image of the Crosse of Christ crucifyed by it got great victoryes In the second age in the beginning wherof some of the Apostles liued Tertull. in Apol. c. 44. writing against Heathens that obiected that Christians were worshippers of the woodden image of the Crosse graunts the thing to be true defendeth the same Yea the Protestant Magdeburgians Centur. 5. c. 6. acknowledge that such Crosses of wood were then amongst Christians frequently vsed set vp in Churches S. Ignatius epist. ad Philip. doth acknowledge diuine power vertue in the image of the Crosse. It is sayth he the victorious trophey or the monument of Christs victory against the Diuell quod vbi viderit horret S. Martial Epist. ad Burdeg l. 8. exhorts Christians still to haue the Crosse before them in mente in ore in signo in mind in mouth in the image thereof this being the inuincible armour of a Christian agaynst Satan The Canons of the Apostles haue beene euer famous in the Christian Church wherof one is cited in 2. Nicen Synode which sayth Let not the faythfull be deceyued by Idolls but paint the diuine humane vnmingled image of the true God our Sauiour Iesus Christ of his seruants agaynst Pagans Iewes that so they neyther goe astray vnto Idolls nor be like the Iewes Finally that these images of Christ crucified were vsed in the Apostles time by their allowance the Iesuite proueth by the text of S. Paul to the Galathians 3.1 so cleerly as you are forced to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify to depaint agaynst all Lexicons agaynst the principall Protestants that so translate yea agaynst your selfe and yet you wonder at your aduersaries wondrous weakenes THE SECOND AND THIRD POINT 2. Prayings offering Oblations to the B. Virgin Mary 3. VVorshipping Inuocation of Saints and Angells I Haue ioyned these two Controuersyes togeather hoping I might doe it with your Maiesties good liking the maine difficulty of thē both being the same to wit worship and Inuocation of Angells and Saints For I am fully perswaded that if your Maiesty did allow of Inuocation of any Saint you would neuer deny that deuotion vnto the B. Virgin mother of God Opera Regia Respons ad ep Card. Peron p. 402. whome you honour and reuerence aboue the rest though perchance you may dislike some particular formes of our prayers that seeme to giue her Tytles aboue that which is due to a creature about which I shall in the end of this discourse endeauour to giue your Maiesty satisfaction In which question I will suppose without large and particular proofe being able to prooue it by testimonyes vndeniable if need be that Worship Inuocation of Saints hath byn generally receaued in the whole Christian Church at least euer since the dayes of Constantine HEERE the Minister either out of ignorāce or rather out of desire to out-face the truth writes in this sort pag. 290. You presuppose that which notwithstanding your outfacing you will neuer be able to proue that Inuocatiō of Saints was vniuersally receaued as an article of faith This Discourse following is an addition wherin is declared that the Ancient Fathers held Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Fayth euer since the dayes of Cōstantine Thus he Wherfore aswell because the matter is important as also to take away this tergiuersation I will heere make good the Answerers word and demonstrate that al the Fathers some one way some another haue testifyed to the world that they held Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Christian fayth and Religion An eleauen Demonstrations that the Ancient Christian Church did euer hold Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Fayth and Religion § 1. TO accomplish this more cleerly and with lesse tediousnesse vnto the Reader I shal reduce the Fathers saying vnto an eleauen heads which may serue as an eleauen different arguments demonstrations of this truth The first Demonstration If the Fathers held the doctrine that Saints are to be inuocated that men are aided by their merits as certain infallible then they held it as a point of faith or a reuealed truth for on what other ground but the word of God could they pretend to hold it as certaine the same not being euident in the light of nature But the Fathers teach this doctrine as a matter certayne and infallible not to be doubted of by Christians as their words declare S Augustine (a) Augustine de cur◠pro mortuis cap. 16. Illa quaestio vires superat intelligentiae meae quemadmodum Martyres opitulentur ijs quos per eos CERTVM est adiuuari This question is beyond the reach of my knowledge how martyrs help them whome it is CERTAINE that they help And againe (*) Idem serm 244. Tunc pro nobis absque vlla dubitatione Sancti Martyres intercedunt Then WITHOVT ANY DOVBT the holy Martyrs intercede for vs when they find in vs some part of their vertues S. Ambrose (b) Ambros. ser. 91. Quid non credunt vtrum quòd à martyribus possunt aliqui visitari hoc est Christo nou credere ipse enim dixit Et maiora his facietis Not to belieue that Martyrs may visit and relieue men liuing in this world is Not to belieue in Christ seing he sayd you shall do yet greater thinges Nectarius speaking vnto Saint Theodore Martyr (c) Nectar orat in primū Sabb. sanctorum Ieiuniorum in S. Theodorum Te post mortem viuere CREDIMVS vt ergo in Christo viuis stas prope eum precibus tuis propitium eum redde famulis tuis We belieue that thou doest liue in God a life without decay or end Therefore as thou doest liue in Christ stands by him so make him by thy prayers propitious mercyfull vnto vs thy seruants What is this but to say that as certainly as Saints see God so certaine it is that they pray for vs and heare our prayers S. Gregory Nazianzen (d) Gregory Nazianzen orat 26. in patrem suum Apostolium ferè ab initio NEC DVBITO quin hoc nunc quoque magis faciat postulatione sua quā priùs doctrinâ I do NOT DOVBT but this blessed Saint in
his fourth argumēt wherein he would proue that the Apostles were not made Priests by the wordes Doe this For suppose they were not made Priests by that speach how will he thence conclude that the words Drinke yee all of this were not spoken personally vnto the twelue cōmanding them to drinke all of the same indiuidual Cupp Besides in the two arguments to proue the Apostles were not made Priests by the word Do this he shews intolerable ignorance The first is what force is there in these wordes Do this to conclude Priestly ordination Answere Are you a Doctour and do not know that the word of the Almighty hath force to giue men power commission authority to do what he doth command them to doe Christ by the word Do this commanded the Apostles to do what he had done that is to consecrate bread and wine into his body and blood to receaue and consume the same to giue them to the faythfull Ergo by saying Do this he gaue them power commission authority not only to receaue themselues but also to consecrate and giue vnto others his holy body and blood which is the power and office of Priesthood Secondly If say you Do this proueth Priesthood then lay men are Priests when the wordes Doe this be spoken to them in part or respectiuely Answere Doe not you feele how you bewray the weakenes and vanity of your argument in your very proposition thereof You say the wordes Do this be spoken vnto lay men but in part that is they command them to receaue but not to consecrate and giue the Sacrament vnto others But the power or commission only to receaue the Sacrament is not Priesthood but the commission to consecrate administer the same vnto others Therefore the wordes Doe this do not make them Priests to whome in part respectiuely but to whom they are spoken absolutely in the full sense Another text of the Scripture some vrge to proue that Communion vnder one kinde is commāded to wit the famous place out of S. Iohn (a) Ioan. 6.59 Except yee eate the flesh drinke the bloud of the Sonne of Man you shall not haue life in you Where our Sauiour vnder the penalty of loosing eternall life commaūds not only eating but also drinking Perchance your Maiesty doth not stand much vpon this as not belieuing that Chapter of Saint Iohn to concerne the Sacramentall sumption of our Sauiours flesh as also some learned Catholiks hold Notwithstanding though we grant that Chapter to concerne the eating and drinking in the Sacrament as most of the Fathers teach yet this obiection may be easily satisfyed by the former Principles For as we distinguish in the Sacrament the substance the manner the substance being to receaue the body of Christ the manner in both kindes by formall eating and drinking So the same distinction is to be made in our Sauiours precept about this Sacrament For howsoeuer his words may sound of the manner of receauing in both kinds yet his intention is to commaund no more then the substance to wit that we really receaue his body and bloud which may be done vnder one kind This may be made cleere by the Precept our Sauior hath giuē about another Sacrament to wit Baptisme where though his words seeme to define the manner yet his mind was but to determine the substance He sayth (b) Matt. 28.18 to his Apostles Baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost To Baptize signifyes the same that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not to wet or sprinckle with water but to put and plunge into water by immersiō bathing them in water in which respect Baptisme is tearmed by the Apostle (c) Tit. 3.4 the Lauer or bath of the renouation of the holy Ghost And yet because the Church teacheth Baptisme by aspersion or sprinckling to be sufficient substantiall Baptisme no lesse then Baptisme by immersion christiās must do interpret the words of Christ Baptize that is plūge into the water all Nations to command only cleansing washing in substance not the manner thereof by immersion as his words may seeme to import and the Primitiue Church did the first 600. yeares practise In like sort the wordes Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you be preceptiue no further then they signify reall receauing of his body and bloud not the manner of both kindes as may appeare by the intention of the commandement For as Christ gaue this precept of eating and drinking only to the end that we might haue life in vs so likewise he meant to cōmaund the same no further then it was necessary to this end But eating formally the body of Christ vnder the forme of bread and (d) What the Minister saith that the receauing the blood of Christ Virtually as being by Concomitācy ioyned with the body is spirituall receauing and not Sacramentall is false For only iust and holy men receaue the body of Christ spiritually But wicked mē receaue the blood of Christ together with his body by Concomitancy Therefore this virtuall receauing of Christs blood is corporall and Sacramentall and not only spirituall virtually and implicitely his bloud as conteined within his sacred body sufficeth that we may haue life in vs as he promiseth in the same place v. 59. He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer what necessity then is there to vnderstand this precept of formall receauing in both kinds But further I add the coniunctiue particle Et and frequently signifyes disiunctiuely the same that vel or as Argentum aurum non est mihi (e) Act. 3.6 and particularly of this Sacrament (f) 1. Cor. 11.20 He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh damnation the sense is disiunctiue Eateth or drinketh vnworthily In this sort Except you eate and drinke is to be vnderstood disiunctiuely Except you eate the flesh or drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in you Which disiunctiue sense to be the sense intended in this place may be proued because else Christ should be contrary to himselfe For seeing in the verse 59. of this Chapter he promiseth life eternall to eating only Qui māducat hunc panē viuit in aeternum If in the 94. verse of the same Chapter he require vnto life euerlasting eating and drinking both he should in the space of a few lines speake contraryes And because this is impossible THIs last answer is truest may be inuincibly proued by Scripture First it cānot be denyed that in Scripture the particle Et and is takē disiunctiuely as the Iesuit proueth in the text the Minister granteth Secondly whensoeuer two thinges are required to one the same end for which ech a part is sufficient then the particle Et and must needs be vnderstood disiunctiuely to
indiuiduall things When soule and body come to be vnited by this vnion is produced a third substance to wit a maÌ„ composed of soule and body When two waters that were seuered come to ioyne togeather there ariseth one third water wherin the two lesser waters are included as parts But Father and Sonne the one in London the other at Constantinople do not compose a third indiuiduall nature constant of theÌ„ both wherin they both are contayned as is most euident Ergo It is ridiculous to affirme that the Father in London is truly and really vnited with his Sonne in Constantinople Finally put case there were true and reall vnity betwixt Father and Sonne so that the sonne might be said to be one with his father truly and properly in respect of kind or specificall Identity what can this serue to shew that consecrated bread remaining bread in nature kind may be said to be the body of Christ or the same with it Had Christ said of another mans body This is my Body you might haue coÌ„strued it thus This is my body that is a body of the same kind and nature with mine but Christ saying of that which was bread this is my Body how can you vnderstand this to be true in respect of specificall Vnity Is bread of the same kind and nature as Christs body I am sure being afore warned of this absurdity you will not dare so to teach What then doth specificall Identity or vnity in nature and kind serue to shew that coÌ„secrated bread remaining bread in kind nature essence may be truly really Christs body Certainly Christ did affirme that the thing contained within the shape of bread was his indiuiduall body not another indiuiduall body of the same kind This cannot be true verily and according to propriety of speach as you grant if the substaÌ„ce of bread remaine much lesse if also the substance of Christs body be locally absent The Iesuits argument then doth conuince that the Sacrament cannot be truly really substantially Christs body if the body of Christ be not locally indistant from the same A fifth Example About Satisfaction §. 5. I will produce yet another Example of your Ignorance by which you contradict Protestants yea your selfe in the very same page and establish our Catholike doctrine of Satisfaction and Purgatory against which in that place you earnestly dispute Thus you wite pag. 540. The difference betweene the PontificiaÌ„s vs in this dostrin is THAT WE BELEEVE A REMAINDER of TEMPORALL Affliction AFTER the REMISSION of the GVILTE of Sinne in this life onely for Chastisement ERVDITION and PROBATION They maintaine a Remainder of Temporall Punishement not onely in this life but after the same in Purgatory Further we beleeue that the Paine of Chastisement inflicted vpon penitent sinners may by prayers of fayth exercise of vertue humiliation and mortification be REMOVED MITIGATED or conuerted to the increase of grace and glory in them that with patience holines endure the same in this life But we deny that eyther any paine followeth iust persons after their decease or that they can in this life by any good workes merit release of any temporall punishment or satisfy the Diuine Iustice for the fault or guilt of any sinnes on their behalfe much lesse for others Thus you On the one side denying against Catholikes Temporall Paine in the next life and on the other granting against ProtestaÌ„ts a Remaynder of Temporall Chastisement for sinne remitted after the remission of the guilt Wherby you contradict your selfe yea establish the possibillity of superabouÌ„dant Satisfaction Yow lay Principles which vnanswerably inforce temporall paine for remisse Penitents in the next world Which three thinges I will in order demonstrate that so it may appeare that through Ignorance you haue your selfe dissolued broken in peeces the whole frame of your Voluminous Reply in euery poynt of Controuersy proposed by his Maiesty and handled therein First you contradict your selfe for in this very pag. 540. against the Remainder of temporall paine thus you write That which is so forgiuen that after pardon it is not mentioned or remembred and which is cast behind Gods backe throwne into the bottome of the sea and which can no where be found and which is blotted out of the Debt-booke of the Almighty is not taken away by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesser but by a free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment But the holy Scripture and the Fathers teach such a remission of sinne on Gods part to the penitent Thus you what cleerer contradiction can be deuised then is betweene these two sentences Remission of sinne is made not by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesse but by free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment There is a remainder of temporall paine after the remission of guilt of sinne not onely for the triall and erudition of the penitent but also for Chastisement which may be remoued or mitigated by mortification and penitentiall workes What clearer contradiction I say can be deuised For teÌ„porall paine inflicted vpon penitent sinners by way of chastisement after the remission of the guilt of their sinne is vindictiue Punishment You professe in the end of this page to belieue Temporall paine to remaine not onely by way of Probation and Erudition but euen by way of chastisement after the remission of the guilt of their sinne Therfore you contradict what you say in the beginning of this page That remission of sinne is free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment Agayne Condonation of sinne wherby eternall punishment is changed into temporall is remission of sinne by commutation of a greater chastisemeÌ„t into a lesse to wit of eternall into temporall as is most euident But in the end of this page you teach that sinne is so remitted as the guilt of sinne and eternall Damnation is changed into a remainder of temporall affliction for chastisement of the penitent sinner Wherefore if the changing of Eternall punishment into Temporall be commutation of greater punishment into lesse then by granting in the end of the cited page a Remaynder of Temporall Affliction after the remission of the Eternall you ouerthrow what you taught in the beginning of the same that remission of sinne is not made by commutation of greater punishment into lesse Secondly this your doctrine of the remainder of temporall paine after the remission of the guilt of sinne proueth that penitent saints may make compeÌ„sant yea superaboundant satisfaction in manner as Catholikes teach for in the remainder of temporall affliction we may consider and distinguish two things the greatnes of the paine reserued and the greatnes of Gods remaining anger against sinne remitted which he doth yet temporally punish If we regard the greatnes of Gods iust anger and offence we hold (t) Si ad ipsam offensam Diuinae Maiestatis respiciamus quatenus Deus videlicet sic homini manet infeÌ„sus vt meritâ—
teach it as Christ commanded deliuered the same Thirdly if this Promise were conditionall not absolute then by this place the Church could not be proued to last absolutly for euer but only so long as she Christeneth aright teacheth the truth wherin according to this ProtestaÌ„t exposition she may fayle But the Fathers from this text gather agaynst the Donatists that the Church shal neuer fayle to be in all Nations of the world vntill the end therof as S. Aug. in Psalm 101. conc 2. Leo Epist. 3. ad Pulcheriam and others hence proue Therfore the sense is absolute his Church shal be still in the world he still assisting his Church by his spirit to teach and baptize aright promise of wonderfull comfort vnto them that pawne their soules saluation vpon Gods word deliuered by perpetuall Tradition for in this sentence appeares the six thinges I before set downe First that there is still A ChristiaÌ„ Church all dayes not wanting in the world so much as one day till the consummation of the world SecoÌ„dly this Church is euer visible and conspicuous For the Church that alwayes teacheth Christeneth all Nations must needs be visible But this Church alwaies teacheth and Christeneth all Nations I am alwayes with you not with you sitting in Corners or hidden vnder ground but with you exercising the office enioyned you in the words precedent Docete omnes gentes baptizantes Thirdly this Church is euer Apostolicall for to his Apostles Christ said I am alwaies with you to the coÌ„summation of the world not with you in your owne persons but with you in your successours in whome you shal continue vntill the worlds end Ergo a lawfull company of Bishops Pastours Doctors succeeding the Apostles must be perpetually in the world Forthly this Church is Vniuersal Ite in muÌ„dum vniuersum where I will be alwayes with you Fifthly this Church is One not diuided into parts because it teacheth and belieueth vniformely all that Christ deliuered and commanded without Factions Sects or Parts about matters of fayth Sixtly this Church is alwayes holy for doctrine neuer deliuering or teaching any falshood I who am the Truth am alwayes with you teaching all nations Holy also for life Christ the holy of holyes assisting and making her able to conuert Infidels which she could not well doe (s) The Minister p. 85. 86.102 alleadgeth diuers Fathers scholmeÌ„ to proue that now miracles are ceased not necessary Answere The Minister shold distinguish as the fathers doe who make two manner of beings of Miracles to wit ordinary extraordinary and affirme three things First that in the primitiue Church miracles were absolutly necessary for the plaÌ„ting of the Ghospell in the world Ioan. 5.24 Act. 4.29.30 and then the gift of miracles was ordinarily annexed vnto the Ministery of Preaching yea so that euery Christian coÌ„monly had that gift in some kind or other 1. Cor. 12.28 Act. 8.17 10. 4.6 Secondly that since the planting of the Gospell by twelue Fishermen this being the miracle of miracles no further miracle is absolutly necessary for meÌ„ vnto whoÌ„ this is known and therfore the gift of miracles is ceased to be ordinarily annexed to the office of preaching or common to al Christians as before it was Aug. de Ciuit. l. 22. c. 8. Gregor 27. moral c. 1. Thirdly notwithstaÌ„ding in all ages there were are and shal euer be some speciall places and persons extraordinarily indued with the gift of miracles for the comfort of Christians Conuersion of some remote Nations that know not the first miraculous planting of our Religion by certayne celebrious fame of miracles in this kind the writings of the Fathers all ChristiaÌ„ histories are full See S. Aug. l. 22. de Ciuit. c. 8. Gregory in his Dialogues THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH not before Luther without miracles and tokens of wonderfull sanctity at the least in her more eminent Preachers That the Romane is the One Holy Catholike Apostolical Church from by which we are to receyue the Tradition of Christian Doctrine §. 5. THIS Ground being laid it is apparent that the Romane Church that is the multitude of Christians spread ouer the world cleauing to the doctrine and Tradition of the Church of Rome is the only holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church The first Argument THERE must alwayes be in the world one holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church That is a Church deliuering doctrines vniformely thereby making them credible vniuersally thereby making them famously knowne to mankind holyly so making them certayne such as on them we may securely rely Apostolically so making theÌ„ perpetually flow without change vnto the present Christianity in the channell of a neuer-interrupted Succession of Bishopps from the Apostles And this Church (t) Vnto this Argument the Minister pag. 104. makes answere that his Protestant Church was before Luther in essence kind though it began in Luther touching the Name and some things accidental In proofe whereof he thus wryteth In all ages before Luther some persons held the substantiall articles of our Religion both in the Roman Grecian Church And by name the Grecians maintained with vs that the Roman Church hath no primacy of Iurisdiction aboue or ouer all other Churches neyther is the same infallible in fayth They deny Purgatory Priuate Masses Sacrifice for the dead and they propugne the Marriage of Priests In this Westerne part of the world the Waldenses Thaborites of Bohemia Wickliffiâ—ts maÌ„tayned the same doctrine in substance as appeareth by their confession of fayth and by the testimony of some learned Pontificians This being the substance of all the Minister hath sayd or can say for his Church before Luther the same is insufficient false more for Anabaptists then Protestants This I proue In generall this pedegree is insufficient for two reasons First because it is not for all ages The Grecians were vnited with the Romane Church vntill the yeare 1060. the Waldensians began about the yeare 1160. Now there remaynes six or seauen ages since the pretended Apostacy of the Roman Church for which the Minister doth not name any professours that were Protestants for essence and kind Secondly because Protestants teach that the most substantiall article of their Religion is Iustification by speciall fayth only and not by workes and merits of grace as all know But these pretended professours namely the Waldenses Wickliffists held rigorously the merit of works In so much as Wickliffe sayd Let euery man confide in his merits for which saying he is refuted by the Catholike authour Thomas Waldensis Tom. 3. c. 7.8.9 Graecians no Protestants in Essence In particular the Pedigree is notoriously false in respect of the Graecians who cannot without impudency be named as Protestants according to essence and kind First they hold damnable heresyes and substantiall errours in the Iudgement of Protestants so wit Inuocation of Saints Adoration of Images as they professe in their Censure
could not haue more fondly sensed them For his Maiesty speaking of prayers and denying merit vnto the repeating of prayers what according to sense could he meane but the merit proper of prayers which is to impetrate or obtayne And so the Iesuit prouing the speciall merit of Impetration hath proued what his Maiesty questioned As for your selfe seeing you deny not that vnto repetition of prayers speciall merit of Impetration is affixed I do not doubt but you yield the very Doctrine his Maiesty disliked to wit that repetition of prayers in a fixed number hath speciall force and efficacy to impetrate certayne number for the causes before mētioned destitute of the example of Saints that liued in the best ages of the Church Palladius in his history cap. 14. 25. setteth downe some examples of Saints praying in this kind Yea the Century-writers Cent. 4. col 1329. and Osiander acknowledge the example of Saint Paul a most holy Monke liuing in the fourth age after Christ that In dies singulos trecentas orationes Deo velut tributum reddidit ac ne per imprudentiam in numero erraret trecentis lapillis in sinum coniectis ad singulas preces singulos eiecit lapillos consumptis igitur lapillis constabat sibi orationes lapillis numero pares abs se expletas esse Which example of so great a Saint so knowne and notorious (u) The Minister answereth that singular exāples are no rule for Ammonius being sollicited to be a Bishop cut of his owne eare yet he is not imitable herein so neyther is S. Paules exāple in saying prayers vpon Beades to be followed I Answere Some thinges are such of their owne nature as they cannot be done lawfully and with out sinne but by special reuelation as the killing mayming himselfe in which kind examples in Scripture or else where related are admirable not imitable But when the thinge vsed by some singular Saint is not agaynst any law of God or man but a thinge that may be done without speciall reuelation the same is imitable by all others in due circumstances Now what law diuine or human forbids a man to say three hundred prayers a day one hundred to ech of the three Diuine Persons Or what law doth prohibit him to vse 300. little stones or beades in numbring them for help of Memory Or why may we not help our memory in numbring our deuotions by calculation of Beades if S. Paules example be pious and laudable If to say Prayers in a certayne number vpon beades be intrinsecally euill it cannot be done piously by the singular instinct of Gods Spirit seing God can neuer inspire men to doe any thinge that is essentially euill If it be not of it selfe essentially euill why should Protestants forbid men to vse such helpes of our deuotion except they can shew an expresse positiue Diuine law in Scripture agaynst it and neuer censured by any Father may more then abundantly suffice for satisfaction in a matter of no more moment then this For we are not curious in this Point nor doe require of any man that he say his prayers in a certaine number so that he may not say more or lesse as his deuotion serues him THE SIXTH POINT The doctrine of Transubstantiation YOVR Excellent Maiesty submitting your Iudgement to Gods expresse word doth firmely belieue the body of Christ to be truly present in the most venerable Sacrament of the Altar which doctrine doth naturally and necessarily inferre whatsoeuer the Church of Rome holds as matter of Fayth concerning the manner of this Presence To declare this and togeather answere an Obiection much vrged by some Protestants that they belieue the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament but are not boūd by this to belieue the Manner that not being expressed in Scripture We must note that men are bound firmely to belieue the manner of a mystery reuealed when the same belongs to the substance therof so that reiecting the manner we reiect the beliefe of the substance of the mystery This is euident and may be declared by the example of the mystery of the Incarnation the substance wherof is that in Christ Iesus the nature of God and the nature of man are so vnited that God is truly Man man verily God The manner of this mystery is ineffable and incomprehensible yet we are bound to belieue three thinges concerning it which if we deny we deny the mystery in substāce howsoeuer we may retayne the same in words First that this vnion is not only Metaphoricall (a) Non affectualis vnitas sed secundū subsistentiam Synodus 5. Generalis quae est Constantinop 2. Can. 4. by Affection as two persons that are great friends may truly be sayd to be all one but also true and Reall Secondly reall Vnion of natures is (b) Qui nō confitetur Dei verbū substantialiter VNIRI carni Anathema sit Synod Chal. act 5. Synod quinta General can 5. substantiall and not accidentall so that therby the nature is not only accidentally perfected by receauing excellent participations of the diuine nature power wisdome and Maiesty but also substantially the very fulnes of the God-head dwelling corporally and substantially in him Thirdly that this substantiall Vnion is not according to the Natures so that the nature of God the nature of man became one and the same nature as Eutiches taught but (c) Ex duabus naturis secundū substātiā vnitis vnum eumdem Christū qui non confitetur condēnatus est Concil Lateran sub Martin 1. Can. 6. Hypostaticall whereby God and Man became one and the same person These particulars about the manner of the Incarnation though high subtill and incomprehensible to reason Christians may and must belieue because they belong to the substāce of the Mystery and are declared by the Church in generall Councels though the vulgar be not bound explicitely to know them In this sort we say that the manner how our Sauiours Body is in the Sacrament of his last Supper must be belieued may not be denyed as farre as it concernes the very life being and substance of the Mystery reuealed Which mystery in substance is that the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament in such sort that the Priest minister therof demonstrating what seemeth bread may truly say thereof in the person of Christ This is my body This supposed as the substāce of the mystery I inferre that two Catholike doctrines concerning the manner of this mystery belong to the substance of this mystery cannot be called in question without danger of misbeliefe First the Real Presence of the whole body of Christ vnder the formes of bread Secondly that this is done by Transubstantiation An Addition prouing the Catholicke Reall Presence according to the litterall Truth of Gods Word agaynst Ministeriall Metaphores Figures and Shifts HIS Maiesty in questioning onely Transubstantiation seemeth to suppose the Reall Presence of the Body and Blood of our
Iesus what reason could you haue to trow as you doe that no Iesuit will maintayne it What Iesuit can you name of so many that haue written of this matter that doth not expresly maintayne that Christ in his supper gaue his mortall and passible body though after an immortall and impassible manner Hence though in the hoast his body could neyther be sensibly felt nor suffer yet otherwise the same might then suffer in the place where it did exist according to the naturall and proper manner of bodyes See Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 12. Suarez Vasquez Valentia and innurable others The sixt Argument pag. 398. If our Sauiours words be litterally expounded then Infidells dogges and swine may eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man But all that eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man haue euerlasting life Iohn 6.49.50.51 ANSWERE I wonder you dare with such toyes oppose the literall truth of Gods word You may see the idlenes of this your argument in the like S. Paul sayth 1. Cor. 12.3 None can say Lord Iesus but in the Holy Ghost Should one argue that these words are not properly to be vnderstood because Parrats may be taught to say Lord Iesus so if these words None can say Lord Iesus but in the holy Ghost be properly expounded then Parrats should be inspired with the holy Ghost Were not this disputant to be laught at Are you a Doctour and do not vnderstand that externall actions vnto which diuine promises are made must be not only humane proceeding from man as he is man that is from reason and freewill which cannot be â—n dogs and swine but also Christian that is proceding from deuotion â—ayth in Christ Iesus which is wanting in Infidells The seauenth Argument pag. 398. If our Sauiours words were literall playne and regular then Papists could not be diâ—â—racted about the sense thereof but they are notoriously deuided For some say the Proâ—owne this signifyeth nothing others say it signifyeth bread some say it signifyeth â—â—e accidents of bread others it signifyeth the body of Christ c. Touching the body â—â—me say it is materia prima c. ANSWERE This argument proues nothing but your Ignorance who know not â—ow to distinguish diuision about the sense of a speach from diuision aâ—out the Logicall resolution of the single wordes of a speach All know â—hat haue any learning that learned men are deuided about the Logicall â—esolution of many propositions vulgar and plaine about the sense wherâ—f there neyther is nor can be doubt This speach Peter is a man A man â—unneth The wall is white are most playne nor are men deuided about their sense And yet he deserues not the name of a Scholler that doth not â—now there be solemne dissensions in Logicke amongst learned men aâ—out the resolution of these speaches that is about the precise and punctuâ—â—l signification of euery single word All Deuines agree in the sense of Christs speach This is my body that it imports the thing he held in his hands was in the end of the prolation of his speach essentially substantially his body as the substantiue verbe Esâ— doth import But they dispute about the Logicall and precise signification of the single words what is designed punctually by the demonstratiue Pronowne this what by Body which are meere Logicall and Philosophicall subtilties common to all propositions where the same words are vsed So that to mentioÌ„ these differeÌ„ces as matters of moment is a manifest signe that Hereticall Ignorance being out of loue with the literall sense of Gods word resolued not to belieue it seekes the vayle of euery idle pretence to hide the Infidelity of his hart The eight Argument pag. 413. If the sayd words be vnderstood literally then the body of Christ is properly brokeâ— and his blood properly shed in the Eucharist for Saint Paul sayth This is my body which is broken for you 1. Cor. 11.24 Saint Luke sayth This is the Cup the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you But the body of Christ is not properly broken nor his bloud properly shed in the holy Eucharist ANSWERE The word of God doth not say that the body of Christ is broken his bloud shed in the Eucharist but onely that the Eucharist is his body which is broken his bloud which is shed for vs for many for the remission of sinnes Caluin c. 11.1 ad Cor. doth expound broken and shed for vs on the Crosse where Christs pretious blood was properly shed his sacred body broken in the flesh and veynes therof which were there rent into peeces Besides to be broken for vs and shed for the remission of sinnes in this place signifyes to be sacrificed for vs vnto God as Caluin saith in the former place frangi interpretor immolari In which sense the body of Christ is broken properly not onely on the Crosse but also in the Sacrament this being a true Propitiatory Sacrifice as Catholicks teach Now take what part you will let the Sacrament be the body bloud of CHRIST broken and shed for vs that is sacrifyced for vs on the Crosse or broken and shed that is sacrifyced for vs in the Eucharist still it followes that the Eucharist is the true body and bloud of our Lord not bread and wine seeing Christ neyther in his Supper nor on his Crosse did sacrifice bread and wine for the remission of sinnes but his body and bloud only The ninth Argument pag. 401. Many Fathers treating of the Sacramentall signes call them figures representations memorialls antitypes of the body and bloud of Christ. But that which is a figure similitude representation of a thing is not properly the same ANSWERE First the Maior proposition of your Argument is false For not one Father of the many you cite doth say that the Eucharist is the figure of the naturall body and bloud of Christ but all they say is First that the Eucharist is a figure memoriall and antytype of Christs passion and death So S. Aug l. 3. de doctrin Christ. c. 16. Secondly that it is a figure of his mysticall body and of the vnity thereof Origen in c. 15. Matth. Aug. in Psal 3. Thirdly the bread and wine before consecration be figures of his body bloud as S. Ambros. l 4. de Sacram. c. 5. Druthmarus in c. 26. Matth. Fourthly that Christ did in the Eucharist represent his body where they take representation for the Reall exhibition of the thing promised as we commonly say that the debtour on such a day is to represent the money that is realâ—y deliuer as Tertul. cont Marci l. 1. c. 14. glossa de Consecrat d. 2. Fiftly they â—ay that the sacred vessells in the old law contayned only a figure of the body and bloud of Christ as the Authour of the Imperfect vpon S. Matâ—hew Finally for want of better testimonyes you bring some that proâ—esse agaynst you that
of bread was acknowledged by the Fathers (*) The Minister pag. 462. proposeth this argument agaynst Concomitancy which he thinkes to be so stronge and glorious as he sets the same in a distinct letter ech proposition in a distinct line to call the eye of the Reader vpon it Whatsoeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was before offered to God on the Crosse. But the body of Christ hauing soule and bloud in it by Concomitancy was not offered to God vpon the Crosse. Ergo at this day soule and bloud be not in the body of Christ by Concomitancy c. I answere This argument serues as a myrrour wherein Learned men may see and admire our Ministers want both of Philosophy and Logicke His want of Philosophy in not distinguishing the being by Concomitancy in the body from being by Concomitancy in the place where the body is The body of Christ neyther on the Crosse nor in the Eucharist hath soule bloud in it and vnited with it by Concomitancy yet the body of Christ not only in the Sacrament but also on the Crosse had soule and bloud present with it by Concomitancy or consequence For the soule being substantially vnited with the body and bloud contayned within the body they were consequently inforced to be togeather with the body in the same place on the Crosse. Hence the Ministers argument is turned agaynst himselfe That body is receaued in the Eucharist which was offered to God on the Crosse but Christs body hauing soule and bloud in the same place with it by Concomitancy was offerred to God on the Crosse. Ergo the body of Christ hauing soule in the same place with it by Concomitancy is in the Sacrament His ignorance in Logicke is likewise very specious and notable to present vnto the world with so great solemnity an idle Sophisme and Fallacy tearmed by the Logitians Figurae dictionis Of which fallacy one kind is when from the substantiall word one argueth vnto the accidentall As for example this Sophisme What meate soeuer thou didst buy in the market thou dost eate at dinner but thou did'st buy raw flesh in the market Ergo thou dost eate raw flesh at dinner And this likewise What fingers soeuer thou had'st being a Childe thou hast now being a man thou had'st little fingers being a Child Ergo thou hast little fingers now being a man Iust of the same frame fashion is our Ministers argument What soeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was offered on the Crosse A body that had not blood in it by Concomitancy was offered on the Crosse Ergo a body not hauing blood in it by Concomitancy is receaued in the Sacrament If this forme be good one may proue that we do not now receaue the body of Christ risen from death Whatsoeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was offered on the Crosse A body hauing soule and blood in it by vertue of resurrection from death to life was not offered on the Crosse Ergo a body risen from death or hauing soule and blood in it by vertue of resurrection from death is not receaued in the Sacrament Here your Ladyes may see with what Baberyes you delude their Ignorance arguing from the Substantiall vnto the Accidentall tearme For though Christs body receaued in the Sacrament be the same that was offered on the Crosse in respect of substance it doth not follow that therefore it is the same also in respect of accidents qualityes and circumstances Hence his body may now haue blood and soule by Concomitancy with it in the Sacrament though it had not had blood soule by Concomitancy with it on the Crosse. This principle supposed which is no lesse certayne then the true real presence I inferre the lawfulnes of Communion vnder one kind to wit vnder the sole forme of bread by this Argument If communion vnder one kind be not agaynst the substance eyther of Christs institution or of his Sacrament or his precept or of the practise of the primitiue Church it is lawfull iustifiable for iust reasons may be commanded by the Church This proposition is true because there neyther are other causes of dislike that may not be reduced to these foure neyther doth Christs Institution or Precept or the Primitiue practise binde vs to keep them further then in substance the accidentall circumstances of institutions Sacramēts precepts primitiue Customes being variable according to the variable disposition of thinges vnto which the Church militant in this life is subiect Now I assume Concomitancy being supposed it may be made euident that Communion vnder one kind is not agaynst the substance eyther of Christs institution or of the Sacrament or of his precept or of the primitiue practise For the substance of these foure obligations is one the same to wit that we be truly really partakers of the body and bloud of our Sauiour which is (e) The Minister p. 467. saith Though Concomitancy be granted yet Communion in one kind is not iustifyed because the blood by Concomitancy is receaued in the veines of the body not as shed out of the veynes But people must receaue the blood of Christ represented as shed which is not done but by receauing the Cuppe Answere The essence of the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice is to represent the effusion of our Lords blood so can not be entyre in one kind But the essence of the Eucharist as a Sacrament is to represent the body and blood of our Lord as the foode of the soule But in eyther kind the body and blood to be sufficient food of the soule the Iesuit prooueth so that people be not boūd so receaue the bloud represented distinctly and expressely as shed but only the Priest that doth sacrifice fully done by Communion vnder one kind as I will shew in the foure consequent Sections Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Institution of Christ. §. 2. DIVINE Institution is an action of God whereby he giues Being vnto things with reference vnto some speciall end This end is twofold the one corporall and temporall for which God hath instituted agreable and conuenient meanes That men may be borne into this world he did institute marriage and for maintenance of the sayd life being had he ordayned many sorts of meate The other end is spirituall for which God hath instituted Sacraments as for the first obtayning of grace and spirituall life the Sacraments of Baptisme Pennance for the preseruing of grace increasing therein particularly the Sacrament of the Eucharist That a man be bound to vse the Institution of God two things are required First that the end thereof be necessary and he bound to endeauour the attayning therof Hence it is that though marriage be the institution of God appointed to propagate mankind yet euery man is not bound to marry because he is not bound to propagate mankind when there be others that do aboundantly comply with that duty to which mankind is
congruous in respect of the eternity of glory yea the Passions of Christ being temporall and short were not by their owne nature condigne or Congruous vnto eternall glory nor could haue been condigne had they not been eleuated by the dignity of Gods naturall sonne from whome they proceeded Minister pag. 517. The Iesuit hath set fire on his owne house for if we owe our works vnto to God as he sayth we doe by the titles of iustice Religion gratitude what peeping hole I pray you is left for merit to creepe in at Answere Our workes by the titles of iustice Religion and gratitude are due vnto God so farre as he doth please to exact them by his law and no further but he is pleased not wholly and totally to exact them by the aforesayd titles but to leaue them vnto men to vse them for the gayning of the crowne of glory as we are taught by his word Hence mans merit is not in rigour of iustice but grounded vpon Gods mercifull indulgence in not exacting vpon workes with vttermost rigour This mercifull indulgence is a wide gate by the which Merit makes entrance into Gods Children shewed you by the Iesuit yet so blind you are as you see it not but goe peeping about to find an hole for Merit to creep in at the Catholike Saints of God vse not to coÌ„fide in their merits past specially being guilty of diuers dayly negligences but fly to Gods mercyes as the Church teacheth vs in the Lyturgy of the Masse dayly praying In sanctorum nos consortium non aestimator meriti sed veniae quaesumus largitor admitte (A) The Ministers Arguments or rather Inuestiues agaynst this doctrine of Merit with a short Answer thereunto Did Protestants know that we require all these diuine fauours to make any worke meritorious did they also consider how singular and excellent these fauours are they would not perchance wonder that workes graced with so many excellencies should haue some proportioÌ„ with the heauenly Reward And so dealing with your Maiesty who is well able to ponder these things I shall without proofe passe by this doctrine as not particularly belonging to the proposed difficulty Merit of workes of Supererogation §. 2. WHEREFORE to come to works of Supererogation these workes besides the seauen aforenamed graces suppose another singular fauor stand grouÌ„ded theron This fauour is that God thogh he might yet doth not rigorously require of his Saints seruants that in his seruice they do the vttermost of their forces He hath prescribed vnto men certayne Lawes CoÌ„maundements which if they keep he is satisfyed and what they do voluntary beyond these commaunded dutyes he receaues as a gracious spontaneous guift This diuine benignity is noted by Saint Chrysostome Homil. 21. in priorem ad Cor. and excellently declared in these wordes Ete nim cum benignus sit Dominus suis praeceptit multum admiscuit mansuctudinis Potuisset enim si hoc voluisset preceptum magis intendere augere dicere Qui non perpetuò ieiunat puniatur qui non exercet virginitatem det poenas qui se non omnibus exuit facultatibus luat vltimum supplicium sed non hoc fâ—cit concedent nobis vt non solum ex iussu sed etiam ex libero faciamus arbitrio Wherefore the precept Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy hart with all thy soule with all thy strength doth not commaund an entyre imployment of all our vttermost forces Nor that we neuer loue nor desire nor thinke of any thing besides him nor that all our thoughts and affections be wholly entirely perpetually on him For this were a thing impossible and God doth not require of vs thinges impossible as (b) Ioan 5.3 Mandata eius grauia non sunt Scriptures and Fathers (c) Basil. ho. in illud Moysis attende tibi ipsi Impium est asserere mandata Spiritus Sancti impossibiliae esse obseruatu teach This precept therefore commands a quadruple integrity of diuine loue The first integrity is in respect of our selues that we loue God wholly and entyrely not only with the outside but with the inside euen to the bottome of our soule that is in a word Sincerely The second integrity is in respect of God that we loue God according to all his Commaundements not leauing any vnkept and so to loue God entirely or with all the hart is the same as to walke in all his Commaundements The third integrity is in regard of the effect of loue which is to ioyne men in friendship with God whome we must so loue that there be no breach between God and vs nor we seperated from him which we doe so long as we keep his commaundements without sinning mortally agaynst them The fourth integrity is in respect of time that we loue him entierely not only for this present life but also desiring hoping to see and loue him for eternity And in this sense (d) Aug. de spiritu lit cap. vlt. Saint Augustine Saint (e) Bernard serm 5. in Cantica Bernard and other Fathers are to be vnderstood that say in the precept Diliges Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo is conteyned the perfection of the life to come and a perfection impossible to be atteyned to in this life to wit it is conteyned in the precept not as a perfection commanded to be practised in this life but as a perfection to be desired and hoped for in the next so that he that loues God sincerely from the bottome of hart to the keeping of all his Commaundments perfectly without breach of friendship betweene him and God hauing his desires loue referred with hope vnto Eternity without question he loueth God with all his hart soule strength * What the Minister cauilleth agaynst this truth is reduced to two heades Minister pag. 522. First to the definition of workes of supererogation is required that all which the Diuine law commandes be fullfilled But if iust men haue sinne they performe not all the Diuine law doth require For euery sinne is a transgression of the Diuine law 1. Iohn 3.4 Answere The law of God bindeth men to performe the workes thereof so farre as they are necessary vnto Saluation vnto which the obseruance of the law is ordayned If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandments Math. 19.17 Hence veniall sinne is not properly agaynst the law of God but against the decency and perfection of reason the law of God supposed and his goodnes towards man The place you cite as Saint Iohns Euery sinne is a transgression of the diuine law is by you falsifyed as I haue shewed in the Censure Sect. 4. §. 9. though also that text speake of mortall sinne not of veniall The testimony of S. Bernard serm 2. de Vig. Nat. by you cited p. 522. affirming that God coÌ„mands his law to be kept exceedingly that when we cannot doe it finding our imperfection we