great confidence auouch that it is a diuine ordinance that all ignorant Laymen read Scripture in the vulgar A strong argument The Scripture doth not say the Beroeans read the Scripture in their vulgar tongue nor doth it tearme them Noble for their reading of Scripture but for their receauing the word of Paul with alacrity and ioy Yea the tearme of The more noble is not giuen them in prayse of their Religion but to declare the quality of their Gentry and so Fulke his Bible hath the Noblest for byrth But suppose the Beroeans read in their vulgar and be therfore called Noble is not this inference ridiculous Ergo it is a diuine Precept that euery man read Scripture Doth not this arguing deserue rather to be laughed at then answered The third (a) Apoc. 1.3 Blessed is he that readeth and heareth Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that all meÌ„ read the Scripture that the Church giue theÌ„ the Scripture translated into all vulgar tongues Here you not only argue impertinently but also detruncate curtall the text of Gods Word leauing out words without which the text hath a false and foolish sense For if all be blessed that read and heare without mention or care of what then they be blessed who read or heare Tully Virgill or the bookes of Knighthood Why doe you not let the Scripture expresse the thing which being read or heard maketh men blessed The Scripture fully and truly cited sayth Blessed is he that heareth and readeth the wordes of this Prophesy to wit of the Apocalyps Which place eyther proueth nothing for your purpose or else proueth a necessity that euery man read the Apocalyps vnder penalty of otherwise not to be blessed This perchance for very shame you dare not auerre If you do what shall we or may we thinke of Luther who did neyther read nor heare nor belieue the Apocalyps as a Prophesy or as the word of (b) Nec Apostolicum nec PropheticuÌ„ esse puto hunc libelluÌ„ similem reputo Quarto Esdrâ—â— nec vllo modo deprendere possum quod a Spiritus Sancto confectus sit Lutherus praefat in Apocalip God And what an idle inference is this He is blessed who readeth the Apocalyps Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that euery man read Scriptures S. Paul sayth (c) 1. Cor. 7. Bonum est homini mulierem non tangere vers 1. Bonum est illis si sic permaneant vers 7. Beatior erit si sic permanserit vers 40. he is blessed that doth not marry Is it consequent Ergo euery man is bound not to marry or Ergo men cannot be blessed but only such as do not marry Surely your wife wil see this inference to be foolish yet it is as good as yours Blessed is he that readeth or heareth the Apocalyps Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that none be blessed but such as read Scripture The fourth argument The Galathians read the Scripture Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that ignorant laymen read them and that they be translated into euery vulgar Dialect That the Galathians read the Scriptures you prooue by the cypher of Galat. 4.24 where the Apostle sayth you that will be vnder the Law haue you not read the Law For it is written Abraham had two Sonnes This proofe is very poore For the Apostle doth not affirme they read but doubtingly demaunds whether they had not read one particle of Scripture Also the question was mooued without doubt only to the learned Galathians But suppose they read the Scripture is it lawfull thence to conclude Ergo they read it in their vulgar If they read it in their vulgar is it thence consequent Ergo euery man is bound by diuine ordinance to read and this so strictly as the Church may not forbid translations vnto such as abuse them The fifth place The Ephesians read the Scripture Ergo it is a diuine precept that ignorant Laymen read the Scripture in their vulgar tongue The antecedent you shew by the cypher Ephes. 3.4 where the Apostle sayth Reading you may vnderctand my wisdome in the Mistery of Christ A seely proofe Saint Paul doth not say that the Ephesians read but only that by reading his Epistle they might vnderstand his wisâ—ome about the mysteries of grace and Christian Religion But suppose they read S Pauls Epistle sent vnto theÌ„ doth it follow Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that Laymen promiscuously read Scripture and that the Church must translate Scripture to that end This inference as euen as good as this By reading the Epistles of Saint Peter one may vnderstand the great knowledge he had of Christ Ergo Euery man is bound to read S. Peters Epistles The sixt The Colossians read the Scripture Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that all ignorant Laymen read the Scripture The antecedent is by you proued by the cypher Coloss. 4.16 which sayth When this Epistle hath been read amongst you cause it also to be read in the Church of Loadicea This place doth not proue your intent that they read so much as that Epistle priuatly by theÌ„selues but only that the same was publikely read in the Church by the Bishop or the Priest or some Church officer in the same laÌ„guage wherin it was written originally But suppose the Colossians read this Epistle priuately by theÌ„selues what a wooden inference is this Ergo euery Christian is bouÌ„d by diuine ordinance to read Scripture Or Ergo the Church is obliged by diuine precept to prouide that the Scripture be translated into vulgar tongues The seauenth Argument The Thessalonians read the Scripture Ergo the reading thereof by ignorant Laymen is a diuine ordinance The antecedent you prooue by the cypher 1. Thess. 5.25 which sayth I adiure you that this Epistle be read vnto all holy brethren Neyther doth this text prooue priuate reading of Scripture by Laymen but only publik reading therof in the Church But suppose they priuately read this Epistle sent them by the Apostle is it consequeÌ„t Ergo all Laymen are bound to read Scripture and the Church to translate the same into euery tongue Truly this argument is euen as good as this God created heauen and earth of nothing Ergo Ministers may make arguments of nothing or make argumeÌ„ts good that haue nothing in them Or as this In the beginning was the word the word was with God Ergo euery godly person is bound to read the Scripture word by word from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalyps Or Ergo Godly persons do nothing els but read Scripture Grosse Ignorance of Theology SECTION III. BESIDES the manifold Errours which you maintaine in coÌ„mon with other Ministers you haue diuers proper peculiar to your selfe and exceeding grosse wherby you declare how ignorant how are of Theology I will only discouer some few of them but those fundamentall by which you so shake the fabrike of your Reply as no piece thereof remayneth â—ound The first
Iesuite to say that men not belieuing forehand all necessary points of fayth cannot haue any certaine vnderstanding of Scripture This is a slauÌ„der He onely sayth that such ignorants and wanters of beliefe cannot vnderstand aright Scriptures in all necessary points but they will erre in some chiefe article or other though they may happily vnderstand something aright For there was neuer Heretike that did erre in all necessary points But it is inough to damnation to erre in one substantiall pointe therefore we must not presume to reade interpret Scriptures till we be well grounded in them by the Tradition of the Church caÌ„not with assurance vnderstand them but may euen in maynest poynts mightely mistake for the blessed Apostles wryting to Christians that were beforehand fully taught and setled in substantiall Christian Doctrines and customes doe ordinarily in their writings suppose such things as abuÌ„dantly knowen without declaring them anew onely touching them (t) Thus S. Peter act 9.3 4. repreheÌ„ding Ananias for the breach of his Vow doth by the way teach the holy Ghosts Diuinity Why hath Satan filled thy hart to lye to the holy Ghost Thou hast not lyed vnto men but vnto God For what is spoken directly and of purpose in Scripture is no more infallible truth then what is spokeÌ„ but cursorily by the way Wherfor the former speach of S. Peter doth assure vs that the holy Ghost is God as much as that it is a sinne to breake a vow and yet that is spoken by the way and this of purpose Whence you may see the Ministers great weakenes of IudgemeÌ„t who holding that some points of fayth are coÌ„tained in Scripture only consequently pag. 32. lin 3. raileth at the Iesuite for saying that some thinges are sayd in Scripture cursorily and by the way For to be written cursorily and by the way which the Iesuite giues vnto Scripture is more then to be onely virtually and consequently written cursorily by the way and therfore obscurely so that they who are already taught might well vnderstand their sayings and no other Concerning the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture §. 2. HENCE I may further inferre that Protestants haue not yet throughly pondered the place of the Apostles to Timothy which they so vehemently vrge to proue the all-sufficiency of sole Scripture for euery man as though the Apostles had sayd absolutely that the Scriptures are able to instructe or make any man wise vnto saluation which he sayes not but speaking particularly (u) 2. Tim. 3.14.15.16.17 vnto Timothy sayth They are able to instructe or make Thee wise vnto saluation Thee (x) The Minister here laboureth impertinenly to proue that speaches vnto one single person may be generall vnto many other in Scripture which no man denies And so this speach They are able to make Thee wise is generall vnto all persons that are like to Timothy that is instructed aforehand and setled in the fayth of Tradition For what is sayd vnto one single person is not sayd vnto others further theÌ„ they agree with that party in the cause for which it is truly sayd of him What God sayd vnto Abraham Gen. 15.12 I am thy Protectour is not sayd to all men but only to all meÌ„ that were like Abraham that is deuout worshipers of the true God as he was that hast bene aforehand instructed by word of mouth doest thervpon firmely belieue all substantiall doctrines and knowest all the necessary practises of the Christian discipline Verily the Apostle in that place speaketh onely of the Scriptures of the Old Testament affirming them not sufficient for euery man but for Timothy and not sufficient for him by themselues alone but per fidem quae est in Christo Iesu that is ioyned with the doctrine of the Christian fayth which Tymothy had heard and belieued vpon the liuely voyce of Tradition And the consequent words of the Apostle so much insisted vpon All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach c. If Protestants could so (y) The Minister heere heapeth many speaches of Fathers that say the Scriptures are sufficient to proue that Profitable signifyes the same that Sufficient This is ridiculous The Iesuit grants the Scripture to be sufficient for them that know Tradition yet he will still deny that profitable signifyes the same as sufficient How Catholicks grant the same sufficiency to be in Scripture as Protestants and the true state of the Question about sufficiency of Scripture and of Tradition THE Minister here enters into a longe impertinent discourse about the clarity sufficiency of Scripture setting titles ouer the heads of his pages Many Scriptures playne the Scriptures sufficient c. as who would say the Answerer had denied this To discouer these his false insinuatioÌ„s and to cleere this controuersy most important we must know 5. things First that there was once a controuersy betwixt Protestants and vs about the sufficieÌ„cy clarity of Scripture For in their beginning they taught all matter of fayth to be EXPRESSED in Scripture and nothing inuolued Omnia expressa nihil inuolutum De tota Scriptura dico nullam eius partem obscuram esse So Luther de â—erâ—to Arbitrio in Tom. 2. Wittenberg Nothing is to be belieued without the word of God though it seeme deduced by good consequence Luther in locis coÌ„mun 1. part c. 24. pag. 69. Secondly now Protestants euen our Minister pag. 32 lin 2. and often in this reply disclaime from expresse and formall Scripture and pretend that all things are written eyther formally or virtually and so confesse that there is herin no difference betwixt the most learned Papists and them So saith Field Church l. 4. c. 20. pag. 241. lin 6. Thirdly when some Catholicks as Dominicus Bannes so many tymes cited by the Minister pag 151. Marg lit f. pag 109. lin 40. pag. 189. marg lit b. pag. 580. marg lit a. say that some points be neither expressely nor inuoluedly in Scripture they do not meane that they are not virtually inuolued in thinges contayned in Scripture as effects in their cause so are deduceable from Scripture but only that they are not formally inuolued in thinges of Scripture as parts in their whole in sort as they can be articles of fayth by sole Scripture For thinges formally inuolued in Scripture as parts in the whole a soule and body in man indiuidualls in the whole masse of their kind be articles of fayth by vertue of Scripture Thus when the Scripture â—aith Iob was a man it is said inuoluedly yet formally that he had soule body c. when the Scripture sayth Libanus hath Cedar trees it sayth not formally but virtually it hath imputrible wood Fourthly the question now resting between Protestants and vs is not whether the Scripture be virtually intricate and inuolued about some points of fayth nor whether some rule of interpretatioÌ„ be necessary for that the Scripture is inuolued and needeth an vnfolding rule
〈◊〉 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
doctrine matter and of things belieued What is Diuine fayth but to belieue things we do (m) Argumentum non appareÌ„tium Hebr. 11.1 Fide credimus ea quae non videmus Aug. de Gen. ad lit l. 12. c. 31. Et Enchirid. c. 8. Fides quam diuina eloquia docent est earum rerum quae non videntur not see vpon the word of God reuealing them whom we know to be worthy of all credit so that howsoeuer some learned men may otherwise see some doctrines reuealed by the light of reason yet neuer by the light of fayth for fayth is that vertue wherby we (n) Fides inchoat meritum Aug. l. 1. retrac c. 23. Et epist. 106. Fides meretur gratiam bene operandi merit and please God by shewing reuerence to his word but what merit or God-a-mercy is it to belieue what we see manifestly (o) Augustin tract 79. in Ioan. Laus fidei est si quod creditur non videtur Gregor hom 26. in Euang. Cyprian Serm. de Natiu Christi Haec fides non habet meritum conuicted by the euidence therof What pious affection to Gods word doth a man shew by seing it to be the truth The third Argument Thirdly it is extreamest Disorder as S. Augustine sayth (p) August de vtilit credendi c. 14. Priâ—s videre velle vt animum purges peruersum atque prae posterum est first to see that we may belieue wheras we ought first firmely to belieue what we do not se that so we may (q) See this Ministers reply pag. 16. The matter and forme of the Bookes shew themselues to be Diuine merit to see what wee haue belieued But Protestants pretend first to see the resplendent verity of Scriptures doctrine thence concluding (q) See this Ministers reply pag. 16. The matter and forme of the Bookes shew themselues to be Diuine that the Scripture being so high and diuine truth as they forsooth see it to be cannot but be reuealed of God and if (r) If Diuine then Apostolicall Reply pag. 19. reuealed of God then preached by the Apostles if preached by the Apostles then the full publike tradition of the Church in all subsequent ages (s) Pag. 105. the Minister sayth If we can demonstrate we mantayne the Religion which the holy Apostles taught this alone is sufficient to proue we are the true Church though we could not nominate any visible Church of our Religion out of History though the Preachers Professors therof were neuer seene nor can be named Thus disorderly they place the Cart before the Horse they know that their Religion is supernaturall truth before they be sure that it is either the doctrine of the Church or of the Apostles or of God The fourth Argument Fourthly it is great blindenes and (t) Field appendix part 2. pag. 20. doth acknowledge that they who see not this light of Scripture and yet pretend it must be brayne sicke and franticke want of common sense for men that digladiate amongst themselues about Scripture and the doctrine therof which is diuine and heauenly and which not to pretend that they are enabled by the spirit to discerne heauenly writings doctrines and senses from humane by the euidence of the thing as easily as men distinguish light from darknes hony from gall Protestants disagree and contend bitterly about the very Scriptures they dayly peruse see and behold which text and sense is diuine and heauenly which not as to omit many other Examples about (t) Luther praefat in Epist. Iacobi edit Ienensi Chemnitius Enchyrid pag. 63. The Epistle of Iames the second of Peter the second and third of Iohn the Epistle of Iude the Apocalyps of Iohn are Apocryphall the Epistle of Iames and about the sense of these words This is my body and yet they (u) Iohn White sayth they know the senses of Scriptures to be diuine by their owne light shyning and by their owne shewing it selfe in them as sweetnes is knowne by it owne tast Caluin lib. 1. Institut c. 7. §. 2. in fine Non obscuriorem veritatis suae seipsum scriptura vltâ—ò praese fert quà m coloris suires albae nigrae saporis res suaues amarae challenge resolution in these matters by the light of the spirit making them to see manifestly the truth of the thinge and to discerne true scripture in text and sense from false as easily as the light of the Sunne from darknes what can be more fond and ridiculous The fifth Argument Fifthly if no man be saued without diuine and supernaturall fayth and if supernaturall fayth be resolued not by the authority of the Church of God but by the resplendent verity of the Doctrine what hope of saluation can wise and prudent men expect in the Protestant Church Without diuine illuminatioÌ„ making them to see the truth of things belieued they cannot haue supernaturall fayth nor be saued if Protestants say true Wise prudent men cannot be so fond as to belieue that they see manifestly the truth of the things they belieue by Christian fayth as the truth of the Trinity of the Incarnation of the Reall presence of the Resurrection of the dead and other like articles belieued What (x) Protestants are forced by this argument to contradict themselues For sometymes they teach that fayth builded on the authority of the Church is but human and acquisite not sufficient vnto Saluation Thus our Minister pag. 14. And yet at other tymes they teach that Nouices and weakelings haue fayth sufficient vnto saluatioÌ„ whose sayth is built vpon the authority of the Church this also is taught by the Minister pag. 22. saying Nouices in fayth ground their historicall fayth vpon the authority of the Church then can they expect but most certaine damnation in the Protestant Church if this Protestant way to resolue supernaturall fayth be the truth The sixt Argument Finally no deuise more proper of Satan to entrap simple soules then the promise of cleare and manifest Truth this being the very (y) Timeo ne sicut Serpens Heuam seduxit astutiâ suâ ita corrumpantur sensus vestri excidaÌ„t simplicitate quae est in Christo. 2. Cor. 11.3 meanes of delusion wherby he deceyued our first parent Eue and (z) Gen. 3.4 wonne her to tast the forbidden fruite for what more gratefull vnto men that grone vnder the (a) Augustin de vtil cred c. 9. Vera Religio sine quodam graui authoritatis imperio iniri rectè nullo pacto potest yoke of Christian authority pressing them to belieue what they do not see theÌ„ this (b) Haeretici non se iugum credendi imponere sed docendi fontem aperire gloriantur Augustin Ibid. promise of Heresy Follow vs you shal be like vnto God seeing the truth you shall by following vs not darkly belieue but know good from bad truth from falshood in matters of Religion by euidence
impudency is it for Protestants to affirme that Rome was pure Protestant for the first fiue or six hundred yeares and that afterward the Pope changed ProtestaÌ„cy into Papacy brought in Images InuocatioÌ„ of Saints Auricular Confession Adoration of the Sacrament and the like horrible noueltyes and changes of the whole world which could not but haue been noted if they had beene nouelties wheras all histories be silent herein yea they mention the contrary to wit how Popes euer resisted them that would haue innouated about these points monumeÌ„ts of history and antiquity who were (y) What the Minister here sayth pag. 116. that the Pharisees did say as we doe that they had their Traditions by succession from Moyses vrging our Sauiour that he could not proue by history that they had changed their fayth and our Sauiour leauing History refuted them by Scripture this is a figment of his owne head out of meere desire to make the Pharisees seeme like to vs and himselfe to our Sauiour for where doth he read that Pharisees so pleaded agaynst our Sauiour and what blasphemy to thinke that our Sauiour could not haue refuted them by History had they so pleaded shewing where when and by whome they beganne The truth is the Pharisees pretended not their obseruations as successions hand to hand from Moyses but as Traditions of their owne Some they vrged as deductions froÌ„ the Scripture which they Protestant-like did pretend to vnderstand better more rigorously then any before them such was their doctrine agaynst healing diseased persons doing small labors as gathering eares of corne on the Sabboth day much like our Protestant Sabbaâ—arians other they taught as singular inuentions of Piety and Religion found out by themselues for the more exact obseruance of the Law some of which Inuentions were impious some friuolous some pious and therfore allowed by our Sauiour as that of paying tythes vnto God out of euery little hearbe a tradition of their owne not commanded in the Law and yet approued by our Sauiour as binding This you ought to haue done and not to haue omitted that other Luc. 11.42 they are rebuked for obseruing their otherwise pious inuentions for vayne glory couetousnes for preferring small matters because they were their owne aboue the precepts of Gods Law All this is euident vnto them that are conuersant in the Ghospell neuer noted as deliuering contrary doctrines the one to the other Apparantly Vniuersall (z) The Christians called the Chaldaean AssyriaÌ„s the Iacobites or Cophti the Georgians the AEthiopians or Abissines the Thomaeans in India the ArmeniaÌ„s specially those tearmed Franc-Armenians Maronits are vnited with the RomaÌ„ Church haue often lately made their obedience vnto the Pope professing to hold in all points the Catholike Roman faith as you may see in Notitia Episcopatuum 〈◊〉 Miraei lib. 1. c. 16.17.18 spread ouer the world with credit and authority that whole mankind may take notice of her doctrine for the imbracing thereof Conspicuously (a) The Minister pag. 107. saith that it is not inough to proue we haue vnity but we must proue we haue vnity in verity for the Turkes haue vnity and yet haue not verity I answere That the vnity and consent of a grand diffused multitude spread ouer the world in the Tradition of Ancestors about Religion doth euidently reduce Religion to the first external authour publisher the credit of his word The vnity consent of Mahometans in their Tradition from Mahomet proues their Religion to be Mahomets and consequently in the Iudgement of Christians the Religion of a false Prophet Our vnity and consent in the Christian Tradition of our Auncestours from Christ proues euidently our Religion to be of Christ and consequently diuine and true as certainly as it is certaine that Christ Iesus was the Messenger of God and God the Author of truth So that the vnity of the Romane Church proues directly her Religion to be Christs and then by consequence to be diuine verity One the Professours therof agreing in all points of fayth howsoeuer they differ about small vndefined questions Most manifestly Holy in all kind of high and admirable sanctity giuing notorious signes and tokens thereof striking (b) What the Minister here brings out of some zealously complaining agaynst vice is already by vs answered was long agoe by S. Aug. de vtilit cred c. 5. where he nameth these sanctityes as signes of the Church CoÌ„tineÌ„tia vsque ad tenuissimum victum panis aquae non solùm quotidiana sed per contextos plures dies coÌ„tinuata ieiunia Castitas vsque ad coniugij prolisue contemptum Patientia vsque ad cruces flammasue neglectas Liberalitas vsque ad patrimonia distributa pauperibus Thus S. Augustine adding Few I graunt in the Church doe these thinges in respect of the other multitude and fewer do them well prudently yet the people approue applaud loue admire them and accuse themselues they cannot do the like so rising vp towardes God by these examples admiration into carnall men that are not altogeather prophane and diffusing abroad the sweet odour of Christ and the Christian Name In which proofe that these propertyes agree to the Romane and be wanting in the ProtestaÌ„t Church I will not inlarge my selfe as I otherwise might aswell not to weary your Maiesty as also not to seeme to diffide the matter being most cleere of your Maiesties Iudgment Wherfore it is more then cleere that the Roman is the One Holy Catholike Apostolicall Church by whose Tradition Christian Religion hath beene is and shall be euer continued from the Apostles to the worlds end The third Argument PROTESTANTS haue the Holy Scriptures deliuered vnto them by and from the one holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church But they receiued them from no other Church then the Roman Ergo the Roman is the one holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church The Maior I proue If Protestants haue not the Text of Scripture by and from the one holy Catholike Apostolical Church they cannot be certaine they haue the true incorrupt text the Apostles deliuered and recommended as diuine to the first Christians seeing the Tradition of any other Church is fallible (c) The Minister pag. 119. obiecteth agaynst this that if we cannot be sure of the Scripture except the immediat deliuerer therof be infallible then we cannot be sure except we haue the Scripture immediately from the hand of the Pope or generall CouÌ„cell who only are infallible Answere We must as Theology teacheth distinguish immediationem suppositi immediationeÌ„ virtutis that is the immediate person which deliuers Scripture and the immediate authority vpon the credit wherof Scripture is deliuered The person immediatly deliuering may be a single Minister fallible taken solely by himselfe but the immediate authority that deliuers Scripture is euer and must still be infallible to wit the authority of the Churches Tradition For we neither must nor can belieue
firmely any Minister of the Catholicke CHVRCH affirming a booke to be Scripture vntill we see cleerly that he deliuers therein the consent of the Catholike Church which then is euident vnto vs when we see him preach it freely and openly and no Pastour to contradict him therein may deceyue And if it may deceiue how can they be certaine that they are not deceiued seeing they thēselues liued not in the Apostles dayes nor saw with their owne eyes what coppyes the Apostles deliuered But Protestants as they pretend be certaine that they haue the true incorrupt Apostolicall text of Scripture Ergo they haue it vpon the authority of the holy Catholike Apostolicall Church Now the Minor that they haue the Scripture from the Romane is apparant for what other Church did deliuer vnto Luther the text of the Bible assuring him that they had it by Tradition from Auncestors tyme out of mind as giuen originally by the Apostles Which is accordingly acknowledged by (*) Whitaker l. 3. de Ecclesia p. 369. M. Whitaker (d) M. Doue in his persuasion others but particularly by (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word Luther himselfe Ergo the Roman Church is the one holy Catholik Apostolical Church whose Tradition doth deliuer infallibly vnto vs the text of Scripture And if the true Apostolicall Text then also (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word the true Apostolicell sense This I prooue if the Apostles did not deliuer the bare Text but togeather with the Text the true (f) We doe not say that the Apostles did deliuer the true sense of all their Scriptures making a large and entire commentary of all difficil texts as the Minister cauilleth pa. 121. but only that togeather with the text they deliuered the sense about the mayne and most principall points this sense thus deliuered by Traditiō with the text is to be admitted as religiously and reuerently as the text sense of Scripture to be deliuered perpetually vnto posterity then they who by Tradition rereiue from the Apostles the true Text must togeather receiue the true sense But as (g) Chemnit in exam Cōcil Trid. part 1. fol. 74. D. Bancroft in the Suruay pag. 379. principall Protestants affirme No mā doubteth but the Primitiue Church receyued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not only the text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sēse Which is agreable to the doctrin of (h) Vincentius Lyrinen cap 2. the Fathers that from the Apostles togeather with the text descends the line of Apostolicall interpretation squared according to the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense Whereupō S (i) Aug. de vtilit Creden c. 14. Augustine argueth that they that deliuer the text of Christs Ghospell must also deliuer the exposition affirming that he would sooner refuse to belieue Christ then admit any interpretation contrary to them by whome he was brought to belieue in Christ. For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense why may they not also deliuer a false text as receyued frō the Apostles An argument conuincing and (k) Though the Minister pag. 123. storme at this confidence of his Aduersary in tearming it vnanswerable yet by deeds he confirmes the saying to be true in not answering but chāging the force thereof quite another way saying It is this The text of the Scripture may be as easily corrupted as the sense Ergo All they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense may also deliuer a false text In this argument he denyeth the antecedent or assumption I answere First as I sayd the argument is peruerted and the medium or meanes of proofe changed for there is great difference betwixt Being as easy Being as possible seing a thing may be as possible as another and yet not so easy That ten men should conspire to deceaue me is not so easy as that three should so conspire as is euident Yet it is as possible as the other because no reason can be brought to proue that three may so conspire that proues not that also ten may do the like In the same manner though we should grant the sense may be more easily mistaken by the Church then the text yet it is as possible that the Church be mistaken in the sense Because no reason proues that vniforme Tradition can be mistaken in the sense that proues not that it is possible that the Church may be mistaken in the text though perchance not so easily Now if the Church in her vniforme Tradition may be mistaken about the text then is not Traditiō a sufficient ground of infallible perswasion that the text is the Apostles and so fayth is ouerthrowne which hath no other ground to know assuredly the incorrupt Scriptures deliuered by the Apostles but Traditiō as hath been prooued Secondly it is false that the sense and doctrine of Scripture concerning mayne and substantiall articles of fayth may be sooner corrupted and a false sense persuaded to the Church then a false text The reason is manifest because millions of Christians know by Tradition the doctrine of Scripture about mayne points that know not all the texts by which the same is proued yea perchance truly certainly not so much as one For example the doctrine that there are Three Diuine Persons and One God is so ingrauen in the harts of all euen simple Christians as you may sooner pull out their harts then make them belieue that this is not the Christian fayth whence no man can deny the Trinity but he is presently noted by al. On the other side this text 1. Ioan. 5.7 wherby the Trinity is proued There be three that giue testimony in heauen the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one millions do not know and so it is more easy to take from Christians this text then the doctrine therof And the same reason is of any other text the texts being stil commonly farre more vnknowne then the doctrine of the Creed such substantiall points vnanswerable The fourth Argument MY fourth proofe I grōnd vpō a Principle most certayne and set downe by (*) In the summe of the Conference before his Maiesty p. 75. your Gracious Maiesty That the Romane Church was once the mother Church and consequently the one holy Catholike Apostolicall Church all other Churches being her daughters and that she is not to be forsaken further then it can
yet his doctrine is agaynst the whole Consent of Deuines expresly agaynst S. Augustine who sayth that a man holding with Photinus whose Errors were fundamentall agaynst the Trinity God head of Christ thinking he holdes Catholike doctrine is not yet an (*) The Minister sayth pa. 196. that the IESVITE cites not Augustine truly for he ōly saith I would not affirme of such a person that he is an Heretique Answere This is vntruth S. Austine saith Istum nondum haereticū dico I do affirme this mā not to be yet an Heretique though he hold fundamentall errour till he knowe he dothe it agaynst the Catholike CHVRCH What he addeth that S. Austine meanes that ignorance is not heresy in foro Ecclesiae but is heresy in foro caeli is ridiculous for the contrary is true because whosoeuer denyes though ignorātly the knowne articles of the Creed is an heretike in foro Ecclesiae because he is presumed to erre out of contempt not out of ignorance But if he be truly ignorant he is no heretike in foro caeli because verily he is not willfull Heretike till warned that he holds agaynst the Catholike Church he chooseth to perseuer in his errour Hence I inferre that Protestants erre fundamentally according to the second kind of erring to wit in the manner in all points they hold agaynst the Roman Church which I haued proued to be the true Catholike Church For he that holds any priuate opinions so stifly as rather thē forsake it he denies abandons the Catholike Church a mayne article of his Creed erreth fundamētally as is cleere But Protestants hold their priuate opinions so stiffely as therupon they haue denyed and abandoned the Catholike Church to wit the Roman Neyther doth it import that they retayne the word hauing reiected the sense seeing not the letter of the Creed pronounced but the matter belieued makes men Christians Neyther is it inough to say that they belieue the Church of the Elect seeing the Church of the Creed is not the Church of the only Elect a meere Fancy but the visible and conspicuous Church continuing from the Apostles by succession of Bishops which thus I prooue The Church whereof Christ sayd I am alwayes with you to the consummation of the world is the Church of the Creed or the Church which to forsake is damnable For the Church wherewith Christ still abideth not according to corporall visible presence but by his spirit is the body of Christ whereof he is head into which he infuseth the life of grace consequently he that forsaketh this Church forsaketh the body of Christ and the head thereof and cannot liue by his spirit but is in a dead and damnable state as a member cut off and separated from a liuing body as S. Augustine epist. 50. de vnit Eccles. c. 16. long agoe noted The Catholike Church is the body of Christ whereof he is head out of this body the Holy Ghost quickeneth no man Now the Church wherof Christ sayd I am alwayes with you to the consummation of the world is not the Church inuisible of only the Elect but a visible Church deriued by succession from the Apostles Therfore he that forsakes the Church deriued by succession from the Apostles forsakes the Church of the Creed the Catholike Church the body of Christ puts himselfe into a dead damnable state may haue all things besides saluation and eternall life as Fathers affirme whose testimonies in this behalf are notable and famously knowne whereunto D. Field yieldeth acknowleging one holy Catholike Church in which only the light of heauenly Truth is to be sought where only grace mercy remission of sinnes and hope of eternall happynes are found AN ANSVVERE TO THE Nyne Points proposed by your most Excellent Maiesty I Haue bene large in my former proofes that the Roman is the one holy true catholike church whose Traditions comming downe by perpetuall succession from Christ and his holy Apostles are so constantly and strongly to be belieued that no proofes out of Scripture by priuate interpretatiō vnderstood though seeming most euident may stand to contest (a) The Minister here spends a whole leafe of Paper in bitternes gall against vs as if we did professe to preferre Old Custome before knowne Verity It is not so but thus the case standeth between Protestants and vs. First as for Verity neither they nor we know our Religion to be verity by manifest sight nor by the light lustre euidence of the thinge or doctrine as both of vs must acknowledge if we be sober Secondly there be records which by Tradition we know to haue bene giuen by the Apostles which vpon good warrant are belieued to deliuer nothing but Gods holy word Thirdly when Controuersies arise about this word of the Apostles and there be different opinions about the sense therof seeming arguments be brought on both sides we thinke that side ought to preuaile as the truly Christian for which perpetuall Christian Tradition Custome stand Fourtly we Iudge that that side ought to be reiected as not truly Christian where Christian Tradition is so notoriosly defectiue as they cānot ascend from this age vpward towards Christ by naming professours of their Religion higher then one hundred yeares or if they presume to passe further they are presently conuinced to feigne as it happeneth vnto Protestants This is the summe of all that hath been hitherto sayd and the forme of the Catholicke proceeding about their resolution of fayth against thē And this I haue not done without purpose assuring my selfe that if your Maiestie were throughly perswaded in this point you would without any mans help most easily and fully satisfy your selfe in particular controuersyes out of your owne wisdome and learning For as some that haue bene present at your Maiesties discourses casually incident about Religion report few of our Deuines though trained vp continually in Academies and Exercises of Theology are able to say more thē your Maiesty in defence of the catholicke cause for particular controuersyes when you please to vndertake the patronage thereof which I can easily belieue out of my owne Experience who could not but admire seing your Maiesty so well acquainted with our doctrines and so ready and prompt in Scholasticall subtilities Wherfore most humbly I beseech your most Excellent Maiesty to honour these my poore labours with a gratious perusall of them accepting of mine Answers whē they may seeme reasonable being in defence of doctrines receiued from Auncestors which deserue approbation when there is no euidency against them and of your abundant clemency pardon my prolixity seeing the questions by your Maiesty proposed were so difficill and obscure as I could hardly haue made any shorter full explication of them THE FIRST POINT The (b) The Minister in this question knowes not well what to stand vnto He graunts the question and then he denyes it agayne contradicting himselfe yea censuring his owne whole
say his sufferings as examples were perfect and full yet were supplyed by Saint Paul why may not the same sufferings as satisfactions be supplyed by S. Paul without being imperfect For Saint Paul is sayd to supply the sufferings of Christ as satisfactory not because they were not of infinit value but because God will haue the satisfactions of his seruants to be ioyned with Christs that Christs may haue their full effect euen to the cancelling of the debt of temporall payne Minister pag. 564. The indulgences Tertullian opposed were the same whereof S. Cyprian speaketh Epist. 10.11.12 to wit relaxation of Canonicall censures and pennances to notorious sinners at the request of martyrs liuing in prison Answere It is true Tertullian being an Heretike opposed such indulgences as S. Cyprian doth mention as allowed in the Catholike Church But that these indulgences were only relaxations of Canonicall pennances censures you say but shew not yea that the pennances released were required in foro conscientiae to satisfy Gods anger appeareth by S. Cyprian his words in that tenth Epistle by you mentioned Deo patri misericordi satisfacere pro delictis suis poenitentiam agentes possunt And that penitents to make this full satisfaction vnto God and so obtayne pardon were holpen by the suffrages of Martyrs the same Saint Cyprian doth affirme Epist. 13. They who haue receaued bills from the Martyrs to be released of their Pennance may by the PREROGATIVE OF MARTYRS BE HOLPEN WITH GOD. And Epist. 14. They who bring the Bills from the Martyrs may by THEIR HELP BE AYDED IN THEIR SINNES This Catholike practise of pardoning vnto Penitents the reserued temporall penalty by the application of Martyrs suffrages satisfactions to haue byn impugned by Tertullian in his heresy is manifest by his making the Penitent in an heretical humour to say to the Martyr who applyed his satisfaction for his pardon If thou be a sinner thou needest satisfaction and pardon thy selfe How then can thine oyle of satisfaction be sufficient both for thee and me Also the Martyrs that sued for pardon to be giuen to the penitents he accuseth of Prodigality therin which is a signe that Martyrs bestowed something that was their owne vpon penitents that they by vertue thereof might be pardoned which cannot be any thing besides their own sufferings according as they were satisfactory for sinne Minister pag. 565. The aduersary is so farre from being able to proue Popes pardons in Tertullians dayes That he caÌ„not proue they had any being in the dayes of Peter Lombard or Hugo Victor Answere Still you shew your selfe to be a bold affirmer about things you know not For what more euideÌ„t falshood then this you vent That Indulgences had not any being in the dayes of Peter Lombard The Waldensian Sect was in being in the dayes of Peter Lombard as doth witnesse Illyricus in catalog Test. colum 1498. and they as the same Illyricus doth record ibid. colum 1501. 1511. contemned and derided the indulgences of the Church which they would not haue done but that they saw the same had some being and vse then in the Church Pope Paschall the 2. some yeares before Peter Lombard graunted the Indulgences of 40. dayes to all that were present at the Lateran Generall Councell kept in his tyme as writeth Vrspergens Chron. an 1106. Vrban the second in the yeare 1096. before Peter Lombard was borne in the Generall Councell of Cleremont in France graunted a Plenary Indulgence vnto al that should go to fight for the recouery of the Holy Land yea Leo the third almost foure hundred yeares before Peter Lombard to wit eight hundred yeares agoe as writes S. Lutgerus in vita Sancti Switberti c. 9. did at the request of Charles the Great dedicate the temple of our Blessed Lady of Aquisgraâ—e donans eam multis indulgentijs bestowing many Indulgences vpon it Moreouer The Pope sayth he in France consecrated many Churches euery where graunting many indulgences And agayne The Pope graunted speciall Indulgences vnto the sayd Church for all the faythfull that should keep the feast of Saint Switbert and come on his day to heare diuine seruice Behold how frequent and ordinary a thing it was eight hundred yeares agoe for the Pope to giue out Indulgences which you say had not any being in the dayes of Peter Lombard Not only S. Thomas many Catholikes write that Saint Gregory the Great before the yeare six hundred graunted Indulgences but also Protestants as Fryar Bale Act. Rom. Pontif. printed at Basil Anno 1558. Gregory sayth he did confirme the deuotion of people in visiting images by granting them indulgences And agayne He was the first Pope that did grant Indulgences vnto theÌ„ that should vpon certayne dayes visit Churches And though we cannot directly proue that such generall Indulgences for all the faithfull were vsed before Saint Gregory yet it is not probable that holy Pope would vse it without the example of his predecessors yea had this practise been then nouell the same would haue been noted But whensoeuer the vse of such Indulgences began certayne it is that Personall Indulgences graunted vnto particular persons vpon particular examination of their cause were euer in vse since the Apostles tyme as doth appeare by the former testimony of S. Cyprian Tertullian Minister pag. 566. The holy Scripture teacheth expressely that all spirituall redemption is immediatly wrought by the bloud of Christ who purged sinne by himselfe Hebr. 1.3 But our Aduersaryes restrayne this and the like place to the stayne and eternall guilt of sin saying that the guilt of temporall payne is redeemed by Christ only mediatly by the satisfaction of Saynts Which is agaynst the Apostle Coloss. 2.12 affirming that Christ blotted out the handwriting of decrees contayned in the Law that was agaynst vs and that by himselfe but the temporary punishment is contayned within the latitude of the law Leuit. 26.14 Answere You do not vnderstand the Doctrine of your Aduersaryes or else wittingly misrelate the same For Catholikes distinguish the merit of Christs redemption and the conditions by meanes of which the same is applyed vnto particular persons All spirituall guifts of this life of the future all remissions of sinne eyther mortall or veniall all releasement of punishment eyther eternall or temporall is wrought by way of redemption immediatly only by the bloud Passion of our Sauiour But the condition which God requireth that the same be applyed vnto particular persons is not only the suffering of Christ nor is the same kind of condition required in respect of euery grace Some be giuen vpon condition of meere mercy some not otherwise then according to mens works The guift of iustifying grace is applyed vnto men by the vertue of Sacramtts through Gods only mercy the sinner by fayth pennance and contrition disposing his soule for the reception thereof But the grace and guift of eternall life purchased by Christ his bloud is not applyed
he is so silent in print about the particulars of the ConfereÌ„ces only doing his endeauour to disgrace the Iesuit in generall tearmes saying That he vanished away from before his Maiesty with foyle and disgrace his Maiesty telling him he neuer heard a Verier Meaning a Foole or Asse c. A report so false as the Minister contradicts the same himselfe elsewhere writing to the contrary In his Preface towards the end and Reply to the Iesuits Preface initio That by the second Conference his Maiesty obserued that the Aduersary was cunning and subtill in eluding Arguments For what more opposite to the Veriest Asse or Foole then one cunning and subtill If his Maiesty obserued by that Conference that the Iesuit was cunning subtill acute in answering how could he say of him I neuer heard a Verier Asse Thus men implicate themselues that speake what they would haue belieued without care of Truth But in defence of the Relation I need say no more there being extant an Apology for the same in print Now concerning the Answere it selfe to the Nine Poynts M. Fisher hauing receaued the note presently addressed himselfe to comply with his Maiestyes CoÌ„mand being encouraged thereunto by the Title shewing his Maiestyes desire of ioyning vnto the Church of Rome could he be satisfyed about some Poynts And as he imployed therein his greatest strength so likewise he was carefull to vse the expeditioÌ„ that was required atchieuing the Worke in lesse then a moneth though the same was not so soone deliuered into his Maiestyes hands This expedition was likewise the cause that he did omit the discussion of the Ninth Poynt About the Popes Authority to depose Kings For being bound by the CoÌ„mand of his Generall giuen to the whole Order not to publish any thing of that Argument without sending the same first to Rome to be reuiewed and approued his Answere to that Poynt could not haue been performed without very longe expectation delay And he was the more bold to pretermit that Controuersy in regard that sundry whole Treatises about the same written by Iesuits and others both Secular Religions had been lately printed These Authours so fresh and new he was sure were not vnknowne to his Maiesty nor was it needfull that any thinge should be added Also knowing that commonly Kings be not so willing to heare the proofes of Coerciue Authority ouer them be the same neuer so certayne he iudged by this omission the rest of his Treatise might be more gratefull and find in his Maiestyes breast lesse disaffection resistance agaynst the Doctrine thereof Nor could he thinke that his Iudicious Maiesty being persuaded of the other eight Points would haue been stayd from ioyning vnto the Church of Rome only in regard of the Nynth Of the Popes Authority ouer Kings the Doctrine of the Protestant Church about the Authority of the people and of the CoÌ„mon wealth in such cases being farre more disgracefull dangerous And this forbearance is not Reply pag. 571. as the Minister obiects against the resolution of a constant Deuine or S. Bernards rule Melius est vt scandalum oriatur quà m vt veritas relinquatur It is indeed better that scandall arise then Diuine Verity be forsaken by the deniall thereof or by not professing our Conscience therein Reply vnto the Iesuits Preface initio when we are iuridically examined by the Magistrate wherein euen the Minister giueth testimony that the Iesuit was not defectiue but did fully and cleerely declare his Fayth about the Popes Authority his Maiesty telling him he liked him the better in respect of his playnesse This notwithstanding there is no man of Learning Discretion but will acknowledge that a Constant Deuine may put off the Scholasticke TractatioÌ„ of some Poynt of Fayth that is lesse pleasing vntill the Auditours by being perswaded of Articles that do lesse distast be made more capable of the truth towardes which by disaffection they are not so prone The other articles are largely discussed and as exactly as shortnes of tyme ioyned with penury of Bookes would permit They be according to the Note but Eight yet some of them contayne diuers branches and so all togeather they amount to the number of fourteene to wit 1. The worship of Images 2. The worship of the holy Crosse Reliques 3. That Saynts Angells heare our prayers 4. That they are to be worshipped with honour super-humane or more then Ciuill 5. That we may ought to inuocate theÌ„ 6. That Repetitions of Prayers in a fixed number is pious 7. The Liturgy lawful in a language not vulgarly knowne 8. The Reall Presence of Christs body vnto the corporall mouth 9. Transubstantiation 10. Merit 11. Workes of Supererogation 12. The remaynder of temporall payne after the guilt of Sinne. 13. That holy men by Diuine grace may for the same make compensant yea superabundant Satisfaction 14. That superabundant Satiâ—factions may be applyed vnto others by the Communion of Saynts Before these is prefixed the fundamentall Controuersy of the Church That men cannot be resolued what doctrines are the Apostles but by the Tradition and Authority of the Church About the sufficiency perspicuity of the Scripture About the Churches â—isible Vnity Vniuersality Holynes Succession from the Apostles That the Roman is the visible Catholicke Church whose Tradition is to be followed So that in this Treatise a Summe of all the chiefest CoÌ„trouersies of this Age is contayned Concerning the manner of haÌ„dling these Points the Minister graunting the Iesuite sheweth himselfe well verst in Controuersy addeth In his Preface he is deficient of diuine proofe in euery Article and farre more specious including our Arguments then happy in confirming his owne What reason he may haue to giue this ceÌ„sure of the Treatise I do not see but only that he would say something agaynst it and no better exception occurred otherwise it is cleere that in euery Article the Answerer vrgeth not only the Tradition of the Church not only the consent of Fathers but also sundry Texts and Testimonyes of Scripture And he doth not only which is the Ministers tricke score Bookes Chapters Verses without so much as citing the wordes nor only doth he produce the wordes of the Text but also refuteth the Protestant Answeres by the rules of interpretation themselues commend by recourse vnto the Originalls by the consideration of the Texts Antecedent and Consequent by the drift and scope of the discourse by Conference of other places specially by the expresse Letter and proper sense of Gods word He sheweth that Protestants pretending to appeale vnto Scripture interpreted from within it selfe as vnto the supreme Iudge in very truth appeale from the expresse sentence of diuine Scripture vnto the figuratiue construction of their humane conceyte For in euery Point of these Controuersyes they are proued to leaue the litterall sense of some Text of Scripture without euident warrant from the sayd Scripture so to doe vpon Arguments at the most probable
the choyce of Printers that Protestants inioy Of thee Gentle Reader in requitall of my Labours I require no more then that to the perusing of them thou wilt bring an vnpartiall minde free from preiudicate opinion raysed by Pulpit-inuectiues and Popular Reports free I say from human regards affected vnto the Truth of Saluation resolued when the same appeares not to be kept from the imbracing therof through the feare of teÌ„porall dangers If thy mind be thus indiffereÌ„tly piously disposed I do not doubt but after atteÌ„tiue reading thou wilt giue the same Censure of the Conferences and Disputations bâ—twixt vs and our Aduersary which Marcellinus pronounced of the CoÌ„ferences betwixt the Catholicks and Donatists Augustin in Breuiculo Collat. Omnium ArgumentoruÌ„ manifestatione à Catholicis Aduersarios confutatos esse That the Catholickes are proued superiour vnto their Aduersaryes by the manifest truth of all kind of Arguments A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS AND PRINCIPALL Matters handled aswell in the Answere as in the Reioynder THE Preface to the Reader An Introduction to the Censure shewing the vanity of the Pictures and Pageants displayed in the first two pages of the Ministers Booke CONTENTS OF THE CENSVRE Sect. I. Doctour White his Ignorance of Latin and Grammer or els wilfull going agaynst the knowne Truth pag. 9. § 1. S. Epiphanius words about Images interpreted agaynst Grammer pag. 10.11 c. § 2. His Grammaticall Ignorance about the wordes Accipite Manducate Bibite pag. 12.13 c. § 3. His grosse misprision in translating of Latin pag. 15.16 c. § 4. About S. Cyprians teaching Transubstantiation and the word Species pag. 19.20 c. § 5. His abusing the Iesuits words agaynst English Construction to an impious sense pag. 23.24 c. Sect. II. D. White his grosse and incredible Ignorance in Logicke pag. 30. § 1. His fond accusation of the Iesuit as peccant agaynst the forme of syllogisme pag. 31. § 2. Foure Arguments by him brought all foolish peccant in forme pag 37.38 c. § 3. His ridiculous Arguments to proue a diuine Ordinance for Lay-men to read the Scripture pag. 43.44 c. Sect. III. D. White his grosse Ignorance of Theology pag. 51. §· 1. His teaching that vnto Ministers Religious Adoration is duâ— pag. 52.53 c. § 2. That that cannot be the true Church which hath wicked Pastours pag. â—6 57 c. § 3. He professeth Infidelity about the Blessed Sacracrament pag. 64.65 c. § 4. His grosse Ignorance further discouered about the same pag. 68 69· c. § 5. His extreme Ignorance about Satisfaction pag. 72.73 c. § 6. His Ignorance about the Holy Crosse Water of Iordan pag. 77.78 c. § 7. His Ignorance About Traditions pag 83.84 c. Sect. IIII. D. White his Ignorance in holy Scripture pag. 86. § 1. He denyeth the Text context of Scripture pag. 87.88 c. § 2. He is forced to go agaynst Christs expresse words pag. 89.90 c. § 3. He is forced to deny the Creed pag. 92.93 c. § 4. In answering Scriptures he contradicteth himselfe grants the Iesuit the Question pag. 95.96 c. § 5. In lieu of answering he confirmes the Iesuits Arguments pag. 98.99 c. § 6. He sends the Iesuite to God for an Answere pag. 101.102 c. § 7. His innumerable grosse Impertinencies in cyphering scoring of Scriptures pag. 104.105 c. § 8. He citeth Scriptures that make agaynst him pag. 108.109 c. § 9. Scriptures abused falsifyed pag. 112.113 c. The Text of Matth. 24.24 That euen the Elect shall be deceaued were it possible by him most grossely applyed pag. 116. c. The Text Act. 17.11 About the Beroeans abused pag. 118.119 c. The Text 1. Ioan. 18. If we say we haue no sinne c. falsifyed pag. 120.121 c. Sect. V. His Ignorance Fraude Falshood in alleaging Fathers and all manner of Authours pag. 125. § 1. Seauen Testimonyes of S. Augustine about Scripture Tradition falsifyed 127.128 c. § 2. Seauen Testimonyes of other Fathers falsifyed pag. 134.135 c. § 3. Foule Calumniation Falsification of Hosius Bellarmine Petrus à Soto Bosius p. 143.144 c. § 4. Other Fathers impudently falsifyed as if they did auerre what they do most constantly maintayne proue pag. 150.151 c. § 5. Grosse Imputations with manifest falshood imputed vnto Cardinall Baronius pag. 153.154 c. CONTENTS OF THE ANSVVERE AND REIOYNDER THE Preface to King Iames. pag. 3. That the Roman Church is the only true Church p. 3. A short Treatise concerning the Resolution of Fayth for the more full cleering of the ensuing Controuersies about Tradition Scripture the Church pag. 15. § 1. The Protestant Resolution of Fayth declared pag. 15.16 c. § 2. The former Resolution confuted by six Arguments pag. 16.17.18 c. § 3. Concerning the light of Scripture pag. 21.22 c. ¶ The second Part of this Treatise About the Catholicke Resolution of Fayth pag. 30. § 1. The first Principle proued pag. 30.31 c. § 2. The seeond Principle demonstrated pag. 32.33 c. § 3. The third Principle proued pag. 36.37 c. § 4. How the Churches Tradition is proued infallible independently of Scripture pag. 38.39 c. § 5. The difference betweene Propheticall and ordinary diuine Illumination by which Protestants Cauills are answered pag. 41.42 c. § 6. The fourth Principle proued pag. 44.45 c. THE FIRST GROVND § 1. That a Christian Resolution of Fayth is built vpon perpetuall Tradition deriued by succession from the Apostles pag. 50.51 c. § 2. Concerning the Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture pag. 61.62 c. ¶ How Catholikes grant the same sufficiency to be in Scripture as Protestants do and the true state of the Question about the sufficiency of Scripture and of Tradition pag. 63.64 c. THE SECOND GROVND § 3. That there is a Visible Church always in the world to whose Traditions men are to cleaue That this Church is One Vniuersall Apostolicall Holy pag. 70.71 c. § 4. The Properties of the Church proued by Matth. 28.20 pag. 82.83 c. § 5. That the Roman is the One Holy Catholike Apostolicall Church from by which we are to receaue the Tradition of Christian Doctrine pag. 85.86 c. ¶ That the Protestant Church was not before Luther pag. 85.86 c. ¶ That the Grecians were not Protestants in Essence pag. 87. ¶ That the Waldenses were not Protestants for Essence and kind pag. 88. ¶ That Protestants not being able to cleere themselues to be the Visible Church by Tradition do vaynely appeale vnto Scripture for their Doctrine pag. 89.90 c. § 6. The Conclusion of this Matter shewing that Protestants erre fundamentally pag. 108.109 c. THE NINE POINTS I. Point About vvorship of Images pag. 123. § 1. Worship of Images consequent out of the Principles of Nature and Christianity pag. 125.126 c. §
your disgrace could not haue wished you should coÌ„mit grosser faults This I shall make cleere by three Examples wherof ech inuolueth many arguments not only of your Ignorance but also of your Boldnes in talking about things of which you are totally ignorant The first Example §. 1. THE (a) Reply pag. 116. Iesuit to prooue against protestants argumento ad hominem that the Roman is the true Church argueth in this sort That Church from which Protestants receaued the Scripture is the one holy Catholik Apostolike Church The Church from which Protestants receaued is no other then the Roman Ergo The Roman is the one holy Catholike Apostolike Church To this argument you reply pag. 116. This syllogisme is peccant in forme and both the propositions are affirmatiue in the second figure which I note the rather because the Aduersary at the end of this Argument cryeth victoria saying An argument conuincing and vnanswerable I must therefore reduce the same to a lawfull forme and then answere Thus you Now vouchsafe to take a view of your manifold ignorance I pretermit your falshood in charging the Iesuit of saying that this Argument is conuictiue vnanswerable For the Iesuite doth not so affirme of this argument but of another to wit of this If it be possible that the Church can deliuer by full and vnanimous consent a false sense then it is possible that in like manner she may deliuer a false text But protestants cannot say that the Church by full and vnanimous consent of Tradition can deliuer a false text Ergo they may not say it is possible that 〈◊〉 Church should deliuer by ful vnanimous coÌ„senâ— a false sense This argument the Iesuit tearmeth 〈◊〉 answerable not the other which you challenge â— peccant in forme But this your falshood I pretermiâ— and only prosecute your faultes in Logicke Theâ—â— are foure and so grosse as they shew cleerly that yoâ— neuer learned or else haue vtterly forgot the Surâ—â—mula's or Rudiments of this Arte which childreâ— customarily are taught The first fault is not to distinguish betwixt 〈◊〉 Second Third Figure which is as childish in Lâ—â—gike as in Grammer not to know the third Decleâ—â—sion from the second You say the Iesuits argumeâ—â— is in the second figure and therefore peccant in formâ—â— both propositions being affirmatiue Whereas iâ— truth the same is in the third figure in which it lawful to argue both propositions being affirmatiâ—â— The third figure is wherein the Medium or meanâ— of proofe is subiected in both propositions that is the thing wherof another terme is predicated thâ—â— is is affirmed or denyed In the Iesuites ArgumeÌ„t 〈◊〉 medium to prooue the Roman to be the holy Cathoâ—like Church is the Church from which Protestaâ—â— receaued Scriptures This Church from which Prâ—â—testants receaue the Scripture is predicated in neâ—â—ther of his propositions but in both is subiected thâ—â— is is the terme wherof another thing is affirmed 〈◊〉 sayd In the maior proposition of the Church 〈◊〉 gaue protestants the scripture One Holy Catholiâ—â— Apostolike is affirmed The Church from whicâ— Protestants receaued the scripture is the one holy Apostolike Church In the minor likwise of the 〈◊〉 Church from which Protestants receaue Scripture the Roman is predicated The Church from which ProtestaÌ„ts receaue the Scripture is the RomaÌ„ Hence in lawfull forme in the third figure followes this conclusion Ergo the Roman is the one holy Catholike Apostolike Church Your second fault is grosser then the first For you know not the quality of Propositions nor can discerne a negatiue from an affirmatiue which is as great simplicity in Logicke yea greater then in GraÌ„mer not to know the termination of the second Declension from the first You say in the Iesuits Argument both propositions are pure affirmatiue wheras his Minor is in part negatiue to wit Protestants receaued the Scripture from no other but the Roman Who feeles not this proposition to be partly negatiue wherein is denyed that any Church besides the Roman is that Church from which Protestants can pretend the Scriptures to wit authentically or by assured perpetuall Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles For Exceptiue and Exclusiue Enuntiations be compound Enuntiations partly Affirmatiue partly Negatiue and as Logitians teach the (b) Enuntiationes exponibiles Exposition of them is to be made into two single propositions whereof the one is negatiue the other affirmatiue So the Iesuites proposition Protestants receaued Scripture by no other Church but the Roman being exceptiue is to be expounded by a Negatiue No Church not Roman is the Church from which Protestants receaued Scripture and also by an affirmatiue The Church from which Protestants receaued Scripture is the Roman Hence the Iesuit as he did conclude in a forme of the third figure called Disamis his minor being partly affirmatiue so might he haue concluded in a forme of the second termed Camestres the same minor being also negatiue in this manner The Holy Catholike Church is that from which Protestants receaued the Scripture No Church but the Roman is that Church from which ProtestaÌ„ts receaued the Scripture Ergo No Church but the Roman is the holy Catholike Apostolike Church Your third fault is not to know the forme of Expository Syllogismes from the common An Expository syllogisme is that wherein the meanes of proofe is a singular and indiuiduall thing in which kind it is good forme to argue affirmatiuely in any figure euen in the second For example this sillogisme The Minister grossely ignorant in Logicke replyed agaynst M. Fisher. The Deane of Carlile is he who replyed against M. Fisher. Ergo the Deane of Carliele is the Minister grossely ignorant of Logicke This sillogisme is in the second figure and both propositions are affirmatiue yet if you deny the forme of arguing to be good you will but confirme the truth of the conclusion Hence the Iesuit might in good forme haue argued affirmatiuely in the second figure in this manner The One Holy Catholike Apostolicall Church is that Church from which Protestants pretend to haue the Scriptures authentically The Roman is that Church from which Protestants pretend to haue the Scriptures authentically Ergo the Roman is the One Holy Catholike Apostolicall Church Your fourth fault is that yow play the Reformer of Arguments as Luther did of Churches that is you reiect lawfull and good formes and in lieu of them bring in vicious and damnable The Iesuits argument as by yow (c) Reply pag. 117. reformed is this The Church from which Protestants receaued the scriptures is the One Holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church Protestants receaued the scripture from the Roman Ergo the Roman is the One Holy Catholike Apostolicall Church In this reformed argument both propositions are particuler and consequently the forme of arguing vicious in any figure as euery Logitian knowes The Iesuit to preuent this fault made his minor an vniuersall Proposition For this proposition Protestants receaued the Scriptures
recom Sacrae scripturae Ergo A Christian is built fundamentally on Scripture I wish that this my Discouery may make you wise vnto your eternall Saluation as is doth lay open your shamefull Ignorance vnto your temporall disgrace for here you are so grossely and togeather vnluckily ignorant as you are fallen into the very same fault in Logicke wherof without cause you charged your Aduersary as peccant to wit of making Syllogismes whereof both propositions were affirmatiue in the second figure An argument is affirmatiue in the second figure when the Meanes of proofe is affirmed in both propositions Your Meanes to prooue that a Christian is fundamentally built on Scripture is this terme Built on the rocke and this is the very thing affirmed in both your propositions In your maior Built on the rocke is affirmed of the Christian The Christian or he that is fundamētally built is built on the rocke In the minor the same is affirmed of him that is built on Scripture The Scripture is the rocke that is he that is built on the Scripture is built on the rocke Hence your conclusion Ergo The Christian or he that is fundamentally built is built on the Scripture is affirmatiue in the second figure How fond inconsequent this forme of arguing is you may feele by this of the same tenour with change of matter He that is borne in Sicily is borne in an Iland He that is borne in England is borne in an Iland Ergo He that is borne in England is borne in Sicily This is a folish Sophisme because concluding affirmatiuely in the second figure so is yours For as it is not consequent if a man be borne in an Iland that he is borne in Sicily because there be other Ilands besides Sicily so this is no good consequence A Christian is built on the Rocke Ergo on the Scripture because Scripture is not the only Rocke the word of God as deliuered by Tradition being a rock and ground of Fayth no lesse sure infallible then Scripture or Gods Word as written Abraham Isaac Iacob Ioseph and innumerable other holy persons were fundamentally built in fayth yet not built on Scripture the word of God not being then extant in writing S. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. doth write that in his dayes many Nations were Christian and did diligently obserue the true Christian Religion printed in their harts and yet had not any Scripture nor the word of God as written False then is this negatiue which your argument put into true forme doth imply No man is built fundamentally on the Rocke that is not built on the word of God as written Your third argument (k) Reply pag. 48. The seed of fayth is the roote and foundation of euery Christian But the Scripture is the seed of fayth Ioan. 20.41 for it is the word of God Luc. 8.11 Ioan. 1.18 1. Cor. 4.15 This argument is also an idle fallacy and sophististicall sillogisme for both the propositions thereof are particuler which forme as hath been said is vicious and not lawfull in any figure This you may perceaue by this argument formed punctually according to the shape of yours with chāge of matter The seed of Fayth is the roote and foundation of euery Christian. But the bloud of Martyrs is the seed of Fayth for it is the seed of the Christian Church Ergo The bloud of Martyrs is the roote and foundation of euery Christian. This argument is like yours and both are vaine because the Argument being in the first figure the Maior proposition is particuler which ought to be vniuersall in this sort Euery seed of fayth is the roote of euery Christian The Scripture or word of God as written is the seed of Fayth Ergo. The Scripture or word of God as written is the roote of euery Christian. This argument is in lawfull forme but the maior therof is false for euery seed of Fayth is not the roote of a Christian but only that seed which first breedeth fayth in him and whereon all other seedes depend Now the seed which first breedeth Fayth in Christians is not the word of God as written but the word of God as deliuered by tradition For vpon the credit of Tradition we know the written word and without this ordinarily speaking and without new immediate Reuelation we cannot know the Scripture or written word to be from the Apostles and by them of God Ergo the word of God not as writtē but as deliuered by tradition is that seed of fayth which is the roote of euery Christian. The fourth Argument (l) Reply pag. 48. The Scripture giuen by diuine inspiration is simply and without exception to be receaued and all tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be refused Hence it followes that Scripture is a rule of Tradition and not Tradition of Scripture This argument proceedeth vpon the supposal of an impossibility so is idle sophisticall inept Logitians are taught by their Mayster Aristotle if one impossibility be admitted a thousand other impossibilityes and absurdityes will be thence concuded You suppose in this argument that the word of God as deliuered by full tradition may be repugnant vnto the word of God as written Hence you inferre that Tradition is not simply to be receaued but only so far forth as it agrees with the Scripture Your supposition is blasphemous for the word of God vnwritten cannot be repugnant vnto truth being the words of the Prime VERITY that cannot deceaue nor be deceaued This impossibility supposed your cōsequence is not good Ergo Tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be reiected and Scripture to be held only simply as the rule of Fayth For if Gods vnwritten word could be repugnant vnto the written it would not follow that the vnwritten word were to be reiected and the written simply to be receaued but that neyther the written nor vnwritten were to be credited This is cleere because if God may lye and deceyue vs by his word of liuely voyce deliuered by Tradition why not also in his writings deliuered by Tradition What authority doth writing adde to Gods word that God cannot lye in writing if he may lye in speaking I hope I haue shewed apparently these your Arguments wherein you so much glory to be not only false in respect of matter but also fallacious in respect of forme The same I could shew of allmost all the rest of your Arguments of this your Reply Is not then the case of your ignorant Proselites most deplorable and desperate whome you persuade to trust these your halting consequences rather then the perpetuall Traditions of the Church You will haue them to make themselues Iudges not only of what is contayned expressely in Scripture but also of what is thence deriued by Arguments according to the rules of Logicke wherein if they chance to mistake they erre and are damned The third Example §. 3. A Third Example of Logicall Ignorance is your heaping togeather of many fond
the Kingdome of heauen supposing in their thought as most certayne that a Camells passing through a needles eye was altogeather impossible concluding What rich-man then can be saued Our Sauiour answering vnto the argument that so perplexed them sayth though these things be impossible with men yet all is possible vnto God As if he had sayd What you suppose in your thoughts as certayne that a Camell cannot passe through a needles eye is false because God is omnipotent and so though such things be impossible with men yet all is possible vnto him Now your supposition being false your argument that richmen cannot be saued is not solid For from my words it is more easy for a Camell c. you can only inforce that as the Camell cannot passe through a needles eye but by the ompoteÌ„cy of the diuine hand so the rich-man cannot be saued but by the omnipotency of diuine grace Hence it is euideÌ„t that our Sauiour did directly inteÌ„d to teach the possibility of a Camells passing through a needles eye so destroying the ground on which the Apostles did build their false persuasion that rich men could not be saued But this you auouch not to be possible vnto God Therefore you are forced by the Iesuit to deny Gods expresse word howsoeuer you bragge that the Iesuits arguing from Scripture is wonderous weake You are forced to deny the Creed §. 3. THE Iesuite pag. 409. thus argueth If the body of Christ being mortall and passible could penetrate with the body of his blessed Mother and come out of her wombe the same still remaining entyre as we confesse in the Creed Natum de MARIA Virgine why then may not the same body being now glorious immortall and as the Apostle speakes spirituall penetrate the quantity of 〈◊〉 bread and inclose it selfe wholy and entierly within the 〈◊〉 compasse thereof You answere pag. 411. The blessed Virgin in her â—RAVELL in puerperio bore not Christ in a different â—anner from other women Luc. 2.23 And what a Sophiâ—â—icall inference is this the Creed hath Borne of the Virgin MARY meaning according to conception and generaâ—â—ons and cleernesse from the company of man Ergo the â—ody of the blessed Virgin was not opened at the tyme of his â—yrth Thus you whose assertion that the Creed onâ—y saith that according to coÌ„ception the blessed Virâ—in was cleere from the company of man is open deâ—yall of a principall part therof For the Creed doth â—ot only say our Lord was conceaued by the Holy Ghost which doth import his Mothers purity cleernes â—rom the company of man in his generation but the â—urity of his conception being declared the Creed â—ddeth as a new point of fayth borne of the Virgin Mary requiring that we belieue she was a Virgin that â—s incorrupt and entyre in her child-birth So that â—our interpretation whereby you confound her virginity in generation with her virginity in child-birth which the Creed doth so exactly distinguish is â—laine denial of the text of the creed And your tearâ—ing this our simple sincere beliefe of the words of â—he creed a sophistical inferrence is first ridiculous â—or the belieuing of the text of Gods word as it â—â—ands cannot be tearmed an inference much lesse a â—ophisticall inference SecoÌ„dly it is not only foolish but also impious beâ—ng a reproach to the perpetuall Fayth of the whole Christian Church as (d) Augustin Enchyrid cap. 34. De Virginenasci oportebat quem Matris fides non libido conceperat Quòd si vel per nascenteÌ„ corrumperetur eius integritas non iam ille de virgine nasceretur eumue falsò quod absit de Virgine Maria natâ—Ì„ tota confitaretur Ecclesia S. Aug. doth testify It was sayth he necessary that he whome the fayth not the lust of his mother had coÌ„ceiued should also be borne of a Virgin For if the integrity of his mother had been brokeÌ„ in this being borne of her then had he not been borne of a Virgin and then which God forbid false were the beliefe of the whole Church professing in the Creed Natum de Maria Virgine borne of the Virgin Mary The same is taught by the rest of the Fathers namely by S. (e) Ambros. Epist. 81. De via iniquitatis poduntur dicere Virgo coÌ„cepit sed non Virgo generauit Ambrose who tearmes it wicked peruerse to say as you do that in her generation the blessed Mother was incorrupt and entyre not in her childbirth She sayth S. Ambrose that could conceaue him being a Virgin incorrupt could she not bring him forth remayning a Virgin incorrupt If they will not belieue the tradition of Priests let them belieue the oracles of the Prophets (f) Non concepturam tantummodo Virginem sed parituram Virginem Propheta dixit A Virgin shall bring forth a Son Let theÌ„ belieue the creed of the Apostles which the RomaÌ„ Church doth purely inuiolatly keep to wit which sayth not only conceaued by the holy Ghost but also borne of the virgin Mary What you obiect out of S. Luke vers 23. Euery Male-child that openeth the wombe shall be holy vnto our Lord hath been answered longe agoe and declared by the ancieÌ„t Fathers For the Scripture by the child opening the wombe vnderstands the Child that comes first out of the wombe because that Child commonly doth by course of nature must needes open the wombe Hence he is tearmed the Child opening the wombe though it happen that he do not opeÌ„ the woÌ„be As the fire of the Babilonian fornace may be tearmed a thing which coÌ„sumeth what is cast into it because commonly it doth so and by course of nature it must needes do so though there by diuine Miracle the contrary did happen which manner of speach is so vulgar as it is by you vsed euen in this place perchaÌ„ce without reflexion For you tearming â—he Blessed Virgins bringing forth of our Lord TRAVELL I thinke you are not impiously persuaâ—ed with the Iew that she brought him forth with â—abour and payne as other woemen doe but you â—all her Childbyrth TRAVELL because commonâ—y and naturally the same is still ioyned with labour â—nd trauell In this sort say the (g) Quod ait ad aperiens vuluam coÌ„sueto natiuitatis more loquitur non quod Dominus noster sacri ventris hospitium quòd ingressus sanctificarat egressus deuirginasse credendus sit iuxta HAERETICOS qui dicunt Beatam Mariam Virginem fuisse vsque ad paritum sed iuxta FIDEM Catholicam clauso Virginis vtero quasi sponsus suo pocessit ex Thalamo Ven. Beda in cap. 2. Luc. Fathers the Scripâ—ure saying of our Sauiour the male-child opening the wombe consueto natiuitatis more loquitur speaketh â—ccording to that which commonly doth happen in the birth â—f such children not that we should thinke that our Lord in â—is going forth did breake the integrity of the Virgins Cloâ—et which by his entraÌ„ce he had sanctifyed as HERETIKS
â—each that Blessed Mary was an entyre Virgin only vntill â—er Childbirth But according to the CATHOLICKE FAYTH he came forth of the Virgins woÌ„be the same still resting entyre and as a Bride-grome out of his Bride-Chamber Now you may crow and crake crowne your Booke as you do in your Picture when you are so pressed by your Aduersary that you are forced to defend your Errour by holding ancient Heresyes and by laying the tearme of Sophisticall Inference vpon the Catholicke Fayth of the Creed and of the whole Christian Church In answering Scriptures you contradict your selfe and grant the Iesuit the Question §. 4. THE vanity of your former brag that the Iesuit hath proued nothing by Scripture is further made apparent in that he doth so vrge you with Scripture as you are sometimes forced to contradict your selfe sometimes to grant as much as he doth require against your selfe The Iesuit pag. 98. proueth that the Church of Christian pastours succeeding the Apostles is infallible in her Tradition because our Sauiour saith Matth. 28. Behold I am with you all dayes vntill the consummation of the world You answere pag. 100. That which is promised vpon condition is not absolute vntill the condition be fulfilled The presence of Christ is promised to the Apostles successours conditionally and as they were one with the Apostles by imitation subordinatioÌ„ that is so farre as they walked in their stepps conformed their doctrine and ministery to the patterne receiued from them Thus you in this place But pag. 174. lin 21. speaking of the absolute perpetuity and duration of the Church you say that the place Matth. 28.20 Behold I am with you all daies vntill the end of the world proueth that the Church is vniuersall in respect of time and that it continueth successiuely in all ages This your saying ouerthrowes what you said that the presence of Christ is promised vpon condition wherin the successors of the Apostles might faile For this place Behold I am with you all dayes vntill the worlds end doth shew the Church to be alwaies in the world no other wayes then because Christ according to his promise is alwaies and all dayes to the worlds end with his Church he caÌ„ not be still in the world with his Church except his Church haue still a being in the world So that according to the truth of this place we may aswell or better say the Church shall not be alwaies in the world then that it shall be in the world without Christ or his Diuine assistance to teach men infallibly the truth Wherfore if by this place we cannot as you say we cannot proue that the Church shall be euer absolutely assisted of Christ much lesse doth this place conuince that the Church shall be alwaies in the world or further then conditionally if it walke in â—he Apostles doctrine Contrariwise if this place â—roue that the Church is absolutely alwaies in the world vntill the consummation therof then à forâ—iori more strongely and more directly doth it proue â—hat Christ is absolutely not onely conditionally â—reseÌ„t with his Church all dayes to the worlds end â—o that to answere the Iesuits proofes of his Religion â—y Scripture you coÌ„tradict your selfe yea somtimes â—rant agaynst your selfe as much as he would proue For to proue the same infallibility of the Church â—e bringeth pag. 3. the place of S. Paul (g) 1. Tim. 3.15 that the â—hurch is the grouÌ„d pillar of truth but the ground of â—ertaine infallible Truth such as the Christian is â—ust be certaine infallible You answere pag. 4. lin â— If by the Church wee vnderstand the Church of Christ â—â—uing afâ—er the Apostles the same is by office and calling â—he pillar and ground of truth in all ages This your anâ—were alloweth vnto the Iesuit asmuch as he desires 〈◊〉 can desire to shew the Church to be alwaies infalâ—â—ble For that which is by office and diuine vocation the â—â—llar and ground of infallible truth hath by diuine â—rdination and assistance sufficiency for the perforâ—ance of that office as is most euident The Church â—hich is fallible may erre is not a sufficient pillar 〈◊〉 ground that is hath not sufficieÌ„cy to be the grouÌ„d 〈◊〉 Christian truth which is infallible For how can 〈◊〉 building sure immoueable stand founded vpon 〈◊〉 vncertaine ruinous and tottering foundation â—herfore seing you grant the church succeeding the â—postles to be in all ages the ground of truth by diuine vocation vnto that office you do consequently allow vnto the Iesuit as much as he would proue to wit that the Church succeeding the Apostles is iâ— all ages vntill the worlds end certaine and infallible in her teaching In lieu of answering you confirme the Iesuits Arguments §. 5. THE Iesuit pag. 38. accuseth Ministers of abusing the word of God who to proue the sole sufficiency of Scripture in respect of all men cite the text of S. Paul 2. Tim. 3.15 The Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto saluation For the words of the Apostle are directed particulerly to Timothy saying they are able to make THEE wise vnto saluation whence it is consequent that the Scriptures were sufficient for Timothy and are sufficient for such men as Tymothy was to wit for men learned and aforehand instructed by word of mouth and therupon firmely beleeuing all the most maine and necessary points of Christian doctrine and discipline That the Scriptures for men in this manner taught and grounded in fayth are aboundantly sufficient who will deny Thus the Iesuit Vnto whom you shape this answere pag. 39. Although sentences of holy Scripture are sometimes restrayned to the personall and particular subiect of which they are first spoken yet this is not generall and when the same hapneth it must be proued by better arguments then by the bare Emphasis of a word For God said 〈◊〉 Iosuah a man qualifyed aboue the ordinary ranke I will not leaue nor forsake thee Iosuah 1.5 Yet the promise implyed in this text is generall and common to all 〈◊〉 persons Hebr. 13.5 Thus you confirming the Iesuitâ— â—olution in lieu of confuting therof For as the proâ—ise I will not leaue thee made particularly vnto Ioâ—ue in regard he was a iust man doth not agree vnto â—ll men but onely vnto such as Iosue was to wit â—nto iust men and such as seeke God as he did So the â—ext of S. Paul they are able to make THEE wise vnto â—aluation spoken particulerly vnto Timothy in reâ—ard he was learned iudicious aforehand instruâ—ted grounded in Christian tradition doth agree â—nely to Timothy and such men as Timothy was to wit men aforehand taught and grounded in the â—ayth of tradition On the other side as the promise â—ade to Iosue in regard he was a Iust man cannot â—e challenged of other men that be not iust as he was if they rely theron they deceaue themselues â—o the promise the Scriptures are able to make
Ministers you cypher 1. Tim. 6.12 Fight the good fight of fayth lay hold on eterâ—all life whereunto thou art called Ibid. lin 3. to proue â—he Scripture to be sufficient for spirituall men you â—ypher 1. Cor. 2.15 But he that is spirituall iudgeth all â—hinges and is iudged of none which proueth the conâ—rary if it proue any thing to wit that the spirituâ—ll Man is not iudged and ruled by Scripture but raâ—her the Scripture is iudged and ruled by him Pag. â—0 lin 21. to proue that we wrong you in saying â—ou derogate from the Church you cite Matth. 18. â—7 He that heareth not the Church let him be as a Heathen publican Ibid. to the same purpose you cypher Heb. â—â— 17 Obey your Prelates and submit your selfe vnto them â—ag 169. lin 22. to proue that no Church euer priâ—â—d the oblation meritts of Christs passion more â—â—ghly and religiously then you do you cypher Heb. â— 14 With one oblation he did consummate for euer the â—â—nctifyed and Ephes. 5.2 He gaue himselfe a sacrifice 〈◊〉 vs to a sweet smelling sauour Iohn 1.29 Behold the â—ambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world â—ct 4.12 There is not Saluation in any other Name Pag. â—1 lin 1. to proue we wrong you by saying you aâ—â—int that (m) The words of Iohn White way pag. 126. EVERY particuler MAN examine â—â—dge of the Church her teaching you cite 1. Cor. â— 19 Are all Apostles Are all Prophets Are all teachers â—re all workers of miracles If one would study to apâ—â—y Scriptures impertineÌ„tly I am persuaded he could â—â—rdly deuise greater impertinencyes then these â—hich are so riâ—e in euery page of your booke so that it was intolerable folly for your Poet and Paynter to represent this your Voluminous cyphering of Scripture with a crowne vpon it bidding men to Behâ—â—â— grace and wisdome in your looke and Truthes Triumphâ—â—â— your booke For if this kind of cyphering of Scripture be Wisdome what I pray you is the last Extreme anâ— Non-plus of (*) I wonder you would not be warned to be more wise by the Booke of Quaeres or Prurit-anus For you cite the Scripturs as impertinently in good earnest as he did in iest to shew your Ministeriall Folly Folly You cite cypher Scriptures that make agaynst you §. 8. HEREVNTO I adde that the texts you cypheâ— many tymes make agaynst you Pag. 548. lin 19. to proue that reward is giuen vnto workes of Graâ—â— and bounty aswell as of Desert you cypher Rom. 4 4. which sayth to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of grace but of debt Could any text be deuise more directly agaynst the purpose you cite it For by this place ioyned with a sentence of yours I conclude vnanswerably our Catholike doctrine of Merit The reward which is giuen to him that worketh in regard of the Goodnes and Righteousnes of his worke is giuen not of grace but of debt But Eternâ—â— life is tearmed a Crowne of glory because it is bestowed 〈◊〉 them which exercise Righteousnes and in regard of thâ— righteousnes the true inherent dignity sanctity and purity of their workes Ergo Eternall life is a reward oâ— good workes giuen to Gods children of debt not 〈◊〉 meere grace and bounty The Maior is S. Paules by you cyphered in this place the Minor your ownâ— in so many words pag. 174. in fine and 1â—9 so thâ—â— the text of Scripture by you cited proueth inuinciâ—bly the doctrine of Merit against which you cite iâ— Pag. 558. lin 4. to proue that liuing Saints haue no communion with Saints defunct by partaking the â—â—perabundant satisfaction you cyte Rom. 12. v. 4. We haue many members in one body and euery member hath â—ot the same office This text proueth the contrary to â—hat you intend to wit that Satisfactions are communicable betwixt Saints for from this text I arâ—ue thus If Saints liuing Saints deceased be memâ—ers of the same body hauing different offices then â—here must be betwixt them coÌ„munion in all things which superabound in some members and are neeâ—ed of other for this we see to be that fellowship which by the institution of nature the members of â—he same body ought to enioy the one with the oâ—her But the Myrrh of mortifications and satisfactions superabound in many most rare innocent and penitent Saints in heauen and is no lesse needed of diuers other Saints vpon the earth that haue done many sinnes and cannot do such great pennance Therfore the Myrrh of superabounding Pennance and Satisfaction ought to flow downe from deceased Saints in heauen vnto their fellow-members the needy Saints that liue on earth The Iesuite (n) See the Reply pag. 523. sayth that the first Precept Thou shalt loue thy Lord God with all thy hart c. bindeth not man to loue God in this life with Beatificall loue nor to be alwayes in actuall imployment of his loue on him but only to loue sincerely and inwardly to the keeping of all commandements without any mortall offence which breaketh friendship with God desiring though not inioying the happynes of beatificall loue This he sayth is the meaning of S. Bernard and S. Augustine when they say the perfection of the next life is contayned in this precept to wit in voto not in re This doctrine you impugne pag. 525. lin 26. saying That the Saints of God hauing obserued other commandements brake the first commandement and did vndergo corporall payne after the breach thereof How proue you this marry you cypher Heb. 11.31 They were stoned they were sawen a sunder they were slayne with the sword Doth this text proue the Saints transgressed the first Commandment That they were corporally afflicted for their not louing God with all their hart Doth it not rather shew the contrary that they loued God perfectly and were temporally tormented because they so loued him with al their hart that they would rather vndergo most cruell and barbarous deaths then offend him or abandon the truth of his word which is as our Sauiour saith the highest degree of Charity Pag. 10. lin 20. You deny the Church to be infallible in her Traditions and Definitions yet say you we acknowledge her lawfull authority for expounding Scripture and maintayning vnity in right fayth In proofe hereof you cite Matth. 18.17 Who so heareth not the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and Publican You could not haue inuented a text that doth more inuincibly shew the coÌ„trary of what you intend Let vs make this text of Scripture the Maior and your Protestant doctrine the Minor and put your Argument in forme then will you see how handsomely you proue that you acknowledge all the lawfull authority of the Church The Scripture saith The Church is of so great absolute infallible authority that whosoeuer doth not heare her is to be held as an Heathen and a Publican Protestants say the Church is so subiect to
Scriptures Fathers speak as they please This your cogging in Scripture is already discouered Now about the Fathers Seauen Testimonies of S. Augustine about Scripture and Tradition falsifyed §. 1. TO note some few of the many Pag. 22. lin 5. to make S. Augustine seeme to fauour your Protestant fancy that men are resolued in fayth by the resplendent Verity and euidence of the Christian Doctrine you cite him as saying (*) Cont. Ep. Fund c. 4. Manifest Verity is to be prâ—fered before all other thinges wherby I am hâ—ld in the Catholike Church In this quotation the word other is cogged into the text to change the sense as if S. Augustine had sayd I haue many motiues to belieue the Catholike Doctrine amongst other the manifest verity of the things reuealed this is the chiefest of all S. Augustines true text is manifest verity so cleerly shewed as no doubt therof can be made praeponenda est omnibus is to be preferred before all these thinges whereby I am held in the Catholike Church Hence it is cleere that the manifest Verity was not the stay and motiue of S. Augustines fayth For what is preferred before all the motiues that stayed him in the Catholike Church was none of his motiues But he saith that manâ—fâ—st verity so cleerly shining as no doubt thereof can be made is to be preferred before all his motiues Ergo S Augustin was not befooled with this foppery that Fayth is resolued finally into the manifest resplendeÌ„t verity of the doctrine and thinges reuealed in Scripture Neere to the same (a) Pag. 21. lin â—2 and in marg lit b. c. place you cite S. Augustine (b) Aug. l. 2. de Baptis c. 3. saying That former councells are corrected by latter Whence you inferre that the Tradition of the Church is fallible For what sentence of the Church is infallible if that of Councells be fallible In which say you some Papists place the soueraignty of Ecclesiasticall authority Heere you shew Ignorance and Falshood Ignorance about the doctrine of Catholikes For though some preferre the Councell before the Pope others the Pope before the Councell in case the whole Councel should be opposite to the Pope in matters of Fayth to be defined which case yet neuer happened yet all preferre perpetual Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles before both Pope and Councell For how can we know that Church definitions made by Pope Councell be infallible but by Tradition Some may say that is cleerly proued by Scripture It is true but how shall we know the texts assumed in this proofe to be the Apostles Scripture but by Tradition How should we be so sure that we truly expound the Texts aright did we not see the Tradition and practise of the Church to haue been still conformable to the sense we giue of those Scriptures Your Falshood is in that you conceale the words that immediatly follow in S. Augustines sentence which had you set down Aug. lib. 2. de Baptis c. 3. Ipsa plenaria Concilia saepe priora posterioribus emeÌ„dari cùm EXPERIMENTO â—erum aperitur quod clausum erat it would haue been euideÌ„t that he doth attribute fallibility and corrigibility vnto Councells only in matters of fact or Ecclesiasticall Lawes about manners For the whole sentence is Amongst plenary Councells the former are corrected by the latter cùm experimento rerum c. when by EXPERIMENT of thinges something is brought to light which before was hidden Now the truth of matters and mysteries of Fayth is not brought to light by tyme and experience but the truth of matters of fact is of which One sayth Quicquid sub terra est in apricum proferet aetas Therefore S. Augustine speakes not of matters of Fayth but of matters of fact or of Ecclesiasticall Lawes about manners which in some cases tyme and experience doth discouer to be inconuenient therefore to be recalled In the same place to prooue S. Augustine (d) Pag. 21. in lit b. c. held that the Church in her perpetuall Traditions may be deceaued you cite him saying (e) Aug. l. 2. cont Crescon c. 21. Eâ—clesiastici Iudices sicut homines plerumque falluntur Ecclesiasticall Iudges as men may be deceaued and (f) Lib 2. de Baptism c. 3. EpiscoporuÌ„ litteras quae post confirmatum Canonem Scriptae sunt c. licere reprehendi Non debet Ecclesia se Christo praeponere vt putet à se iudicatos baptizare non posse ab Illo autem iudicatos posse cùm Ille semper veraciter iudicet Ecclesiastici autem Iudices sicut homines plerumque falluntur the writings of any Bishops since the Apostles may be questioned and called into doubt I do not doubt but you know in your conscience that S. Augustine in both the places is alleadged oppositely to his meaning In the first place he speaketh not about Church-errours in matters of fayth but about errors in matters of fact or Church iudgments concerning criminall causes For this is his whole sentence The Church ought not to preferre herselfe before Christ as to say that men condemned by him as wicked may validely baptize but such as she doth condemne may not seeing He in his iudgements neuer erreth whereas Ecclesiasticall Iudges as being men are often deceaued Who doth not see that you wrong Saint Augustine to bring this his testimony for his holding the perpetuall Tradition of the Catholicke Church hand to hand from the Apostles by the succession of Bishops to be fallible And no lesse iniuriously you produce him in the second testimony For he speaketh of single Bishops considered ech of them by themselues that their writings are obnoxious vnto errour and so may be questioned and examined by Scripture thence inferring that the Donatists should not wonder that he did examine the Epistle of S. Cyprian agaynst the Baptisme of Heretikes so cleere it is he speakes of single Bishops not of Tradition by the full consent of Bishops Pag. 37. lin 33. For only Scripture you cite the same S. August as thus writing (g) August in epist· 1. IoaÌ„ tract 3. The Church hath only two breasts wherwith she feedeth her Children the Scriptures of the Old New TestameÌ„t You corrupt this place by addition false translation First by adding to the text the word only to make men belieue S. Aug. held that no doctrine of Fayth is to be belieued which is not cleerly contayned in Scripture whereas (h) l. 4. de Baptis c. 6. 24. l. 5. c. 22. he hath an expresse principle to the contrary many tymes repeated in his workes Sundry thinges to wit of fayth such as was the doctrine that Baptisme giuen by Heretiks is valide are most iustly belieued to be the Apostles though they be no where written in the Scriptures Secondly S. August sayth not as you traÌ„slate that the Churches two breasts are the Scriptures of the Old New TestameÌ„t
for theÌ„ it would follow that she hath no milke in her two breasts but written doctrine but he sayth her two breasts are the two Testaments of Diuine Scriptures Hence you may gather that in ech of her breasts in ech of the Testaments the milke of Scripture is contayned but that only the milke of writteÌ„ doctrine is in them contayned you cannot from this text truly cited inferre therefore both by addition and transposition of wordes you help the dyce To proue That the Tradition of the Church hath no credit or authority but from Scripture and that though this Tradition might be false yet Fayth would subsist because there remayneth allwayes an higher and more soueraigne Iudge to wit God speaking in the Scripture To proue this I say you (i) Pag. 90. in margin lit c cite this text of (k) Augustin lib. 11. 〈◊〉 Faust. c. â— Tanquam in sede quâ—dam in sublimi collocata est cui seruiâ—t omnis Fidelis pius intellectus S. Augustine It is placed as it were in an high throne of authority vnto which euery faythfull and pious vnderstanding must be subiect What is this Why doe you not name it Because you durst not set downe the wordes that immediatly precede which make cleerly agaynst you to wit these (l) Excellentia Canonicâ—â— authoritatis Veteris Noui Testamenti Apoâ—stoloruÌ„ confirmata temporibus per SVCCESSIONES EpiscoporuÌ„ Propagationes Ecclesiarum tanquam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est c. The Canonicall authority of the Scriptures confirmed in the Apostles dayes is by SVCCESSIONS of Bishops propagations of Churches placed in an high throne of authority c. How directly is this testimony of S. Augustine agaynst that which you would proue thereby How hath Tradition no credit or authority but from Scripture if the Scripture by successiue tradition of Bishops hand so hand froÌ„ the Apostles hath gotten quoad nos in the persuasion of the Christian world the high seate of Diuine authority to be honoured as Gods word vnto which euery maÌ„ must yield If this successiue Tradition on which as S. Augustine teacheth our persuasion about the authority of Scripture dependes be made weake fallible by Protestants how shall the Scripture be able to keepe her credit and authority in our Fayth Verily it cannot except Christians will cease to rely on the authority of God reuealing and on doctrine deliuered by the succession of Bishops hunt after Diuine and Apostolicall Scripture by the sent and smell of the doctrines deliuered therein as you doe Likewise by addition of the Particle Only you falsify the saying of (*) Pag. 95. lin 31. in Marg. lit Paschasius For whereas he (m) Paschas in Matth. c. 28. Cum electis semper adfuturum se promittit sayth Christ promised to be with his Elect all dayes vntill the consummation of the world you cite him as saying Only with the elect More grossely in the same place you falsify Druthmarus for whereas (n) In cap. 28. Matth. he sayth Christ is with the Reprobate by the presence of his Godhead but with the Elect in another manner you make him say Christ promiseth to be only with the elect contrary to his meaning who teacheth that the presence and perpetuall assistance of our Sauiour are so vnited vnto his Church her Pastors that they may not erre but still teach all that he coÌ„manded but that presence whereof that Text properly speaketh is not only affoarded vnto the Elect but vnto wicked men for the Saluation of all worthy Communicants as your selfe (o) Pag. 52. lin 14. affirme You (q) See pag. 105. rayle bitterly against the Iesuit for prouing that your Protestant Church cannot be the true Church nor part thereof because you seuered your selues from the Roman Church and did not ioyne vnto any preexistent Christian Society of Pastors but aparted your selues froÌ„ the Communion of the whole world For this his argument you rayle agaynst the Roman Church for a whole leafe pag. 106. and 107. Where thus you conclude your foule Foliall Inuectiue They since their Synode of TreÌ„t haue proceeded from euill to worse (s) The Minister in proofe of all this bringes nothing only in the Margent he nameth the Massacre of Paris Was that done by the Fathers of the Councell of Trent Doth that proue obscuring and out-facing of Truth Had not the Protestants then slayne been Traytors agaynst their king Was not the king informed of their plot to murdâ—r him his mother his brethren the cheiefest of his Nobles If to preuent his owne instant death the king did by martiall law without Iuridicall forme proceed agaynst knowne Rebells iâ— this such a thing as yow may say It surpasseth all perfidious Stratagems and immane Cruelty of Infidels what idle Eloquence is this obscuring outfacing the truth with forgery and sophistry They haue conspired agaynst Kingdomes and States they haue surpassed professed Infidells in perfidious stratagems and immane cruelty And whereas they expelled vs by Excommunication and chased vs away from them by persecution yet this Roman Aduocate taxeth vs with Schisme Apostasy neuer remembring what (*) lib. 5. de Baptism c. 1. S. Augustine long since deliuered The Sacriledge of Schisme is then committed when there is no iust cause of Separation Thus by long continued fierce bitter blasts of false reproach you diriue your vnwary Reader vpoÌ„ the hidden rocke of a falsifyed sentence of S. Aug. as though this most Diuine Doctour had insinuated the lawfullnes of reuolt separatioÌ„ from all ChristiaÌ„ Churches What can be more false He disputeth agaynst the Donatists who had seuered themselues from the Christian world pretending that CaeciliaÌ„ Bishop of Carthage other Catholikes had giuen vp the Holy Bibles to the fire S. Aug. doth conuince them of Schisme two wayes First because this pretence were it true is not iust for there can be no iust cause of separation from the whole world and of beginning a new distinct Christian Church These be his wordes (t) Augustin ep 48. ad Vincent Fieri non potest vt aliqui iustam causam habeant qua communionem suam separent à coÌ„munione Orbis terrarum eamue appellent Ecclesiam Christi quòd se iuste ab omnium geÌ„tium communione separauerint Ibid. Nos ideo certi sumus neminem se à coÌ„munione omnium Gentium iuâ—â—è separare potuisse c. We are certayne that none could iustly separate themselues from the Communion of the whole world And againe It is no way possible that any should haue reason to separate themselues from the coÌ„munion of the whole World and so tearme themselues the Church because vpoÌ„ iust cause they haue deuided theÌ„selues from the Society of all nations Thus S. Aug. What can be more direct agaynst that doctrine for which you cite him Or more efficacious to conclude that you Protestants are guilty of damnable Schisme Secondly sayth
Scripture say that the Bookes of the Prophets and Apostles be diuine yet shall I not certainly belieue it except I haue aforehand belieued the Scripture which doth 〈◊〉 affirme to be diuine For also in sundry places of Mahoâ—â—ts AlcoraÌ„ we read that the same was sent of God froÌ„ heaâ—â—â—â— yet do we not belieue it Is there no difference betâ—â—xt these two sayings A maÌ„ is not bound to belieue the Sâ—â—ipture affirming the bookes of the Prophets to be Diuine 〈◊〉 then the Alcoran and this I should not belieue the Sâ—ripture saying the bookes of Prophets are diuine except I 〈◊〉 belieue the Scripture that so sayth Verily they differ 〈◊〉 much as Hell and Heauen as Blasphemy and Truth With Hosius you ioyne Petrus Soto to be a debaser 〈◊〉 Scriptures (m) Pag. 152. in lit a. citing these words as his (n) Petrus Soto â—nstructio Sacerdotum Part. 1. lect 6. pag. 17. if he be truly cited for in my Edition it is pag. 25. Quae 〈◊〉 cultum pertinent magis ex traditione Spiritus Sancti â—â—â—ustratione quà m ex scriptura petenda sunt The things 〈◊〉 belong vnto worship are to be taken by Tradiâ—â—on and the light of the Holy Ghost rather then froÌ„ 〈◊〉 Scripture Thus you Omitting and putting in â—â—ordes chopping and changing the Text. Let vs â—â—are the Authours very words (o) Aduerâ—aÌ„t hunc Doctrinae Euangelicae modum Quod ad vitae rationem attinet post illa quae communia sunt omnibus qualia sunt praecepta Decalogi atque dilectionis Dei Proximi de quibus Christus frequenter loquitur Post haec inquam omnia aduerâ—ant plura esse quaerenda extraditione illustratione Spiritùs Sancti potiùs quà m ex Scriptura praecipuè quae ad cultum pertinent Post haec omnia â—â—uertant plura quaerenda esse ex Traditione illustraâ—â—one Spiritus sancti quà m ex Scripturis praecipuè quae ad â—â—ltum pertinent After all these thinges that is after a â—riest knowes not only the articles and mysteries of â—ayth but also in respect of manners and good life 〈◊〉 communia omnibus de quibus Christus frequenter loâ—â—itur those thinges that are commonly to be kept 〈◊〉 all Christians as the Ten Commandements and 〈◊〉 like about which Christ doth frequently speake â—fter they know these things let them remember that more â—â—ings yet are to be sought for rather by Tradition and the 〈◊〉 Ghosts illumination then by the Scripture spâ—cially 〈◊〉 thinges that belonge vnto Reuerence In these words â—etrus Soto deliuers two thinges First that the things â—oncerning matters not only of Fayth but also of good life that are common and must be knowne of all Christians are largely deliuered in holy Scripture Secondly that post haec omnia after the knowledge of all these common substantiall matters 〈◊〉 for other particuler thinges they are to be learned by Tradition more then by Scripture Hence I inferre that Petrus Soto by the words quae ad cultum pertinent doth not meane the mayne dutyes of Latriae and Religion but Reuerentiall carriage and ceremonyes to be vsed in the administration of the Sacraments This is cleere For by things pertinent vnto Reuerence he meanes thinges that are not common vnto all nor to be knowne and obserued of all But the mayne dutyes of Latria Religion are common vnto all Christians Therefore Soto doth not meane them in his wordes Quae ad cultum pertinenâ— but only things of ceremoniall Reuerence in the vse of the Christian sacrifice and Sacraments as the Authour (p) Quae autem in celebratione Baptismatis qua ratione agenda sunt vbi est scriptum Credendúmne est tantum Ministerium sine vlla praeparatione SOLEMNITATE RITV quae ad eius excitant venerationem traditum esse Ibid. pag. 26. doth also in that place declare So that it is in you wonderful boldnes by so many leauings out by so many alterings and transposings of words to change Sotus his meaning as though he had been besotted with Swenckfeldian fancy of immediat Reuelation without Scripture In your Reply to the Preface (m) These leaues want numbers but it is in the sixt leafe the first side froÌ„ the beginning of the Reply to the Preface you say Thâ—â— the Roman Church doth require that Protestants send the holy scriptures packing and not reckon the same among Dâ—â—uine Principles To make this slaunder good you 〈◊〉 in the margent (n) Had Bosius spoken inconsideratly what folly or impotent malice is it to vrge the vnaduised speach of a priuate writer as the fayth of the Church Bosius de sig Eccles. lib. 16. cap. 10. scriptura non refertur inter eiusmodi principia the Scripture is not reckoned amongst these principles 〈◊〉 wit Diuine This saying of Bosius you repeate ouer ouer in your Booke yea the same is twice repeated in your answere to the Iesuits Preface In your Orthodoxe you haue it also and your (o) Defence pag. 1â—1 Brother more ofteÌ„ as though Bosius did say the Scripturs were not Diuine But your slaunder is intollerable for he doth not say that Scriptures are not reckoned amongst Diuine Principles but only not amongst the articles of the Creed His wordes are We know that amongst other articles of the Creed one is I belieue the holy Catholike Church Now these articles are as it were certayne principles which must be knowne and belieued in the first place But the Scripture is not numbred amongst THESE Principles although it be named HOLY and SACRED Hence appeareth how notoriously you slauÌ„der and falsify Bosius by making him say that Scriptures are not numbred amongst Diuine Principles First because he sayth not they are not numbred amongst Diuine Principles but only not amongst the twelue Articles of the Creed which is a truth so manifest as Ministers cannot be ignorant thereof if they be acquainted with the Creed SecoÌ„dly because in that very place and sentence he doth affirme the contrary to wit that the Scriptures are holy and sacred What is this but Diuine Verily this accusation that Protestants if they will be Catholikes must send the Scriptures packing is as true as what you (s) Answere to the Preface fol. 6. pag. 1. lin 19. there also affirme That they must let the Roman Nahash pluck out their right eye and vow blind obedience vnto him Which you proue because Bonauenture (t) In vitâ— Francisci c. 5. sayth that S. Francis exhorted his Fryars vnto blind Obedience As though Protestants might not be admitted into the Roman Church except they will be Fryars or that by Religious obedience men put out their right eye which regardeth God and Heauen and not tather the left which looketh vpon earth and worldly pleasure Had you eyther the right or left eye of Wisdome you would not write as you doe Had you any sparke of diuine Wisdome you would not vent such false odious slanders Had you any dramme of humane Wisdome you
all your company and with the effects I will witnes mine vnto you I haue allwaies said that they which feare and loue God well cannot but do well and are alwaies most faithfull to their Prince We are now better informed I did hold you to be otherwise then you are and you haue found me other then you held me I would it had beene sooner but there is meanes to recompence what is past Loue me and I will loue you Noe labours would we spare nor any endeauour omit nor sticke to venture the losse of any thing deare vnto vs except the grace of God our eternall saluation to purchase a small portion of that fauour your Maiesties meanest subiects enioy that we might in some sort cooperate to the felicity of the Christian world which as we are perswaded doth on your Maiestyes person singularly depend For God rich in mercy and goodnes as he hath made your Maiesty partaker of his power authority in gouerning this inferiour world so likewise he hath adorned you with many Excellent guifts as Wisedome Learning Authority with forraine Princes and Common Wealthes made you beloued of your subiects that on you are cast the eyes of all Christiā countryes as on the person whom the Prince of peace hath beyond the rest enabled to (q) Heere our Replicant shewes himselfe to be according to the Ministeriall kind by railing at the Answerer by scorning Peace and vnity saying contemptuously Forsooth to ioyne togeather againe the parts of Christēdome distracted Deceyuers loue to fish in troubled waters It was Luthers ioy to see the world in dissensiō tom 9. Germ. de Comit. Worm fol. 8. Nihil ita mihi visu iucundum quà m cùm tumultus dissenssiones exoriuntur ioyne togeather againe the parts of Christendome distracted one from another through Controuersies of Religion If the requests of the pretended Reformers were such as the Roman Church might yield vnto them without ouerthrowing the very foundations of the vnity of Fayth if insteed of Catholike principles misliked by them they did propose such other of their owne as she might see some probability or allmost possibility of assured cōtinued peace likely to follow vpon her yielding in some points feeling-Compassion in regard of the wound of discord bleeding in the hart of Christendome would moue her to the vttermost approach towards Protestāts that the Law of God can permit though with some disparagement to her Honour But so it is that those that desire her reformation be so many for number and for opinions so deuided amongst thēselues that it is impossible she should satisfy all (r) The Minister against this cleere cōuincing discourse of the Answerer cōmeth forth with this syllogisme set downe in a distinct letter ech proposition in a distinct line very maiestically Whosoeuer abideth in errour ought to reforme The Roman Church abideth in errour Ergo The Roman Church ought to reforme The Assumption saith he is manifest by the repugnancyes of the Roman doctrine with holy Scripture Is not this most ridiculous Against him I oppose this Syllogisme The Minister forced by truth doth acknowledge that by Theology which he calls Sophystrie we giue seeming solutions vnto their arguments out of Scripture pag. 581. But Arguments vnto which seeming solutiōs are giuen be not manifest Ergo Protestants haue no manifest arguments to proue our Religion to be against Scripture and so without ground breake the peace of Christendome Their conditions of peace are that she reforme herselfe by forsaking definitions of Generall Councells Customes Doctrines vniuersally receiued for many ages tyme out of mind cōfessedly without any knowne beginning since the Apostles Insteed of these meanes so potent to stay staggering Consciences and to keep the Christian world in peace they present her with the Scripture vnderstood (s) The Minister heere very impudently denies that Protestants resolue by priuate illumination whereas himselfe more then twenty times in this Reply doth teach that ech Protestant doth lastly resolue by diuine illumination whereby he seeth manifestly the resplendant verity of things belieued as wil appeare afterward by priuate illumination the source of discord from which an Ocean of strife must needs flow These things considered your most Iudicious Maiesty cannot but see that her yielding would not compose debates already begun but rather open a wide gappe vnto innumerable new braules bring them into Kingdomes hitherto with such dissention vntoucht Wherfore there being no possibility that the Catholike part could gaine peace to Christendome by any yielding vnto our aduersaryes either reasonable or vnreasonable whither should louers of Concord turne themselues but vnto your Gratious Maiesty that haue in your power the affections of Protestants and therfore would be the (t) Heere the Minister raileth vēting new scolding Phrases Grosse errours and the sharking rapine of the Romish Harpyes trampling Gods truth and Gods people vnder the foote of the inerrable and vncontrollable Grand Seigneur of the seauen-hilled-Citty lewd Superstition Roman tyrāny tearming the Answerer impudent bold franticke guided by an euill Genius the like onely for motioning vnto his Maiesty the meanes of the reunion of Christendome and for his conceauing some possibility to giue satisfactiō which his maiesty himselfe doth allow that we should conceaue as possible saying Except she reforme herselfe or else be ABLE to giue me satisfaction fittest instrumēt for their Re-vnion with the Roman Church The God of Charity hath put into your Maiesties hart a desire of vnity of the Church and into your hand an Oliue-bough Crowne of peace to set it on the head of Christendome which weary of endles cōtention powreth forth vnto your Maiesty her suppliant Complaint Quem das finem Rex Magne laborum And seing nothing hindreth but that your selfe are not yet satisfyed in some Doctrines of the Romane church particularly in the Nine points your Maiesty hath set downe in writing I humbly present vnto your Maiesty these my poore labours for your satisfaction so much desired of the Christian world That the Romaine Church is the onely true Church AND to the end that this my Answere may be in it selfe more solid and better accepted off by your Maiesty before I descend vnto particulars I thinke best first to shew in generall the Roman to be the onely true Church for this was the occasion and subiect of the Conference betweene Doctor White and me and is the (a) Because the Minister here cauilleth note that doctrine of Fayth may be most important two waies First as a truth which is essentially the obiect of supernaturall affection as of Hope charity contritiō without which no man is saued In this kind the Incarnation of the Son of God is most important Secondly as the principle and meanes by which the said truth is proposed without which the same cannot ordinarily be knowne In this kind most important it is to know the true Church most important and maynest point of
so contemptible in the eye of men that verily the worke of the worlds creation doth not more cleerly discouer God the Authour of Nature then this of the worlds Conuersion doth shew it selfe to proceed from the Authour of grace Fourthly the miraculous coÌ„tinuance of a Christian Catholike Church spread ouer the world foretold by our Sauiour notwithstanding so many persecusecutions by the Iewes Heathens Heretikes Polititians and dissolute Christians Against this Principle of ResolutioÌ„ Ministers (d) Chalenour in his Credo Ecclesiam Catholicam p. 1. c. 6. Field l. 3. cap. 15. and our Minister (e) Reply pag. â—16 citing in particular obiect that miracles are only probable not sufficient testimonies of diuine doctrine yea (f) Bellarm. l. 4. de Eccl. cap. 14. Bellarmine sayth we cannot know euideÌ„tly that miracles are true for if we did we should know euidently that our fayth is true so it should not be faith I Answer that such euideÌ„ce as doth exclude the necessity of pious reuerence affection vnto Gods word euidence I say enforcing men to belieue cannot stand with true fayth If we knew by Mathematicall or Metaphysicall euidence that the miracles of Christ and his Apostles were true perchance this euidence would compell men to belieue and ouercome the naturall obscurity and seeming impossibility of the Christian doctrine And therefore as Bellarmine sayth we cannot be mathematically and altogeather infallibly sure by the light of nature that miracles are true Notwithstanding we must not deny what Scriptures affirme (g) Ioan. 5â— 36. that miracles are a sufficient testimony binding men to belieue and consequently that we may know them to be true (h) Suarez de fide disput 4. sect 3. n. 9. Videntibus coÌ„stare poterat euideÌ„tia naturali vera esse quae agebantur by Physicall euidence as we are sure of things we see with our eyes or of such as being once euident to the world are by the worlds full report declared vnto vs. Neyther doth this Physicall euidence of miracles take away the merit of Fayth The reason is because this euidence not being altogeather and in the highest deâ—ree infallible by it selfe for our senses may sometymes be deceaued is not sufficient to ouercome the naturall obscurity darknes seeming falshood of things to be belieued vpon the testimony of those miracles For the mystery of the Trinity of the Incarnation of the Reall Presence and the like seeme to reason as impossible as any miracle can seeme euident vnto sense Hence when fayth is proposed by miracles ariseth a conflict betwixt the seeming euidence of the miracles and the seeming darkenes and falshood of the Christian doctrine Agaynst which obscurity a man cannot get the victory by the sole eâ—idence of miracles except he be inwardly holpen by the light of Gods spirit mouing him by pious affection to cleaue to the doctrine which is by so cleere testimonyes proued his word As a man shut vp in â— chamber with two lights wherof the one maketh â—he wall seeme white the other blew caÌ„not be firmly â—esolued what to think till day light enter obscuring both those lights discouer the truth Euen so a man looking vpon Christian doctrines by the light of Christian miracles done to proue them will be mooued to iudge them to be truth but looking vpon â—hem through the euidence of their seeming impossibilities vnto reason they will seeme false nor will he be able firmely to resolue for the side of faith vntill the light of diuine grace enter into his hart making him to preferre through pious reuerence towards God the so proposed authority of his word before the seeming impossibility of mans reason The third Principle demonstrated §. 3. BEING resolued that the doctrine of God is sauing truth the Apostles doctrine the doctrine of God we meete with a third Enemy who labours to driue vs out of the beateÌ„ high way to know what doctrine is the Apostles This Enemy is the Heretike a domestike Enemy and therfore more dangerous These men graunt the doctrine of Saluation to be supernaturall and reuealed the reuealed to be the Apostolicall and no other but they will haue the rule of knowing what doctrine the Apostles taught to be speciall illumination of the spirit not Catholike Tradition For there is a double kind of Tradition from the Apostles that may be pretended The one publicke by the vniforme perpetuall teaching of Pastours The other secret by the teaching of some priuate men pretending to haue been taught more singularly and highly then other men by the Apostles The second kind of Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles by the secret teaching of an inuisible Church Heretikes haue pretended but neuer the first of publike and Catholike Tradition The cause why Heretikes prescribe the course to resolue by illuminations is because an Heretike will not admit doctrines deliuered vnto him by the consent of his Christian Ancestors but with choyce receaue some and reiect others as he findeth good Whence he hath the (d) Tertull. de praescript cap. 6. Haereses dictae Graeca voce exinterpretatione Electionis Name Heretike that is one who is his owne caruer and chooser in matters of Religion still (e) Augustin l. 7. de Gen. ad lit c. 9. Neque enim non omnes Haeretici Scripturas Catholicas legunt pretending for all his fancyes Scripture vnderstood by the light of the spirit If Catholike Tradition were by him admitted as a rule infallible to know what doctrine the Apostles preached he could not haue liberty to choose according to his best liking but would be bound (f) Nobis nostro arbitrio non licet indulgere sed ê— Apostoli fideliter consignarunt accipere to receaue the forme of Religion made vnto him by Tradition of Ancestours Hence agaynst this way of Catholike Tradition he bandeth with might and mayne charging the same to be fallible that errours may secretly creep into it teaching men to retyre vnto the inward teaching of the spirit as the only secure meanes to know which be the Apostolicall Scripturs which the Apostolicall interpretation of them Agaynst this Enemy is the third principle of true Christian Religion The Apostolicall doctrine is the Catholike to wit the doctrine that is deliuered from the Apostles by the Tradition of whole ChristiaÌ„ worlds of Fathers vnto whole ChristiaÌ„ worlds of ChildreÌ„ that in matters of ChristiaÌ„ Religion Heresy that is priuate election and choyce may haue no place About this principle faith is resolued and assured by a third perfection belonging to God as he is Prime Verity This is that he cannot so much as conniue vnto falshood whereby he become any way accessory of deceauing then that simply readily religiously belieue what they haue iust reason to thinke to be his word But there is iust and sufficient reason to belieue that doctrine deliuered by ful and perpetuall Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles is verily their doctrine and therefore
Gods Ergo God being the prime verity cannot permit Catholicke Christian Tradition to be falsifyed How the Churches Tradition is proued infallible independently of Scripture §. 4. HENCE is answered the common Obiection which Protestants make that Tradition of doctrine from hand to hand made by men is fallible subiect to errour for they may deceaue or be deceaued If We answere that Christian Catholicke Tradition of doctrines is infallible through Gods speciall assistance They reply this infallibility of traditioÌ„ through diuine assistaÌ„ce cannot be knowne but by the Scripture and so before we can build our fayth on Tradition as infallible we must know the Scripture to be the word of God and consequently we cannot build our persuasion of the Scriptures being Apostolicall and diuine on Tradition except we comit a Circle I Answere First that Catholicke Tradition is proued to be (m) Est suÌ„mus gradus certitudinis humanae de qua SIMPLICITER dici potest noÌ„ posse illi falsum subesse Suarez de gratia l. 9. c. 11. n. 11. Et hoc ibid. probat simply infallible by the very nature thereof For TraditioÌ„ being full report about what was euident vnto sense to wit what doctrines and Scriptures the Apostles publickly deliuered vnto the world it is impossible it should be false Worlds of men cannot be vniformely mistaken and deceaued about a matter euident to sense and not being deceaued being so many in number so deuided in place of so different affectious and conditious it is impossible they (n) Neglexerit officiuÌ„ suum Villicus Christi c. Quî verisimile vt tot tantae Ecclesiae in vnam fidem errauerint variasse debuerat error EcclesiaruÌ„ Caeterùm quod apud multos vnuÌ„ inuenitur non est erratuÌ„ sed traditum Tertullian de praescript c. 28. should so haue agreed in their tale had they maliciously resolued to deceaue the world Wherefore it is impossible that what is deliuered by full Catholicke tradition from the Apostles should be a thing by the traditioners first deuised Secondly I say that how soeuer human Tradition may be by nature fallible yet the Christian Catholicke is assisted of God that no errour can creep into the same Which diuine assistance to be due vnto it is demonstrated by the perfection of Diuine verity by the nature of tradition precedently independently of Scripture and therefore without any Circle by two Arguments The first is the same we before touched God beâ—ng Prime Verity cannot conniue that the meanes of conueying the Apostles doctrine vnto posterity which bindeth Religious belieuers to receaue the same as his word should secretly be infected with damnable Errour For being Infinit Verity in his knowledg this cannot be done without his priuity Knowing thereof being infinit veracity in his teaching the truth he cannot yield that the meanes of conueying his truth obliging men to belieue should â—mperceptibly be poysoned whereby men for their deuotion vnto his Verity incurre damnation This being so I assume But the Catholicke tradition of doctrine from the Apostles bindeth Christians to whome it is deliuered to belieue the same as Gods word This I proue When doctrine is sufficiently proposed as Gods word men are bound to belieue it But that is sufficiently proposed as Gods word vnto Christians which is vnto them sufficiently proposed â—s Doctrine of the Apostles Now that Catholicke Tradition of doctrine from the Apostles is sufficient proposition and proofe that that Doctrine is the Apostles is proued first because Catholicke tradition of doctrine is by nature simply infallible as hath bin shewed but proposition knowne simply to be infallible is sufficient to bind men to belieue Secondly Catholicke tradition that is the report of a world of Ancestors coÌ„cerning sensible matters of fact is so pregnant and obligatory as it were insolent madnes to deny it In so much as euen (o) Caluin Institut l. 1. c. 8. n. 9. Quaerunt quis nos certiores fecerit à Moyse aliis Prophetis haec fuisse scripta quae sub eorum nominibus leguÌ„tur c. quis non colaphis flagellis castistandum illum insanum dicat Certô certiùs est ipso rum scripta non aliter peruenisse ad posteros quà m de manu in manuÌ„ TRADITA Caluin sayth that such as deny the tradition of Ancestors concerning the authors of the Canonicall bookes are rather to be reformed with a Cudgell then refuted by Argument Thirdly God himselfe sendeth children vnto the tradition of their Ancestors to learne of them the sensible workes of his miraculous power done in former ages (p) Deuteron 32.7 Aske thy Father and he will tell thee thyne Auncestors and they will certifye thee Fourthly the proofe of tradition is so full and sufficient as it conuinceth infidels For though they be blind not to see the doctrine of the Apostles to be Diuine yet are they not so voyd of common sense impudent and obstinate as they will deny the doctrine of Christian Catholicke tradition to be truly Christian Apostolical Whence two thinges are euident First that Catholicke tradition from the Apostles is an externall sufficient proposition and a conuincing argument that the doctrin so deliuered is Apostolicall consequently Diuine reuealed Doctrine Secondly that Heresy which stands agaynst this tradition 〈◊〉 willfull obstinacy and madnes and worse then Paganisme The second argument God being Prime verity binding all men that will be saued to know and firmely belieue the Apostles doctrine euen vntill the worlds end cannot conniue that the only Meanes to know this doctrin perpetually and euer after the â—postles decease be secretly insensibly poysoned with errours agaynst the truth of Saluation This is â—eere The only meanes whereby men succeeding â—he Apostles may know assuredly what Scriptures â—nd doctrins they deliuered to the Primitiue Cathoâ—icke Church is the Catholicke tradition by worlds â—f ChristiaÌ„ Fathers Pastors vnto worlds of Chriâ—tian children and faythfull people Ergo Catholike Tradition is by God the Prime verity so defended â—reserued assisted as no errour agaynst Saluation â—an be deliuered by the same consequently it apâ—eareth by the very notion of prime Verity indepenâ—ently of Scripture that Catholicke tradition is â—roued to be infallible through Gods speciall assiâ—tance â—he difference between Propheticall and ordinary Diuine Illumination by which Protestants Cauills are answered §. 5. AGAYNST the Minor of the former argument Protestants obiect first that though the testiâ—ony of tradition be a good (q) Reply pa. 15. lin 32. morall human and proâ—able proofe that these Scriptures were by the Apoâ—tles deliuered yet the chiefe ground of fayth in â—his poynt is inward illumination the testimony â—f the spirit speaking within our hart and assuring 〈◊〉 of the truth I answere God may assure men of â—ruth by inward inspiration two wayes first by the â—â—ght of inward teaching and inspiration without â—he mediation and concourse of any externall inâ—allible ground of assurance Secondly by the light
â—f his spirit inwardly mouing the heart of man to â—dhere vnto an infallible externall ground of assurance proposed vnto him God by the helpe of his grace making him apprehend diuinely of the authority thereof This second manner of inward assurance is ordinarily giuen vnto euery ChristiaÌ„ without (r) Triden sess 6. Can. 3. Arausican 2. Can. 6. which no man is able to belieue supernaturally and as he ought vnto Saluation The first manner of assurance is extraordinary and immediate reuelation such as the Prophets had Wherfore Protestants if they callenge this first manner of inward teaching assurance they approue Enthusiasme immediat reuelatioÌ„ which in the Swenkfeldians they seeme to condemne If they challenge only the second manner of inward teaching and assurance then besides inward light they must assigne an externall sufficieÌ„t ground why they belieue these Scriptures to be the Apostles then I aske what ground this is besides Tradition Secondly they wil obiect that though they haue no infallible ground besides the teaching of the Spirit yet they are not taught immediatly in Propheticall maÌ„ner because they are also taught by an external probable motiue to wit the Churches tradition I Answere that except they assigne an externall infallible meanes besides Gods inward teaching they cannot auoyde but they challenge immediate reuelation For whosoeuer knoweth thinges assuredly by the inward teaching of the spirit without an external infallible motiue vnto which he doth adhere is assured prophetically though he haue some externall probable motiues so to thinke S. Peter had some coniecturall signes of Simon Magus his peruersity incorrigible malice yet seing (s) Act. 8.32 In felle amaritudinis obligatione peccati video te esse he knew it assuredly we belieue he knew it by the light of prophesy because besides inward assurance he had no externall infallible ground If one see a man giue publickly almes though he perceaue probable tokeÌ„s signes that he doth it out of a Vayne-glorious intention yet cannot he be sure therof but by the light of immediat reuelation because the other tokens are not grounds sufficient to make him sure For if a man be sure haue no ground of this assurance in any thinge out of his owne hart it is cleere that he is assured immediatly only by Gods inward speaking Wherfore ProtestaÌ„ts if they will disclayme in truth and not in wordes only from immediate reuelation and teaching they must eyther grant tradition to be infallible or else assigne some externall infallible ground besides Tradition whereby they are taught what Scriptures the Apostles deliuered Thirdly they will say they know the Scriptures to be from the Apostles by an externall infallible ground besides Tradition to wit by certayne lights lustres euidences of truth which they see to blaze emane from the thinges reuealed in Scripture by which they are sure that the doctrin thereof is heauenly I Answere If they did see such lustres and lights that cleerly not only probably conuince the doctrine of Scripture to be heauenly truth they be not indeed assured by immediate darke reuelation but by an higher degree of heauenly knowledge to wit by the supernaturall light and euidence of the thinge belieued which is a paradox and pretence farre more false and sensibly absurd then is the challenge of immediate reuelation or Enthusiasme as hath beene shewed Wherefore seing that God hath chosen no externall meanes besides Catholicke Tradition to make men know perpetually vntill the consummation of the world what doctrins Scriptures the Apostles published it is cleere vnto euery Christian that this is the meanes by him chosen which he doth assist that it cannot be obnoxious vnto errour so that precedently and independently of Scripture the Catholicke tradition of Christian pastors fathers is proued to be infallible through Diuine speciall assistance and therefore a sufficient ground for Fayths infallible assurance The Fourth Principle proued §. 6. IF we be resolued that sauing truth is that which God reuealed that he reuealed that which the Apostles published the doctrine published by then the Catholicke Christian Tradition our search is ended when we haue found the Christian Catholicke Church Heere the fourth Enemy of true Christian Religion offers himselfe to wit the Willfull Ignorant These kind of men not only hold agaynst Pagans the doctrine of saluation to be that only which was reuealed of God agaynst Iewes the reuealed of God to be only the Apostles but also in wordes they condemne the Heretikes professe that no doctrine is truly Apostolicall but the Catholick yet in resoluing what doctrin is the Catholicke they follow the partiality of their affections These are tearmed by (t) De vtil cred c. 1. S. Augustine Credentes haereticorum Belieuers of Heretikes building vpon the seeming learning and sanctity of some men being therein so willfull as to venture their soules that such doctrine is Catholike not caring nor knowing what they say nor what the word Catholicke put into the Creed by the Apostles doth import Some be so ignorant as to thinke that the word Catholicke doth signify the same as conforme vnto Scripture And so what doctrine is Catholicke they resolue by the light and lustre of the doctrine or by the in ward teaching of the spirit whereby they fall vpon the principle of Heresy and become not so much belieuers of Heretikes as Heretikes Some vnderstand by the word Catholicke Doctrine truly Catholicke that is deliuered froÌ„ the Apostles by Christian worlds of Fathers vnto Christian worlds of children yet are so blind as to giue this Title vnto Sects lately sprung vp which through pretended singular Illuminations gotten by perusing the Scripture haue chosen formes of fayth opposite one agaynst another reformed agaynst the forme to them deliuered by their Ancestors These Sects I say they tearme Catholicke which not to be Catholicke in this sense is as euident as that night is not day Some through willfull ignorance no lesse grossely deuide the name of Catholicke according to the diuision of Countryes naming the Catholicke doctrin of the Church of France of the Church of England c. Which speach hath no more sense then this A fashion euer since Christ vniuersally ouer the world newly begun and proper vnto England Agaynst this Enemy true Religion is resolued in this fourth principle The Catholicke Tradition of doctrine from the Apostles is the Roman By Roman we vnderstand not only the Religion professed within the Citty Diocesse of Rome but ouer the whole world by them that any where acknowledg the primacy of Peter and his successours which now is the Roman Bishop About this principle fayth is assured by a fourth perfection belonging vnto God as he is prime Verity reuealing truth which is that he cannot permit that the knowing of sauing doctrine be impossible Hence I argue God being Prime Verity reuealing cannot permit the meanes of knowing his sauing truth to be hidden nor a false meanes to
be so adorned with the markes of the true as the true become indiscernable from it But if the Roman be not the true Catholicke Tradition the true Catholicke Church and Tradition is hidden yea a false Church hath so cleerly the markes of Catholicke that no other can with any colour pretend to be rather Catholicke then it that is to haue doctrin deliuered from the Apostles by whole worlds of Christian Fathers vnto whole worlds of Christian Children Hence eyther there is no meanes left to know assuredly the sauing truth or else the meanes is immediat reuelatiō that is inward teaching of the spirit without any externall infallible meanes or else Scripture knowne to be the word of God and truly sensed by the light lustre and euidēce of the things which wayes of teaching it is certayne God doth not vse towards his militant Church succeeding the Apostles For teaching of diuine and supernaturall truth by the light lustre and shining of the thing or doctrin is proper vnto the Church triumphant Inward assurance without any externall infallible ground to assure men of truth is proper vnto the Prophets and the first publishers of Christian Religion Hence I conclude that if God be the Prime Verity teaching Christian Religion darkely without making men see the light and lustre of thinges belieued and mediatly by some externall infallible meanes vpon which inward assurance must rely then he must euer conserue the Catholicke tradition and Church visible and conspicuous that the same may without immediat reuelation and otherwise thē by the lustre of doctrin be discerned to wit by sensible markes If any obiect that the senses of mē in this search may be deceaued through naturall inuincible fallibility of their organs and so no ground of fayth that is altogether infallible I Answere that euidence had by sense being but the priuate of one man is naturally and physically infallible but when the same is also publicke and Catholicke that is when a whole world of men concurre with him then his euidence is altogether infallible Besides seing God hath resolued not to teach men immediatly but will haue them to cleaue vnto an externall infallible meanes to find out this meanes by the sensible euidence of the thinge he is bound by the perfection of his Veracity to assist mens senses with his prouidence that therein they be not deceaued when they vse such diligence as men ordinarily vse that they be not deceaued by their senses Now what greater euidence cā one haue that he is not deceaued in this matter of sense that the Romā Doctrine is the Catholicke that is Doctrine deliuered from the Apostles by worlds of Christian Ancestors spread ouer the world vnanimous amongst themselues in all matters they belieue as Fayth what greater assurance I say can one haue that herein he seeth aright then a whole world of men professing to see the same that he doth Some may agayne obiect I belieue the Catholicke Church is an Article of Fayth set downe in the Creed but Fayth is resolution about thinges that are not seene I Answere An article of Fayth may be visible according to the substāce of the thing yet inuisible according to the manner it is belieued in the Creed The third article He suffered vnder Pontius Pilate was crucifyed dead and buried according to the substance of the thinge was euident vnto sense and seen euen of the Iewes and is now belieued of their posterity But according to the manner as it is belieued in the Creed to wit that herein the Word of God by his auncient Prophets was fulfilled that this was done in charity for the saluation of Man in this manner I say that visible Article is inuisible and belieued in the Creed In like māner that there is in the world a Catholicke Church and that the Roman is the Catholicke Church Pagans Iewes Heretikes if they shut not their eyes agaynst the light do cleerly behold But that herein the word of God about the perpetuall amplitude of his Church is accomplished that this is an effect of Gods Veracity to the end that the meanes to learne sauing truth may not be hidden this is a thing inuisible according to this notiō the Catholicke Church is proposed in the Creed Secondly propositiōs of fayth must be inuisible according to the Predicate or thinge belieued but not euer according to the subiect or thing wherof we belieue The thinges the Apostles belieued of Christ to wit that he was the Sauiour of the world the Son of God were thinges inuisible but the subiect and person of whome they did belieue was to them visible seen yea God did of purpose by his Prophets fortell certayne tokens whereby that subiect might by sense be seen and discerned from all other that might pretend the name of Christ or els his coming into the world to teach the truth had been to no purpose In this sort the Predicate or thing belieued in this article the holy Catholicke Church to wit Holy is inuisible but the Subiect to wit the Catholicke Church which we affirme and belieue to be holy in her doctrine is visible and conspicuous vnto all Yea God hath of purpose foretold signes and tokens whereby the same by sense may be cleerly discernable from all other that may pretend the title of Catholicke For were not this subiect the Catholicke Church we belieue to be holy and infallible in her teaching visible and discernable from all other that pretend the name of what vse were it to belieue that there is such an infallible teaching Church in the world hidden we know not where as a needle in a bottle of hay The End of the Resolution of Fayth THESE thinges supposed the Reader will haue no difficulty to discerne how friuolous the Ministers exceptions are agaynst the resolutiō of fayth in respect of belieuing doctrines to be the Apostles into Perpetuall Tradition and how solide the Iesuits discourse was which here ensueth THE FIRST GROVND That a Christian resolution of Fayth is builded vpon perpetuall Tradition deriued by succession from the Apostles §. 1. BEFORE I come to the proofe of this principle some things are to be presupposed which I thinke Protestants will not deny First that no man can be saued or attayne to the blissefull vision of God without firme and assured apprehension of diuine supernaturall truth concerning his last end and the meanes to arriue thereunto Secondly that this assured apprehension is not had by a (e) The Minister heere graunteth that Fayth is not had by cleere euident sight but afterward he sayth the same is resolued by the resplendent verity of the doctrine cleare and euident sight nor gotten by demonstration or humane discourse by the principles of reason nor can be sufficiently had by credit giuen to meerly humane authority but only by Fayth grounded on the word of God reuealing vnto men things that otherwise are knowne only to his Infinite wisdome Thirdly that God
reuealed all these verityes to Christs Iesus and he (f) Omnia quae audiui à Patre nota feci vobis Ioan. 15. v. 15. agayne to his Apostles partly by word of mouth but principally by the immediate teaching of his holy spirit to the end that they should deliuer (g) Docete omnes gentes Math. 28.20 them vnto mankind to be receiued and belieued euery where ouer the world euen to the consummation thereof Fourthly that the (h) Illi profecti praedicauerunt vbique Marc. vlt. 20. Apostles did accordingly preach to all nations deliuer vnto them partly by wryting partly by word of mouth the (i) O Timothee depositum custodi 1. Tim. 6.20 whole entyre doctrine of saluation planting an vniuersall Christian company charging them to keep inuiolably and to deliuer (k) Haec commenda fidelibus hominibus qui possunt alios instruere 2. Tim. 1.2 vnto their posterityes what they had of them the first messengers of the Ghospell Fiftly though the Apostles be departed their primitiue Hearers deceased yet there still remaynes a meanes in the world by which all men may assuredly know what the Apostles preached and the primitiue Church receyued of them seing the Church euen to the worlds end must be (l) Ephes. 2.20 c. 4.5.11 founded on the Apostles and belieue nothing as matter of Fayth besides that which was deliuered of them These things being supposed the question is What this meanes is and how men may now adayes so many ages after their death know certainly what the Apostles taught originally preached To which question I answere that the last and finall resolution (m) Note that the Minister many tymes doth falsify the Iesuits Tenet specially pag. 34. saying That the last and finall resolution is into vnwritten Tradition not into Scripture This he doth not say but that the persuasion that our Fayth is true is finally resolued into the authority of God reuealing and that it is Diuine into the Apostles miraculous preaching But what doctrine was taught by the Apostles we know only by Tradition therof is not into Scripture but into the perpetuall tradition of the Church succeeding (n) All from this place vnto the first argument the Minister leaueth out being the substance of the whole discourse yet he sayth he hath set down the booke verbatim See his Preface the Apostles according to the principle set downe by Tertullian in the beginning of his golden by Protestants commended Booke (o) Tertull. de praescript 1.61.21 Quid Apostoli pâ—â—dicauerint praescribam non aliter probari debere quà m per easdem Ecclesias quas ipsi condiderunt that is I set down this principle what the Apostles taught is to be proued NO OTHERVVISE then by the TRADITION of the Churches which they planted By which Prescription ioyned with the other fiue suppositions is raysed the Ladder for true Catholike resolution about Faith set down by the sayd Tertullian on which a Christian by degrees mounts vnto God or as S. Augustine (p) August de vtilitate credendi cap. 10. sayth ducitur pedetentim quibusdam gradibus ad summâ penetralia veritatis the Ladder is this the ascending by it in this sort What (q) Tertull. de praescrip c. 21. 37. Nos ab Ecclesijs Ecclesiae ab Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus à Deo I belieue I receaued from the present Church the present from the primitiue Church the primitiue Church from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God God the prime verity from no other fountayne different from his owne infallible knowledge So that who so cleaueth not to the present Church firmely belieuing the tradition thereof as being come downe by succession is not so much as on the lowest step of the Ladder that leads vnto God the reuealer of sauing truth successiue tradition vnwritten being the last and finall ground whereon we belieue that the substantiall points of our beliefe (r) Note the Iesuit doth not say Tradition is the last ground on which we belieue our Fayth to be sauing truth or the word of God but only that it came froÌ„ the Apostles so mounting vp by the Church vnto the Apostles by the Apostles vnto God and by him vnto all necessary truth came from the Apostles This I proue by these foure (*) These arguments as they coÌ„uince there is no meanes to know what the Apostles taught but Christian Tradition so they consequently conuince that if the Christian Religion be sauing truth God must assist this perpetual Catholike Tradition therof that no Errors creep into it arguments The first Argument IF the mayne and substantiall points of our fayth be belieued to be Apostolicall because writteÌ„ in the Scripture of the new Testament and the Scriptures of the new Testament are belieued to come from the Apostles vpon the voyce of perpetuall tradition vnwritten then our ResolutioÌ„ that our fayth is Apostolicall stayeth lastly and finally vpon Tradition vnwritten But so it is that the Scriptures of the new TestameÌ„t cannot be prooued to haue been deliuered vnto the Church by the Apostles but by the perpetual Tradition vnwritten conserued in the Church succeeding the Apostles For what other proofe can be imagined except one would prooue it by the (a) The Minister pag. 19. to Titles addeth inscription of some Epistles subscription insertion of names in the body of the bookes but neither is this true of all books nor of all Epistles nor it is inough to satisfy a man For may not a counterfayte write a Gospell for example in the name of Peter repeating the name of Peter the Apostle in the booke twenty tymes So it is childish to meÌ„tion this as the last stay of persuasion For what more childish then to prooue a thinge vnknowne by another as much vnknowne Titles of the bookes which were absurd seing doubt may be made whether those Titles were set on the Books by the Apostles themselues of which doubt only Tradition can resolue vs. Besides the Ghospell of S. Marke S. Luke as also the Acts of the Apostles were not written by any Apostles but were by their liuely voyce and suffrages recommended vnto Christians as Sacred Diuine otherwise as also (b) Bilson de perpetua gubernatione Ecclesiae pag. 85. Historiae illae à Marco Luca exaratae Canonicam authoritatem ex Apostolorum suffragiâ—s nactae sunt qui eas lectas approbârunt M. Bilson noteth they should neuer haue obtayned such eminent authority in the Church neyther should they be now so esteemed but vpon the supposall of Apostolicall approbation But how shall we know that the Apostles saw these writings and recommended the same vnto Christian Churches but by Tradition Ergo the last and highest ground on which we belieue what doctrine was deliuered by the Apostles is the tradition of the Church suceceding them For we may distinguish three properties of doctrine of faith
to wit to be True to be Reuealed of God to be Preached and deliuered of the Apostles The highest ground by which I am perswaded that my fayth is true is the authority of God reuealing it The highest ground on which I am resolued that my Fayth is reuealed is the credit and authority of Christ Iesus his Apostles who deliuered the same as Diuine and Sacred But the highest ground that moueth me to belieue that my fayth was (c) The Mynister and especially the Bishops Chaplin pag. 16. 17. charge the Answerer to resolue fayth of the Scriptures being the word of God into only Tradition This is a slaūder for he doth distinguish expresly in scripture the being preached by the Apostles from the being reuealed of God or his word This second property is spirituall and hidden and belieued not vpon Tradition from the Apostles directly but vpon the word of the Apostles so affirming confirmed with the testimony of miracles wrought by the Holy GHOST but to be preached and planted in the world was a publike sensible thing so is knowne by Tradition hand to hād from the Apostles Thus the Church as belieuing her doctrine to be true is built vpon God as belieuing her doctrine to be of God is built on the Apostles as belieuing her doctrine to be the Apostles is built on the Tradition of Pastours succeeding them The ground and pillar of Truth by office as our Minister graunts pag. 9. lin 5. preached by the Apostles is the perpetual tradition of the Church succeding the Apostles that so teacheth me Into this principle (d) Aug. cont epist. Fund cap. 5. Saint Augustine resolued his fayth agaynst the Manichees who pretended that the Scriptures of the new Testament had been corrupted confuting them by the Tradition of the Church affirming That he would not belieue the Ghospell did not the Authority of the Catholike Church induce him assigning this as the last stay of his resolution in this point For though he belieued the Gospell to be soueraignely certaine and true vpon the authority of God reuealing it and that it was reuealed of God vpon the authority of the Apostles who as Sacred preached it yet that this Ghospell as we haue it came incorrupt from the Apostles he could haue no stronger or more (e) The Minister forced by this testimony graūteth two things which ouerthrow his cause first pa. 22. l. 13.14 that Nouices and simple persons ground their fayth on the authority of the Church as also Field graunteth appendix part 1. pag. 11. now I assume But the fayth of Nouices is sauing fayth as S. Aug. there sayth contra Epist. Fundamenti c. 2. and cōsequently their fayth is diuine Ergo sauing supernaturall fayth is grounded on the authority of the Church Secondly he graunts pag. 23. lin 2. 3. that The Church as including the Apostles can proue the Scripture whence it is cōsequent that the Scriptures are not principles knowne by themselues but haue another higher diuine principle by which they are proued The Church comprehending the Apostles being as Protestāts grāt Field l. 4. of Church c. 21. of greater authority then Scripture excellent proofe then the testimony of the present Church descending by the cōtinuall succession of Bishops from the Apostles Neyther can we imagine an higher except we fly to particular priuate reuelation which is absurd The second Argument SECONDLY I proue that common vnlearned people the greatest part of Christianity are persuaded about all substantiall points of fayth by Tradition not by Scripture Common vnlearned people haue true Christian fayth in all points necessary and sufficient vnto saluation but they haue not fayth of all these mayne and substantiall points grounded on Scripture for they can neyther vnderstand nor read any Scripture but translated into vulgar languages so if they belieue vpon Scrpture they belieue vpon Scripture translated into their Mother tongue but before that they can know that the Scriptures are truly translated euen in all substantiall points that so they may build on it they must first know what are the mayne and substantiall points (f) To this proofe that Christians belieue their Creed more firmely then any translation the Minister hath not answered one word nor can answere for it is conuincing as appeares by this syllogisme Perswasion more certayne and firme cannot be grounded on perswasion lesse firme and certayne Such as are true Christians belieue the articles of their Creed more firmely then they do that Scriptures are truly translated into their vulgar tongue Ergo True Christians do not build their Fayth of the Creed on Scripture translated but on doctrine knowne to be the Apostles formerly and more firmely then that Scripture is truly translated firmely belieue them so that they would not belieue the Scriptures translated agaynst them For if they know them not before how can they know that Scriptures in places that concerne them are truly translated If they doe not before hand firmely belieue them why should they be ready to allow translations that agree with them and to reiect the translations that differ from thē Ergo (g) The Minister pag. 26. sayth That Ignorant men resolue their faith into Scripture yet not into Scripture so distinctly knowne as they can tel the names of the seuerall Bookes Authours and Sections and so they resolue implicitly not explicitly This is idle For if they know the doctrine of the Scripture because it is written though they know not the name of the booke nor number of the Chapter Verse nor the formall text what groūd firmer thē their Creed haue they this to belieue originally before they know any Scripture they haue fayth grounded on the Traditiōs of Ancestors by the light wherof they are able to iudge of the truth of Translations about such substantiall points as they firmely belieue by Traditiō And this is that which Protestants must meane if they haue any true meaning when they say that the common People know Scriptures to be truly translated by the (h) The Minister is forced to fly to a found paradoxe confuted already That vnlearned Rusticks know the Scripture to be Gods word by the matter and forme of the bookes and by seing the resplendent verity of the doctrine pag. 28. lin 3. He addeth lin 7. That they which actually resolue their fayth into the doctrine of Scriptur do virtually mediatly resolue the same into the very Scripture though they know not that it is written in Scripture This is friuolous and false For the Pagan and Infidells that know hony to be sweet and taken in abundance to be hurtfull should virtually resolue their persuasion into the very Scripture because they actually belieue a thing affirmed in Scripture Prou. 25. 27. Yea the Iew belieuing that Christ was crucified belieues a doctrine of Scripture doth he therefore resolue and build virtually vpon Scripture No. That one build on Scripture it is not
inough to know actually some doctrine which is in Scripture but he must know that it is in Scripture and belieue the Scripture â—o be the word of God but ignorant persons cannot know infallibly Scriptures to be the word of God truly translated further then they find them conforme to the doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of the Church Therfore they build their Fayth finally vpon Tradition not vpon Scripture truly translated light of the doctrine shining in true Translations to wit by the light of the doctrine receiued by Tradition of Ancestors and thereupon so firmely belieued as they will acknowledge Scriptures to be truly translated so far and no further then they perceyue them consonant with the fayth deliuered vnto them so that their last and finall resolution for substantiall points is not into Scriptures truly translated into their vulgar tongue but into Tradition by the light whereof they discerne that the Translations are true more or lesse according to the measure of knowledge they haue by Tradition The third Argument IF all the mayne and substantiall poynts of Christian Fayth must be knowne and firmely belieued before we can securely read and truly vnderstand the Holy Scripture then the mayne and substaÌ„tiall points of fayth are belieued not vpon Scripture but vpon TraditioÌ„ precedently vnto Scripture This is cleare because true fayth is not built but vpon Scripture truely vnderstood neyther can Scripture before it be truly vnderstood of a man be to him a ground of assured persuasion But we cannot vnderstand the Scripture securely and aright before we know the substantiall articles of fayth which all are bound expressely to belieue the (i) The Minister here laboureth to proue that the rule of fayth is contained in Scripture and therfore cannot be Tradition vnwritteÌ„ Which discourse is impertinent and the inference false For himselfe grants pag. 150. lin 16. that the rule of fayth is both written Tradition and vnwritten The Doctrine then of TraditioÌ„ is tearmed vnwritten not because it is no waies written but because as the Answerer sayth it is knowne by preaching precedently and independently of Scripture summary comprehensioÌ„ of which poynts is tearmed the Rule (*) Tertul. de Praescr c. 13. of fayth This is (k) The Answerer here brings three ArgumeÌ„ts that coÌ„uince that none can vnderstand Scripture securely and without danger of damnable errour that are not aforehand grounded in the substantiall articles of fayth The Minister though he professe to haue set downe the Answere Verbatim leaueth all this out and then cryeth thus agaynst the Iesuite pag. 34. circa finem That men must be first instructed in the necessary poynts of fayth before they can securedly read and interprete Scriptures is affirmed by the Iesuite but not proued Thus he What not proued The Iesuit bringes three large coÌ„uictiue proofes thereof which you because you cannot answere omit and then cry the Iesuit doth say and not proue This dealing is grosse proued by the acknowledgement of Protestans in whose name (l) D. Feild l. 3. of the Church cap. 4. D. Feild writeth in this sort We hold with the Papists that neither conference of places nor consideration of antecedentia and consequentia nor the knowledge of tongues and lookinge into the originalls â—s of any force vnlesse we find the things which we conceiue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant vnto the rule of fayth (m) D. Feild l. 4. of the Church cap. 14. 19. For who can be able to vnderstand the Scriptures but he that is setled in those things which the Apostles presupposed in their deliuery of Scripture Secondly by the experience both of all former ages and this present prouing by too many examples that such as come to reade expound Scripture without being aforehand setled by Tradition in the rule of fayth do fall into errours most damnable against the maynest articles of the Creed as the Creation of the world the blessed Trinity and the Incarnation Baptisme and other So that reading interpretation of Scripture makes not men Christians but supposeth them to be made by Tradition at the least for substantiall poynts such as euery one is bound expressely to know Thirdly we are not more able to vnderstand Scripture then were our Forefathers the auncient Doctors of the Church neither is there reason that we should so thinke of our selues but they thought themselues vnable to interprete Scripture precisely of it selfe by conference of places without the light of ChristiaÌ„ Doctrine aforehand knowne and firmely belieued vpon the Churches perpetuall Tradition from the Apostles witnes (n) Ruffinus Eccles. hist. l. 2. c. 9. S. Basill and S. Gregory Nazianzen the two grande Doctors of the Grecian Church and Origen who thus writes (o) Orig. tract in Matth. cap. 29. In our vnderstandinge of Scriptures we must not depart from the first Ecclesiasticall Tradition nor belieue otherwise but as the Church of God hath by succession deliuered to vs. Ergo no man is able to read interprete Scripture without (p) Protestants affirme as Whitaker contr 1. q. 4. c. 2. and others that no man can vnderstand Scripture that bringes not with him the light of fayth and Christian piety puras sanctas mentes which doth most euidently demonstrate that fayth about substaÌ„tial poynts is grounded on Gods word precedently vnto Scripture That persuasion which is precedent vnto the knowledg of Scripture and is the rule guiding vs in our knowledge of Scripture cannot be grounded vpon knowledge of Scripture But Christian fayth piety as they grant is precedent vnto knowledge of Scripture yea must be brought vnto the reading thereof and direct vs in it Ergo fayth is not originally grounded on Scripture the light assistance of firme Christian fayth aforehand conceiued by the voyce of the Church deliuering what by Tradition from Auncestors she receiued Whence I also conclude that it is exceeding dangerous boldnes in men of this age so to presume on their interpretations of Scriptures gotten by diligent reading and conferring of places as they care not though a (q) Luther de captiu Babyl Tom. 2. Wittenberg pag. 344. thousand of Cyprians Augustins Churches Traditions should stand against them The fourth Argument THOSE that vnderstand the Scriptures aright must be such as they were to whom the Apostles writ and deliuered the Scriptures and whose instruction they intended by their writing but the Apostles as D. (r) Lib. 4. of the Church c. 4. in the margent Feild acknowledgeth wrote to them they had formerly taught more at large that were instructed and grounded in all substantiall and necessary poynts of fayth that knew the coÌ„mon necessary obseruations of Christianity Ergo they that reade and presume to interprete the Scriptures without first knowing and firmely belieuing by tradition at the least all necessary and substantiall poynts of fayth (s) The Minister pag. 34. lin 34. chargeth the
is granted on both sides The only question is by what rule these Doctrines inuolued are vnfolded and made knowne vnto vs as articles of fayth ProtestaÌ„ts say by Scripture and the rules of Logicke and Reason Wotton Triall of the Romish c. pag 88. lin 29. and by other things besides Scripture euident in the light of nature Feild pag 281. lin 20. Catholikes hold that the rule to expound Scripture binding all men to belieue deductions as matters of fayth is not Logicke but the Tradition and definition of the Church And this Catholicke doctrin is proued First because the rule of faith must be for the capacity of vnlearned men aswell as of learned But men vnlearned cannot be sure of the virtualityes of Scripture by the rules of Logicke or Logicall deduction for they cannot vnderstand when an argument is good by the rules of Logicke Secondly the Scripture it selfe to supply her wants sendeth vs not to the rules of Logicke but vnto traditions saying 2. Thessal 2.15 Hold fast the Traditions ye haue receaued by word or our epistle They send men to the Church as to the pillar and ground of truth 1. Tim. 3.15 which whosoeuer doth not heare is as a heaâ—hen and a publican Matth. 13.5.7 Therfore by the rule of Church-Tradition not by the rules of Logicke do we learne autheÌ„tically the confessed virtualities obscurities and inuolutions of Scripture about matters of fayth Thirdly the Fathers about matters inuolued in Scripture send men not vnto Logicke but vnto Tradition auouching the same to be a rule as certaine no lesse estimable then Scripture S. Chrysostome homil 4 in 2. ad Thessal The Apostles did not deliuer all things in Scripture but some things without writing and these are as much to be credited as the written It is a Tradition this is inough seeke no more The same is taught by S. Dionysius Eccles. Hierar c. 1. Iren. l. 2. c. 2.3 4. Eusebius lib. 1. de demonst Euang. c. 8. by S. Basill de Spirit sanct c. 27. Epiphan haeres 55. 61. Aug. de Baptis li. 2. c. 7. lib. 5. c. 23. and the rest Finally we dislike the Protestant manner of controlling the Church by Scripture For on the one side they contradict the vniuersall custome and Tradition of the Church at the least and as they grant of many ages saying The Popish doctrine during the space of nine hundred yeares hath spread it selfe ouer the whole world so that an vniuersall Apostacy was ouer the whole face of the earth for many hundred yeares Perkins Exposit. of the Creed pag. 307. 400. On the other side their Arguments out of Scripture are at the most but probable and they sometimes challenge no more homini non prorsus alienato probabilior apparet Whitak contr 1. q. 5. c 8. circa finem Others alledge Scripture not with as probable colour as we doe Iohn White defence pag. 321. Yea this Minister in his Reply doth acknowledge pag. 581. That by Sophistry we giue vnto their Scripturall arguments seeming and appearing solutions Now we Catholikes thinke it to be Hereticall as S. Augustine sayth insolent madnes vpon probabilities vpon Arguments froÌ„ Scripture that receaue seeming solutions to contradict the Christian vniuersall Tradition of many hundred yeares For what the Minister saith this to be done by Sophistry is ridiculous For if to giue seeming plausible and probable solutions vnto Scripturall arguments against the full Tradition of Christianity be Sophistry what is true Theology On the other side if for men to stand against the Tradition of so many whole Christian ages vpon arguments they confesse to be probably and seemingly answered be Christianity what is hereticall Obstinacy Fifthly whereas you obiect that pag. 199. lin 6. the Fathers disputed from Scripture negatiuely agaynst Heretikes in this sort Doctrine is not cleerly deliuered in Scripture therefore it is not to be receaued as Fayth You must know that the Fathers proceed vpon a supposition that was knowne vnto all and granted by the Heretickes themselues to wit that the doctrins they disputed agaynst were not the full and publicke Tradition of the Catholike Church For seing Scripture as we haue shewed doth necessarily suppose Tradition that we may know the true text and sense thereof so likewise the Fathers when they vrge that all doctrine is to be reiected which is not in Scripture still suppose that that doctrine is not the publicke Tradition of the Church Where we must also note that the Fathers did not only require of Heretikes proofe from Scripture by way of deduction Logicall inference for such all heretiks did pretend and herewith deluded seely sots as now Protestants doe but they required of Heretikes to shew their doctrine in Scripture ipsis dictionibus sayth Irenaeus l. 2. c. 36. expressely and in tearmes and proue it not by texts sayth S. Augustine de vnitat Eccles. c. 3. which require sharpenes of wit in the auditors to iudge who doth more probably interprete them not by places quae vel interpretem quaerunt which require an interpreter and an arguer making Logicall inferences vpon the text so concluding for his purpose but by places playne manifest cleere which leaue no place to contrary exposition and that no Sophystry can wrest them to other sense to the end that Controuersyes which concerne the Saluation of soules be defined by Gods formall word and not by deductions from it according to Logicall forme For sayth S. Augustine what more vniust then Ingeniorum contentionibus causam populorum committere Hence the Fathers negatiue argument from Scripture ouerthroweth Protestant Religion for thus I argue Nothing is matter of Fayth and of necessity which is not formally and expressely reuealed by the word of God eyther written or vnwritten deliuered by full Ecclesiasticall Tradition But no Heretikes euer did nor our Protestants now do or can pretend perpetuall publicke Tradition vnwritten for their doctrins agaynst the Catholicke and Roman Church nor can they proue their Tenets ipsis dictionibus ex scriptura by Scripture auerring them in expresse tearmes Only they clayme texts which as themselues confesse receaue seeming appearing solutioÌ„s agaynst which they haue nothing to say but that this is done by Sophistry so bringing the busines of the Saluation of the world to be decided by contentioÌ„ of wit Therefore their doctrins are to be reiected as vnchristiaÌ„ Finally it is great vanity in you to thinke that the Traditions vnwritten mentioned by Fathers are conforme to your Doctrine writing as you doe pag. 46. By Tradition the Fathers vnderstand not the Fabulous dreames and inuentions of Papals who like Pharisees corrupt the right sense of Scripture by their vnwritten Tradition and affirme those thinges to be Apostolicall which agree with the confessed doctrine of the Apostles like darkenesse with light Thus you with much bitternesse and no lesse falshood For what Gerson de signis ruinae Eccles. sig 5. sayth of the heresyes of his age to wit
is sufficient for euery man seing the Apostle speakes not of euery man but expressely of him who is Homo Dei the man of God that is one already fully instructed and firmely setled by Tradition in all the mayne poynts of Christian fayth and godly life such an one as Timothy was The Scriptures for men in this manner aforetaught and grounded in fayth are abundantly sufficient who will deny it But this proueth at the most the sufficiency of the Scripture ioyned with Tradition not of Scripture alone or of onely-onely-onely Scripture as Protestants bookes in great Letters very earnestly affirme Hence also we may conclude that the (z) The Minister to proue Scriptures are cleere vnto Infidels that haue not the Spirit of fayth heapes many testimonies of Fathers that teach Scriptures in some matters to be cleere Who denyes this they are so to the faythful not vnto Infidels not vnto them that are vnsetled in the Catholike fayth yea many places he brings speake expressely only of the faythfull pious Sicut vera Religio docet accedunt as S. Augustine others by him alleadged affirme and therefore are brought impertinently to proue the sufficiency clarity of Scriptures in respect of Infidels pag. 34.35.36 many allegatiōs of Fathers which Protestants bring to proue the Scripture to be cleere in all substātiall points are impertinent because the fathers speake of mē aforehand instructed in all substantiall poynts who may by the light of Tradition easily discouer them in Scripture as they that heare Aristotle explicate himselfe by word of mouth may vnderstand his booke of nature most difficill to be vnderstood of thē that neuer heard his explicatiō either out of his owne mouth or by Tradition of his Schollers I hope I haue in the opinion of your most learned Maiesty sufficiently demonstrated this first GROVND of Catholicke fayth to wit That a Christian is originally and fundamentally builte vpon the word of God not as written in Scriptures but as deliuered by Tradition of the Church successiuely from the Primitiue vpō the authority wherof we belieue that both Scriptures and all other substantiall articles of fayth were deliuered by the Apostles thence further ascending inferring they came from Christ and so from God the prime veracity author of truth THE SECOND GROVND That there is a visible Church alwaies in the world to whose Traditions men are to cleaue That this Church is One Vniuersall Apostolicall Holy §. 3. THIS principle is consequent vpon the former out of which six things may be clerly proued First that there is alwaies a true (a) The Minister still cōeth forth with his distinctiō that by Church we may vnderstand a Hierarchy of mitred prelates thē he denyes that there is still a church teaching the truth in the world Secondly for a number of belieuers smaller or greater teaching and professing the right sayth in all substantial points then he grants there is still a true Church of Christ in the world This distinction so much repeated specially pag. 57. and 58. is impertinēt for by Church we vnderstād not euery small number of right belieuers but a Christian multitude of such credit and authority as vpon her tradition we may be sure what Scriptures doctrines were the Apostles For this is a fundamentall pointe necessary to be knowne that so we may know what Doctrine is of God and it cannot be knowne but by Tradition of the Church as hath bene proued Now whether this Church be Mitred or not Mitred goe in Blacke or in White or in Scarlet doth little import Let the Minister but shew vs a Church that hath euident Tradition of Doctrine hand to hand frō the Apostles we will say she is the true Church though she haue no Surplisse or Miter but be as precise as Geneua it selfe but if there be no Church in the world but this Hierarchy of Mitred Prelates whose Tradition hand to hand can assure men which be the Scriptures and doctrines of Religiō deliuered by the Apostles men ought not to beare such spleen against a Miter or Corner-Cap or Surplisse as in respect of them to fly from the Church that onely hath Catholicke Tradition from the Apostles Church of Christ in the world for if there be no meanes for men to know that Scriptures and all other substantiall Articles came from Christ and his Apostles and so consequently from God but the Tradition of the Church then there must needes be in all ages a Church receiuing and deliuering these Traditions els men in some age since Christ should haue bene destitute of the (b) The Minister pa. 59. lin 15. sayth A corrupt Church may deliuer vncorruptly some part of sacred truth as the Scripture and Creed by which men may be saued Answer We may conceaue two wayes of deliuering an incorrupt text The one Casuall by chance and so a corrupt Church yea a Iew an Infidell a child may deliuer an vncorrupt Copy of the Bible The other Authentike assuring the receauer this to be the incorrupt text of the Apostles Scripture and binding him so to belieue This Authentik and irrefragable Tradition cannot be made by a false Church erring in her Traditiōs as is cleer Now it is necessary to saluation that men not only Casually haue the true Scripture but must be sure that the text therof be incorrupt Therfore ther must be stil a Church in the world whose Tradition is Authentike that is a sufficient warrant vpon which men must belieue Doctrines to come from the Apostles ordinary meanes of saluation because they had not meanes to know assuredly the substantiall Articles of Christianity without assured Fayth wherof no man is saued Secondly this Church must be alwaies (c) The Minister pag. 61. lin 15 lin 26. obiects that in time of persecution the true Church may be reputed an impious sect by the multitude and so not be knowne by the notion of True and Holy nor can her truth be discerned by sense and common reason I answere As there are foure properties of Church-doctrin so likewise there are foure notions of the Church The first is to be Mistresse of the sauing truth According to this notion the Church is inuisible to the naturall vnderstanding both of men and Angels For God only his Blessed see our Religion to be the truth The second is to be Mistresse of Doctrine truly reuealed by secret inspiration According to this notion ordinarily speaking the Church is inuisible to almost all men that are or euer were the Apostles onely and the Prophets excepted The third to be Mistresse of Doctrine which Christ and his Apostles by their Miraculous preaching planted in the world According to this notion the Church was visible to the first and Primitiue world but now is not The fourth to be Mistresse of Catholike doctrine that is of doctrine deliuered and receaued by full Tradition and profession all the aduersaryes therof being vnder the name of
ad com Philip. in 1. ad Corinth This may conuince our Minister that his allegations be of no credit and that Iudgement of the Sanctity of a Church is not to be made by the report of zealous complaint but by the euidence of sight ruled by vnpartiall search By which rule one may find in the Catholike Cleargy thousands and thousands that shew admirable charity specially in conuerting Infidells yea that winne the glorious crowne of Angelicall Chastity for which they would neuer haue striuen had not the Church bound them thereunto So that if human infirmity by occasiō of this law make some men impure that otherwise perchance in marriage would haue beene chast so the Grace of God by the same occasiō worketh in innumerable Angelical Saints who had neuer beene such but for the Churches exaction And this haruest makes full recompence for that losse specially seing also many of such delinquents be not lost but saued by Pennance yea become more excellent Saints then they had beene had they neuer fallen Chastity Obedience Charity in vndergoing labours for the help of soules Fortitude in suffering of heroycall Martyrdomes Zeale and Patience in the rough and rigorous treaty of their bodyes by miraculous fasting another austerityes This sanctity shineth not in all children of the Church but in her more eminent preachers professours Which kind of sanctity togeather with miracles if the Church did want she could not be a sufficiēt witnes of the truth vnto Infidells who commonly neuer begin to affect admire Christianity but vpon the sight of such wōders of Sanctity other extraordinary works Holy for doctrine in regard her Traditions be diuine and holy without any mixture of errour For if the Church could deliuer by consent of Ancestours togeather with truth some Errours her Traditions euen about truth were questionable could not be belieued vpon the warrāt of her traditions for who can without danger and securely feed on that dish that may aswell containe poyson as wholsome sustenance And whereas some Protestants affirme that the Church cannot erre in fundamentall points but only in thinges of lesse moment the truth is that in perpetuall Traditions she cannot erre at all If the Tradition of the Church deliuering a small thing as receyued from the Apostles may be false one may call into question her Traditions of moment For like as if we admit in the Scripture errours in small matters we cannot be sure of its infallibility in substātial matters So likewise if we graunt Traditions perpetuall to be false in things of lesse importance we haue no solide ground to defend her Traditions as assured in others of moment Wherfore as he that should say Gods written word is false in some lesse matters as when it sayes S. Paul left his Cloake at Troas erreth fundamentally by reason of the consequence which giues occasion to doubt of euery thing in Scripture euen so he that graunteth that some part of Traditions or of the word of God vnwritten may be false erreth substantially because he giueth cause to doubt of any Tradition which yet as I haue shewed is the prime and originalll ground of Faith more (q) The Minister heere rayleth largely lustily tearming this assertion impudent Antichristian prophane bastardly c. yet the assertion is euident truth his reasons agaynst it are of no force For they goe not agaynst the assertion but proue another thing to wit the excellency of Scripture which none denyes For Tradition Scripture according to different cōparisons are equall superiour the one to the other Compare them in respect of certainty of truth they are equal as the Councell of Trent defineth sess 4. both being the word of God the one Written the other Vnwritten and so both infinitly certayne Compare them in respect of depth sublimity and variety of doctrine the Scripture is farre superiour vnto Tradition Tradition being playne and easy doctrine concerning the common capitall and practicall articles of Christianity wheras the Scripture is full of high hidden senses and furnisht with great variety of examples discourses and all manner of erudition Aug. Epist. 3. Compare them in respect of priority and euidence of being the Apostles the Scripture is posteriour vnto Tradition in tyme and knowledge and cannot be proued directly to be the Apostles therfore Gods but by Tradition as sometime not only Fathers but euen Protestants afffirme As Philosophy is more perfect then Logicke and Rhetoricke then Grammer in respect of high excellēt knowledge yet Logike is more prime originall fundamentall then Philosophy Grammer then Rhetoricke without the rules and principles wherof they cannot be learned Euen so Tradition is more prime and originall then Scripture though Scripture in respect of depth and sublimity of discourse be more excellent then Tradition fundamentall then the very Scripture which is not knowne to be Apostolicall but by Tradition wheras a perpetuall Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by its owne light For what more euident thē that that is from the Apostles which is deliuered as Apostolicall by perpetuall succession of Bishops consenting therein The Propertyes of the Church proued by Matth. 28.20 §. 4. ALL this may be cleerly prooued to omit other pregnant testimonyes by the words of our Sauiour in the last of S. Matthew Going into the world teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to keepe all that I haue commanded you and behold I am with you all dayes euen to the consummation of the world A (r) The Minister pag. 195. lin 4. sayth that this promise is conditionall in repect of Pastours succeeding the Apostles to wit that Christ will assist them conditionally whē they teach and baptize as he hath commanded but that they shall so still teach he doth not promise p. 24. lin 28. This exposition is false first because our Sauiour here promiseth his Presence vnto the Apostles and their successours to baptize and teach vntill the worlds end by one and the same forme of speach and indiuiduall breath so that the promise cannot be conditionall in respect of the successors except it be also conditionall in respect of the Apostles But in respect of the Apostles the promise is absolute as the Minister grants pag. 94. lin 23. Therefore it is also absolute in respect of their successors Not that this or that Pastour may not be deceaued but that they shall neuer deliuer by ioynt consent any falshood as the Apostles doctrine Secondly if the promise be conditionall then the sense is this I will alwayes assist you to teach Christen aright when you teach christen according to my commandement as the Minister expounds pag. 94. lin 22. But this sense is idle and iust nothing as if Christ had sayd Behold I will assist you to teach aright when you teach aright for what is to teach Christian Religion aright but to
sent vnto Protestants and by them printed Respons 2. De Inuocatione Sanctorum They defend Transubstantiation ibid. resp 1. c. 13. Communion in one kind for the sicke Gilbert Genebrard de ritibus Graecorum Secondly concerning primacy of Iurisdiction they hold that Christ did institute Monarchicall primacy in Peter Theophilact in cap. 21. Ioan. That the Romā Bistop for many ages lawfully succeeded Peter in this Primacy Ignatius Constantinopolitan Epist. ad Nicolaum primum That the Roman Bishop lost this primacy for holding the Procession of the Holy Ghost from God the Sonne that therefore this primacy is now in the Patriarke of Constantinople Michael Constant. apud Sigeb in Chron. an 1064. Is this Protestancy in substance Thirdly it is great indiscretion I speake with the least to affirme as our Minister doth that the Graeciās deny sacrifice for the dead with which doctrine no authour Catholike or Protestant euer charged them And they in their foresayd censure resp 1. c. 12. professe the contrary saying We hold that by the sacrifice of the Masse and Almesdeedes the dead are relieued yea Doctour Field Appendix part 1. pag. 30. accuseth some of them for holding Sacrifice not only for them that dyed in pennāce with sinnes of infirmity but also for them that dyed in damnable state Finally concerning marriages of Priests they hold that such as are marryed before Holy Orders may still keep cōpany with their wiues which the Church of Rome alloweth in them But the Protestant liberty of marrying after Holy Orders that not only once but if their wiues dye twise thrise yea as often as they please This the Graecians detest in the foresayd Censure Resp. 1. c. 21. So that the Minister was in great penury of Professours before Luther that is forced to name Graecians as Protestants according to kind For he might aswell haue named the Pope himselfe Waldenses not Protestants for Essence and Kind Concerning the Waldenses they were not Protestants according to kind but rather Anabaptists vnto whome Protestants are so vnkind as they burne them as Heretikes They were not Protestants For as all report as may be seene in Illyricus Catal. Test. pag. 1498. the most essentiall doctrine of the Waldenses was their extolling the merit of voluntary pouerty preaching the same so rigorously as they held all Ministers to be damned that haue rents and possessions and that the Church perished vnder Syluester and Constantine through the poyson of temporall goods which Cleargy-men then began to enioy as they sayd agaynst the Law of God I am sure none that know Protestants will thinke this doctrine of pouerty and giuing away all to the poore to be the Essence or so much as an Accidence of their Religion In respect of this their head-heresy about Pouerty the Waldenses are named the Poore-men of Lyons and were sayd by Reynerius cited by the Minister pag. 130. to haue beene euer since Siluester or the Apostles and that they were much applauded in the world to wit as I sayd only in regard of this Heresy about pouerty held anciently by the Heretikes tearmed Apostolici not in respect of other errours or doctrines wherein they agree with Protestants And so Protestants labour in vayne by Waldensians and the Apostolici to bring their pedegree from the Apostles Besides the Waldensians held these Anabaptisticall errours which are set downe by Illyricus in Catalogo Testium pag. 1502. seq out of Reynerius an authour of those tymes whome he tearmes candidum sincerum sincere and vnpartiall That children are not to be baptized baptisme being of no vse for them seing they do not belieue That there is no difference betwixt Bishopps and Priests nor betwixt Laymen and priests That the Apostles were meere Laymen That euery Layman that is vertuous is priest may consecrate preach administer Sacramēts That a woman pronouncing the words in the vulgar tongue doth consecrate yea transubstantiate bread into the body of Christ That it is mortall sinne to sweare in any case That the Magistrates secular and Ecclesiasticall being in mortall sinne loose their office and that no man is to obey them Indeed Illyricus pag. 1514. 1525. in fine sayth that this last errour is falsly layd to the charge of the Waldēsiās by Reynerius which he proues because AEneas Syluius in his Catalogue of their doctrine makes no mentiō of this But he is grossely deceaued two wayes First because Reynerius liuing in that tyme and being Inquisitour could know their errors better then Syluius Nor can we suspect his fidelity being as Illyricus doth acknowledge sincerus candidus sincere and vnpartiall towardes Waldensians Secondly AEneas Syluius in his Catalogue set downe by Illyricus euen in that very pag. 1525. a little before the middle chargeth the Waldēsiās expressely with this doctrine agaynst Magistracy Qui mortalis culpae reus sit eū neque Saeculari neque Ecclesiastica dignitate potiri nec parendū ei esse Finally the Waldensians held it not necessary to professe their fayth yea that they might deny it go to Masse celebrate and do outward acts of Idolatry This euen Illyricus pag. 1508. doth acknowledge to haue beene a fault in them but he sayth they may haue beene saued by repentance This is an idle shift for how could they repent themselues of that which they held not to be sinne How could they be the true Church wherein saluation is found who held such damnable doctrine as if they did not repent themselues thereof they are certainly damned so that it is extreme beggary in Protestants to begge of these Beggars of Lyons to be their Professours for the tyme before Luther who were euen by Protestant acknowledgement much more poore and voyd of true religion then of temporall wealth That Protestants not being able to cleere themselues to be the visible Church do vainely appeale vnto Scripture for their doctrine The Minister not trusting to the former answere and feeling in conscience that it is impossible that Protestants should shew their Church to haue beene visible before Luther sayth pag. 105. That this notwithstanding if Protestants be able to demonstrate by Scripture that they maintayne the same fayth and Religion which the Apostles taught this alone is sufficient to prooue them to be the true Church I answere they that cānot by marks of the Church set downe in Scripture cleere themselues to be the visible Church do idly appeale to Scripture in respect of doctrine their promises to shew the particular points of their Religion by Scripture are idle This I demōstrate by 3. Arguments First eyther Scriptures can cleere end all cōtrouersies of Religiō or they cannot If they cannot appealing vnto them hath no other end but that contention may be without end If they can cleere all controuersies then they can cleere the controuersy which is the true Church shewing markes and signes whereby the same may be cleerly knowne And if they can cleere this cōtrouersy thē it is reason this be cleared in
the first place For as Protestants acknowledge the particular examination of doctrines is tedious and long not for the capacity of all whereas the finding out of the true Church endeth all controuersyes seeing we may securely follow her directions and rest in her Iudgement Field Epist. dedicat Secondly what more idle and vayne then to appeale from Scripture setting downe matters cleerly vnto Scripture teaching thinges obscurely or not so cleerly what is this but to appeale from light to darkenes or at the least from noone day to twy-light But no particular point of doctrin is in holy Scripture so manifestly set down as is the Church the marks whereby the same may be knowne no matter about which the Scripturs are more copious and cleere then about visibility perpetuity amplitude the Church was to haue so that as S. Augustine sayth Scriptures are more cleere about the Church then euen about Christ. in Psalm 30. concion 2. That Scripture in this poynt is so cleere that by no shift of false interpretation it can be auoyded the impudency of any forhead that will stand agaynst this euidence is confounded de vnit Eccles. c. 5. That it is prodigious blindnes not to see which is the true Church Tract 1. in 1. Epist. Ioan. That the Church is the tabernacle placed in the Sunne that it cannot be hidden vnto any but such as shut their eyes against it l. 2. cont Petilian c. 32. What vanity then is it for Protestants not being able to cleere by Scripture the cleerest of all points to appeale vnto the prouing of their doctrine by more darke or lesse euident places Thirdly if no man can directly know which be the Scriptures the Apostles deliuered but by the Tradition of the Catholike Church then it is vayne before they decide this controuersy to vndertake to proue by Scriptures what doctrine the Apostles taught For how can Scripture make me know what the Apostles taught vnlesse I know aforehand the Scriptures to be the Apostles I may see this or that doctrine deliuered in the Scripture shewed me as the Apostles but I cannot know that doctrin to be the Apostles except I know aforehand the booke to be the Apostles but this cannot be proued but by the Tradition of the Church I omit many other arguments wherby this shift may be conuinced to be but flying from the light of Gods word about the visible Church For as sayth Saint Augustine l. 1. contra Crescon cap. 33. God would haue his Church to be described in Scripture without any ambiguity as cleere as the beames of the Sunne that the controuersy about the true Church being cleerly decided when questions about particular doctrines that are obscure arise we might fly to her and rest in her iudgement that this visibility is a manifest signe wherby euen the rude and ignorant may discerne the true Church from the false Augustine l. 13. cont Faust. c. 13. must eyther be the Roman or the Protestant or some other opposite vnto both Protestants cannot say a Church opposite vnto both for then they should be condemned in their owne Iudgement and bound to conforme themselues to that Church which can be no other but the Grecian a Church holding almost as many if not more doctrines which Protestāts dislike thē doth the Church of Rome as I can demonstrate if need be It is also most manifest vndenyable that Protestants are not such nor part of such a Church since their Reuolt and separation from the Romane seing confessedly they changed their doctrines they once held forsooke the body wherof they were members brake off from the stocke of that tree wherof they were branches Neyther did they depart from the Roman ioyne themselues with any Church professing their particular doctrines dissonant from it Ergo the Roman is the one holy Catholike Apostolicall Church The second Argument THIS also plainly will appeare to any man of vnderstanding that will cast on the Roman Church an vnpartiall eye For she is most euidently Apostolicall hauing most glorious successiō of Bishops Pastours famous in all (x) The Minister p. 116. lin 9. sayth that it is incōsequent to inferre negatiuely from humane history to say historyes are silent therfore no such matter I answere Hēce one may feele euen with his hand what an vnconsequent and absurd Religion theirs is which cannot stand without denying principles euident in common reason receaued by consent of mankind for who doth not feele that to argue from humane history thus negatiuely they are silent Therfore there neuer was any such matter is many times conuincing and strong This some Protestants more iudicious then our Minister acknowledge who thus write It is most playne that euen negatiuely an argument from humane authority may be strong as namely this The Chronicles of England mention no more then only six Kings bearing the name of Edward since the tyme of the last Cōquest therfore it cannot be there should be more It is true men are ignorant many things may escape them they may be deceaued they may conceale truth or vtter vntruth out of malice they may forget what they know Howbeit INFINITE CASES are wherin all these impediments are so MANIFESTLY excluded as there is no shew or colour wherby any such exception may be taken Thus M. Hooker Eccles. Policy pag. 115. 116. Now amongst these cases wherein the negatiue argument from Tradition and history is strong the chiefest is when the matter is famous and illustrious and there is a line and succession of chiefe Bishops Princes Persons notoriously knowne euen to the particularityes of their names actions dayes of their raygne and death Wherfore it is idle what the Minister pag. 230. brings agaynst this that we know not who was the first that eate mans flesh nor when the Assyrian matrons did first prostitute themselues in the temple of Venus For no wonder we know not such things seing we haue not a lineall history of these times as we haue of other times specially since the comming of Christ. For lineall history concerning illustrious matters is both affirmatiuely negatiuely strong yea more strong negatiuely then affirmatiuely The reason is because it is not so impossible that men with full report should vent an vntruth as that they should be by full cōsent silent about a most illustrious truth men being in such cases more prone to report then to conceale For example should one contest that some of our Kings since the Conquest set vp Images in al Churches of England the Country being before that tyme pure Protestant might not such an impudent writer be conuinced of madnes by negatiue history And why But because there is a most notorious line of our Kings since the last Conquest and their names actions dayes of their raygne and deathes most famously knowne In the same manner there being a line of Popes so conspicuously knowne as nothing more from Peter vnto Vrban they eight what
be proued that she departed from her selfe that is froÌ„ the mother originall doctrines deliuered by the Apostles But she cannot (l) Heere the Minister pag. 128. agayne repeateth his saying that negatiue arguments from humane history are vnconsequent which his saying as hath beene shewed is agaynst the consent of mankind His arguments against this ground of perpetuall Ecclesiasticall Tradition knowne by notorious fame of history are by him named foure but the fourth coÌ„taines foure branches and so they are eight which I will set downe answere First it is not absolutely necessary that the humane history of all matters should be composed Answere There being a cleere lineal succession of Princes and Prelates from the Apostles famously particulrely knowne it is impossible but that historicall TraditioÌ„ eyther written or vnwritten should deliuer most notoriously the substantiall matters of fact done since that time These matters are such as cause great changes in the world as in Ciuill affayres the setting vp the pulling down and changing of renowned Kingdomes States â—n the affayres of the Church the beginnings of ReligioÌ„ the most famous Pastors thereof the conuersions of great Nations the springing vp of heresies poteÌ„t sects their preuailing their being resisted their ouerthrow and commonly also the names of their principall renowned Patrons â—hese illustrious thinges when there is particular Tradition euen to the very names of persons can not be hidden Secondly when history is written it causeth only humane fayth Answer Humane history made by meere human writers and preachers concerning humane and naturall thinges breedes only humayne fayth but Ecclesiasticall Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles made by the Pastours of the Church consecrated to that end by the holy Ghost deliuering diuine reuealed thinges being infallible breedes not only human Fayth but is eleuated by the concurrence of diuine Authority towardes the production of Diuine Fayth as hath beene sayd Thirdly historyes may totally perish and be suppressed or corrupted by the enemies of truth Answere Concerning substantiall renowned matters which are knowne not only by report but also by their permanent effects it is impossible that fame and Tradition should be suppressed or corrupted so long as there is a visible Church in the world For example Arius his doctrine Luthers occasion of changing from the Roman Church King Henryes breach with the Pope and the cause thereof can neuer be suppressed by the ennemyes of truth so long as there shall be a famous Christian Church in the world though about this or that circumstance that are not so notorious questions are mooued and new may arise Fourthly history may be repugnnant to history Answere This cannot be about the substance of the narration when the matters thereof are in manner aforesayd illustrious to wit when they are not only declared by full report but also declare themselues by effects though in circumstaÌ„ce there may be variety of reports Fiftly euen the Papists teach that the principal monuments of antiquity to wit the â—ncient Councells haue not beene faythfully preserued Answere Auncient Geneâ—all Councells concerning the substance of their definitions which they â—id principally intend are and euer were famously knowne yea Tradiâ—â—on hath made the fame of them immortall and incorruptible so long as a visible professing Church shall be in the world Heretikes may endeaâ—our to misreport and corrupt Councells as also they do Scriptures but â—hey neuer could preuayle as concerning any substantiall matter Sixtly many things suppositious haue beene added to the workes of the ancient 〈◊〉 bastardly bookes passe vnder the tytles of Fathers Answere As though also there haue not beene many suppositious bookes vrged as Scripture by Heretikes to wit the Ghospells of Peter of Thomas of Bartholomew Doe not the most ancient Fathers namely the Councell of Carthage S. Augustine receyue some bookes of Scripture to the number of 12. which Protestants partly Caluinists partly LutheraÌ„s reiect Must we therfore refuse triall by Scripture No It is sufficieÌ„t that we haue by most certayne TraditioÌ„ innumerable works that are vndeniably ancient though question be mooued about some which therefore cannot be vrged till they be knowne to be ancient Seauenthly the Papists being a part purge alter such records Answere This is vntruth we purge not any of the bookes of the ancient as any may see with his eyes that will take the paynes to read our Index Expurgatorius set forth by the Protestant Iunius and compare the Expurgations with the bookes Eightly the Papists despise and contemne Historians as Eusebius Sozomen Socrates when they are agaynst their Tenet Answere When good Historians do not agree the matter caÌ„not be certayne but must be decided by coÌ„iÌ„ecture which doth neuer happeÌ„ about the substance of famous facts that by effects made themselues notorious to the world When historians are singular they may be reiected specially when the authours are otherwise heretikes and the narrations wherein they be singular fauour their heresyes Thus Eusebius being an Arrian is not trusted in some narrations agaynst others historians concerning Constantine that seeme to fauour Arrianisme Socrates and Sozomen being Nouatians are not easily credited in singular narrations in the behalfe of their Sect Though as I sayd concerning matters illustrious facts which make themselues euident to mankind by effects as are the changing of ChristiaÌ„ Religion ouer the world resistance made agaynst all open and notorious sects and who were the resisters who the resisted such difference is neuer found about substance but only in circumstance And only this Tradition of the Church concerning these kinds of notorious matter which is as cleerly Apostolicall as the sunne is bright at Noone day we make the ground of our beliefe that our Roman Religion hath not beene changed since the Apostles be proued to haue changed her doctrine since the Apostles by any monuments of History or Antiquity yea the contrary in my Iudgement may be most euidently proued in this sort The doctrines that were for diuers ages vniuersally receyued in the Christian Church and no time of their beginning is assignable must be doctrines vnchanged comming from the Apostles But it is most cleere (m) Because this matter is stifly not to say outfacingly denyed by the Minister pa. 129. 134. behold the very words of Protestants D. Hutterus Luthers successour in the chayre of Wittenberge de sacrificio Missatico pag. 377. I willingly acknowledge that the Roman Idolary whose pyth is the sacrifice of the Masse did occupy in manner the whole world specially for the last thousand yeares Hospinian the successour of Zwinglius in his chayre superintendency Hist. Sacram pa. 1. pag. 157. In the age of Gregory the Great that is more then a thousand yeares agoe all maÌ„ner of popish Idolatry superstition as a mayne sea ouerwhelmed and drowned in manner the whole world no man making resistance agaynst it Simon de Voyoâ— a Geneuian Minister and of Caluins schoole in his
Catalogue of Doctours in his Epistle to the Reader sayth In the yeare 605. more then a thousand yeares agoe falshood preuayled and then was the whole world ouerwhelmed in the dreggs of Antichristian filthines abominable Traditions and superstitions of the Pope M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed pag. 307. 400. sayth During the space of Nine hundred yeares the Popish Heresy hath spread it selfe ouer the whole world and for many hundred yeares an vniuersall Apostacy ouerspread the whole face of the earth so that our Protestant Church was not then visible to the world M. Fulke treatise agaynst Stapleton and Martiall pag. 25. The Pope hath blinded the world these many hundred yeares some say 900. some 1000. some 1200. Mayster Napier Reuelat. pag. 64. 101. The Antichristian and Papisticall raygne beganne about the yeare 316. after Christ raigning vniuersally without debatable contradiction Gods true Church abiding certainly bidden and latent confessed by the Proteâ—tants whose testimonies plentifull in this behalfe if need require shall be brought First that the doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestants refuse haue byn vniuersally receyued for many ages a thousand yeares at least euer since Boniface the third Secondly that Protestants cannot tell the tyme when the Church of Rome began to change and deuiate from the Apostolicall doctrine deliuered by succession Ergo the Roman Church neuer changed her fayth so that her doctrines are to be receaued as Apostolicall if the Maior of the first argument be true to wit that (n) The Minister pag. 15. sayth The Iesuite conueyeth into S. Augustins proposition certayne wordes to wit doctrines vniuersally receiued c. which are not found in S. Augustine for this Father did neuer allow that the vniuersall Church belieue any doctrin of faith not coÌ„maÌ„ded in Scripture I answere The wordes of S. Augustine will discouer the Minister what he is for these they are formally in the place cited by the Iesuite l. 5. de baptis c. 23. Many things are Held by the Vniuersall Church therefore are TRVLY belieued to haue beene COMMANDED by the Apostles though they be NOT WRITTEN Thus he And though there be no doctrine which may not be in some sort proued by Scripture and deriued from thence by coÌ„sequence yet this Logicall Deduction doth not suffice to make doctrines to be vniuersally matters of fayth except they be also deliuered expresly by Tradition or the word of God vnwritten as hath been often shewed in this Reioynder doctrines vniuersally receyued whose beginning are not knowne are to be belieued as Apostolicall And what more true this being a principle set downe by S. Augustine lib. 4. de Baptism cont Donat. c. 6. lib. 5. cap. 23. allowed by Doctour Whitguift late Archbishop of Canterbury Defence pag. 351. 352. who in his booke written by publike authority agaynst Puritans citing diuers Protestants as concurring in opinion with him sayth Whatsoeuer opinions are not known to haue begunne since the Apostles tyme the same are not new or secundary but receyued their originall from the Apostles But because this principle of Christian Diuinity brings in as M. Cartwright there alleadged speaketh all Popery in the Iudgment of all men I will further demonstrate the same though of it selfe cleere inough The spirit of Christ or Christ by his spirit being still with the Church cannot permit errours in fayth so to creepe into the church as they grow irreformable eueÌ„ by the principles of christianity but if errours could so creepe into the church as their beginning could not be known since the Apostles and neuer be espyed till they be vniuersally receaued then errour could so creepe into the Church preuayle that by the principles of christianity they are irreformable This I prooue because errors 〈◊〉 (o) The Minister sayth that the errours of the Pharisees were vniuersally receaued in the Iewish Church and yet reformed by our Sauiour I answere First his desire to make our ReligioÌ„ like the Pharisees makes him fashion vnto the Pharisees a Religion of his owne head as if he had neuer read the Ghospell For the Traditions of the Pharisies were certaine practises of piety inuented by themselues deducted by their skill from Scripture wherby they would seeme singularly religious non sicut caeteri hominum Secondly Christ Iesus prouing himselfe to be true God might reforme errours vniuersally receaued the Church of the Iewes falling erect a new Church of Christians as he did But this is lawfull for no man eyther before or since For Christian Religion must continue vntill the worlds end by vertue of the first Tradition therof neuer interrupted without extraordinary and Propheticall beginning by immediate reuelation miracles and so if errours be deliuered by the full consent of Christian Tradition they are irreformable irreformable by the Principles of â—hristianity when whosoeuer vndertakes 〈◊〉 reforme them is by the Principles of â—hristianity to be condemned as an Hereâ—â—ke But he that will vndertake to reâ—orme doctrines vniuersally receaued by â—he church opposeth agaynst the whole Church and therfore is by the most receaâ—ed and knowne principle of Christianity and Christs owne direct precept to be accounted as an (p) The Minister sayth that one man may oppose the whole Church and oppugne her errours by Scripture and not be as an Heathen or Heretike For not euery one that opposeth the Church is to be accounted an Heathen but only such as in ordinatly and without iust cause oppugne it Thus he pag. 136. I answere By this doctrine euery particular man is made examiner of the whole Church and her iudge and Hellish Confusion brought into Christendome If agaynst the sentence of perpetuall vniuersall Tradition a priuate maÌ„ may without Heresy pretende Scripture stand stifly therin and though the Church giue seeming appearing answeres vnto his Scriptures yet coÌ„demne her saying these answeres are sophisticall as our Minister doth p. 581. what can be more disorderly or what is hereticall obstinacy if this be not Wherfore S. August epist. 48. sayth absolutly it is impossible men should haue iust cause to depart and impugne the whole ChristiaÌ„ Church adding nos cerâ—ò scimus herof we Christians are sure And why but because it is a ruled Christian case He that heareth not the Church is an Heretike Heathen and Publican Matth. 18. vers 17. And as S. Augustine â—ayth Epist. 118. to dispute agaynst the whole Church is most insolent madnes specially wheÌ„ the doctrin is ancient without any known beginning as are the supposed erroneous customes doctrins of the RomaÌ„ Church For then the vndertaking Reformer must striue agaynst not only the whole present Church but also the whole streame of the visible Church tyme out of mind since the Apostles Et quis ad haec idoneus who is able to beginne a new course of Christianity and to ouerthrow that doctrine which is vniuersally receyued cannot be prooued by any Traditions of Ancestours
the Creed and prime Principles of Christianity in plaine and Catechisticall manner Besides it is easy for the RomaÌ„ Church to keepe her children from belieuing that Images be Gods or true liuing things or that any diuinity or diuine vertue resides in them as may be proued conuincingly in my Iudgement by experience had of her power in this kind about a point more difficill For what may seeme more euident then that a consecrated Hoast is bread of which foure senses sight feeling smel tast giue in euidence as of bread no lesse verily theÌ„ any other so farre as they can discerne And yet so potent is the word doctrine of the Church grounded on General CouÌ„cells declaring the word of God for TransubstaÌ„tiation as Catholikes denying their senses belieue assuredly that what seemeth bread is not bread but the true body of our Sauiour vnder the formes of accidents of bread Now caÌ„ any man with any shew of the least probability in the world thinke that it is difficill for this Church to perswade her childreÌ„ that the image of Christ is not a liuing thing nor hath any godhead or liuing diuine power lodged in it as plaine Scriptures shew and Generall Catholicke Councells particularly the Tridentine sess 25. and the Nicene act 7. define which doctrine neyther reason nor sense can mislike Or shall the sole similitude of members correspondent vnto humane liuing meÌ„bers which images haue so much preuayle in catholike minds so to bow down their thought to base Idolatry as to thinke a stocke or a stone to be a God and that the Church shall not be able by her teaching to direct them to a more high diuine apprehension being able to make them firmly belieue a consecrated hoast is not bread agaynst the Iudgement that they would otherwise frame vpon most notorious euidency of sense The ProtestaÌ„ts Church on the other side may seeme to haue no great vigour by preaching to perswade commoÌ„ people agaynst the Errour of the Anthropomorphits seing their Principle is that a world of preachers is not to be belieued agaynst the euident Scripture yea (r) Heere the Minister is bitter saying p. 277. lin 30. That it is impossible for Papists to deale sincerely That his Brother M. Iohn doth not speake of euery priuate man nor any company of people but that one Michaia one Stephen one Athanasius with the word of truth in mouth is to be preferred agaynst 4. hundred Baalites I answere The Minister denying his Brother spake of euery particular man shall receaue his doome by the breath of his Brothers owne mouth telling him the coÌ„trary who thus writeth in the place cited by the Iesuite to wit Way pag. 126. lin 12. It is lawfull and necessary for EVERY PARTICVLAR MAN to try all thinges and by the SCRIPTVRE to EXAMINE and to IVDGE of the things the CHVRCH teacheth him And when A MAN in this manner reiects the teaching of a Church as great and good as the Roman Catholike his iudgement therin is not PRIVATE as Priuate is opposed to SPIRITVAL Nor sayth he pag. 128. lin 2. is it impossible for a PRIVATE MAN to espy an errour in the best Church that is And pa. 150. lin 18. Whereas the Catholiks answer That the text of Scripture try the Spirits doth not allow EVERY MAN to doe this but only Pastours The Minister replyeth this is all false for the Epistle of S. Iohn speakes indiffereÌ„tly of ALL MEN Euery man by the Rule of Scripture is to try spirits that Epistle being directed not to the CLEARGY but to the PEOPLE And the reason added shewes that the PEOPLE are they that must try spirits for they must try the spirits that are in danger to be seduced by false Prophets and such are the PEOPLE and therefore they must examine theÌ„ All these are his brother Iohns words Now let the Reader iudge whether Iohn White doth not hold that not only extraordinary Prophets as Michaeas Stephen not only chiefe Patriarkes as Athanasius but that euery particular man of the people may iudge of the teaching of the whole Church and condemne as great a Church as the Protestants if by his spirituall exposition or by the spirit he be moued so to do What reason then had our Minister in respect of this allegation to be so bitter as to say it is impossible â—or Papists to deale sincerely Verily M. Francis had you as much natural vnderstanding togeather with knowledge of the Protestant Religion as had your Brother Iohn you wold see this doctrine that euery Priuate man is by diuine Order and InstitutioÌ„ to iudge of the Church how absurd soeuer to be necessarily consequent of the Protestant Principle That euery man must finally resolue his fayth into the light of the Scripture yea I could shew how your selfe euen in this reply haue giueÌ„ this authority of iudging the Church vnto euery priuate MaÌ„ as may partly appeare by the Censure sect 4. that a common ordinary man by Scripture may oppose as great and greater Church then is the whole Protestant Doctour White in his way pag. 59. Which principle being layd how will they conuince people that God is a pure spirit whome the Scripture doth so perpetually set forth as hauing humane members I may conclude therefore that their translating Scriptures into their vulgar languages breeds more danger vnto common people then our making of images But they will say the Translation of Scriptures into vulgar languages is commanded in Scripture and the Apostolicall Church practised it whereas we cannot proue by Scripture that the Apostles did warraÌ„t or practise the setting vp of images This they say with great confidence but any substantial proofe of this their saying I could neuer read or heare The testimonyes they bring in this behalfe Search the Scriptures Let his word dwell plentifully among you c. are insufficient to proue a direct and expresse precept or practise of traÌ„slating Scriptures into the vulgar tongue Catholikes on the coÌ„trary side though they boast not of Scriptures as knowing that nothing is so cleerly set downe in it but malapert errour may contend agaynst it with some shew of probability yet haue Scriptures much more cleere and expresse then any that ProtestaÌ„ts can bring for themselues euen about the vse of the image of Christ crucifyed in the first Apostolicall Church S. Paul to the Galatians c. 3. v. 1. sayth O yee foolish Galathians who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth before whose eyes Christ Iesus is liuely set forth Crucifyed among you The greeke word correspoÌ„ding to the English liuely set forth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to paint forth a thing In so much as eueÌ„ Beza traÌ„slates Iesus Christus depictus Câ—ucifixus Iesus Christ painted or pictured crucifyed before your eyes So that we haue in plaine and expresse tearmes that christ was pictured as Crucified in the Apostolical churches which the Apostle doth
allow theÌ„ce drawing an argument to prooue the Galathians were senselesse and sottish that keeping in their sight the picture of Christ Crucifyed they would thinke to be saued by the Law and not by the merits of his Crosse. For it was madnes and folly to paynt Christ honour him as Crucifyed not to thinke that by his death vpon the Crosse he redeemed the world I know that some Catholikes expound this place that Christ was paynted and pictured out vnto the GalathiaÌ„s metaphorically by preaching Which I do not deny but this doth not repugne with the other sense that he was also materially paynted as Crucifyed nor must we exclude it this sense being imported by the natiue and proper signification of the words and hauing more connexion with the drift of the Apostles discourse which is to prooue the Galathians senselesse in their forsaking Christ whome they had pictured Crucifyed before their eyes For to forsake Christ crucifyed pictured by preaching as the Sauiour of the world though it be impious yet not senseles yea rather saluation by the crosse of Christ did seeme folly vnto the Gentils But for men to haue Christ painted as crucifyed before their eyes honouring him by Christian deuotion in regard of his crucifixion and death and not to expect saluation by his Crosse and death is sottish and (s) The Minister is much vexed with the euidence of this Text not finding which way to euade as you may see pag. 280. First he sayth lin 21. If this were true it proues only that Images may be made but not that they may be adored Answer First the Answerer in this place intends only to proue that the Apostles did allow the making of Crucifixes to represent our Sauiours Crucified person vnto ChristiaÌ„ deuotion Secondly this making doth inferre worship for the proper Image of an adored person if it be made it may be adored agaynst which principle euideÌ„t in reason you cannot bring one word of Scripture Secondly you say Ibid lin 3. That according to learned Bannes The worship of Images is neyther expressely nor infoldedly taught in Scripture Answere BaÌ„nes meaneth that Image-worship is not formally inuolued in Scripture nor matter of fayth by vertue of sole Scripture But he doth not deny but it is virtually contained in Scripture so that it may Theologically be coÌ„cluded by texts of Scripture Thirdly you cry pag. 282. lin 24. One Father that expounds this place literally according to your sense I answere first no Father nor Catholicke denyes this litterall sense and Athanasius is brought by Turrianus l. 4. de Dogmat. Charact. thus expounding Secondly Protestants who appeale vnto the Scripture as vnto the last iudge to giue definitiue sentence are bound to take the words of Scripture in the litterall sense except they can cleerly demonstrate by Scripture the litterall sense to be absurd Otherwise if without euident proofe by Scripture they metaphorize the Scripture they appeale not vnto Scripture but vnto their owne fancies But by Scripture you cannot proue that the litterall painting of our Sauiours Image as Crucifyed is absurd more then the painting of Luther and Caluin and such other of your pretended Prophets is absurd Therfore you must stand to this litterall sense or els confesse that you will not be ruled by the word of God but depart from the litterall sense thereof when you please without shewing warrant so to doe Finally the Minister sayth ibid. lin 27. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyeth to be written before not to be painted before This is his last yet a desperate shift First all LexicoÌ„s eueÌ„ those of ProtestaÌ„ts say that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyes before so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyes to paint or make figures because writing is a kind of painting or making of Characters hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifyes writing For is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a painter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a peÌ„sill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 painting to the quicke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 painting in waxe innumerable other words aswell single as compound that testify how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to paint Secondly not only Beza and Erasmus so translate and the French Geneuian Pourtrayé deuant les yeux Christ Iesus pictured before the eyes but also Caluin in his comment vpon this place sayth expressely depictus meo iudicio optimè quadrat the best translation in my Iudgenent is depainted adding the Apostle doth heere signify that there was amongst the Galathians non nuda doctrina sed viua expressa Christi crucifixi Imago nor the meere preaching but also liuely and expresse picturing of Christ crucifyed Finally the Minister who heere sayth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify is depainted elswhere pag. 213. lin 26. sayth the contrary to wit that S. Paul doth testify Galat 3.1 That by the Ghospell Christ Iesus IS DEPAINTED before the eyes of the soule Now how can this be true except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signify is depainted and be thence transferred by metaphore vnto preaching senselesse And of this materiall picturing of Christ crucifyed Athanasius expoundeth this place whome Turrianus citeth De Dogmat. charact l. 4. Wherefore I may iustly say that we haue more cleere expresse Scripture for the vse of images then haue protestaÌ„ts for their Translations And therefore the danger of ignorant people erring by images is without reason so much insisted vpon by Protestants their English translations being as I haue shewed a more dangerous blocke for fooles to stumble at and so fall into damnable errours If they presume that by diligent instruction they may and would haue vs thinke that they doe preserue their people from that errour why should they not thinke that the Roman Church being so potent with her children can keep them from the foolish errour of attributing life and diuinity vnto dead dumbe images and that she will so do being so strictly coÌ„manded by the (t) Sess. 2. Diligenter doceant Episcopi Councell of Trent to vse her greatest diligence in this point that ignorant people fall not into errour by any image which otherwise haue many profits and vtilities About which I will not enlarge my selfe but only mention some of them The first is an easy and compendions way of instruction in which respect they are tearmed by S. Gregory (u) Lib. 7. Ep. 109. the books of the vnlearned and as another Gregory (x) Nissen â—rat in Theodorum sayth the silent picture speakes on the wall and profiteth very much The second is to increase in men that keep honour them the loue of God and of his Saints which effect S (y) Orat. Quod veteris noui Testamenti vnius sit mediator Chrysostome experienced as he testifieth saying I loued a picture of melted wax full of piety And S. (z) Lib. 7. epist. 53. Gregory the Great sayth they inflame men that behold them in the loue
a thing Adiaphorous therfore expresse scripture is needles to warrant it But I aske him whether it be Adiaphorous to thinke and to say that the vse of the Crosse in baptisme is superstitious impious Antichristian if it be Adiaphorous so to thinke and to say why coÌ„demne they the Puritans in this respect if it be wicked and impious so to thinke and speake then is it impious and vnchristian to reiect deuotious and religious offices practised in the Sacraments vpoÌ„ pretence that they be not prescribed by Scriptures And then further it is consequent that Protestants who condemne Inuocation of saints as impious superstitious antichristiaÌ„ caÌ„not excuse themselues from impiety though the same were not in Scripture how much more being not onely perpetuall Tradition vnwritten but also coÌ„forme vnto Scripture and proued by principles set down therin as will appeare crosse in Baptisme and other such things obserued in their religion not expressed in Scripture And if deductioÌ„ from Scripture or consonancy therwith be sufficient to warrant these customes why should they mislike the Worship and Inuocation of Saints for which besides the Iudgements of the most flourishing and learned Antiquity that euer was since the Apostles daies to wit the Fathers of the fourth Age confessedly consenting with vs we bring more cleere warrant from Scripture then they can bring for the before mentioned obseruation of them religiously kept Knowledge of prayers made to them communicable communicated vnto Saints §. 3. THE second cause why Protestants dislike praying to Saints is for that they thinke by teaching that Saints heare our petitioÌ„s we attribute vnto theÌ„ 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 wherwith they are done without seeing the secret affection of mens harts But to know what is done in all parts of the world the secrets of harts is knowledge proper to God To this exception answer is made that knowledge proper to God is of two kinds the one so proper as it is altogether incoÌ„municable with any creature and such is the comprehension of his diuine Essence The secoÌ„d is proper so that naturally creatures are not capable therof yet the same may be imparted vnto them by a supernaturall light eleuating them to a high diuine state aboue the possibility of nature In this kind is the visioÌ„ of the diuine essence face to face which being by nature proper vnto God onely is by grace granted vnto Saints And if this vision be communicated vnto Saints the sight of the inferiour world and of the secrets of hart is without cause reputed incommunicable with them according to the saying of S. Prosper (k) De vita Contempl. l. 5. c. 4. Non latebit beatos aliquid secretoruÌ„ quod est longè praestantius puris cordibus visuri sunt Deum Nothing is so secret as the knowledge therof may be denyed vnto the perfectly blessed their seing God with pure vnderstanding being without comparison a thing more excellent Thus S. Prosper whose argument doth coÌ„uince that Saints may know both what is done in the world the secrets of harts First as concerning the world to see the whole world and all in it is not higher knowlege nor requires a more perfect vnderstanding then to see face to face the diâ—â—ne Essence immense and incomprehenâ—â—ble before whome the world is no more â—â—en (l) Sap. 12. â— 2â— 3 momentum staterae gutta roris antelucani But the Saints of God according to Christian fayth haue an eleuated vnderstanding able to behold (m) 1. Cor. 13.12 cleerly and distinctly the diuine Essence with the infinite (n) Ioan. 3.2 beautyes and perfections therof How then can a Christian conceaue so meanely of them as to doubt whether they haue sufficient (o) These arguments are broght not to proue that the Saints haue this knowledge but only that this knowledge is not so proper of God but creatures may by grace be participant thereof Wherfore the Minister seing the Iesuite to demonstrate his purpose agaynst Protestants to wit the knowledge of thinges done in all parts of the world and of secrets of hart to be coÌ„municable vnto B. Creatures and this so cleerly as he had not what to reply he peruerteth all these arguments affirming pag. 305. l. 1. That the Iesuite argueth in this sort Saints see the face of God Ergo They behold the secrets of harts and lin 17. That his argument is They which know or see the greater understand and behold the lesse But the Saints behold the Essence of God which is greater Ergo. These be the Ministers fictions not the Iesuits arguments For to proue that the blessed may see secrets of hart and all thinges done in the world the Iesuite argueth in this manner vnanswerably They that haue sufficient vnderstanding for greater and more excellent knowledge haue sufficient vnderstanding for lesser knowledge and if greater knowledge be not aboue the eleuated capacity of a creature then lesser is not But Saints haue sufficient vnderstanding for the cleere vision of God and so this knowledge the greatest of all others is not perfection aboue that of which creatures are capable by grace Therfore knowledge of all things done in all parts of the world and of secrets of hart which is lesse high excellent and difficill then the vision of God is communicable by grace vnto creatures and consequently the Protestants vulgar Argument that Catholikes make Saints equall vnto God by teaching that they see mens harts and all thinges done in the world is friuolous vnderstaÌ„ding to behold things done in this inferiour world as far as they beloÌ„g to their state Secondly as for the secrets of harts God is without comparison more spirituall more secret more inuisible and out of the sight of naturall vnderstanding then is any the most secret thought of man or Angell and yet the Saints haue so cleere penetrating all discouering light as they do most perspicuously discerne the diuine hidden vnsearchable Essence What reason is there then why Christians should think the secrets of mens harts inuisible and vnsearchable vnto them If we looke into Scripture as the heart (p) Hierem. 17.9 of man is sayd to be vnsearchable but to God only so God likewise is sayd to be (q) Coloss. 1.15.3 1. Timoth. 1.17 inuisible but only to himselfe so that to Saints togeather with the sight of harts we must deny the sight of God or els interprete the sayings of Scripture that mans hart and God are inuisible to wit by meere naturall light and that both are visible vnto Saints by that light whereof the Prophet sayd (r) Psal. 35.10 In thy light we shall see the light If there were a (s) This doctrine of the Glasse or Mirrour is brought to shew the possibility how things may be seene in God not to
parts howsoeuer the Angells sometimes for iust respects may in modesty refuse it Praying to Saints not iniurious to Gods mercy but rather a commendation thereof §. 4. THE fourth cause why Protestants out of their zeale refuse to inuocate Saints is the high conceite of Gods mercy For seing he calleth all men immediatly vnto himselfe (u) Matth. 11.18 Come vnto me all you that labour and I will refresh you we wrong his infinite goodnes in not approaching vnto him by prayer without the intercessions of Saints This their zeale is not ioyned with Science of the course of Gods mercyfull prouidence whose diuine wisdome prescribeth certayne bounds as it were Lawes to the infinity of his mercyes These orders and prescripts whosoeuer doth neglect yet hopes to obtaine fauours doth not truly confide but erroneously presume God is infinitely mercyfull and sayth Come to me all that labour yet the man that should seeke to him for remission of sinnes and would not submit himselfe to the Sacrament of water should hope in vayne to no purpose challenge him of his promise Come to me all Wherefore it imports vs very much to know and to vse those meanes of approaching vnto God that he hath appointed Now that the intercession of Saints is one meanes without which God wil not bestow many graces fauours aswell spirituall as temporall Christian Tradition doth deliuer vnto vs. This Tradition is also sutable with the bountifull and noble disposition of God which is not only to (x) 1. Reg. 2.30 honour glorify those that haue beene zealous of his honour to the effusion of their bloud but also to make the world know and vnderstand that he doth honour them (y) Psalm 1.38.17 for this knowledge is both for his glory and also for the good of men that seing how highly God honoreth his constant friends they be prouoked to endeauour by pure life to gaine his fauour If reuealed doctrine comming by succession of Bishops from the Apostles to vs will not alone wyn beliefe in this point euen the Scriptures affoard vs sufficient testimonyes thereof When Abimelech King of Gesara had offended God by taking away from Abraham his wife Sara and penitent of the fact though committed but in ignorance sought for pardon did not God himselfe send him vnto Abraham saying (z) Genes 20. vers 8. Restore his wife vnto the man for he is a Prophet and he will pray for thee and thou shalt liue By which example we see that Gods infinite mercy who sayth Come to me all will not many tymes bestow graces and fauours without intercession of his Saints that men may know he loues respects his friends When he was offended against Eliphas and his companions did he not send them vnto his singularly beloued seruant (a) The example of the freinds of Iob is not particular but for the instruction of all as S. Paul saith Whatsoeuer is written is written for our instruction and comfort Rom. 15.4 Hence it followes that whatsoeuer is said to one person in Scripture is said to euery one of the same state in whom the same circumstāces do concurre whether it be spoken by way of promise or warning or threate The promise made vnto Abraham Gen. 15.2 I am thy protectour agrees vnto all men that are as he was deuout worshippers of the true God What the Angell spake vnto Agar Gen. 16.9 Returne vnto thy Mistresse and be humbled vnder her is also spoken vnto euery proud fugitiue seruant Now these words spoken to the freinds of Iob Go to my seruant and my seruant shall pray for you and his presence I will regard were spoken to them in regard they had offended God did find that God would not heare their single prayers Therfore this precept belongs vnto all men that know they haue offended God and find their prayers not to be heard and togeather feele the instinct of sacred humility to seeke accesse vnto God by some of his seruants whom they know to be more gratious then themselues and able to helpe And who more gratious with God able to helpe vs then tryumphant Saints as hath been proued Therfore this precept is a warrant and an order vnto all men being in the same state circumstances of Gods offence as the freinds of Iob were to seeke and require the assistance intercession of Gods Blessed Saynts What the Minister here discourseth is all spoken in the ayre vpon his owne foolish imagination and fancy agaynst the full Traditiō of the Church and playne Scripture to wit that Saynts deceased be not the friends and fauorits of God that can help vs with him Iob that he might be a mediatour for them Ite ad seruum meum Iob offerte holocaustum pro vobis Iob autem seruus meus orabit pro vobis faciem eius suscipiam vt non vobis imputetur stultitia Iob. 42. vers 8. Out of which place two thinges are cleerly gathered First that though Gods mercy be infinite yet many tymes he will not grant our prayers but in such manner as he will make vs beholding to his Saints Secondly that we ought to prostrate our prayers vnto him as with great confidence in his goodnes so likewise with a most feeling humble distrust of our owne worthynes which affection cannot but mooue vs to seeke the intercession of them we know to be most highly gracious in his fauour So that vpon pretence of Gods great mercy to reiect the mediation of Saints is zeale without Science deuotion not throughly instructed about the lawes and orders that God hath prescribed vnto his measurelesse mercy by his incomprehensible wisdome And if we grieue to humble our selues vnto Saints and repine at Gods prouidence that he will not many tymes grant our supplications without honouring his Saints and making vs bound vnto them we may iustly expect to heare what he sayd to one in like case Friend I do thee no wrong may I not dispense my mercyes as I please If I will bestow them in such sort as to ioyne togeather with thy good the honour of my friends Is thine eye euill because I am good and courteous to thē that haue loued me more then their owne liues (b) The Minister pag. 334. lin 6. cauilleth That the Iesuits discourse is such as one may wonder and aske whether such discoursers euer heard that the sonne of God was crucified for vs Answer This cauill is at the least idle if not impious for it maketh as much against the discourse of God himselfe who said to the freinds of Iob Go to my seruant Iob and he shall pray for you and him I will regard in your behalfe without mention of Christ Iesus Will the Minister here wonder and aske whether God did know and remember that his Sonne was to be crucified for men and that mē could obtaine nothing of him but in regard of his future passion and merit God forbid he should be so
them all only What reason then is there to extend the words Drinke yee all of this further then to all the Apostles Secondly these words Accipite (*) The Minister p. 490. saith If Bibite do not import a precept that the people receaue the Sacrament in the forme of wine thē Māducate doth not inforce a precept that they receaue vnder the forme of bread and so they shall be boūd to receaue neyther in one kind nor in both Answere The word Manducate was spoken personally to the Apostles only as much as Bibite and so by vertue of this word we cannot bind the people to receaue vnder the forme of bread Notwithstanding by other texts of Scripture we prooue thē to be bound to receaue by eating the Sacred bread For the precept doe this in remēbrance of mee was spoken only after the consecration of the bread as appeares by the Gospell But your selfe say pag. 490. lin 7. That these wordes were spoken to the People respectiuely and in part to wit that they receaue though not consecrate administer the Sacrament in the forme of bread Therefore though the word Manducate do not yet other wordes of the Institutiō do inforce a precept to receaue in the forme of bread manducate bibite Take eate drinke were certainly spoken vnto the same persons and they runne so togeather in ranke that no man can with probability make the one out-runne the other But the Commaund Accipite which signifyes take with your hands for it is a precept distinct from mādacate which is take with your mouth was giuen to the Apostles only not vnto al the faythfull else we must say that all Communicants are bound to take the consecrated bread Cup with their hands Who euer heard of such a precept in the Christian Church The third reason is because there was a peculiar and personall cause why Christ should giue that peculiar counsell or admonition for the Imperatiue word doth not euer signify a precept but often an aduise or a permission as your Maiesty well knowes to his Apostles at that tyme (x) When the finall cause end of the precept is personall then the sense of precept is personall The end of Christs saying Drinke yee all of this was personall to wit that all the Apostles should drinke of the same indiuiduall Cupp without new consecration filling Ergo the sense of the precept is personall only concernes those twelue persons to wit because he would haue them all not only drinke of his bloud but also would haue them drinke of the same Cup without filling consecrating the same anew This is more manifest in the Protestants opinion who thinke the Chalice whereof Christ sayd in S. Matthew Bibite ex hoc omnes to be the same wherof he sayd by (y) Luc. 22.18 Saint Marke Accipite diuidite inter vos non enim bibam ampliùs de hoc genimine vitis For this being supposed Drinke yee all of this imports the same as Deuide this Cup amongst you But deuide 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 that also in such a measure as the Cup without new filling and consecration might suffice for all to drinke thereof (z) What the Minister sayth That the precept is that all men drinke not of the same indiuiduall but of the same specificall Cup is idle For Christs words deuide this Cup amōgst you import drinke yee all of this indiuiduall Cuppe If one should bestow a quart of wine vpon 4. persōs saying Deuide this amongst you were it not ridiculous to interprete his speach that he meanes not Drinke yee all of this indiuidual quart but of a quart of the same kind If two of the cōpany should drinke vp that whole indiuiduall quart being challēdged by the other to haue done agaynst the order of the giuer who would not laugh should they answere as our Minister teacheth them that Deuide this Cupp amongst you imports not drinke all of this indiuiduall Cupp but of a Cupp of the same kind So that howsoeuer the Minister in this place doe rayle bitterly and bragg mightely yet his Reply is ridiculous and agaynst common sense What all men in the world Or all Christians that should succeed them to the worlds end Christ neuer intended that one Cup for all nor is it indeed deuided or parted with vs but the Apostles dranke it vp amongst them Wherfore referring my sayings to your Maiesties learned censure I conclude that to me it seemes cleere that the precept or rather direction Drinke yee all of this was but personal confined vnto the nūber of all there then present (*) The Minister pag. 489. bringes foure arguments to proue that the wordes of Christ Drinke yee all of this command all the faythfull to drinke which arguments though very poore ones shall be answered The first is What Christ sayd to the Apostles Paul sayd to the whole multitude of the faythfull 1. Cor. 11.28 Answere S. Paul neuer sayd the wordes drinke yee all of this to all the faythfull yea the same are not found in all the Epistles of S. Paul for 1. Cor. 11.28 he only sayth let a man proue himselfe and so eate of that bread and drinke of that Cupp which wordes as euery man in his senses must needes perceaue do not import a precept to receaue in both kinds but only that no man receaue in both kinds or in one kind without first trying himselfe whether he be worthy What you cite out of S. Hieroms commentary Coenam Domini oportet esse communem only signifyes that the Sacrament is for all men aswell for the poore as for the rich agaynst which some Corinthians erred scorning to receaue in the Company of the poore The second If Communion in both kinds hath no foundation in Gods word then Communion in one kind hath no foundation in Gods word Answere The lawfullnes of Communion in both kinds the lawfullnes of Communion in one kind haue foundation in Gods word and so to vse the one or the other is not agaynst the Diuine law But a Diuine precept to receaue in one kind or in both kinds hath no foundatiō in Gods word as being but a fond Ministeriall fancy The word of God doth command to receaue at least vnder the forme of bread but to receaue in the same only without the Cupp is no Diuine precept The third Argument If the reason why the Apostles receaued the Cupp was because they were Priests then all Priests being present at Communion ought to receaue in both kinds though they administer not Answere If the reason why the Apostles receaued the Cup was not because they were Priests but as the Iesuit proueth by the Gospell because Christ would haue it so saying vnto them Drinke yee all of this indiuiduall Cupp then is the Ministers argumēt idle and impertinent Such also is
vnto men through Gods only mercy but by merit of Good workes done by the power of grace by workes I say so good and gracious as God may according to them giue eternall life as a crowne proceeding as a iust Iudge as the Scripture teacheth 2. Tim. 4.8 and in a thousand other places In the same manner the remission of the stayne of mortall sinne of the eternall guilt purchased by the death of Christ is applyed vnto particular persons by meere grace by vertue of the Sacraments and the sinners humble preparation to receaue the same But the releasement of Tēporall punishment reserued is not giuen of meere mercy but penitents being now Gods Children after the gracious pardon of the sinne eternall guilt must to obtaine full remission do fructus dignos poenitentiae Matth. 3.8 Luc. 3.8 condigne workes of pennance satisfactions compensations iust worthy condigne equall vnto the quantity of the reserued sinne or penalty as hath been proued by the Fathers Hence as eternall Glory though it be an effect of Christs merits only yet is it not giuē but vnto such works as God may as a iust Iudge reward therewith so likewise remissiō of Temporal payne though purchased immediatly by the merits of Christ only yet is not applyed vnto the penitent Saynts without satisfaction equall condigne eyther done by the penitent himselfe or applyed vnto him out of the superabundant satisfactions of others by the vertue of Communion of Saynts Minister pag. 567. Daniel a sanctifyed person a Prophet able to communicate his satisfactions praying for the remission of the eternall and temporall guilt of sin presents not his owne satisfactions to God nor yet the super abundant merits and satisfactions of any Patriarkes but resteth wholly vpon the free mercy of God and the future satisfafactions of the Messias to come Daniel 9.7 Answere First your argument Daniel in this prayer did not offer vnto God the superabundant satisfactions of Saynts Ergo they may not be offered is idle For though there be superabundant satisfactions of Saynts yet it is not necessary that in euery prayer we obsecrate God by them Secondly you cannot proue that Daniel did not offer superabundant Saintly satisfactions If you say the Scripture doth not mention any such oblation and therfore he made no such oblation your argumēt is reproued by your own assertion Your selfe say that Daniel did obsecrate God not only by his mercies but also by the future satisfaction of the Messias to come and yet these future satisfactions be not mentioned by the Scripture as any part of his prayer but only Gods mercyes not for our owne righteousnes but for thy great mercyes Why then may not we say Daniel alleadged the superabundant satisfactions of Saynts though the Scripture make not mention that he did Thirdly no doubt Daniell was of the same Religion that the three Children his companions were who praying for the remission of their sinnes and of their whole people offered vnto God the merits of the Patriarkes saying For Abraham thy beloued for Isaac thy seruant for Israel thine holy One. Daniel 3.35 The Minister pag 567. lin 23. being angry at the Iesuit that he doth so sleight the Protestant arguments in this poynt sayth If the Iesuit be so rigide as to admit no argument on our part which may receaue any colourable answer I intreate him to deliuer so much as one probable Argument I will not require a Demonstration that the Roman Bishops haue power ouer the soules of Purgatory Answer When you shal find in the Iesuits writings that the Pope hath power ouer the soules of Purgatory or can by way of authority dispose of thē I wil promise you that he shal bring ten thousand demōstrations in proofe thereof The meane while the world may see your vanity desire to delude them You know that the Iesuit can bring euident proofes for euery point of his Religion and therfore you charge him to prooue what is no part of his fayth to bring probable arguments for that doctrine which he doth not hold as probable to wit that the Pope can by way of power and authority deliuer soules out of Purgatory The Pope by the power of his Keyes may grant pardon vnto the liuing out of the treasury of Christ his satisfaction and the satisfactions of the liuing may be applyed to releeue the dead as the Fathers most cleerly and vniformely teach But the Keyes of Peter can only bind and loose vpon earth and absolue from sinne and penalty the liuing Ministers when they dispute with Catholikes be like vnto a man that sitteth on thornes so pricked and vrged with the euidencyes of the present argumēts as they would fayne be remoouing to some other Controuersy they care not to what Thus you in this place are so galled to see your vanity displayed by the Iesuit as you wish your selfe euen in Purgatory to be rid of the Iesuits vrging pag. 563. lin 23. I dare say had his Maiesty proposed the question Whether some soules be purged by Temporall payne after this life their state being releeuable by the suffrages of the liuing the Iesuit would haue so scorched your Infidelity with the cleere testimonyes of Scriptures and Fathers as you would haue runne as fast from Purgatory as you now would fayne be in it Whether the Pope haue authority in Purgatory or no you need not greatly care being sure belieuing as you do neuer to come thither nor after death within the precincts of Peters Dominion who beares the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen No doubt you are to fall into a lower place except you repent of that heauy sinne so cleerly discouered in this your Reply to impugne known truths to falsify our Authors of purpose to make the doctrine of the Church seeme odious Of which damnable and hardly remissible crime I beseech sweet Iesus of his infinit mercy to giue you grace to be purged in this present life that so there may be some hope you may be saued at the least by Purgatory in the next not for eternall but only temporall Punishment (*) The Ministers rayling Arguments against the former doctrine censured I shall not need particularly to refell the vulgar obiections agaynst this doctrine all which proceed vpon mistaking impugne what we neuer dreamed off They proue that Christ only dyed for the world and redeemed mankind not any Saint who doubts thereof That we are sanctifyed and washed from the stayne of sinne by the bloud of the Lambe not of any Saint We confesse it They bring the testimonyes of Saint Leo of Saint Augustine that the Saints receaued Crownes of God gaue not Crownes vnto others but only Christ we neuer did nor will deny it That only in Christ we dye to sinne are raysed agayne soule and body vnto eternall life we neuer taught the Contrary For the satisfaction of Saints haue not vertue to redeeme the world nor to satisfy for the guilt of
the vnitie of the Church may ioyne togeather with your Excellent Wisdome and Learninge to pronounce the sentence Although I be confident that examining Religion by the meere rigour of onely Scripture the Catholicke Doctrines would get the victorie more cleere and expresse testimonies standing on our side then any that ProtestaÌ„ts can bring for theÌ„selues (*) This is further made cleere by the Reioynder so that it is but the face of a Minister to say in this place That our relying on Scripture is Vanitas vanitatuÌ„ as by the former discourse may appeare Although also I be much more confident in the tradition and perpetual practise of the Church interpreting Scripture which by so full coÌ„sent deliuers the Roman Doctrine that partialitie it selfe duely pondering the weight of thinges can hardly in hart and inwardly iudge against them yet my chiefest hope is in these Charitable thoughtes and desires of peace and vnitie in the whole Christian world which the holy Ghost hath inspired into your Brest For suppose that Preconceipts instilled into tender myndes agaynst the faith of Auncestours might so farre preuaile as to make them thinke comparing Catholikes with ProtestaÌ„ts that Scriptures stand equally on both sides yea sifting the matter by Scripture only that Protestants may seeme to haue the vpper hand yet Charitie will moue this question Whether the testimonies and arguments they bring from Scripture are so vndeniably cleere and so vnauoydably strong that no answere or euasion may be found but the Roman (*) The Minister sayth we giue seeming and appering solutioÌ„s but this is done by Sophistry I aske who shall be Iudge Or how can this by tryed by Scripture Church must be refused notwithstandinge so much discord and dissention so much inconstancy incertainty about religion which as reason proueth must and as experience sheweth doth thereupon ensue For if you cast away the Roman Church and her authority noe Church is left in the world that can with reason or dares for shame challenge to be infallible in her definitions if such a Church be wanting what meanes is left either to keepe the learned certainly in peace or to giue vnto the ignorant assurance what is the Doctrine of Saluation the Apostles first preached A Church fallible in her teaching is by the learned to be trusted noe further then they do see her Doctrines consonant vnto Scripture and so they may neglect her Iudgment when they seeme to haue euidences of Scripture against her And if this libertie of contradiction be granted what hope of Vnity remaines when a priuate man may wrangle eternally with the whole Church neuer be conuinced apparantly of teaching against the Scriptures Whereof we haue to many dayly examples If we take out of the world a Church infallible whence shall ignorant men learne which is the Doctrine of saluation that the Apostles deliuered It is as euident as the Sunne shyning at noone Day and the euidence of the thing hath forced some Protestants to acknowledge That the Controuersies of Religion in our time are grown in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue time and leasure Field of the Church Prefat in l. 1. fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them so that nothing remaines for men desiâ—ous of satisfaction in things of such consequeÌ„ce but diligently to search out which amongest all the Societyes of men in the world is the Church of the liuing God the pillar ground of truth that so they may imbrace her communion follow her directions rest in her Iudgement If there be no Church in the world besides the the Roman that can with any colour pretend Infallibity of Iudgement If the most part of men cannot by their examining of Controuersies be resolued in faith and therfore must perish eternally except they finde a Church that is an infallible mistresse of truth in whose Iudgment they may securely rest Certainly those that haue bowells of Charity will accept of any probable answere vnto Protestants obiections and accusations rather then discredit the authority of so necessary a Church which being discredited no Church remaines in the world of credit sufficient to sustaine the waight of Christian that is infallible Beliefe What a misery 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 belieued points of Doctrine necessary to saluation not out of their owne certaine skill in Scripture as they should by the principles of their religioÌ„ but (*) The Minister here rayleth but dares not directly answere the Question What shall become of ignorant meÌ„ who belieued the truth vpoÌ„ the credit of their Church not vpoÌ„ their owne infallible knowledge vpoÌ„ the credit of the Church that teacheth them which doth acknowledge her selfe no sufficient stay of assured beliefe For without question men cannot be saued who although they belieued the truth yet belieued it vpon a deceauable ground and consequently by humaine and fallable perswasion and not as need is by a diuine most certaine beliefe grounded vppon an infallible foundation which cannot be had without an infallible Church How dreadfull then must the danger be of liuing out of the lappe of the Roman Church that is of a Church of infallible Authority This Church hauing a most glorious succession of Bishops from the Apostles deserues aboue all other the protection of your Maiesty who by a long line of religious Catholike Ancestors succeed in the right of two Illustrious Kingdomes and being so beneficiall vnto mankind so efficacious to mayntayne Vnity (*) Our Hopes did not dye with our late Soueraigne but still liue in his Royall Issue and of the most Sacred Queene Martyr his Mother we cannot giue ouer hope of your Fauour whom singular preseruation in the wombe of your glorious mother agaynst the barbarous attempts of Hereticall diuision that would haue brought you to an immature end shewes to be by Gods infinite wisdome perordained for some singular good of mankind specially by your meanes to quench wars and dissentions and to bestow the blessings of peace vnion on this land Your Title to the Crowne of England springes from the peacefull coniunction of the two renowned Roses which before were mortall enemies and fought so many cruell feilds that if we consider the great effusion of bloud wherein ech of them were bathed we shall hardly discerne the one from the other by the diuersity of colour Your Maiesties Person is the roote of a more happy vnion of two most glorious Kingdomes by your Sacred Person combined in assured peace which in the hystoryes of former times are by no other markes more famously knowne then by their mutuall warres Nothing remaines to be added for the full consummation of this Ilands happines and your Maiesties immortal Glory but the quenching of discord about religion by bringing them back againe to the roote matrice of the Catholique Church Cyp. lib. 1. epist. 3. ad Cornel. to the Chayre of Peter the principall Sea from which Sacerdotall and Sacred Vnity springs and to which perfidious Errour hath no accesse Wherby your Maiesty shall extend the blessings of peace from this Iland to the rest of Europe from the the body vnto the soule and crowne your temporall peace and felicity with eternall For both which not only I but all of my profession yea all Catholikes wil offer vnto Almighty God our daily praiers FINIS
Theodos. Nor as the sanctifyer of our soule dwelling in the same by grace Hierom in Prouerb c. 2. Nullum inuocare idâ—â— intus orando vocare nisi Deum debemus Thirdly that the Preist doth not inuocate Saints by direct prayer in the Lyturgy of the Masse which being a sacrifice the deuotion therof is to be directed to God onely Augustine lib. 22. de ciuit c. 10. Carthag 4. c. 23. Fourthly that our friends that are deceased do not now heare vs in the familiar manner they were wont conuersing with vs. Hierom. ad Heliodor de obitu Nepotiam whatsoeuer I write seemeth to be dead 〈◊〉 because Nepotian doth not heare it to wit iâ— visible manner delighting therein and applauding the same as he was accustomed to doe in his life-time (c) HeÌ„ce appeareth the impertineÌ„cy of the Minister that so often vrgeth this place of S. Hierome pag. 29.2 lin 22. Orthodoxe pa. 54. li. 6. Fiftly that they do not know what is done in this world by their natural forces Augustine de cura pro mortuis c. 16. Per diuinam potentiam Martyres viuorum rebus intersunt quoniam defuncti per naturam propriam viuorum rebus interesse non possunt Sixthly speaking vnto some deceased persons they make an If whether they heare them or not because they speake vnto such as they knew not certainly to be Saints Nazianzen orat 3. in Iulian. (d) The Minister here sayth Did not the Fathers reckon Constantine to be in ioy and glory and yet Gregory Nazianzen vsing an Apostrophe to him sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heare o thou Spirit of Great Constantine if thou hast any notion of these thinges I Answere you falsify the text of Nazianzen both in the Greeke in your English translatioÌ„ For his words are Heare o thou Spirit of Great Constantius if thou haue any notion of these thinges Yea that we might see you corrupt the text wilâ—â—lly against your conscience euen in this very Reply in this poynt â—f controuersy you cite the same pag. 359. lit a. in this manner Audi etiam 〈◊〉 Constantij magni anima siquis mortuus sensus est Heare o thou Spirit of â—reat Constantius c. Now Constantius was an Arian and a persecutour of Catholickes vnto his dying day though on his death bed it was sayd â—e made some kind of repentance Hence S. Gregory NazianzeÌ„ might doubt â—f his being in Glory and say Heare if thou haue any notion of these â—â—inges The same Father in his funerall Oration for his sister Gorgonia where he sayth Sister admit of this oration in lieu of many funerall offeâ—â—ngs If this reward be giuen to holy soules to feele these things he doth not doubt of her hearing his prayers but only whether she receaued an humane naturall content in that his affectuous Panigyricall made in her prayse THIS truth supposed I cannot but coÌ„ceaue that your Maiesty professing so much loue to the first primitiue ages may â—eceaue satisfaction about this point the causes of Protestants dislikes being weake and not to be opposed against the strength of so long continued authority as I shall endeauour to demonstrate in their eight usuall Exceptions Inuocation of Saints not to be disliked because not expressed in Scripture §. 2. AND first I must satisfy the transcendeÌ„tall cause of their dislike (a) Confess August art 12. Fulke against Rhem. which is that worship and Inuocation of Saints deceased is no where expressely set downe in Scripture without expresse warrant wherof nothing may lawfully be done that belongs to Religion But this though carrying a shew of deuotion in the conceit of common people is altogether vnworthy of the erudition of any learned Protestant For howsoeuer in the beginning of their separation they did (b) Luther l de seruo arb serm de Cruce siue expresso Dei mandato cry for expresse Scripture expresse Commands oâ— the Written Word yet now they are 〈◊〉 gone (c) Wotton in his Tryall pag. 89. from that principle as they are exceeding angry (d) Iohn White in his defence pag. 228. with vs that wâ— should thinke that any of theirs were 〈◊〉 any time broachers of such an absurdity Wherfore in their written bookes whâ—â— they teach in Pulpits I know not they (e) D. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 20. Whitaker de sacra Scrip. cont 1. q. 6. disclaime from expresse Scripture and thinke it a sufficient warrant of a Christâ—â—â— custome that the same be (f) Note that it is one thing to be expressed in Scripture and another to be grouÌ„ded on Scripture All Christian doctrine is not expressed in Scripture yet euery Christian doctrin is so grouÌ„ded on Scripture that it may in some sort or other be proued from Scripture grounded â—â— Scripture that is may be deduced by good discourse from truthes reuealed therin 〈◊〉 be proued consonant to the rules principles therof according to which ample extent of Scriptures vnto things deducible from them or consonant vnto them there is no Catholike custome that hath not warrant in Gods word as we are able to shew This onely we require that ignorant people be not Iudges of such inferences an office so farre aboue their capacity as I am perswaded no vnlearned man that hath in him any sparke of humility or any mediocrity of Iudgement will vndertake it For no man is competent to iudge assuredly of argumeÌ„ts by deduction froÌ„ Scripture that hath not exact skill of Scripture to know the false sense 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 Deuines do much suspect their owne sufficiency to iudge of deductions dare not absolutely pronounce their sentence but referre the same to definitions of authority which besides skill of Scripture Logicke hath the promise of Gods perpetuall assistance in teaching the Christian Church Wherfore if Protestants will bind vs to bring expresse Scripture for the worship of Imags Adoration of the Sacrament Inuocation of Saintes they must themselues likewise be bound to bring expresse Scripture against Anabaptists for (g) D. Field l. 4. of the Church c. 20. saith It is no where expressely deliuered in Scripture christening of Infants and for the keeping of the Sunday in lieu of the ancient Sabboath Day for their dedicating of (h) CoÌ„cerning the Protestants keeping festiuall daies of Saints with religious solemnity the Minister saith not a word which is tacitely to grant that this duty of ReligioÌ„ is vsed piously by the English Church although the same waÌ„t the warrant of Scripture why then may not Catholicks pray vnto Saintes though there were no warrant in Scripture for such practise Dayes in memory of the Apostles with religious solemnity for the (i) Concerning the Crosse in baptisme the Minister saith pag. 302. that it is