discourse as impertinent This I demonstrate out of his owne wordes First pa. 242. he sayth that the question is not about Diuine and Religious worship of Images but about any kind of reall worship These be his very wordes The question whether Images be to be adored with diuine worship or not is Heterogeneous that is impertinent to this disputation It is sufficient that Papists adore and worship Images with some kind of Reall worship such as the Trident Councell expressely defineth Thus he there professing that to impugne Iconolatry or diuine worship of images is impertinent And yet in the beginning of this disputation he professeth contrarywise to impugne this only Adoration not euery kind of worship of Images Thus he writes pag. 212. The Aduocate of Images should first of all haue declared what he vnderstandeth by worship of Images whether Veneration only or Adoration properly so called Veneration signifies externall reuerence regard of pictures such as is giuen to Churches Communion-Tables and sacred vessels And according to this notion many haue approued worspippe of Images that deny adoration Adoration properly so taken is yelding of honour by Religious submission of soule body c. the worshipping of Images in this māner is superstition Thus the Minister Who to proue that Protestants allow veneration or externall worshippe of Images in his margent citeth Iunius against Bellarmine professing in the name of all Protestants None of vs say Images are not to be worshipped much lesse do we say that they are no waies to be worshipped WE ALLOW that they be worshipped in their kind as Images but not with Religious worshippe Behold how cleerly he grants the question in hand euen asmuch as the answerer intended to proue For what the Minister sayth that the Answerer doth not declare what he vnderstādeth by worshippe whether externall Veneration or internall Adoration is false For he often and cleerly affirmeth that the worship he meanes to proue to be due vnto the Image of our Sauiour is the externall regard the reuerence of bowing such as is vsed towards Aultars and Communion tables out of inward religions reuerence and deuotion vnto Christ. This the Answerer did set down presently in the beginning of his discourse about images and repeates the same almost in euery paragraffe See his text in the Ministers booke pag. 214. Outwardly to the Image inwardly to Christ. pag. 206. Externally to the Image by mentall affection vnto the person pa. 827. Outwardly to the Image by deuout and pious Imagination to the person and the like very often Nor is the Ministers insinuation true that the Councell of Trent doth define the worshippe of Images vnder the tearmes of Religious Adoration First the Councell nether vseth the tearme Religious nor Adoratiō but Veneration the tearme the very word allowed by the Minister Secondly the Councell declares that this Veneration is outward regard as kneeling bowing the body vncouering the head done before the Images of our Sauiour to the end we may adore him that is testify our inward supreme deuotion towards him Finally it is false that Adoration doth properly signify Diuine Religious worship seing properly according to the common acception of the word in Scripture it signifyes any bowing of the body in signe of reuerence as might be proued by more then an hūdred examples of Scripture where creatures are said to be adored The Fathers sometimes take the word Adore in the more principall sense and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only for diuine worshippe In which sense they say only God is adored Epiphan haeres 79. Sit in honore Maria Deus adoretur Hieronymus Ep. 53. Non Angelos vel aliquam creaturam adoramus Yet also the same Fathers take the word in the proper sense say that other things besides God are adored as Men. Augustine de ciuit l. 10. c. 4. Homines si mullum illis addatur etiam adorandi Men are to be honored when much adored S. Hierome Epist. 17. Baptistae cineres adorare to ADORE the Ashes of S. Iohn The holy Crosse. Cyrill Alexandrin homil de Deipara in Concil Ephesin Crux adoratur toto orbe terrarum Holy Images· Damascen lib. 4. Orthod fidei c. 7. Saluatoris c. Imagines adoramus we adore the images of our Lord. Hence it is euident that our Minister on the one side witnessing out of Iunius that all Protestants allow some kind of worship vnto Images to wit veneration externall worship and on the other professing to impugne the Religious adoration of images only hath yeelded the question in controuersy his disputation against Iconolatry is according to his owne doome and word Heretogeneous that is impertinent and in the ayre VVorshippe of Images I Haue more hope to giue your Maiesty satisfaction in this article because all kind of Theologicall proofes stand for the same and nothing against it as I am perswaded which I declare by this discourse If the custome of worshipping Images be grounded on the prime principles of nature christianity If the same hath bene receiued in the church Vniuersally without any knowne time of beginning If places of Scripture that Protestants vrge against vs make asmuch against their custome of making Images so that with no probability or ingenuity they therupon mislike vs If by the vse of Images there be no danger or hurt to ignorāt people which may not with very ordinary diligence of pastors teachers be preuented otherwise the vtilityes very great Then there is no reason of iust mislike of this custome But this supposition is true in the same order I will endeauour to shew in the foure Particulars Worshippe of Images consequent out of the principles of Nature and Christianity §. 1. AN Image (c) This description of an Image sheweth the differēce of proper Images of our Sauiour frō types and figures By declaration wherof the cheife part of the Ministers disputation will be answered which is grounded vpon confusion of these two different things The proper Image represents the person of our Sauiour according to the true and proper shape of his kind and some indiuiduall propertyes that agree to him only Such is the Image of a man crucified pourtrayted accordinge to speciall circumstances recorded in the gospell A figure represents his person in the shape of some creature dissonant from his forme kind whose corporall proprieties haue resemblance with our Sauiours morall and spirituall perfections Thus the Lyon and Lambe be types or metaphoricall Images of our Sauiour which resemble him not in corporall shape but in his heauenly perfections his mildnes being figured by the Lambe his fortitude by the Lyon From this fundamentall difference other three flow First the proper Image represents to mans Imagination making him to apprehend by Imagination the person or the samplar as really present before his eies The figure represents to mans vnderstanding which apprehends by reason the analogy or proportion which the corporall qualityes of the figure
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-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
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. §
taken with agues and with death yea some with Ministers wiues Verily should Deane-ryes be giuen in England according to learning this your discourse about taking would deserue this verdict in the Iudgement of all learned â—en His Deane-ry let another man take The third Example §. 3. WHAT shall I say of your grosse misprision in translating which shewes your ignorance in Latine or else your fraudulency willfull impugnation of knowne truth To proue that Generall Councells may erre in â—ayth yow (k) Reply pag. 155. cite this saying of (l) Cusan lib. 2. concord c. 6. Cusanus Notandum est experimento rerum vniuersale Concilium plenarium posse deficere The true English wherof is It is to be noted that a plenary Vniuersall Councell may fâ—ile in the experiment of things or (m) deficere potest in experiendo ibid. matters of fact You translate Experience of things doth manifest that a plenary Vniuersall Councell may be deficient What grossenes is this Doth notandum signify manifest what more manifest though not noted by yow then that Cusanus (n) Docet Augustinus quomodo plenaria coÌ„cilia per subsequentia CoÌ„cilia corrigantur ob FACTI ERROREM ibid. by experiment of things meanes matters of fact For his drift is to shew that former Councels may be corrected by the later ob facti errorem in respect of errours in matter of fact otherwise in matters of fayth that plenary vniuersall Councells are INFALLIBLE Cusanus doth (o) Si concordanti senteÌ„tia aliquid definitum fuerit censetur à Spiritu sancto inspiratum per Christum in medio congregatorum in eius nomine praesidentem INFALLIBILITER iudicatum ibid. c. 4. hold and proue in that very Booke To proue that all Heretiks pretend not scripture (p) Orthodox pag. 41. 42. yow cite S. Augustine as saying All heretikes reade not scriptures (q) August lib. 7. in Gen. c. â— whose wordes in Latin be Neque enim non omnes haeretici scripturas Catholicas legunt nec ob aliud haeretici sunt nisi quod eas non rectè intelligentes suas falsas opiniones contra earum veritatem pertinacitâ—â— asserunt Which place translated proueth the contrary For it is this All heretikes read scripture nor are they heretikes for any other cause but that vnderstanding thâ— scriptures amisse they pertinaciously maintaine their erroneous opinions against their truth These words neque enim non omnes haeretici scripturas Catholicas legunt yow translate all Heretikes do not read scriptures against Grammer against sense Against Grammer by the Rules wherof two negations affirme so that non omnes haeretici non legunt is the same as omnes Haeretici legunt all Heretikes read the scriptures Against sense for in this your translation All heretike do not read scriptures nor are they heretikes for any other reason but because they vnderstand them noâ— aright one part of the sentence destroyeth the 〈◊〉 For if all heretikes read not scriptures as yow 〈◊〉 S. Augustine say in the first part then the cause of their heresy is not onely pertinacious misprision 〈◊〉 the sense of scripture as he affirmeth in the 〈◊〉 No doubt if heretikes read not the sacred text 〈◊〉 not only misinterpretation of the sense but also ignorance of the text may be the cause of their 〈◊〉 This same Ignorance in Grammer makes you in this (r) Repl. pag. 35. in margin lit b. your Reply in proofe that Protestantes acknowledge some places obscure in scripture to cite these wordes of your fellow-Minister Paraeus NON nâ—gâ—mus scripturam NIHIL habere obscuritatis Is not 〈◊〉 the playne contrary of what you intend For what is non negamus but we affirme scripturam nihiâ— habere obscuritatis the scripture to be no where obscure To proue that we make scriptures subiect to 〈◊〉 Pope yow cite the Dictates of Gregory the 7. set downe by Baronius containing certaine priuiledges of the Popes authority wherof one is Quòd nullum Capitulum nullusque liber Canonicus habeatur sine authoritate ipsius yow (s) Reply pag. 92. in fine translate thus that no chapter no booke of scripture be esteemed Canonicall without 〈◊〉 authority In which translation you shew both falshood and ignorance Falshood in that yow ad to the text (t) This you haue done not only in this place but also in your Orthodoxe three or foure tymes as in the Epistle dedicatory pag. 10. elswhere in the same letter as part thereof no â—â—â—pter of scripture no booke of scripture those words 〈◊〉 being in the latine text nor in the sense for if it â—â—re granted that the Pope doth here speake of the chapter of bookes it doth not follow that he meanes 〈◊〉 bookes of scripture but rather the bookes of Canon law which lawes in that age (u) Burchardus Isidorus Gratianus diuers did beginne to compile gather togeather into volumes and so he defineth that no Chapters that no bookes of Canon or Church-law be held authenticall without his approbation Ignorance because common sense might haue taught yow that this Decree could not be vnderderstood of Chapters or Bookes The reason is because to put chapter before booke and to say no chapter of booke nor any booke shall be held Canonicall without the Pope is idle and senselesse For if no chapter can be Canonicall without the Pope much lesse a whole booke so that hauing sayd that not so much as a chapter be held Canonicall without the Pope it was senselesse to adde the same of whole bookes This speach is as foolish as this should one say Not any person nor any whole family came to Church or as this He read not one line nor one chapter nor one booke wheras sense would say not one booke not one chapter not one line Thirdly a little skill in latine ioyned with iudgment would haue easely found out the true and coherent sense of this Dictate For Capitulum signifyes not onely a chapter of a booke but also a Chapter-house or colledge of Chanons Liber signifyes noâ— onely a booke but also free and exempt Canonicâ—â— also as euery man knowes signifyes not onely Canonicall but also a Chanon or Prebend So that the Popes priuilege quòd nullum Capitulum nullusqâ—â— liber Canonicus habeatur absque illius authoritate is thus in English that no Chapter-house or Colledge of ChanoÌ„s nor any single Canon or Prebend be free exempt froâ— the authority of the Ordinary but by the Popes authority 〈◊〉 sole authority of Metropolitans or Primates not 〈◊〉 sufficient to make such exemptions As for â—â—okes of scriptures we teach that they all be diuine and canonicall in themselues and for the most part â—â— owne to be such by the perpetuall tradition of the Church some very few excepted that haue been â—anonized vnto vs by generall Councells and not 〈◊〉 by the sole and single authority of the pope Behold how wide off the marke yow shoote through your ignorance of
from no other Church but the Roman is equiualent or equipollent vnto this Euery Church deliuering scriptures vnto Protestants is Roman Wherefore to reduce the Iesuits argument in true forme vnto the first Figure you should haue made the maior (d) For as Logicke teaches In prima Figura maior semper est vniuersalis Vniuersall in this sort Euery Chuch that deliuered vnto Protestants the scriptures is the Catholike The Roman deliuered the Scriptures vnto Protestants Ergo the Roman Church is the Catholike Church If you say the Meanes of proofe in the Iesuits argumeÌ„t is Indiuiduall and so the Syllogisme Expository not according to the ordinary forme why then do you reprehend his argument as being affirmatiue in the second figure seing Expository Syllogismes may be affirmatiue in any figure Are yow a Doctour a Deane a Maister in Israell and know not these things Being so ignorant of Logicke were yow so destitute likewise of discretioÌ„ as yow could not keepe your selfe from carping at the Iesuit as peccant in Logicke Could you not at least haue been silent about figures and formes of arguing concerning which yow speake no more assuredly then a blind man of colours Some may say that though yow be ignorant of Logicke yow do not greatly care because this your Ignorance howsoeuer euident vnto the learned cannot be made palpable vnto the Ladyes who esteeme yow and are lead away by yow I answere Although your Ignorance in Logicke cannot by this discourse be made palpable vnto Ladyes yet the falshood of your Religion euen about your ground and rule of fayth may be made palpable vnto them Yow make the rule of Fayth to be not expresse scripture affirming a thing in so many words for then the Ladyes that can read might straight discouer the falshood of your Religion wherof not one article against vs is expressely deliuered in scripture You therefore I say make the rule of Fayth to be not only Scripture but also (e) The doctrine of fayth is eyther expressely or deriuatiuely coÌ„tayned in Scripture Fran. white pag. 300. What is deduced by necessary consequence according to the rules of Logicke VVottâ—n Triaâ—l pag. 88. what doctrine soeuer is by Principles of reason and Rules of Logicke deduced from the Scripture Now wheÌ„ a thing is deduced from scripture by good consequence by true art and not by Sophistry Ladyes except they haue diligently studyed Logicke cannot possibly know This is euident For nothing is deduced by good consequence from scripture which is not deduced by discourse in lawfull figure forme not by Sophistry or a fallacious shew But the Ladyes cannot possibly know when an argument is in true moode and figure nor consequently discerne Syllogismes from Sophismes which their insufficiency they must needes feele in themselues if they be in their senses Therfore they cannot possibly be assured by the ground and rule of Fayth you prescribe them nor consequeÌ„tly can they groundedly belieue Christian Religion nor be saued They must trust ignorant Ministers who crye Sophistry Sophistry agaynst argumeÌ„ts in lawfull forme as now you haue done not so much out of malice but as I am persuaded out of meere Ignorance of such Rudiments of discourse as men are taught in their childhood The second Example §. 2. YOv not only accuse the Iesuits Arguments of Sophistry when they are lawfull but also pretende to bring inuincible Demonstrations when your Arguments be childish knowne Sophismes Behold hereof notorious Examples Your aduersary to proue the traditioÌ„ of the Church to be more Prime and Originall then the scripture bringes 4. Arguments Yow on the contrary side to requite him in the same number haue set downe other 4. to proue that a Christian is built originally and fundamentally on the word of God not as deliuered by tradition but as written In these Arguments yow glory (f) Reply pag. 47. and 48. saying That the Iesuits are but funiculus vanitatis a bundle of vanity and a potsheard couered ouer with the drosse of siluer Now these your arguments in comparison of which you so debase the Iesuits are all and euery one of them idle triuiall fallacyes as I will particulerly and cleerely demonstrate The first (g) Reply pag. 48 is That which is most excellent in euery kind is the modell of the rest but I trow yow will grant the Scripture to be the most excellent part of Gods word 2. Pet. 19. August l. 17. cont Faust. c. 5. Ergo the scripture is the modell and patterne of the rest This Argument is constans ex quatuor terminis that is hath foure different termes whereas all true forme of arguing ought to haue only three Scripture is one terme Modell and patterne of the rest a second Most excellent in euery kind a third the most excellent part a fourth for it is not all one to say the excellent thing in euery kind the most excellent part of many partes Amongst whole and totall things the most excelleÌ„t in euery kind may in some sort be said to be the patterne of the rest but amoÌ„gst parts the most excellent is not the ground of the rest In substantuall Compounds the substantiall forme is more excellent then the substantiall matter yet the substantiall forme is not the ground of the matter yea rather the matter is the ground of the forme being the fundamentall radicall cause out of which materiall formes are produced Who sees not that Walles Chambers and Galleryes are more excellents parts of the house and more beautifull then the fundations Yet the fundations are more prime originall and wheron the Walls and Chambers depend and are kept in being In this manner the word of God as written is more excellent in respect of deep and profound learning then Tradition yet the word as deliuered by Tradition is more prime originall fundamentall because it is the sole ground and foundation by which wee know which is the word of God the Apostles deliuered in writing Hence yow are such a Bungler in Logicke as yow vndertake to proue one thing and conclude another Yow vndertake (h) Reply 47. lin 28. to proue that the foundation of Christian Religion is the word of God not as deliuered by tradition but as written yow conclude that the written word is the patterne and modell of all other kinds of Diuine Reuelations Now to be the ground of the rest is different from to be the patterne of the rest yea the ground of thinges is seldome or neuer the patterne of them The grape by common consent is held the most excellent of all kind of fruite and so by your rule the modell and patterne of the rest yet the grape is not the ground the roote and seed of all other fruite nor do all other fruite spring and proceed from it Your second Argument (i) Ibid. pag. 48. A Christian is built fundamentally on the Rocke but the scripture is the rocke Cardinalis Cameracensis quaest vespert
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
Inferences in a matter where you pretend to be very coÌ„fident that you can bringe most inuincible proofes A Controuersy there is betwene yow and vs Whether it be a Diuine inuiolable Ordinance that all Lay men read Scriptures so that the Church be bound by Diuine Precept to translate Scriptures into all vulgar tongues not to take Translations from such persons as abuse them or vse them to their perdition In which question We say yow (n) Reply pag. 278. affirme with great confidence that the reading of holy Scripture by lay people which must needes imply translation of them is a Diuine Ordinance And because the Iesuit said that he could neuer heare nor read in Protestant substantiall proofe out of Scripture of this pretended diuine Ordinance the commonly vrged text Search the scriptures being insufficient You say that you not onely vrge the text Iohn 3.39 which the Iesuit thinketh he can elude by subtile distinctions as the Arrians eluded the text of S. Iohn 10.30 that is solidely answered as (o) Caluin in caput 10. IoaÌ„ circa vers â—0 sayth The auncient Fathers abused this text I my Father are one to proue Christ not consubstantiall with his father For Christ doth not speake of vnity of substance but of vnity of consent betwixt him and his Father Caluin auerreth but other texts of Scripture which you lay togeather on a heape in this (p) Reply pag. 378. sort The Eunuch is coÌ„mended for reading holy Scripture Act. 8.28 The Beroeans are called Noble by the holy Ghost for searching the holy Scripture Act. 17.11 He is called blessed that readeth and heareth Apocalip 1.3 The Galatians read the Scripture Gal. 4.22 The Ephesians c. 3.4 The Colossians c. 4.16 the Thessalonians 1. Thes. 5.27 The Fathers are so plentifull in this Argument as I haue (q) Defence of my Brother pag. 42. elsewhere shewed that it would astonish any man who hath read them to behold such impudency in Papists as to deny the practise to haue beene Primitiue and Catholike But necessity hath no law For if the Scriptures may be suffered to speake Papistry must fall like Dagon before the Arkâ— Thus you giuing vs great cause to commiserate your blindnes that disputing so ignoraÌ„tly you should conclude so arrogantly You haue in the place by you quoted (r) Orthodoxe pag. 42. according to the custome of Heresy brought many testimonyes of Fathers to proue what no man denyes to wit these two things First that it is Pious and Godly to read Scriptures with deuotion with humility with submission of iudgement vnto the teaching of the Church and common Exposition of Catholike Doctours Secondly that the practise of reading by Lay people was common frequent in the Primitiue Church for the time that the learned Languages were vulgarly knowne in which tongues the Church neyther now doth nor euer did prohibit the reading of Scriptures vnto any person These two things we approue so that you are vnaduised might I not say impudent in your affirming that The Papists impudently deny this to haue been a Primitiue practise No we deny not the reading of Scripture with due humility to be pious or to haue been a primitiue practise but onely two proud Noueltyes brought in by your Religion First that it (s) The very wordes of your brother Iohn in His VVay pag. 126. is lawfull yea necessary for euery particular man by the Scripture to EXAMINE and IVDGE of the things the Church teacheth him And when A PRIVATE MAN by Scripture reiects and condemnes the teaching of the GREATEST and BEST CHVRCH that is his IVDGEMENT is not to be taken as PRIVATE but as SPIRITVALL and the PVBLIKE Censure of THE SPIRIT Secondly that all euen Laymen by diuine Pretext and Ordinance are bound to read the Scriptures to haue them in their vulgar languages This your doctrine This your practise we dislike as dangerous as impious as the fountaine of Discord of Heresy and of manifold most damnable errours A doctrine which were it euery where established not Dagon before the Arke but Christianity would fall before and yield vnto the Diuell as some of your side taught by lamentable experience acknowledge and complaine This opinion say they (t) Hooker Ecclesiast Policy pag. 119. being once inserted into the minds of the vulgar what it may grow vnto God onely knoweth Thus much we see it hath already made THOVSANDS so HEADSTRONGE euen in GROSSE and PALPABLE ERRORS as that a maÌ„ whose capacity will scarce serue him to vtter fiue words in sensible manner BLVSHETH not for MATTER of SCRIPTVRE to thinke his owne bare Yea as good as the Nay of all the wise graue and learned men that are in the world which insolency must be represt or it will the VERY BANE of Christian Religion Behold open Confession extorted vpon the racke of Truth by which we may perceaue how fully and handsomely your Doctrine that it is necessary and Diuine Ordinance that euery particular man read Scripture and by it examine and iudge the Churches teaching hath made Dagon to fall before the Arke But leauing the vanity of your bitter vanting let vs examine what demonstrations out of Scripture you bring for your pretended Diuine Ordinance which with so much confidence you auerre If your arguing be idle and ridiculous in this point wherin yow professe to be so confident what may be expected of you in other articles Especially being challenged to shew your vttermost force by your aduersary affirming (u) See the Reply pag. 278. that he could neuer find any solide proofe out of Scripture of this Protestant pretended Diuine ordinance Your arguments be seauen drawne from 7. texts of Scripture in which your Antecedent commonly is eyther false or vncertayne and your inference ridiculous The first The (y) Act. 8.28 Eunuch is commended for reading holy Scripture Ergo it is a diuine Ordinance that ignorant Laymen read Scripture in their vulgar tongue Your Antecedent is more theÌ„ the Scripture doth expresse I read not any direct prayse of him in this respect The Text only (x) Act. 8.28 sayth he was sitting in his Chariot reading the Prophet Esay But suppose he be commended for his reading as it was indeed commendable is it consequent that therefore euery Christian by Diuine order and precept do the like Is euery man bound by diuine precept to doe euery thing for which any person is praysed in Scripture Dauid is commended in Scripture for rising at midnight to prayse God is this Argument good Ergo Euery Christian is bound by diuine precept to rise at midnight Verily this consequence is as good yea better both in respect of forme and matter then is this of yours The Enunch is commended for reading holy Scripture Ergo euery man is bound to read Scripture by diuine ordinance The second is The (z) Act. 17.11 Beroeans are called Noble by the holy Ghost for searching the Scriptures Ergo we may with
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
subscribed vnto as containing (m) See the Approbation I Francis White c. nothing but what is aggreable to the publike Faith and Doctrine established in the Church of England And yet heere yow say It is certaine that the Pope is the man of sinne sonne of perditioÌ„ so shewing your selfe to be of their number whome the said Authour in that very place doth rebuke as Omnium horarum homines Halters in opinions for priuate ends I omit also your folly in exclaming at the misery of English Romists for that they adhere vnto your supposed Antichrist not marking that to cleaue to the Antichrist of your forming must euen according to your owne principles be singular happines For Antichrist according to your Tenet doth sit gouerne in the House and Temple of God and so by the same breath wherwith you make men vassals of Antichrist you make them Gods Domesticks his House his Temple Will it be misery to be found such at the day of Iudgement Yea rather the Church of Christ the Temple of God being onely one out of which no saluation is had what a misery will it be at the day of Iudgement wheÌ„ by your owne mouth you shall be conuinced to haue forsaken that company which you confesse to be the Church and Temple of God through feare of your owne shaddow and fancy For what can be more foolish then to fasten the name of Antichrist vpon the Gouernour of the ChristiaÌ„ Church who doth dayly professe to belieue in Christ Iesus the sonne of God and Sauiour of the world who by his Adherents doth more then all the world besides defend and propagate amongst Pagans his most holy Name Religion But to let these things passe marke how you coÌ„tradict your selfe in saying on the one side that that caÌ„not be the House Temple of God which now hath or in former times hath had wicked Pastours On the other side that that is the House and Temple of God in which the Man of sinne that is a succession of wicked Pastours hath a long while for many ages gouerned and doth rule and gouerne So hard is it for men blinded with passion agaynst Christian Doctrine deriued by succession from the Apostles to run in their passionate conceipts without falling into the pit of open contradiction whereby their folly comes to be manifest vnto all men The third Errour You profâ—sse Infidelity about the Blessed Sacrament §. 3. THVS you write pag. 179. To that part of the Iesuits speach that we deny the Reall Presence or else the mayne Article of the Creed that Christ is still in heaâ—en because we will not allow a body in two places at â—nce I answere We cannot graunt that one indiuiduall â—ody may be in many distant places at one and the same â—nstant of time vntill the Papalls DEMONSTRATE THE POSSIBILITY THEREOF by teâ—timony of Scripture or the ancient TraditioÌ„ of the Church â—r by apparent reason Thus you This is playne deaâ—ing and open profession of Infidelity For what â—s heretical obstinacy but to reiect the word of God â—bout the mysteries of our Fayth in the playne exâ—resse and literall sense vntill the possibility of â—hat sense be first demonstrated No Heretike was eâ—er so barbarous as to prefer his reason beyond Gods word so farre as to affirme that the word of God contrary to his reason was false Their impiety was to reiect Gods word about some mistery of fayth in the literall sense flying to morall and mysticall interpretation because they could not comprehend and therefore would not belieue the possibility of the playne and litterall sense The Arrians did not deny the word of Scripture saying (n) 1. Ioan. â— 7 of the Father Word and Holy Ghost these three are one nor the Word of Christ (o) Ioan. 10.30 I and my Father are one to be true morally and mystically in respect of vnity by singular affection and consent betwixt these three persons They were Heretikes for denying the truth of these wordes in the proper and substantiall sense because the same seemed to them impossible For seing that we might not expound the Scriptures about mysteries of fayth to an easy figuratiue sense when the same according to the letter goeth beyond the capacity of our vnderstanding God doth so often in holy Writ (p) Gen. 18.17 Numquid Deo quid est difficile Hieâ—rm 32.17 Non est difficile tibi omne verbum Et v. 27. Numquid mihi difficile erit omne verbuÌ„ Luc. 1.37 Non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbuÌ„ Et Deo omnia possibilia sunt Matt. â—9 26 Luc. 18.27 Omnia possibilia sunt credenti Mar. 9.22 assure vs that nothing is impossible or difficile vnto him and (q) Iob. 9.10 That he can do things incomprehensible without number What greater obstinacy then for Christian men to professe that they will neuer belieue his word about the mysteryes of fayth in the literall sense vntill the possibility of the sense be demonstrated vnto them that is brought within the compasse and comprehension of their wit You may perchance excuse your selfe by saying the words of Christs institution This is my body takeÌ„ in the literall sense do not inforce that Christ according to his corporall substance is in two places at once I answere this you cannot say without contradicting not only the word of Scripture as is proued in the Reioynder but also your selfe For you do plainly affirme that this our doctrine yea euen Transubstantiation is contayned in the literall sense of the words of the Institution If say you the substance of bread and wine be deliuered in the Eucharist then the wordes are figuratiue and cannot be true in the proper sense because one indiuiduall substance cannot be predicated of another properly Thus you (r) Reply pag. 3â—7 whereupon I thus argue That without which the word of Christ cannot be true in the proper and literall sense is inforced and prooued by the word of Christ taken in the literall sense But except the substance of bread be absent and Christ in lieu thereof present according to his corporall substance the word of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the literall and proper sense as you affirme Ergo Transubstantiation and the presence of Christ on earth according to his bodily substance in lieu of bread is inforced proued by the literall sense of the word of Christs institution Wherfore to professe as you â—o neuer to belieue Christs body to be in two places at once vntill it be demonstrated vnto you to be possible is to professe you will not belieue the word of God in the literall sense about mysteries of fayth further then the possibility thereof can be made euident vnto you Is not this to professe Infidelity Secondly you may say that when you require that we demonstrate by testimony of Scripture that a body may be in two places at once you meane not that we bring texts of
Scripture that demonstrate by reasō how this is possible but only that we bring places that expresly say that This is possible vnto God For as you say pag. 438. In the wordes of our Sauiour This is my body there is not a sillable concerning accidēts without a subiect or of a bodyes being in two places at once or concerning any miracle wrought by Gods omnipotency I answere that likewise in this text of Scripture (s) Ioan. 1 1◠The Word was made flesh there is not a sillable that a perfect substantiall nature can exist without proper personality or that two complete natures can subsist togeather in the same Hypostasis nor of any miracle done by the diuine omnipotency yet because this text of Scripture about the mistery of the incarnation cānot be true in the literall sense except those hard incomprehensible things be graunted to be possible by diuine omnipotency we must togeather with the mistery implicitly belieue that God can separate proper subsistance from complete substantiall natures that two natures infinitly distant in perfection can subsist in the same Hypostasis though the Scripture doth not expressely so affirme In like manner though the words of Christ This is my body do not expressely say that his body may be in many places at once nor that accidents can exist without a subiect by diuine omnipotency yet because this his word whereon we grounde our fayth concerning this mistery cannot as your selfe graunt be true in the proper and literall sense except Transubstantiation and the Presence of his body in many places at once be belieued hence we must togeather with the reall presence and litterall sense of Gods word implicitely belieue these miracles to be done Wherfore in saying you will neuer belieue them except their possibility be first demonstrated vnto you through ignorāce of Theology you professe Infidelity For to resolue not to belieue seeming implicācies inuolued in the misteries of faith except they be eyther seuerally expressed as possible in Gods word or els demonstrable by reason is the right way to belieue iust nothing there being no mistery of faith which doth not imply some difficultyes the possibility of which is neyther expresly auerred in scripture nor can be demonstrated by reason A fourth Example of your Ignorance in Theology §. 4. I Adde another Example about the Blessed Eucharist wherein you discouer grosse Ignorance not only against Theology but euen common sense And this Example may serue as a patterne how insufficiently and impertinently you answere the Iesuites argument The Iesuit pag. 406. argueth in this sort Christ doth affirme that the Sacrament is truly really substantially not the figure and effect of his body but his very body but how can consecrated bread be termed truly really and substantially the body of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with it Thus you answere pag. 406. To the effecting hereof locall corporall presence is not necessary A Father and his Sonne may be absent by distance of place one from the other yet the Sonne is TRVLY AND REALLY VNITED with his Father so as his Fathers nature is in him and he hath right in his Fathers person and state A mans goods may be at Constantinople and yet he liuing in England is a true possessour and owner of them and he may communicate and vse them and distance of place hindreth not his right and propriety Now although there be a difference betweene things temporall and spirituall yet thus farre there is agreement that euen as we possesse temporall things being locally absent so likewise we may receyue and partake Christs body and bloud by the power of Fayth and donation of the Holy Ghost according to a celestiall and spirituall manner Thus you Now behold how many wayes yow discouer grosse Ignorance in this answere First were all that you say true yet is it impertinent and ineptly brought in answere of the Iesuits argument For the question is not whether men may receiue by the vertue of Fayth and donation of the holy Ghost sanctity and grace through the merits of Christs body and bloud that are absent for this al acknowledge to happen in Baptisme and to be possible in the Eucharist if Christ had so ordained The question is about the truth of Gods word whether consecrated bread may be truly and really called the body of Christ being as you say a thing not only indiuidually distinct but also locally distant from his body A man being in London may possesse iuridically an Horse that is in the Countrey is it therfore true to say that this man in London is truly really the Horse in the Countrey A Merchant in London may haue great treasures of money in Constantinople and a right to lay them vp in his Coffers at London may one therfore shewing his empty coffers at London say truly this is a treasure of money In like manner suppose which is false that a man hath iuridicall authority ouer Christs body absent and existing in heauen to dispose therof at his pleasure may he therfore be sayd to be truly and really Christs body May one therefore shewing the Sacrament being in your Tenet an empty thing in respect of containing Christs bodily substance say truly therof This is really Christs body and corporall substance who will maintaine such absurdities that is sober Wherefore your discourse that a man may truly posesse a thing absent serues nothing to satisfy the Iesuites question how can consecrated bread be truly verily really the body of Christ if he be not so much as present in place with it Secondly what more absurd then what you affirme that a man may not only in right possesse but really and truly vse his things that be absent Can a man in London vse and ride on his horse that is at Yorke Or a Merchant in Bristow feed on his grapes that are growing in his vineyard in Spayne If they cannot and it is ridiculous to say they can how can a man existing on earth receaue truly and really Christ distant from him as farre as the highest heauen Receaue him I say not in a signe only according to gracious Effects but euen according to his body and corporall substance with their mouth of flesh For Christ did not say This is a figure of my body or this is soule-feeding grace giuen by the merit of my body and bloud but This is my body euen to your corporall mouth wherewith I bid you to take and eate it Thirdly who cā forbeare laughing to heare you so soberly affirme that the Son that is absent from his Father as far as Constantinople is from London is not only morally by Loue and Affection but TRVLY and REALLY VNITED with his Father For Vnion is the way vnto Vnity so that whensoeuer two indiuiduall things are truly really vnited by this vnion is made a third indiuiduall thing distinct frō ech of them a part from all other
〈◊〉 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
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
THEE â—ise vnto saluation made vnto Timothy in regard he was aforehand taught and grounded in the fayth of Tradition cannot be challenged of them that are â—f a differrent stampe from Timothy to wit men â—hat were neuer taught the fayth of Tradition or â—lse so vngrounded therein as vpon a seeming euiâ—ence of Scripture they be ready to chaÌ„ge their fâ—rst â—eceiued fayth Hence it is manifest that the Iesuit â—ad reason to say Ministers abuse Gods word when â—hey cite it the Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto â—aluation making that common to all men which was spoken onely to Timothy and vnto such as he was Will you haue another example of the same kind The Iesuit saith the words of Christ Do this in remembrance of mee was spoken of the Sacrament in the forme of bread not vnder the forme of wine For our Sauiour speaking of the SacrameÌ„t vnder the forme of 〈◊〉 saith (h) 1. Cor. 11. not absolutely doe this as he did of bread 〈◊〉 conditionally do this as ofteÌ„ as you drinke in memorâ—â— of me that the Aduersary of the Church might not haue 〈◊〉 much as a plausible shew to condeÌ„ne coÌ„munâ—o in one kind 〈◊〉 against Gods word You after much bitter rayling calling the Iesuit infatuated Romanist vermine for 〈◊〉 vrging you beyond your learning answere thus 〈◊〉 the end Touching the fancy of this obiection I furtheâ— say that euen as when S. Paul said 1. Cor. 10.31 whetheâ— yee eat or drinke or whatsoeuer else you do do all to the glory of God If these wordâ— should be resolued 〈◊〉 this manner As often as yee eate or drinke or do any thing else do all to the glory of God the placing 〈◊〉 this word as often restrayneth not the speach froÌ„ being a precept so likewise when S. Paul saith As often as yeâ— drinke do this in remembrance of me this manneâ— altereth not his words from being a commandement Thus you confirming the Iesuits answere For no example could haue been deuised or imagined more fit to shew that Christs words as ofteÌ„ as you drinke import not an absolute but onely a conditionall precept Which thus I demoÌ„strate You grant that the words of Christ Do this as often as you drinke in remembrance of me be preceptiue in the same manner as no more then these of S. Paul as often as yee eate or drinke or walke abroad or do any thing else do all to the glory of God But no man that hath his right senses will say that this speach doth absolutely command Christians to eate or drinke or sleepe or ride or walke or to do any of the like actioÌ„s of human life but onely doth conditionally command or direct men that when they will eate or drinke or sleepe or â—â—de or walke that they do all to Gods glory Ergo 〈◊〉 words of Christ saying do this as ofteÌ„ as yee drinke 〈◊〉 â—emembrance of me do not imply an absolute precept of â—â—â—nking of the cup but onely a conditionall direction that â—â—en men drinke they do that Sacramentall action in â—emory of his Passion So that in lieu of soluing the 〈◊〉 of the Iesuits argumeÌ„t you intangle your selfe 〈◊〉 tye the same more fast You send the Iesuite to God for an Answere §. 6. THE Iesuit (i) See the Reply pag. 256. chargeth the Protestant doctrine that holy Images may be lawfully made not â—â—wfully honored to be destitute of all shew of Scripâ—â—re For the (k) Exod. 20.4.5.6 Deuter 5.6.7 text of the Law is no lesse cleer aâ—â—inst the making of such Images then against their â—eing adored Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any image â—â—ou shalt not worship nor adore them HeÌ„ce he argueth â—he images which by this precept we are forbidden 〈◊〉 adore be such as by the same we are forbidden to â—ake But the Images of Christ be not such Images 〈◊〉 we are forbidden by this precept to make Ergo â—â—ey are not the Images we are forbidden by this â—â—ecept to adore And wheras Protestants expound 〈◊〉 first part of the precept Thou shalt not make â—â—em to wit with purpose and intention to adore â—his exposition saith the Iesuit is not onely violent â—â—ainst the text but also incongruous against sense For 〈◊〉 (l) Some may obiect that God doth forbid Adultery in the 6. Commandment Non â—oechaberis and yet in the ninth he forbids by speciall commandment the purpose and intention of adultry Non concupisâ—es vxorem proximi tui I Answere that the ninth Precept doth not forbid the doing of â—â—â—nges with purpose and intention of Adultery for this was sufficiently forâ—â—â—den in the sixâ— precept but this supposed forbiddeth inward desires lusts 〈◊〉 Adultery though without doing any thing with purpose and intention thereâ—â—â— And so our Sauiours Praecept Matth. 5.28 Not to looke vpon a woman to lust 〈◊〉 her supposeth the doing of things with intention of Adultery to be vnlawâ—â—â— and forbiddeth the looking vpon a woman with lustfull delight desire 〈◊〉 without intention of doing the act of Adultery prohibition of things doth likewise forbid the doing thinges with intention to doe agaynst the Preceâ—â— Hence I argue The Precept thou shalt not adore Images doth forbid the making of them with intentioâ— to adore as much as the precept Thou shalt not kill doth forbid the making of weapons with intention to kill But the precept thou shalt not kill doth so fully and sufficiently forbid the doing of any thing with intention of murther that it had been superfluoâ—â— to haue set downe that precept in this forme Thou shalt not make or weare weapons with intention to kill thou shalt not kill Therfore without sense weâ—â— the precept Thou shalt not make any Images Thoâ— shalt not adore them had the first part no more sensâ— then you giue it to wit Thou shalt not make Imaâ—ges with intention to adore Besides as to make an image to adore is Idolatry 〈◊〉 to take it in hand to looke on it to that purpose whâ—â— theÌ„ was not such looking on or taking in hand witâ— purpose of adoratioÌ„ forbidden aswell as making 〈◊〉 if looking on theÌ„ with intention to adore them is 〈◊〉 cleerly forbiddeÌ„ in the precept Thou shalt not adoâ—re theÌ„ as there needed not further expression whâ—â— need was there or reasoÌ„ that making of images with intention to adore should be more largly or fully expressed You answere As for the Iesuites interrogâ—â—tions Why then What need was there we refeâ—â— him to the Lawgiuer to challeÌ„ge or demand reasons of him And as for our selues we rest vpoÌ„ the reuealed will of God not daring to question or demand reason of his actionâ— Thus you Wherby it is manifest that you grant thâ— Iesuites arguments against your expositioÌ„ of Scripture to be so cleere as you cannot answer them 〈◊〉 must send him to God to aske an answere of hiâ— â—ndeed if Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any images with â—â—tention to adore them
thou shalt not adore them were â—he text and very letter of Gods word you might â—ith lesse shame haue confessed your ignorance that â—ou can say nothing in defence of the text In which â—ase the Iesuit I presume would willingly haue â—ad recourse vnto God by prayer entreating him â—o enlighten his vnderstanding with some sufficient â—eason would haue hoped to haue obtained his â—uite If not yet would he haue belieued Gods word â—o haue had some congruous sense though he saw â—ot the same this being reuerence due to the word â—f Supreme Verity But now this saying Thou shalt not make any Imaâ—es with purpose to adore them is not the text of Gods word but a Ministers addition vnto his word preâ—ended by way of exposition Hence the Iesuits arâ—uments for which you send him vnto God to haue â—hem answered tend not agaynst the text of Gods word but agaynst a Ministers explication thereof This being so why should the Iesuit finding your inâ—erpretation to be sottish and senselesse to his seeâ—ing goe vnto God and not vnto you for a solutiâ—n of his questions agaynst it What Law bindeth â—im to adore your additions to Gods word as diuine Oracles such as he must belieue though he cannot â—omprehend Why should he goe vnto God pray â—im to vnfold the high misteryes of your Ministeriâ—ll wisdome which you confesse you do not vnderâ—tand your selfe Why may he not without more aâ—oe thinke your doctrine to be incomprehensible â—hrough want of reason as are the fooleryes of fanâ—y not through height of wisdome as the misteryes of fayth Shew I say some reason that obligeth Iesuits to accept of your interpretations of Scripture which they can proue to be sottish and senselesse so cleerly as you cannot answere or else confesse that the Iesuit by conference of texts by consideration of Antecedents Consequents by the drift of the place hath so conuinced your expositioÌ„ of falshood as you haue not a word to reply in good sense but to be rid of his vrging you send him vnto God for an Answere Your innumerable grosse Impertinencyes in cyphering and scoring of Scriptures §. 7. YOV haue a manner of arguing proper to your selfe at least which I find by none of your ranke more frequently vsed then by your selfe This is to set downe a conceit of your owne wordes suting with your owne humour and then to score Bookes chapters and verses of Scripture on heapes without relating the words as if your conceit were in those places recorded in so many syllables And because in this kind of cyphering consists the strength of your whole booke I will by some store of examples decypher the grosse vanity thereof and consequently of your whole Booke First you often cite texts and chapters of Scripture that are not so making your selfe like vnto God qui vocat ea quae non sunt Pag. 10. lin 24. to prooue that Protestants acknowledge the lawfull authority of the Church you cite 2. Thessal cap. 5. Wheras the second to the Thessalonians hath only three chapters Pag. 106. lin 17. to prooue that Christians may depart from the Christian Church wherof they are â—embers without ioyning vnto any other Christiâ—n Church you cite Hos. 10.17 wheras that chapter â—â—th only 15. verses not one to the purpose you â—â—eage it Pag. 45. lin 17. for this your saying the Scripâ—â—re is the seed of faith you cite Iohn 20.41 wheras that â—wentith chapter hath verses only thirty one not â—ne of them hath this sentence The Scripture is the â—sed of Fayth Had you cited the wordes though you â—ad erred in the booke chapter or verse we might â—aue holpen your mistaking now God only knowâ—th the texts you intended Secondly the places you cypher not only do â—ot contayne the sayings for which you cypher â—hem expressely and in so many words but also â—hey are commonly so infinitly impertinent and so â—arre from the matter you intend to proue as being â—ited and applyed to your purpose they are most riâ—iculous Pag. 224. lin 26. to proue that you Ministers â—aue such Vnion with God as Religious Adoration â—s due vnto you you cypher Act. 10.34 which â—ayth Then Peter opened his mouth and sayd of a truth I perceiue that God hath no respect of persons Pag. 30. lin â—5 to proue Scripture is the voyce of God you cypher Luc. 1.7 which sayth Saluation from our enemyes and from the hands of all them that hate vs. Pag. 105. lin 13. to proue that right Fayth may be preserued in persons liuing in a corrupt visible Church as Wheate among Tares you cypher 1. King 19.11 And he sayd go forth and stand vpon the mountayne before the Lord and behold the Lord passed by Pag. 106. lin 16. to proue that Christians may separate from all Christian Churches and beginne a new Christian Church of themselues you cypher 2. Cor. 6.14 which saith Be not yoked togeather in marriage with Infidells Pag. 223. lin 4. to proue that in adoration Christ his Image haue no agreement you cypher 2. Cor. 6.16 which sayth What agreement betweene the Temple of God and Idolls Pag. 30. lin 23. to proue that the Scripture is a diuine light shewing it selfe to be heauenly you cypher 2. Cor 4.6 God hath shined in our harts to giue the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ Iesus Pag. 558. lin 3. to proue that liuing Saints haue not Communion with the Saints defunct by partaking their superabundant satisfactions you cypher Ephes. 4.15 But speaking the truth in loue you may grow vp to him in all thinges who is the head euen Christ. To the same intent in the same place you cypher 1. Iohn 1.3 That which we haue seene and heard we declare vnto you that you may haue fellowship with vs and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Sonne Christ Iesus Pag. 546. lin 1. to proue that the reward of works may be giuen of free bounty and not of debt you cite Psalm 127. v. 2. It is vayne for you to rise vp early or to sit vp late to eate the bread of sorrow for so he giueth his beloued sleep Also to the same purpose you cypher Ezech. 29. v. 18. Euery head was bald and euery shoulder was pealed yet had he no wages nor his army for Tyrus Pag. 551. lin vlt. to proue that the B. Virgin said the Lords Prayer or Pater Noster whereof one petition is Forgiue vs our trespasses you cite Act. 1.14 They continued in prayer and supplication togeather with the women and Mary the Mother of Iesus Which text proueth the Virgin prayed but that her prayer was vocall and not pure mentall and if vocall that she sayd Pater Noster rather then Magnificat or Benedictus or some of the psalmes of Dauid who that is sober would vndertake by this text to conclude Pag. 43. lin 2. to proue that the Scripture is sufficient in genere regulae for
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
errour and so fallible that euery particuler man of the people for feare of being deceaued (o) Iohn white way pag. 116. must examine her teaching yea your selfe affirme (p) Reply pag. 136. lin 20. c. that not whosoeuer contradicteth the whole Church is to be held as an Heathen and Publican but only such as oppose the whole Church rashly without cause or inordinatly Ergo Protestants acknowledge the authority giuen to the Church by the word of God and consequently her lawfull authority Pag. 169. The Iesuit doth charge you to extenuate the value of our Lords passion in saying that the same doth not purchase and merit true inward purity and sanctity to mens soules and actions Against this you say (q) Reply pag. 169. lin 20. No Christian Church euer prized the oblation and merits more highly and religiously then we Great prayse or rather pride euen the Church of the Apostles were not more religiously deuout vnto nor more highly conceyted of Christ Iesus his passion then you are Well how proue you it Heb. 10.14 it is written with one oblation he did consummate his sanctifyed for euer Iohn 1.29 Behold the Lambe that taketh away the sinns of the world This is euen iust as if an Arian should argue in this sort It is written Iohn 10.30 I and and my Father are one Ergo Neuer Christian Church prized the diuinity of Christ nor thought more highly or religiously of his Equality with his Father then we Would not this argument should an Arian vse it proue him to be more ridiculous then religious And the same force hath this your argument as will appeare if we put togeather into forme the propositions thereof the one Scriptures the other your Assertion It is written that Christ is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world who by his one oblation on the Crosse did consummate the sanctifyed for euer Protestants (r) Caluin Antidot Trident in sess 5 Permaneâ— verè peccatuÌ„ in nobis neque per BaptismuÌ„ vno die extinguitur lib. 3. Institut c. 14. §. 9. NulluÌ„ à sanctis exire potest opus quod non mereatur iustaÌ„ opprobrij mercedem say that Christ taketh not away the sinnes of the world but that the same doth truly and properly remayne in iustifyed persons and is only hidden and not imputed yea your selfe affirme pag. 170. and 171. That sinne is still adiacent vnto all the vertuous actions of iust men and that this imperfection sinfulnes is only couered by Christ his merits and purity that it be not imputed Ergo Protestants prize the value of Christs passion for the effectuall and perfect sanctification cleansing and consummation of saints and their actions as highly and religiously as euer did any Christian Church Scriptures abused and falsifyed §. 9. I Will conclude this section with some few Examples of fraud and falshood in your citing of Scriptures where you help the dice by addition or subtraction of some particle or word to make the Scripture found on your side Although I do not doubt but your scoring vp in cyphers of so many impertinent Texts though being discouered it be ridiculous was also not without fraud by you vsed that you might make shew of Scriptures for such articles of your doctrine for which you know in coÌ„science that no true proofe from Scripture can be produced The text Iohn 5.39 abused Search the Scriptures To begin with the Scriptures themselues with a falshood more then once repeated in your Booke you would shew that the sacred Scripture is so easy as Vnlearned people may vnderstand the sense thereof without relying on the Churches Tradition Exposition To this purpose you say Pag. 9. lin 9. Our Sauiour commanded euen simple people to vse the Scripture Ioan. 5.39 One would according to this your citation thinke that the sacred Text did expresly say that Search the Scriptures was spoken vnto simple people And yet this is a fancy by you cunningly foysted into the text against the playne euidence therof which sheweth that Search the Scriptures was sayd not to the simple people but to the Church-magistracy of the Iewes as these three arguments euince First the word Iewes in the Ghospel of S. Iohn doth signify the Magistracy of the Iewes excluding the simple people This might be proued by forty exaÌ„ples but this may suffice Iohn 7.13 Ioan. 1.9 2.18.20 5.15.16.18 7.1.11.35 8.22.48 9.18.22 There was much muttering about him our Sauiour amongst the coÌ„mon people yet none durst speake openly of him for feare of the Iewes Behold the Iewes opposed coÌ„distinguished against coÌ„mon people feared of them wherby it is manifest that by the Iewes the Gospel of S. Iohn doth vnderstand the Magistracy of the Iewes But certayne it is that our Sauiour sayd search the Scriptures to the Iewes according to the signification of that word in the Gospell of S. Iohn Dixit Iesus Iudaeis Scrutamini Scripturas c. Iohn 5.32 Therefore the wordes were sayd to the Magistracy of the Iewes the common people being excluded Secondly our Sauiour doth testify that he sayd search the Scriptures vnto them that sent the Embassage vnto Iohn to know what he was Iohn 5.34 vos misistis ad Ioannem But cleere it is that the authours of this Embassage were not the simple people but the Church-magistracy of the Iewes Ergo Not vnto simple people but vnto Church-men and Church-magistrates did our Sauiour say search the Scriptures Thirdly our Sauiour sayd search the Scriptures vnto men highly persuaded of the sole-sufficieÌ„cy of the Scripture thinking in them to haue eternall life This appeareth by the text Ibid. vers 33. TestimoniuÌ„ perâ—ibuit veritati Ibid. vers 36. opera quae facio testimonium perhibent Ibid vers 37. Pater qui misit me testimonium perhibuit mihi search the Scriptures because in them you thinke to haue eternall life Hence they would not belieue in our Sauiour neyther vpon the testimony of Iohn nor vpon the testimony of his workes and miracles nor vpon the testimony of his Fathers voyce from heauen Now that the simple people were thus conceyted of Scriptures agaynst the miracles of our Sauiour we haue no grouÌ„d to think whereas that the Church-magistracy of the Iewes was thus conceyted the Gospell doth expressely declare There we reade how they appealed from his miracles to Moyses his bookes bidding such as were lead away by his workes Ioan. 7 52.5â— Scrutare Scripturas vide quia à Galilaea Propheta non surgit to search the Scriptures see that our Sauiour could not be the Prophet Therfore to these men standing vpon the testimony of Scripture sole-sufficiency therof vnto eternal life not to simple People did our Sauiour say Search the Scriptures because in them you thinke that you haue eternall life without me wheras euen these giue testimony of me Hence appeareth another falsificatioÌ„ of
this place by cogging in your own conceyt as it were the very Text to wit that our Sauiour by these words gaue a command to vse scriptures For it is cleere he did not by way of command say to the Iewes search the Scripturs but by way of permission in respect of their obstinacy whereby they would not without Scripture belieue in him vpon other most sufficient diuine testimonies So that search the Scriptures because in them you thinke to haue eternall life hath this sense Seing you will not be wonne to belieue vpon the testimony of Iohn nor of my miracles nor of my Fathers voyce from heauen but appeale from these testimonyes vnto Scriptures thinking that in them you haue eternall life search the Scriptures in Gods name I am content 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not superficially looke vpon theÌ„ but search deeply into them for being thus searched into they yield testimony vnto me Certainly if our Sauiour had been of the Protestants mind and would haue giuen the precept they pretend he would not haue sayd to the Iewes search the Scriptures because in them you thinke that you haue eternall life but search the scriptures because in them only eternall life is to be had or because nothing necessary vnto eternall life is to be belieued vntill it be cleerly proued by them This he doth not say but rather rebuketh the Iewes for this their Ministerial coÌ„ceite that nothing is to be belieued vpon any other testimony without Scripture He did not therfore command theÌ„ to vse the Scriptures but seing them obstinatly addicted vnto only Scripture he permitted them to proceed in their own way Euen as wheÌ„ Protestants caÌ„not be wonne to belieue neither the testimony of Iohn that is the consent of Fathers nor the testimony of Christs works that is of myracles done daily in his Church nor the Fathers liuely voyce from heauen that is Gods word vnwritten we at last say vnto them Search the Scriptures for euen they giue testimony vnto the Catholike doctrine Hence two thinges appeare First that your two assertions that Christ saying search the Scriptures did command and command euen simple people to vse Scriptures be two fancyes of your owne foysted into the Scripture not by way of interpretation but by way of Historical Relation of the sacred text which is grosse abuse thereof Secondly that if we search deepely into this text Search the Scriptures the same doth cleerly condemne the Protestant fancy that only Scripture is the rule of fayth and shewes this to haue been the ground and principle of Iewish Infidelity The text Matth. 24.24 That euen the elect be deceaued were it possible grossely applied THVS you write pag. 586. Although the Tradition and teaching of the Church be fallible yet vnlearned people where they inioy the free vse of Scripture as in ancient times all people did and if they be carefull of their saluation and desire to know the truth God blesseth his owne Ordinance and ordinarily assisteth them by grace in such sort as they shall not be seduced to damnation Math. 24.24 Thus you encourage simple people to be proud and obstinate in their priuate fancies agaynst the teaching and tradition of the Church For in this speach you assure theÌ„ that reading their vulgar Bible if they be carefull of their saluation and desire to know the truth though they will not regard the Church as the pillar ground and infallible Mistresse of truth yet God will so blesse and assist them as they shall not be seduced into daÌ„nable errour Now what is the bane of Christianity but this false and proud persuasion inserted into the heads of Sots Trinitarians Anabaptists Arians Brownists Familians do they not desire to know the truth who to that end so studiously peruse their Bible Be they not carefull of their Saluation that goe so readily to the fyre rather then abandon the doctrine which by their skill in the Vulgar Bible they iudge to be the sauing Truth In these Wretches you may see how in men desirous to know the truth God blesseth the ordinaÌ„ce of reading the vulgar Bible without regard had to the Church as an infallible Mistresse And as your doctrine is the seed springe of heresy so is the text of Scripture Matth. 24.24 most violently drawne to confirme it For what sayth the text They the false Prophets shall doe great signes wonders that euen the elect be induced into errour if it be possible By which text it is cleere that the elect people of God cannot be finally intrapped in damnable errour This is vnderstood as Deuines speake in sensu composito that is they cannot be deceaued because God ordaynes and foresees that they shall vse the meanes to know sauing Truth which meanes is to cleaue vnto the Tradition of the Church not trusting their owne skill Now then with what engines can you from this truth wrest your Paradoxe that men desyrous of the truth reading the vulgar Bible cannot be damned Are all men desirous of the truth that reade the Bible Gods elect If Heretiks dispute in this manner The Elect cannot be seduced vnto damnation Ergo If they presume on their skill in the Bible not respecting the Churches doctrine as infallible they shall not be seduced vnto damnation Why may not murderers argue in like sort The elect cannot be damned Therefore if they commit murder euery day and so perseuer vntill the end they cannot be damned This argument is as good as yours For the contemners of the Church can no more be saued theÌ„ murderers if our Sauiour say true who so heareth not the Church let him to thee as a Heathen and Publican The text Act. 17.11 about the Beroeans abused TO the same purpose of encouraging simple People to follow their fancyes gotten by reading their vulgar Bible you say pag. â—87 Vnlearnâ—d people by comparing the doctrine of the Church with the Scripture may certainly know whether it erreth or not Act. 17.11 Thus you What sayth the text that thence you may make such deductioÌ„s These were more Noble then those of Thessalonica who receaued the word with all readines of mind searching dayly whether these thinges were so Now behold your manifold abuse of this sacred Narration First the text doth not say these Beroeans were vnlearned how then can you hence conclude any thinge for the ability of vnlearned people to search the Scriptures Agayne the Text doth not say that by comparing the doctrine of Paul with Scripture they came to know certaynly that the doctrine of Paul was true but only that belieuing his doctrine they searched the Scriptures about the same without mention of the successe of their search And if they were resolued by Scripture this was only in one poynt to wit whether Iesus were the Messias about which the Scriptures are cleere and expresse How theÌ„ can you hence proue that vnlearned people may know certainly whether the doctrine of the Church be true by comparing the same
with Scripture in so many mayne articles of Controuersy about Fayth whereof some as you (a) pag. 106. confesse are only implicately contayned in the Scripture and must by the rules of Logicke and Deduction be thence wrunge out Finally the Beroeās read the Scriptures only for their greater cofirmatiō in Fayth in case they should find by their priuate reading the doctrine of S. Paul to agree with the Scripture They read not by way of doubtfull examination that is with purpose not to belieue S. Paul if so they should not find the Scriptures to yield playne testimony vnto his doctrine That they read not in this manner is cleere For the Scripture sayth that before they searched the Scripture they receaued the word with all alacrity and readines of mind But if they had been doubtfull of S. Pauls doctrine had to cleere that doubt gone to search the Scriptures it could not haue been truly sayd of them that they receaued the word with alacrity and all readines of mind and afterward searched the Scriptures Therefore they did not search Scriptures by way of doubtfull examination but with full resolution to belieue S. Pauls doctrine euen in case they should not find by their priuate industry the same cleerly deliuered in the Scripture How then may you by this example make good your Protestant doctrine that Vnlearned People may compare the doctrine of the Church with the Scripture in doubting manner that is with intention not to belieue the Church in case they should not be able to discouer her doctrine by priuate reading in their vulgar Bible Or in case that in the seeming of their priuate iudgment the Scripture should appeare as opposite vnto the Church The Text 1. Iohn 1.8 If wee say wee haue no sinne c. falsifyed WHEREAS the Iesuit pag 550. sayth out of S. Ambrose and S. Augustine that the Blessed Virgin neuer committed actuall sinne you pag. 551. reply It is a manifest vntruth For S. Iohn speaking in the person of all the Elect sayth 1. Iohn 1.8 If wee say we haue no sinne we deceaue our selues and there is no truth in vs. And vers 10. If we say we haue not sinned we make him a lyar and his word is not in vs. And pag. 517. much more bitterly thus you write to this purpose If our aduersaries wil be so gracelesse as to make any man in this life except the Holyest of the Holyes 1. Petr. 2.22 free from sinne the Apostle enrolleth him in the blacke booke of damnable lyars 1. Iohn 1.10 And they may with Acesius the Nouatian borrow a ladder and so climbe vp alone to heauen yea rather fall to Hell for who are more desperatly sicke quà m qui mentem febribus perdiderunt then they which by the feauer of pride haue lost the vnderstanding of their sinfull condition Thus you which you cannot deny to be bitter in excesse What is the Iesuits fault No other but this he sayth that not only Christ Iesus the holyest of the holyes was by nature Hypostaticall Vnion impeccable but also (*) Cōcil Trident sess 6. can 23. Sicut de Maria Virgine tenet Ecclesia that his Holy Mother was pure from all actuall sinne by speciall grace And why is this so great and damnable an offence Marry because S. Iohn sayth If wee say wee haue not sinned wee make God a lyar and this he spake not in the person of only ordinary Saynts but in the person of all the Elect euen of Saynts as singularly chosen as the Blessed Virgin This is the ground of your bitternes But first though the Scripture had sayd that all the elect commit actuall sinne yet perchance not without warrant we might except the mother of God but I will not stand herein agaynst you Shew in Gods word this text all the elect haue sinned or this S. Iohn sayd in the person of al the elect If we say we haue no sinne we deceaue our selues the Iesuit presently yieldes What can you wish more But if in the persō of all the Elect be as in truth it is your addition vnto the text ioyned therwith so cunningly as it may seeme the very letter of Gods word what may we thinke of you but only that your rayling agaynst vs is not so bitter but your iniury vnto Gods word is greater I adde that to say S. Iohn spake the aforesayd wordes in the person of all the Elect not only is not the text but also agaynst the text except wee will make S. Iohn excessiue in the conceyte of himselfe For thus I argue It is manifest S. Iohn spake the words aforesayd in the person of such Saynts in the number of which he ranketh himselfe If WEE say that WEE haue no sinne But S. Iohn could not without pride ranke himselfe in the number of Saynts as singularly chosen as was the glorious Virgin so that if the sense of his saying be If we that is Saynts as singularly priuiledged as Gods Blessed mother say wee haue not sinned we deceaue our selues what can be more arrogant Luther (a) Luther Serm. de Natiuit Mariae Sumus pares Matri Dei ac aequè Sancti sicut illa indeed hath left behind him written We are all as holy as the Virgin Mary but that S. Iohn euer sayd it or thought it the Minister will neuer an able to proue So that without any question as also the (b) S. Augustin de nat grat c. 42. 60. Epist. 95. Fathers note S. Iohn spake in the persō only of al cōmon holy Christians among whō he might without pride nūber himself As for your reproaches so many so bitter for two reasons you are to be pityed first for that your passion against the Iesuit is either so blind as you see not what lyeth before you or so fierce as not to spare him you let contumelious tearmes fly that must light on the head of the holy Fathers For this is your cēsure They that hold any except the Holyest of the Holyes to haue been free from actuall sinne are gracelesse are by S. Iohn enrolled in the blacke booke of damnable lyars mentem febribus perdiderunt they haue lost their witts by the phrensy of pride Now vnder this your Censure I subsume a knowne and vndeniable truth But holy Fathers exempt the Blessed Virgen frō actuall sinne not only S. (c) Serm. 2. de Assumpt Bernard S. (d) De excell B. Virg. c. 3. Anselme but also S. (e) Epist. ad Epict. Athanasius S. (f) In cap. 1. Reg. Gregory S. (g) Ser. 22. in Psal. 118. Ambrose yea S. Augustine (h) de Nat. Grat. c. 36. who thus speaketh for them all In matter of sinne no mention is to be made of the mother of our Lord she is not included in the generall sentences of that kind Scimus enim c. For wee KNOVV WEE ARE CERTAINE that vnto her singular Grace was giuē to conquer
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
S. Augustine the cause you Donatist pretend is nulla none at all it is an vntruth (u) Calumniarum suarum â—umos â—actantes D. Baptis l 5 c 1. Caecilian hauing cleered himselfe from that crime and byn absolued in all maner of Courtes Yea though the same were true yet by (x) Restat vâ— fateantur nulla maloruÌ„ etiam cognitorum tali communione Ecclesiam maculari 〈◊〉 cùm fassi fuerint non inuenient causam cur se ab Ecclesijs separauerinâ— your owne principles it is conuinced to be no iust cause Wherefore your separation is not only Schisme but most eminent and notorious Schisme For then is Apeâ—â—issimum autem sacrilegium eminet Schismatis cùm NVLLA fuit causa Separationis the Sacriledge of Schisme most notoriously eminent when there was NO cause of separation He doth not say When there is no iust cause of separation Schisme is coÌ„mitted as though there might be some iust cause and then Schisme is not committed but when there is no cause of all which may with any colour or shew be pretended for separation then Schisme is not only committed for it is still committed when separation is made from the whole Christian world what cause soeuer be pretended but then it is notoriously most euidently committed Behold how changing the text of S. Augustine and agaynst Iustice cogging into the same the word iust you make his speach to haue a sense iust contrary to his meaning How iustly might I charge you with obscuring out-facing of the truth by forgery which calumniously without any proofe you obiect vnto the Sacred Councell of Trent But like to like such a Religion such an Aduocate Seauen Testimonies of other Fathers falsifyed §. 2. LET vs also discouer some of your corruptions about other Fathers besides S. Augustine For the fulnes of Scripture about all poynts of fayth you cite these wordes of (*) Serm. de Bapt. S. Cyprian Christian Religion findes that from this Scripture the rules of all learning flow and that whatsoeuer is contayned in the discipline of the Church doth arise from this and is resolued into this These wordes Puritans might better then you alleadge for their Geneuian Principle that not only Church-doctrine but also Church-discipline must be contayned in Scripture proued by the cleere Texts thereof But happily they neuer saw it or if they did they durst not be so impudent as to alledge it as you do agaynst the meaning of the Authour For S. Cyprian speakes not of the whole volume of Scripture but only of twelue or thirteene wordes therof to wit this little senteÌ„ce (z) Praecipis Domine vt diligam te de proximo iubes vt ad meam eum mensuram complectar c. Legat hoc vnum verbum in hoc mandato meditetur Christiana Religio inueniet ex hac Scriptura omniuÌ„ doctrinarum regulas emanasse c. Loue thy Lord God with all thy hart thy neighbour as thy selfe This would haue appeared had you not omitted the wordes immediatly precedent in the very same sentence Let Christian Religion reade this one word and meditate on this commandment and it shall find that from this Scripture the Rules of all learning flow c. And this example may serue to make euident to the eye your perpetuall Protestant Impertinency in alleadging wordes of the Fathers in which they commend the perfection fulnes of Scripture for your fancy of only-only-only Scripture For the Fathers meaning is that all is contayned in Scripture in a generall and confuse manner not so particularly and distinctly as Scripture may be the sole rule for all necessary poynts of Fayth This is cleere for what they say of the whole Scripture they say of some principall particle thereof as of this Thou shalt loue thy Lord God with all thy hart and thy neighbour as thy selfe But no man that is in his iudgment will say what this sole sentence is a sufficient Rule of Fayth for all necessary poynts of Doctrine and Discipline Therefore their commendations of the plenitude of Scripture can inforce no more then that all is contayned in Scripture in some generall manner not so particularly but that for explication and distinctioÌ„ of many poynts the rule of Churches Tradition is necessary For the clarity of Scriptures that vnto them that know not the Tradition of the Church they are easy you (b) pag. 45 lin 10 cite S. (c) Homil. 2. de verbis Isa. Vidi Dominum Chrysostome Scriptures are not like Metalls which haue neede of workemen TO DIGGE THEM OVT but they deliuer a treasure ready at hand to them which seeke hidden riches in them It is sufficient that thou looke into them c. Here you falsify the Text of S. Chrysostome by adding vnto it to digge theÌ„ out whereby you make both the Father to contradict himselfe and his speach to be senselesse For if the Riches of the Scripture be hidden in the Text thereof as he sayth how is it a Treasure ready at hand without digging or searching How it is inough to looke into the booke to find it Had you digged deepely into the golden Mine of S. Chrysostome you would perchance haue found out his true meaning not haue imposed vpon him this false and pernicious doctrine S. Chrysostome in getting gold out of mines doth consider that a double labour is to be vndergone The one to digge out that earth wherwith Gold is mingled The other to seuer the gold froÌ„ the earth The first labour he sayth is necessary that we find out the Treasure true sense of Scripture we must sayth (d) Chrysost. Homil. 40. in Ioan. FODERE nos profundius iubet vt quae altè delitescunt inuenire possimus Idem in Gen. Homil. 37. Indagatis Profundis verum sensum veritatis percipere he not only looke into the booke not only attend to the bare reading but we are coÌ„manded to DIGGE DEEPELY that wee may find out the thinges that lye hidden in the bottome For wee digge not for a thinge that lyes open and READY AT HAND but for a treasure that is hidden in the deepe Thus S. Chrysostome How directly against his mind do you make him say that the sense of the Scripture is a treasure so ready at hand and obuious as we need not digge for it In respect of the second labour to wit of seuering drosse from Gold when the same is found this labour S. Chrysost. sayth is needlesse in regard of the Scripture In metallis difficile est inuenire quod venantur Etenim cùm metalla Terra sint Aurum non aliud quam Terra similitudo celat aspectum eorum quae quaeruntur In Scripturis non est eadem ratio Neque enim proponitur Aurum terrae commixtum sed Aurum purum c. In Mines sayth he men haue difficulty to â—ind out what they hunt for The Mines being earth and Gold also earth this
likenes and similitude confoundeth â—he sight not to discerne the one from the other In scriptuâ—es it is not so the doctrine proposed therein being not gold mingled with earth but pure Gold the word of God is pure syluer refined wilth fire so that the Scriptures be not mettals that require workemeÌ„ to seuer in their doctrine Drosse from Gold they offer a ready and refined treasure to them that seeke the riches hidden in them Thus S. Chrysostome and he doth there largely discourse how euery thinge in Scriptures euen the Chronologies and proper Names of men do affoard wholesome and profitable doctrine to the Reader but to find this treasure we must not as he there sayth nudam tantùm scripturam aspicere sed insistere cum studio repositas scrutari opes not only looke vpon the Scripture but insist with study search out the riches hoarded vp therein Haue you not theÌ„ notoriously falsifyed the sense of his discourse by the insertion of words of your owne In the behalfe of your Protestant sole-sufficiency of Scripture you cite (d) Pag. 50. in Marg. lit E. pag. 3. lin 6. in marg lit E. alibi saepe this sentence of Durand tearming him A famous Scholeman Ecclesia licèt Dei Dominationem habeat in terris illa tamen non excedit limitationem Scripturae Although the Church haue the power authority of God vpon earth yet that authority doth not exceed the limitation of the Scripture This place is by you alleadged many tymes in this your Reply but most impertinently For his meaning is that the Church though it haue the authority of God vpon earth (e) Matth. 16. v 20. Quicquid solueris quicquid ligaueris super terram erit solutum ligatum in caelis yet the same power is in some cases restrayned and limited by the Scripture In which respect the Church cannot dispense in many thinges wherein God might dispense In (f) Ecclesia licèt habeat authoritateÌ„ Dei in tertio illa tamen non excedit limitationeÌ„ Scripturae Scriptura autem docet expresse seruos conuersos ad fidem adhuc manere Dominis suis prioribus licet illi maneant infideles particuler she cannot saith he exempt slaues that be made Christians from their subiection vnto their old Maâ—sters because that the Scripture doth expressely teach that Slaues conuerted vnto the Fayth are to be still subiect to their former Maisters though their Maisters be Infidels Thus Durand Now what is this to the purpose of prouing that men are bound to belieue nothing but what is cleerly contayned in Scripture Except according to your skill in Logicke you will argue in this sort The Church cannot do the thinges forbidden her in Scripture because her power is not beyond the restraynt thereof giuen in the Scripture Ergo she cannot belieue teach doctrines proposed vnto her by the rule of Tradition without Scripture which is a thinge commended vnto her in Scripture Hold the Traditions you haue whether by speach or by Epistle 2. Thessal 2.15 How many tymes in this your Reply haue you cited this testimony of the Maister of the Sentences (g) Lombard l. 4. sent d. 18. lit f. God doth not still follow the iudgment of the Church which sometimes through ignorance and surreption iudgeth not according to truth This I say you cite (h) See pag. 89. in lit â— p. 93. lit d alibi to proue that the Church may erre in fayth at the least about secondary articles And yet it is most certayne and euident that he speakerh of iudgment in criminall causes For hence he inferretth (i) Soluere noxios vel damnare se putant innoxios cùm apud Deum non sententia Sacerdotum sed reorum vita queratur Et ita apertè ostenditur quòd non semper sequitur Deus iudicium Ecclesiae quae per ignorantiam surreptionem interdum iudicat the Church-meÌ„ must not thinke because Christ said vnto them whatsoeuer you bind or loose vpon earth shall be bound loosed in Heauen that therefore they may condemne the Innocent and absolue the Nocent For God in such case doth not follow their sentence but iudgeth according to the life of the accused To prooue that the Roman Bishop was not anciently acknowledged the supreme Pastour of the Catholike Church you say pag. 161. lin 15. Pope Stephen was sleighted by S. Cyprian and other Bishops of Africa In proofe whereof you cite in your margent (g) Ibid. lit D. these wordes of Firmilian (h) Firmil apud Cyprian epist. 75. Atque ego in â—ac parte iuste indignor in tam manifestam apertam Steâ—hani stultitiam quòd qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloriaâ—ur se successionem Petri tenere contendit And indeed I am iustly grieued against the open manifest folâ—y of Stephen that he so much glorieth of the dignity of his Bishopricke and standeth vpon his hauing the succession of Peter Thus you Now behold your falshood for I omit your ignoraÌ„ce in naming Firmiâ—ian as a Bishop of Africa whereas he was a Bishop â—f the East to wit of (i) Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. Caesareae Capadocensis Episcopus Caesarea in Cappadocia Your Legier-de-maine I say and falshood is twofold First you omit to let your Reader know that this Firmilian when he wrote this Epistle was a Quartaâ—eciman and also addicted to the Errour of Rebaptiâ—ing theÌ„ that had been baptized by Heretiks And because S. Stephen a most (k) Vincent Lyrinensis aduersus Haeres cap. 9. Holy Pope Martyr had made a decree against their Nouelty (l) Cyprian epist. 74. Nihil innouaÌ„dum praeâ—erquam quod traditum Let no nouelty be admitted â—ut let the ancient Tradition be kept this Firmilian wrote against him an Epistle full of sharpe contumelious speach Had you mentioned this quality of Firmilian which I do not doubt but you knew your impertinency would haue been apparent For this supposed your Argument goeth thus Some Bishops specially Firmilian erring against Fayth and blasted for the tyme with the spirit of Heresy wrote a coÌ„temptuous Epistle against the Sea of Peter Ergo the Sea of Peter is not by diuine Institution the Rocke of the Church agaynst which the gates of hell all Heresyes should rage but neuer preuayle Secondly you notoriously falsify the sentence of Firmilian in making him to rayle against the Roman Bishops being the successour of Peter For this euen in that his Hereticall passion wherof he afterward was (m) This is testifyed by Dionysius Alexandrinus who then liued in his Epistle to Xistus the Successour of S. Stephen apud Euseb. l. 7. Histor. c. 3. Niceph l. 6. c 7. penitent he neuer did yea he doth rather acknowledge the Roman Bishops succession froÌ„ Peter and thence argueth that seeing to Peter only Christ said To thee I will giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen c.
that Pope Stephen should least of all meÌ„ admit that Heretikes who cleaue not to Peters Sea can validely baptize For his true words by you falsifyed and curtalled are these And (n) Quòd vna Ecclesia semel à Christo supra Petram solidata est hinc intelligi potest quòd SOLI PETRO Christus dixerit Quaecumque ligaueris super terram c. Atque adeo in hac parte iustè indignor quod qui successionem Petri se habere coÌ„tendit supra quem Ecclesiae fundameÌ„ta posita sunt alias Petras inducit c. Firmil epist. citata herein I do iustly fret against the open and manifest folly of Stephen that seeing he doth so glory of the dignity of his Bishopricke and standeth so much vpon his being the successour of Peter on whome the foundations of the Church were layd that he will bring in two rockes and the buildings of many Churches whiles by his authority he doth mantaine that in them Churches alien from Peters Sea or rocke true baptisme is giuen Thus Firmilian whence it is cleere that he did not reuile S. Stephen in respect of his clayming Primacy and authority by succession from Peter as you make him to your purpose to do but that being the successour of Peter he vrged this his Primacy against Anabaptisme whereas he should rather in Firmilian his opinion haue been (o) Stephanus qui per successionem Petri Cathedram habere praedicat nullo aduersus Haereticoâ— Zelo excitatur Ibid. Firmilian zealous in denying the validity of Baptisme giueÌ„ by Heretiks who euer impugne the vnity of Peters Chaire Whereas your Aduersary saith that the Scripture to them that know Tradition is abundantly sufficient but without Tradition not Against this (p) Pag. 37. lin 5. pag. 42. lin 16. you vrge this saying of Vincentius Lyrinensis (*) Vincent Lyr. adu Hâ—r c. 2. The Canon of the Scripture is perfect and sufficient in it selfe for all matters yea more then sufficient Verily this is sufficient more then sufficient to shew the beggary of your Religion otherwise this testimony so impertinent would not be by you and your fellowes so perpetually (q) Iohn VVhite Defence pag. â—70 VVotton Field VVhitaker and who not alleadged For Lyrinensis doth not say that the Canon of the Scripture is abundantly sufficient but only the same is supposed in an obiection or question mooued vnto him In answere whereto Lyrinensis doth shew that this supposed sufficiency is not such but of necessity the rule of Tradition must be ioyned therewith I know you are not ignorant of the Text you haue read it but read it I pray you once againe therin read the conuiction of your falshood Some (s) Forsitan requirat aliquis câ—m sit perfectus c. may ASKE seeing the Canon of the scripture is perfect and sufficient vnto it selfe in all thinges what need is there that the authority of Ecclesiasticall interpretation be ioyned therewith Because all do not vnderstand the holy Scripture in the same sense this in respect of the depth or difficulty thereof that the same passage is taken this way by one and that way by another so that as many dissonant interpretatioÌ„s may seemingly be brought therof as there be interpreters c. Hence in regard of the manifold windings and turnings of Errour it is (t) MVLTVM Necesse est VERY NECESSARY that the line of Propheticall and Apostolicall doctrine be squared according to the (u) Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus norma RVLE of the ECCLESIASTICALL sense In this Testimony two things are affirmed contrary to the purpose you bring it First that the sufficiency of Scripture is not so full nor so perfect as is supposed in the question the Scripture being deepe dark difficile that setting TraditioÌ„ aside in lieu of one certayne assured Truth one may find therein manifold windings and turnings of Errour Secondly that in this respect the Scripture caÌ„not be the only rule of Fayth but it is NECESSARY and VERY NECESSARY that besides Scripture we allow the RVLE of Church-Tradition or Exposition You knowing this as you did with what conscience could you cite this place for the sole-sufficiency of Scripture so many tymes cite it taking a thing falsely supposed in the Question for the doctrine of the Authour Pag 44. lin 24. to proue the Perspicuity of the Scripture in it selfe without the light of Tradition for all necessary points you cite the wordes of Irenaeus All the (x) Irenaeus l. 2. cap. 46. Scriptures both Propheticall Euangelicall are cleere without ambiguity and may indifferently be heard of all men Is it possible you durst in defence of your fancy cite this place in this manner according to which it is false euen in your owne fancy For do not you yourselfe write pag. 35. lin 18. We acknowledge that MANY particuler Texts and passages of holy Scripture are obscure and hard to be vnderstood How then are all Scriptures both Propheticall and Euangelicall cleere without any ambiguity indifferently vnto all men Are you also so dull of hearing as not to perceaue the iarre betwixt this sentence of S. Irenaeus and the sentences of the Fathers which after him presently you produce S. Hierome It is the manner of Scripture to ioyne that which is manifest after that which is obscure S. Augustine Playne places are found in Scriptures to expound and open the darke hard If this be true how are all the Scriptures cleere without ambiguity yea S. Irenaeus in the very next chapter (y) Iren. l. 2. c. 47. Vt in rebuâ— creatiâ— quaedam Deo subiacent quaedam in nostram venerunt scientiaÌ„ sic in 〈◊〉 Scripturis sayth That some things in Scripture are cleere and manifest which we must learne and belieue other are darke and obscure the interpretation of which we must remit vnto God Verily these Arguments conuince you to haue falsifyed Irenaeus as you haue indeed very grossely For he doth not say All Scriptures are cleere without ambiguity as you cite him but this (z) Cum itaque vniuersae Scripturae Propheticae Euangelicae in aperto sine ambiguitate similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt etsi non omnes credunt vnum solum Deum ad excludendos alios praedicent omnia fecisse per verbum sicut demonstrauimus ipsis Scripturarum dictionibus valde hebetes apparebunt qui ad tam lucidam adapertionem caecutiunâ— oculis nolunt videre lumen praedicationis Seing all Scriptures both Propheticall and Apostolicall openly and without ambiguity and in manner as they may be heard of all though all belieue not preach that one only God made all things by his word as we haue proued by Scriptures so affirming in the same words how dull sighted may they appeare whose eyes agaynst such manifest euidence are blinded and will not see the light of this preaching Thus S. Irenaeus affirming no more then that all
Scriptures do euidently preach this one point of Fayth That there is one only God So that we may say how dull sighted were you that would cite this testimony for your fancy against the playne euidence thereof Foule Calumniation Falsification of Hosius Bellarmine Petrus à Soto and Bosius §. 3. IN this kind I may with good reason register in the first place your slanderous dealing with Cardinall Hosius the falshood being not only notorious in it selfe but also discouered agaynst your Ancestours in formes times Pag. 151. in fine and 152. initio you charge Catholikes That they debase the sacred Scripture aduancing humane TraditioÌ„s In proofe wherof you alleadge these wordes as of Cardinall Hosius (a) Pag. 152. lit a. Hosius de express verb. Dei pag. 50. Non oportet legis aut Scripturae esse peritum sed à Deo doctum vanus est labor qui Scripturae impenditur Scriptura enim creatura est egenum quoddam elementum non conuenit ChristianuÌ„ Scripturae addictum c. A man ought not to be learned in the Scripture but taught of God lost is the labour which vpon Scripture is spent For the Scripture is but a Creature yea an empty element it doth not become a Christian to be conuersant in the same These words contayne horrible Blasphemy in so much as Cardinall Hosius himselfe hearing that some Protestants in their printed bookes had layd this sentence to his charge did not doubt to say (b) Bellarmin de concilijs in praefat That I should thus affirme Verily had I so written I were worthy to be burnt in the market place What then Hath not Hosius the wordes Indeed the wordes are found in the Cardinals book but how brought as blasphemy spoken in the person of the Swenckfeldian Sect or of the Heauenly Prophets This is Hosius his discourse (c) Hosius de expresso Dei verbo pa. 545. Tom. 2. operum Hosij Lugduni apud Guil. Rouillium Anno M.D.LXIV When men sayth he seeke to draw the Scripture 〈◊〉 their owne fancyes not regarding the sense exposition of the Church what do they but as S. Augustin sayth open a way that the authority of the Scripture be wholly abolished Do we not see this Prophesy performed in this our Age Yes verily Luther first rose vp and endeauoured to 〈◊〉 Scriptures vnto the liking of his fancy Agaynst him rose Carolstadius and out of him Zwinglius Oecolampadius Caluin and other innumerable Sects most mainly â—â—posite the one to the other yet ech of them clayming maâ—â—fest Scripture on their side Hereupon the Heauenly â—â—ophets whose Prince is Swenckfeldius (d) Viderunt hoc Caelestes Propheâ—ae quoruÌ„ Princeps Suenckfeldius quòd isti suo sensui Scripturas 〈◊〉 empeâ—aâ—eÌ„t sic secum cogitare coeperunt Quo vsque tandâ— hanc Excucullatorum tyrannidem feremus c. perceauing â—â—ese men to make no other vse of Scripturs then to persuade â—nto seely people what they please vnder pretence of Gods 〈◊〉 and expresse word began thus to discourse with themâ—â—lues HOW long shall WE endure these Fryers that â—â—â—ue cast of their Hoods Habits Shall we be still forced 〈◊〉 adore as Gods holy word whatsoeuer they please to propose 〈◊〉 vs cloaked with Texts of Scripture No we will hereafter â—â—pect the resolution of our Questions from Heauen bid â—â—ese Contentioners to be packing togeather with the Scripâ—â—res which they pul this that way as they list to establish â—â—posite doctrines What the heauenly Father shall in priâ—â—ate please to reueale vnto vs that shall be our expresse word â—f God A CHRISTIAN ought not to be skillfull in â—he Law and Scripture but taught of God lost is the labour â—hat on Scripture is spent for the Scripture is but a creaâ—â—re and an empty ELEMENT Hosius hauing thus 〈◊〉 downe these wordes and blasphemyes of the â—wenckfeldian Sect addeth his Censure vpon them as â—olloweth You see most Pious King how truly the sayâ—â—g of S. (e) Aug. l. 32. cont Faust. c. 19. Videtis id vos agere vt omnis de mâ—dio Scripturarum auferatur authoritas suus cuique animus auctor sit Augustine is that whiles men labour by their â—riuate interpretations to make the Scripture the subiect 〈◊〉 one of his own fancy they open a wide gappe vnto men 〈◊〉 deny the authority of the Scripture And agayne (f) Quo res ad extremum redijt stupor mirabilia Natum est nouum Prophetarum genus qui Scripturarum authoritate Scripturis omneÌ„ authoritatem detraâ—ere non sunt veriti O â—â—onder able to astonish any man To what a passe by Satans â—ubtilty are men come Vnto what extreme misery is the â—orld brought whiles euery Sect will wrest the Scripture to 〈◊〉 selfe and challenge the sole true exposition thereof beâ—old a new Sect of HeaueÌ„ly Prophets is sprunge vp which 〈◊〉 not doubt by the authority of Scriptures to take away froÌ„â—cripture all authority Behold the true wordes of Hosius and togeather behold what impudency it is to vrge the blasphemous wordes by you cited as his 〈◊〉 blasphemous assertions may be layd to the charge of them that with detestation relate them you may lay the blasphemyes of wicked men related in Scriptures on the sacred writers You may impeach Salâ—mom for this speach of the Vngodly (g) Sap. c. 1. Come let 〈◊〉 inioy the pleasures that are let there be no meddow wherin our luxury doe not wallow it selfe You may endight oâ— blasphemy S. Iohn for the wordes of the Iewes abouâ— our Sauiour (h) Ioan. 9.16 This man is not of God who keepeth 〈◊〉 the Sabboath Day You might charge Saint Matthew with the words of the Pharisies (i) Math. 11.19 Behold a glutton drinker of wine I haue not read in any Protestant Minister a more foule Calumniation of any Catholike Authour except only one in your selfe agaynst Bellarmine Bellarmine say (k) Orthodoxe pag. 136. you sayth A man is not bound to belieue the Scripture to be Diuine because the Scripture 〈◊〉 selfe sayth so more then one is to belieue the Alcoran 〈◊〉 be of God because in sundry places thereof we read that 〈◊〉 was sent from Heauen by God What horrible blasphemy is this What Christian will not tremble at the hearing thereof The Scriptures affirmation is no more to be belieued then the Alcoran Hath Bellarmine this sentence which you cite in a distinct letter as his formall assertion Behold the true words of Bellarmine for the Reader that seeing your falshood he may ioyne togeather with detestation of Turkish impiety detestation of your Protestant slauÌ„dering (l) Nam etiamsi Scriptura dicat Libros Prophetarum Apostolorum esse diuinos tamen non certò id credam nisi priùs credidero Scripturam quae hoc dicit esse Diuinam Nam etiam in Alcorano Mahumeti legimus ipsum è caelo à Deo missum esse tamen non ei credimus Although the
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
(a) Baron an 1089. n. 11. Non eos homicidas arbitramur It is monstrous â—octrine which was hatched by Pope Vrban and approued 〈◊〉 Baronius that they are not to be iudged Murtherers â—hich slay Excommunicate persons As who should say â—ope Vrban and Baronius affirme that to murther â—ny way any Excommunicate persons is no sinne â—ut your slaunder will seeme moÌ„strous when their â—octrine according to truth is set downe This it is Certayne Cleargymen and Schismaticall Priests of â—ewd and dissolute life excommunicated by the Church did agaynst the lawes of the Church take armes and were slayne in the field (b) In a battayle fought betwixt Henry Emperour Egbert Marquesse of Saxony as men may iustly be in lawfull warre Now because the law of the Church censures such as strike Cleargymen they that killed these wicked seditious priests in the field had a scruple and demanded absolution and pennance of their Bishop The Bishop wrote of the matter to Pope Vrban who answered (c) Iuo part 10. c. 54. That although he did not iudge those that thus had killed such Excommunicate persons in the battaile to be murtherers yet that the discipline of the Church might be kept also because such as killed theÌ„ though the fact were lawfull might haue had some sinister and insincere intention therein as doing it out of priuate emnity that therefore the Bishop (d) SecunduÌ„ intentionem eorum modum congruae satisfactionis iniunge should according to their intention desire inioyne them a measure of congruous pennance Hence it followes that it is no sinne to kill any excoÌ„municate person euen Priests when they be inuaders of our life and in iust warre but vniuersally that it is no sinne to kill any excommunicate person what way soeuer is not Pope Vrbans Monstrous Doctrine but a Monster of your ProtestaÌ„t slaundering out of a monstrous desire you haue to delude and enrage men with lyes agaynst the Catholicke Church In the same page 114. lin 29. You thus write of Baronius (e) Baron Anno 1106. n. 14. Cardinall Baronius coÌ„mendeth to the skyes yong Henry the Emperours sonne for rebelling agaynst his naturall Father for deposing imprisoning him and bringing him with sorrow to the graue What Turke or Sauage would be the Encomiast of such vnnaturall and enormous Villany Thus you Let the truth be examined and then it will appeare that Baronius his commendation â—f yong Henry is not to the skye but your slaundeâ—ing of Baronius comes froÌ„ as low as the pit of Hell â—irst it is false according to truth of the History that â—enry the Fourth Emperour dyed of sorrow in the â—estraynt which he had layd vpon him by his Sonne (f) See Baronius ibid. and all other Historians that write of these matters nay he was in that durance vsed with such mildâ—es and liberty as he easily got away gattered forâ—es and inuaded his Sonne who by his owne conâ—ent and by the voyces of all the Electours and â—rinces of the Empire had been made crowned â—mperour This is your first vntruth that Baronius â—rayseth that imprisoning of the Father wherein he â—as brought with sorrow to his graue by his Sonne Secondly Baronius doth not commend yong â—enry at all for that fact but only speaketh conâ—itionally and on both sides no more in his prayse â—en his disprayse For hauing set downe the letters which the Emperour Henry the Elder now being at â—â—berty wrote full of complaynt agaynst his sonne â—aronius thus turneth his speach to the Reader If (g) Baron Tom. 12. pag. 46. â—hou sit Arbiter betwixt the Father the Sonne as for â—he Sonnes procuring his Fathers restraynt and deposition â—rom the Empyre by the Peeres and Princes thereof the â—onne is not to be condemned IF as he pretended HE â—ID this sincerely out of (h) Si verè pietatis intuitu prout prae se tulit ea omnia praestitit PIETY to bringe his Faâ—her vnto a better mind and to make him seeke to be absolâ—ed from Excommunication wherwith he had been so many â—â—mes tyed and chayned On the other side IF as his Faâ—her complaynes HE DID those thinges by wicked plots â—nd stratagems by periury and breaking his oath giuen to â—is Father verily HIS DEED CANNOT DE PRAISED 〈◊〉 wonderfull is the Iustice of God that this Emperour â—â—ould suffer the same persecution from his wicked Sonne which he had by perpetuall incorrigible hatred for many yeares together offered vnto his spirituall Father Thus Baronius Hence it is apparent that as Baronius and Bellarmine were great friends in their life so they are by you slaundered in the same maÌ„ner after their death That Bellarmine may seeme Turkish and guilty of propension to Turcisme you make him say The Scripture affirming a thinge is not therefore to be belieued more then Mahomets Alcoran whereas he only sayth conditionally I should not firmely belieue the Scripture affirming a thinge did I not aforehand belieue the Scripture to be diuine as I do not the Alcoran though it say of it selfe that it is of God EueÌ„ so to make Baronius seeme more sauage then any Turke wheras he sayth conditionally If yonge Henry did restrayne his Father sincerely out of piety for the good of his Father that he might returne to the Church be absolued of excommunication afterward peacebly inioy his Empyre this kind of seuerity was indeed piety you make the proposition absolute and make Baronius say It was piety in the Sonne to vse Cruelty to his Father The Reader I do not doubt seeth the exorbitancy of this false dealing I must needs adde another falsification you (i) Pag. 56. in margin lit c. vse towardes Baronius accusing him as blasphemously extolling the Authority of the Pope in this saying (k) Baron Ann. 373. num â—1 Vt planè appareat ex arbitrio dependisse Romani Pontificis Fidei Decreta sancire sancita mutare Whence it appeareth that it was in the power of the Roman Bishop to establish Decrees of Fayth and to recall the established This you bringe as if Baronius had held the Pope may make and vn-make Decrees about the Truth of Fayth making that to be Truth which before was Errour and that Errour which before was Truth So easily do you belieue charge any Barbarous and Inhumane conceyte vpon Catholicke Authors But he that shall consider attentiuely the Antecedents Consequents of the place will see that Baronius speaketh not of Decrees of Fayth in regard of the truth of Doctrine which are Eternall and so immutable that if the Pope should endeauour to change them he were (l) Decret d. 40. c. 6. Si Papa by Catholicke Doctrine an Heretike and to be deposed but only of decrees of fayth about keeping or denying Communion vnto persons suspected of Heresy in regard of doubtfull propositions This would haue appeared had you cited the wordes of Baronius that immediatly follow This is his whole
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
resplendant verity of the thing With these promises sayth S. Augustine (c) Quâ promissâ animâ— naturaliter gaudet humana sanorum escas appetendo irruit in vâ—nena fallentium Augustin Ibid. the soules of men are naturally ouerioyed whilest they gape after the promised sight of diuine truth whereof as yet they be not capable the cosening promisers cast into their mouth make them deuoure the poysoned morsells of their falshood Concerning the light of Scripture §. 3. CONCERNING the light of Scripture two thinges are euident First some arguments of probability may be drawne from the Scriptures to proue they are of God which serue for the comfort of Belieuers and may somewhat incline Infidels to belieue vpoÌ„ other greater motiues to wit the authority of God his Church This probable euidence euident probability is al which the testimonies of Scholemen brought by the Minister affirme Secondly the Scripture hath not light to shew it selfe with euident certainty to be the word of God but is belieued to be such without being seene as much as any other point and mystery of fayth to wit vpon the word of God so reuealing deliuered by tradition This is demonstrated because to be the word of God and the rule of fayth is to be true and certayne not only in some partâ— but also in al euery part particle therof so that as sayth our (e) Pag. 16. lin 2. Minister no lyer can speake therein and if (f) Augustin epist. 9. Si ad scripturas admittatur meÌ„dacium quid eis authoritatis remanebit one sentence of Scripture be prooued false the credit of the whole is lost But it is impossible that any man should know by the light euidence of the sense and doctrine of Scripture that the Scripture according to euery booke chapter leafe and line is certayne and assured truth and that no lye or falshood is contayned therein as these seauen Arguments euince The first Argument First because the (g) Hieron epist. ad Aug. 19. inter epist. Aug. Scripturae obscurissimae sunt Iren. l. 2. c. 47. Origen lib. 7. contra Celsum Reuerà multis locis obscurae Vide Bellarm. de Script l. 3. c. 1. Fathers teach and (h) Field Church l. 4. c. 15. No question but there be manifold obscurityes in Scripture Protestants euen our (i) Reply pag. 35. Minister acknowledge that there be many darke and obscure passages of Scripture that the Scripture is full of innumerable difficultyes that sometimes one (k) Quid vel falsò suspicentur non inueniunt Aug. l. 2. de doctr Christ. c. â— Whitaker de Eccles. pag. 220. Quaedam loca de quibus nihil certo statui potest can hardly so much as giue a probable guesse at their meaning but these texts and places cannot be knowne to containe diuine truth no falshood by the euideÌ„ce of the doctrine Therefore we cannot know the Scripture to be the word of God that is nothing but truth by the euidence of the doctrine HeÌ„ce appeareth that Protestants teaching that â—he Scripture is known to be the word of God and that no lye is contayned therein by the euidence and light of the doctrine coÌ„tradict themselues in saying that in many places it is difficill and darke as they cannot assuredly vnderstand it For how can they know by the light of the sense or doctrine that the texts not vnderstood containe nothing but truth The second Argument Secondly the Scriptures are pretended to be known by the maiesty (l) Reply pag. 16. Internall matter maiesty of the bookes Item pag. 30. 68. Field appendix 34. Caluin Instit. l. 1. c. 7. purity of the doctrine but though some mysteries of the Scriptures carry a maiesty in respect of naturall reason and a shew of sublimity aboue it as the Blessed Trinity yet (m) Sunt quaedaÌ„ in sacris litteris quae quia suboffendunt animos ignaros negligentes sui quae maxima turba populariter accusari defendi autem populariter propter mysteria quae in illis coÌ„tinentur non à multis admodum possunt Aug. de vtil cred c. 1. other points of Scripture seeme vnto reason ridiculous and childish As that the serpent did speake to the woman that Adam and Eue were naked without perceiuing themselues to be so that there was day and night before the sunne was created the like Therfore we must haue some other surer ground then this maiesty of the doctrine to be certayne that the Scripture is nothing but truth Gods infallible word The third Argument Thirdly wheras the (n) Reply pag. 19. Minister much vrgeth the harmony of Scripture to proue the same to be of God Though this harmony appeare in diuers thinges yet who doth not know that innumerable seeming contradictions are obiected against Scripture (o) This is euident vnto al that haue read the coÌ„meÌ„taryes of the Fathers many of which are only probably answered by the Fathers many answered by thinges assumed without proofe only because otherwise we must admit contradiction in Scripture (p) This appeareth particularly in the foure first chapters of Genesis and in the Genealogy of our Sauiour And in concording the Chronologyes of the Booke of Kings some places not fully answered but the Fathers were forced to fly from literall vnto allegoricall senses how then could the ancient Fathers know the harmony of Scripture by the euidence of the thing thereon ground their faith that the Scripture is of God Or if they could not how can we For what the Minister boastingly affirmeth (q) Reply pag. 24. lin 15. of himselfe and his fellowes we find at this day a perfect harmony of all the parts of the Gospell among themselues and a perfect agreement of the same with the Scriptures of the old Testament This Ministeriall bragge I say of their finding the harmony of all Scriptures at this day aboue all the Ancients by the euidence of the thing is incredible for men cannot be more sure of the perfect harmony of Scriptures then they are sure that all contradictions laid to the charge of Scripture haue true solutions But no man liuing euer was or is sure by euidence that all the solutions and answeres vsed to reconcile Scriptures be the truth no not Protestants For did they vnderstand assuredly euery text of Scripture and euery seeming contradiction is reconciled could there be amoÌ„gst theÌ„ such different and aduerse exposition of Scripture Therefore no man euer did or doth know the perfect harmony of all Scriptures by the euidence of the thing nor consequently the Scripture to be of God by the euidence of this harmony The fourth Argument Fourthly wheras the Minister pretends the Scripture to be known by the style affirming that seeing God hath bestowed tongues and voyces on men by which they may be known the Iesuite cannot persuade any reasonable man that God so speaketh in Scripture as men eleuated
by grace cannot discerne the same to be his voyce and word This is spoken with more confidence then consideration God hath an (s) Ioan. 1. Eternall Increate manner of speaking to wit the production of the Eternall Word by which the Blessed discerne him from all other speakers by the euidence of blisse-full learning but no created manner of speaking (t) This is also true wheÌ„ God speaketh inwardly to the soule For in that speaking he vseth the natiue intellectuall tongue that is the vnderstanding Faculty of the soule his diuine inspirations being apprehensions of vnderstanding of the will and affections Hence this inward speaking is not by the meere souÌ„d knowne to be Diuine but by the coniecture of some effects or by speciall reuelation is so proper to God as it can be knowne to be his speaking by the meere sound of the voyce without speciall reuelation or els some consequent miraculous effect Which I declare and proue by this argument If there were a man that had no proper sound and accent of voyce but could and did exactly vse the voyce of euery man as he pleased this man could not be known by his voyce Likewise if a man had no proper stile in writing but could perfectly write the stile of any authour as he should thinke good he could not be knowne from other writers by his phrase But God hath no proper external sound or accent of voyce nor any proper stile or phrase in writing but vseth the propeâ— tongue of those men whome it pleaseth him to inspire folding vp his heauenly coÌ„ceites in the Prophets naturall language whence ariseth (u) The differeÌ„ce of stile betwixt the Apocalyps and the Ghospell of S. Iohn is noted by Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Euseb. l. 7. c. 10. And Caluin Institut l. 1. c. 8. noteth variety of stile amongst the Euangelists Prophets Dauidi Isaiae â—ucunda suauis fluit oratio Apud Amos Pastorem Ieremiam ZachariaÌ„ asperior sermorusticitatem sapit such difference of stiles amongst the sacred writers So that it is great want of discretioÌ„ to thinke to know a book to be of God by the stile abstracting from the matter Now the matter is such as it doth not with euidence certainly shew it selfe to be nothing but truth as hath beene prooued Learned men as hath been sayd may from within Scripture gather arguments that probably perswade that the same is the word of God but euident probability cannot be the ground of persuasion certayne and ineuident it may be a comfortable coÌ„firmation not an assured foundation of Fayth The fifth Argument If Scriptures be not cleere and euident but only to such as haue the light and faculty of fayth they cannot be the prime principles of Fayth euident in themselues not prooued by the principles of faith This is cleere because euery faculty supposeth her principles by the light of them which the student bringes with him she sheweth truths pertineÌ„t vnto her skill that were hidden But the Scriptures are not cleere and euident but to such only as haue aforehand the light and faculty of fayth yea they be dark obscure vnto Infidels as not only the (x) Verbum eius infidelibus nox est Hilarius in cap. 10. Matth. 2. Caluin l. 1. Iustit c. 8. n. 9. Fathers teach but also Protestants graunt Therefore the Scriptures be not the prime principles of fayth supposed before fayth which Infidells seeing to be true resolue to belieue the mysteryes of Fayth but only are secondary truths darke and obscure in themselues belieued vpon the prime principles of fayth The sixt Argument Hence ariseth the sixt argument which is à priori If Scriptures may be prooued by the light of a superiour principle of Fayth they are not the prime principles of sayth euident in themselues and indemonstrable But Scripture is prooued by a superiour more euident principle of faith For the doctrine of the Scripture is proued to be true because God the prime verity authour of Scripture cannot deceaue nor be deceaued Now that prime verity cannot deceaue nor be deceaued is a principle of fayth superiour and more euident then that the Scriptures be of God and diuine Therfore Scripture is not the supreme indemonstrable principle of Fayth but is proued to be truth by the authority of God reuealing it to be of God by the miracles of the Apostles publishing it to be the Apostles by the tradition of the Church deliuering it as such euen as all as other mysteryes of Fayth are proued The seauenth Argument Finally Protestants for this their fancy of finall resolution of fayth by the resplendeÌ„t verity of the doctrine haue not any argument worth a rush Their chiefe Argument are two First Scripture is a principle of fayth but principles are to be euident in themselues and to be knowne by their own light This argument much often vrged by you your (a) Way pag. 37. Defence cap. 20. Brother is seely because al principles must not be euideÌ„t in theÌ„selues but only the first prime principles of euery faculty or hability of knowledge as all know But Scriptures are not as hath been shewed the prime principles of fayth but are secondary principles which being known we by the light of them may know many other things The second argument (b) This argument is vrged by the Minister pag. 16. and often elswhere The Scripture is light for the word of God is light and Scripture is the word of God But euery light is euident in it selfe and knowne by the euidence it hath in it selfe Therefore the Scriptures must of themselues appearâ— and shew that they are diuine truth I Answere the Minor of this Argument is false the whole argument grounded vpon ignorance in not discerning a difference betwixt corporall spirituall light True it is that euery corporal light that doth enlighten the eye of body must be euident in it selfe primely originally cleere but not so euery truth that illustrates mans vnderstaÌ„ding The reason is because the eye of body cannot by thinges seene inferre conclude things that are hidden but only can appreheÌ„d what doth directly and immediatly shew it selfe But mans Vnderstanding not only apprehends what sheweth it selfe but by things knowne inferreth breedeth in it selfe knowledge of thinges hidden Hence vnto Vnderstanding though things shewing themselues directly and by their owne light be her prime principles and meanes to know other thinges yet also things hidden in themselues being formerly knowne by the light of authority may thereby become lights that is meanes to know yet further of things hidden So that speaking of spirituall and intellectuall lights it is false that all lights enlightening mans Vnderstanding to know other thinges are euident in themselues yea some secondary Principles and Lights there are which must be shewed by superior light before they become lights In which kind is the Scripture being a Light vnto the faythfull
because knowne by the Churches perpetuall Tradition to be from the Apostles by the Apostles miraculous authority to be of God by Gods supreme Verity who cannot deceaue nor be deceaued to be the truth THE SECOND PART About the Catholike Resolution of Fayth NO doubt but that to the end a man may belieue diuine inward illuminatiō annointing his hart is necessary The question is what is the externall infallible ground vnto which Diuine inspiration moueth men to adhere that they may be setled in the true sauing fayth The answere in few words is this The Resolution of true Religion is firmely assured about foure Principles agaynst foure Enemyes by foure Perfections belonging vnto God as he is Prima veritas Prime and Infinite Verity that cannot deceaue nor be deceaued This I declare and proue The first Principle prooued §. 1. THE first Enemy of true Christian Religion is the Pagan (a) Dicunt pagani Ben◠viuimus or Prophane (b) Fuerunt Philosophi de virtutibus vitijs sublimia multa tractantes Aug. Tract 45. in Ioan. Philosopher who is persuaded he may attayne vnto perfect felicity and Sanctity by the knowledge of sole naturall truth Against this enemy is the first principle of true Christian Religion The Doctrine of Saluation is that only which was reuealed of God vnto his Prophets About this Principle true belieuers are resolued by a perfection which in the first place belonges vnto God as he is Prime Infinite verity to wit that he cannot lye nor reueale any vntruth when he speaks immediatly himselfe by secret inspiration Hēce we thus resolue God the Prime verity cannot reueale vntruth specially about the State-matters of saluation when he speakes by secret inspiration immediatly himselfe But he reuealed in this manner by inspiration vnto his Prophets that men cannot serue him truly nor be saued without knowing supernatural truthes beyond the (c) As mans felicity the blissfull visiō of God is aboue the forces of Nature so it was conueniēt God shold bring him vnto it by belieuing truth aboue the reach of his reason reach of Reason which truthes in particular he reuealed vnto them Therfore the doctrine of saluation is supernaturall truth such as was reuealed of God vnto his Prophets and others whome he did vouchsafe to teach immediatly by himselfe and send them to be the teachers of the world This the prime and highest principle of Christian resolution Protestants not in expresse words but in deeds and by consequence reiect from being the stay of their fayth For as they that belieue the doctrine of Aristotle lastly and finally by the light and euidence therof because it sheweth it selfe to be conformable to reason do not build vpon the authority of Aristotle nor vpon his bare world euen so they that belieue the doctrine of Scripture by the light resplendent verity thereof because it shewes it selfe to be diuine and heauenly truth as Protestants pretend to doe do not build vpon the authority of God the authour and doctour of Scripture nor his bare meere pure word This is most euident for who doth not see that it is one thing to belieue the word of some Doctour by the light of the doctrine and another to belieue his word through reuerence vnto his authority as knowing him to be infallible in his word Hence the Protestant fayth is so independent of the authority of God as though God were not prime verity but fallible in his words yet their fayth might subsist as now it doth This is cleere because let one be neuer so fallible and false yet when his sayings shew themselues to be true we may yea we cannot but belieue his word in respect of the resplendent verity therof But Protestants pretend that the sayings of Scripture shew themselues to be true by the light lustre of the Doctrine belieued therin vpon this resplendēt verity they build lastly their fayth Therfore though God were fallible might be false yet their fayth that his Scripture is truth which sheweth it selfe to be truth by the resplendent verity of the doctrine might subsist Is this the true Christian fayth which depends not vpon Gods being the Prime and Infallible Verity which giues no more credit vnto God then men wil giue vnto a lyar to wit to belieue him so farre as they see him To credit the word of his teaching so farre as it sheweth it selfe to be truth by the light of the doctrine Verily this forme of Fayths resolution is grosse and vnchristian which I am persuaded Protestants would not mantayne did they well vnderstand what they say or could they find some other way of Resolution wherby they might know what doctrine is the Apostles and therfore Gods without being bound to relye vpon the Tradition of the Church The second Principle demonstrated §. 2. SOME will say God is prime Verity by whose word we cannot be deceaued But how prou◠you these pretended diuine reuelations to be truly such Here cōmeth in the second enemy of true Religion who following his blind passion labours to depriue the world of the proofes of diuine reuelations that are more euident then the Sunne This Enemy is the Iew who graūting the doctrine of saluation to be supernaturall truth reuealed of God denies the reuealed doctrine of God to be Apostolicall that is the doctrine which the Apostles preached to the whole world as the doctrine of saluation Agaynst this Enemy is the second Principle of true Religion The Doctrine of saluation reuealed of God is no other but Apostolicall that is which the Apostles published to the world About this principle true belieuers are resolued by a second perfection of the prime Verity which is That he cannot with his seale that is with miracles and workes proper to himselfe warrant or subsigne falshood deuised or vēted by any man Hence we make this resolution God being Infinite verity cannot by signe and miracle testify falshood deuised and vented by men God hath by manifest miracles testifyed the doctrine of the Apostles to be his word and message Ergo the same is not a false religion inuented of men but the doctrin of Saluation reuealed of God The miracles by which the Prime verity hath giuen testimony vnto the Apostles doctrine may be reduced vnto foure heades First the miraculous predictions of the Prophets most cleerly punctually fullfilled in Christ Iesus his B. Mother his Apostles his Church Secondly the miraculous workes in all kindes which Christ Iesus and his disciples haue wrought which are so many so manifest so wonderfull aboue nature as we cannot desire greater euidences Thirdly the miraculous conuersion of the world by twelue poore vnlearned Fisher-men the world I say which thē was in the flowre of human pride glory in the height of human erudition and learning bringing them to belieue a doctrine seemingly absurd in reason to follow a course of discipline truly repugnant vnto sensuality to imbrace a way of saluation
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
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
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
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
of Waldo Wickliffe and Husse Fabulae sunt they are Fables you turne as by him spoken of perpetuall Traditions of the Catholicke and Roman Church The Pharisees did indeed corrupt Scripture But how By Logicall deductions out of the same according to your Protestant and the common Hereticall fashion pretending greater skill then all their Ancestors That they did affirme that their speciall obseruations were Traditions vnwritten from Moyses the Scripture hath not a word yea the thing they most of all obiected agaynst our Sauiour was the written Tradition of Moyses about keeping the Sabboth Day Ioan. 7. From which precept not by Tradition vnwritten but by Logicall inference they concluded that our Lord brake the Sabboth-Day by healing diseased persons thereon So that Pharasaicall Traditions were neuer so much as pretended to be doctrines vnwritten as you imagine but to be doctrines concluded from the text of Scripture by the rules of Reason and Logicke iust according to your Protestant pretence Also what you say that the Fathers Traditions vnwritten be not our doctrines but yours is spoken because you would haue men so thinke though they erre not because you can thinke the same to be so in truth For thus I argue agaynst this your seely Shift The Fathers as appeareth by their wordes vnderstand by Tradition Apostolical vnwritten Dogmata quae peti non possunt è Sacra Scriptura Doctrines of fayth that cannot be gathered froÌ„ the holy Scriptures with such certitude as they may therevpon be belieued as articles of fayth But you pretend and glory that all your Doctrines of Fayth be ex sacris Scripturis petitae so drawne and gathered from holy Scriptures as they are belieued as Fayth only vpon this rule Ergo it is great vanity for you to say that the Fathers by Apostolical Tradition vnwritten vnderstood the Doctrine not of the Roman Church but of your Protestant Separation And if from generality vpon which Ministers whose drift is to deceyue do willingly dwell we descend to particulars we shall find that you reiect those Doctrines customes of the Roman Church as Fabulous dreames and human inuentions which the Fathers expressely and in tearmes affirme to be Apostolicall Traditions To pray for the reliefe of the Soules of the faythfull deceased Protestants esteeme fabulous the (1) (1) Chrys. Homil 69. ad Pop. Fathers affirme it was ab Apostolis sancitum ordayned by the Apostles The binding of the Cleargy-men and those that are in the holy Ministery to single life and from woing wiuing do not Protestants detest as impious (2) (2) Concil Carthag Can. 2. yet the fathers say haec docuâ—runt Apostoli haec seruauit antiquitas this the Apostles taught this was kept by the Ancients That it is damnable Sin for Votaries to marry after their vowes do not Protestants contemne as a fabulous inuention yet (3) (3) Epiphan haeres 61. the Fathers say tradiderunt Sancti Dei Apostoli this is the Tradition of the holy Apostles of God The custome of making the signe of the Crosse on the forhead ProtestaÌ„ts deride as foolish (4) (4) Basil. de Spirit Sanct. c. 27. yet the Fathers affirme hoc tradiderunt Patres nostri in silentio sine literis it was taught by our Fathers the Apostles in silent Tradition without writing The Fast of Lent is it not in neglect and derision with Protestants yet the (5) (5) Hieron Epist. ad Marcell de erroribus Montan. Fathers sayd as we do QuadragesimaÌ„ semel in anno ex Apostolica traditione ieiunamus we fast one Lent a yeare by the tradition of the Apostles Do not Protestants also scorne the feast of Ember-weeke foure tymes in the yeare And yet the (6) (6) Leo de ieiunio sexti mensis Serm. 6. de Pentecost Fathers say ex Apostolica traditione seruantur they are receyued by Apostolical Tradition To fast one fryday or the sixt Day of the weeke in memory of our Sauiours passion Protestants condemne as superstitious yet (7) (7) Epiphan haeres 75. the Fathers say hoc decreuerunt Apostoli the Apostles made this decree and the Church by Tradition from them hath perpetually obserued it The making and blessing of holy water do not ProtestaÌ„ts reiect as magicall Yet the (8) (8) Basil. de spir san c. 27. Fathers say expressely it is a Tradition of the Apostles To mingle water with Wine in the Chalice of the holy Eucharist is thought by Protestants to be fabulous But by the Fathers (9) (9) Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. Dominica institutio the institution of our Lord by Tradition vnwritten deriued to vs. Luther dareth to cast off with a iest the commandement not to receiue the holy Eucharist but fasting that so the body of our Lord may enter in at our mouth before other meates (10) (10) Aug. Ep. 118 ad Ianuar c. 6. yet the Fathers say hoc placuit Spiritu sancto hoc Christus per Apostolos disposuit it pleased the holy ghost it should be so and by his inspiration the Apostles did so appoint What shall I say of (11) (11) Aug. lib. 4. in Iulian. Leo primus Ep. 14. Exorcizandi sunt secundum ApostolicaÌ„ regulam Exorcismes ExsufflatioÌ„s vsed in Baptisme the (12) (12) Origen Homil. 5. in Num. A magno Pontifice Christo eius filiis Apostolis traditam forme of interrogations answeres and other ceremonies That (13) (13) Fabian Ep. 2. ad Oriental Christus instituit they that be baptized be afterwards Chrismed with the oyle of balme (14) (14) Tertul. li. 1. ad vx Apostolica praescriptio Epiphan haer 50. Propter eminentiam celebrationis traditam That they who haue beene maried more then once be not promoted vnto Priesthood out of reuerence vnto that dignity (15) (15) Aug. lib. 17. de Ciuit. c. 4. Hoc votum illi potentissimi vouerant That the Apostles made the vow of Religions perfection That (16) (16) Chrys. homil 17. ad Paph Antiochen A Christo introducta Casian Coenobitarum disciplina tempore praedicationis Apostolorum sumpserat exordium Monasticall profession began by their institution (17) (17) Tertul. de Corona Militis Anniuersarios dies colimus the keeping festiuall Dayes in the honour of Saints deceased (18) (18) Concil Antioc Apostol citat in 7. Synod act 1. The placing the Images of Christ and his Saints in the Church (19) (19) Damascen orat 4. de Imagin Synod Nicen 2. act 7. Their Worship (20) (20) Aug. Serm. 17. de verbis Apost Cyril cathec 5. Mystagog To commend our selues vnto the prayers of Saintes deceased in the holy Sacrifice of Masse These things Protestants detest as Superstitions all which yet the Fathers mantayne to be Apostolicall Traditions metamorphize the word Profitable as to make it signify the same with the word Sufficient which is very hard yet were the text much ouer-short to proue their intent that Scripture alone
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
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
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
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
saith he is Apostolical against which the ancient Fathers made no expresse opposition then these Protestant articles are Apostolicall that the Roman Bishop and Councell may erre that the substance of bread wine remayne after consecration that common prayer ought to be vttered in a known language I answere Not euery doctrine against which the Fathers doe not expresly oppose is Apostolicall for some heresies were not thought of in that tyme as this Protestant persuasion That Common prayer must be sayd by the publike Minister in a language vulgarly vnderstood of euery woman and that it doth not suffice that the more principal persons of the Church vnderstand it word by word and the rest being instructed doe for matter and substance though not word by word So not euery doctrine not opposed but euery doctrine that is taught confessedly as Christian doctrine by some anciēt Fathers was neuer expressly by name opposed by any of the Fathers Doctrine I say thus taught neuer opposed as such deliuered by full Tradition is infallibly Apostolicall Such are our doctrins as may be proued euen in the particular exāples brought by the Minister as for the contrary particularly in this first instāce of their doctrine That the Roman Bishop Councells may erre For was this Protestant doctrine neuer opposed by any Father doe not the Magdeburgians Centur. 4. col 550. acknowledge the auncient Ecclesiasticall Canon that the Councels are not to be celebrated without the sentence of the Roman Bishop And the Fathers held such Cōncells had the holy Ghost so as they could not erre so cleerly as Luther complaynes Postill Wittemb Dom. 8. post Trinitatem fol. 114.6 § 3 Gregory Augustin and many other holy Fathers erred in taking from vs power to iudge our Teachers commanding vs to belieue the POPE and Councells For this misery is very auncient in the Church Thus he This answere is full and a certayne ground of perswasion else as I sayd common people could neuer know the assured Tradition of their Auncestours vpon which they must as I prooued build their Chistian beliefe seing as D. Field in the epistle Dedicatory also noteth There be few and very few that haue leasure or strengh of Iudgenent to examine particular controuersyes by Scripture or Fathers but needes must rest in that doctrine which the Church deliuers as a Tradition neuer contradicted by any Orthodoxe Fathers To discredit therfore a cōstant receaued Tradition it is necessary to bring an Orthodoxe contradiction thereof not newly found out by reading the Fathers but a contradiction by the same of antiquity deliuered vnto posterity which kind of contradiction they cannot find agaynst any point of Catholike doctrine For let them name but one Father whom Antiquity doth acknowlege as a Contradictour of Inuocation of Saints Adoratiō of the Sacrament Reall Presence Prayer for the dead they cannot certainly though they bring diuers places to proue a thing which Antiquity neuer noted or knew of before that the Fathers be various and wauering about these points The Conclusion of this point shewing that Protestants Erre fundamentally §. 6. OVT of all this appeares that the Roman Church is the true Church and consequently (u) The Minister cauilleth at this cōsequence but it is euident for the Church is but One in which only saluation is had and if the Roman be this Church Protestants are not saued out of it that Protestants haue (*) The Minister in making answere vnto this Paragraffe is from the beginning to the end not only exceeding bitter and full of rayling but also impertinent not vnderstanding the state of the cōtrouersy nor what the Iesuite vndertaketh to proue The Iesuites conclusion bendeth against some Protestants with whom he dealt in his Conferences holding there is no fundamentall difference betwixt the Roman Church and the Protestant that men may be saued indifferently in the one and the other Protestant doctrines wherein they differ from the Roman though they should be errours not being fundamentall and damnable errours The Iesuits intention was agaynst these men not to proue absolutely that Protestants erre for then he would haue proued the Nine obiected articles to be errours by such testimonyes of Scriptures and Fathers as would haue puzzeled the Minister but supposing as giuen and not granted by his aduersaryes Dato non concesso that Protestants erre he vndertaketh to shew their errours to be mayne fundamental and damnable and that the mantayners therof cannot be saued and so no saluation to be had but in the one Catholike Church Hence it is euident that the Ministers labour to shew that the Protestant doctrines be not errours is impertinent for this the Iesuite did not intend to proue but supposing they are errours to proue they are damnable and fundamentall errours agaynst Adiaphorists that hold there is no fundamentall difference betwixt the Protestant and Roman Church fundamentall Errours about fayth Errours are (x) The Minister sayth that errours fundamentall must be conuinced to be such out of Scripture citing to this purpose the saying of S. Augustine De doctrin Christian. lib. 2. cap. 3. In these thinges that are cleerly deliuered in Scripture are contayned all those things which contayne fayth and good manners I answere S. Augustine sayth not that all necessary thinges are contayned expressely in Scripture not in particular and distinctly but in generall and according to the genericall name of necessary vertues as his words fully set down declare which are these All things that contayne fayth and good manners to wit hope and charity No doubt but the genericall dutyes of Fayth Hope Charity are expressely euen in so many words set downe in Scripture though not all particularityes about them seing now all Protestants graunt that some things are contayned in Scripture inuoluedly and implicitly that is in other tearmes intricately and obscurely fundamentall that is damnable eyther in regard of the matter because agaynst some substantiall matter of fayth the knowledge whereof is necessary for the performance of a required Christian duty or in regard of the manner they are held to wit so obstinately as in defence of them one denyes the Catholike Church Errours fundamentall of the first kind Protestants haue diuers particularly these Nine First their doctrine agaynst Tradition vnwritten wherby the (y) By Tradition is vnderstood Doctrine known precedently independently of Scripture though perchāce the same be written This doctrine precedētly knowne vnto Scripture the Minister professeth that Protestants deny pag. 105. lin 24. consequently they erre fundamētally For here by they be forced to make the resolution of their fayth by the euidence of the thing and light of the matter agaynst the first ground of Christiā Religiō that in this life we walk by faith not by euidēce as hath been shewed Foundation is ouerthrowne on which we belieue all other substantiall and fundamentall points as hath been shewed Secondly their denying the (z) The Minister
it is to be held as a knowne perpetuall Christian Tradition deliuered by full practise independently of the definition of any Councell neuer permitting the same to examination as one of those articles wherof Luther sayth comment in Psalm 82. fol. 546. Generales articuli recepti in tota Ecclesia satis auditi excussi approbati sunt c. ferendus non est qui vâ—lit eos in dubium reuocare sed velut blasphemus indicta causa inaudita damnandus Generall Councels therby casting downe the foundation of vnity in the Church Fourthly their denying the foundation of true (b) This is the most essentiall point of Protestancy which they tearme the foundation of foundations the pith marrow of the Gospell See the booke de Essentia Protestantism lib. 1. c. 6 This their doctrin coÌ„sists in foure points First that euery man is iustifyed by the iustice of Christ by being as it were vested therewith Secondly this Iustice of Christ is formally imputed vnto euery man not throgh repentance and mortification but through Fayth only Thirdly that this fayth is not the dogmaticall or historicall fayth whereby we belieue in generall the wordes of Christ and reuealed misteryes of the Scripture but a speciall fayth wherby a man doth firmely and infallibly perswade himselfe that to him in particular the Iustice of Christ is imputed for the full remission of his sinnes Fourthly that he that hath not firme fayth that his sinnes are remitted vnto him by the imputation of Christs merits hath not Iustifying fayth nor is iust in the sight of God but as good as an Infidell though he haue historicall fayth that all the doctrins of Christian Religion are true Hence you may perceyue that our Minister is a man of no fayth who not only denyes this article of Protestancy not only sayes that they neyther now hold or euer held it but also reuileth the Iesuite charging him with Lying with Calumniation with Deprauing and falsifying their Protestant doctrine and that he wanted matter to fraught his papers when he charged their Church with teaching Iustification by this speciall Fayth pag. 163. yea on the contrary side he sayth that Protestants hold these foure points First that a Christian of a contrite spirit belieuing that his sinnes are remissible receaueth forgiuenes though he want fayth and perswasion in himselfe that his sinnes are remitted to him in particular by the imputation of Christs merit pag. 166. lin 6. seq Secondly that Protestants hold no man is iustifyed by only fayth or by only belieuing himselfe to be iust and his sinnes forgiuen by the imputation of the Iustice of Christ but he must be iust before he can or ought to belieue himselfe to be so pag. 62. lin 8. Thirdly that the promise of remission of sinnes is conditionall requiring of sinners not fayth only but also the forsaking of sinne and doing good works Esa. 1.16.17.18 and that this promise becomes not absolute till the conditions be fulfilled pag. 166. lin 12. Fourthly that Iustifying fayth is the Christian Catholike Dogmaticall fayth wherby we belieue the hystories of Scripture and mysteries of our Religion ibid. pag. 161. lin 5. Wherfore he sayth that the difference betwixt Protestants and vs Catholikes is only in two points First that they require not only dogmaticall fayth but also that this be a Fiduciall assent that is ioyned with Hope pag. 163. lin 1. But we forsooth hold Iustification by dogmaticall fayth only and by such fayth as is in Diuells and do not require that the dogmatical or intellectual assent be also fiducial that is ioined with Hope pag. 168. lin 2. Secondly that we hold that a man cannot be certayne by fayth that he is iust but Protestants hold the contrary yet he sayth pag. 167. lin 20. that there is very small difference if any at all betwixt them vs herein because they do not hold this their assurance that they are iust to be equall in the firmity of assent to the assurance of Dogmaticall fayth which they haue about the common obiect of fayth Thus the Minister whome I leaue to the censure of Protestants with no little wonder they can indure him to write in this sort and thus openly to disclaime shew himselfe ashamed of the very Essence of their ReligioÌ„ What is certayne amongst Protestants if this may be denyed Howsoeuer I conclude this point with this syllogisme against them Protestants euen by the tacite concession of this their Aduocate hold fundamentall and damnable heresy as certainly as it is certaine that they hold Iustification not by common Dogmaticall fayth but by speciall fayth only whereby one apprehends the Iustice of Christ and vesteth himselfe therewith belieuing in particular his sinnes to be forgiuen and himselfe to be iust in Gods sight by the imputation thereof vnto him through this his fayth But that Protestants hold this as a most fundamentall article of their Religion is as certaine as it is certayne that there is or euer was Protestant in the world Wherin I appeale to the Iudgement of all learned Protestants and to these their bookes Luther Epist. ad Galat. Caluin lib. 3. Institut lib. 11. Melancthon in coll comm Kemnit Exam. Trid. 1. p. Iohn White our Ministers Brother Desence pa. 188.189 seq and to the conscience of euery Protestant yea this is the eleauenth article of the English Church That a man is accounted righteous before God only for the merit of Christ Iesus by faith And it is wholsome doctrine say they that we are iustifyed by this fayth Iustification which is the one Catholike Christian fayth about reuealed misteryes bringing in a phantastical fayth pretending that euery man is Iustifyed by belieuing himselfe in particular to be iust or one of Gods elect Fiftly their extenuating the value of the price of our Redemption not making it sufficient to giue (c) The Minister being ashamed of his Religion doth here also contest that ProtestaÌ„ts teach the merit of workes He sayth indeed in words they teach only the merit of Congruity but in sense he makes them to teach merit of condignity as much as any Catholike doth as is after proued in the 8. point inward sanctity purity to mens soules nor to rayse the workes of Gods children to a due perfection with their reward Sixtly their Errours agaynst Baptisme the gate and entrance into Christian life whereof they deny the vertue to sanctify men the (d) To discouer the vanity of the Minister who sayth that the Protestant doctrine about Baptisme is held by our Schoolemen Note that concerning the necessity of Baptisme there be three errours the one greater then the other The first that though Baptisme be the only ordinary meanes of saluation yet some children dying without Baptisme are saued by extraordinary fauour as S. Iohn was sanctifyed in the wombe Luc. 1.2.53 This is held by some Catholikes but no fundamentall errour because it affirmes not any extraordinary fauour but such
old Fathers meaning the Fathers oâ— the Old Testament not of the New whiâ—â— appeares because in proofe of his saying 〈◊〉 brings not the Testimony of (i) The Minister saith pag. 250. lin 11. that Polidore nameth Gregory amongst the old Fathers that condemned the worship of Images for feare of Idolatry as Hierome doth witnes Answere This is false and impossible For Gregory liuing all most two hundred yeares after the death of S. Hierome how could he be one of the old Fathers whom S. Hierome witnesseth to haue condemned Image-worship for feare of Idolatry Gregory theÌ„ is named by Polidore not amongst the old Fathers but as one of the new Fathers that is Fathers of the new Testament as seeming to speake against Image-worship but in truth doth not as hath bene said any Father of the New Testament but onely of the old as of Moyses Dauid Hieremy and other Prophets And the scope of the whole chapter is to declare that the reason why in the old Testament the Fathers misliked the worship of Images of God was because they could not paint him aright Cùm Deum nemo vidisset vnquam because then no man had seen God (k) The Minister saith that the Iewes at least might haue adored the Images of Prophets if such adoration had bene lawfull as the Papists hold Answer In the same manner I argue The Iewes might haue made the Images of their holy Prophets if the making of them had bene lawfull as Protestants hold Let the Minister proue by Gods word they made them I will proue they worshipped theÌ„ Let him I say shew that Images of Prophets were set in the beginning of their Prophesies as his is set in the frontispice of this his Reply and I promise him to proue the same were honoured This is the thinge wherof we require example in Scripture and wherin the Minister is as dumbe as a fish not able to shew one proper Image of an adored person lawfully made that might not lawfully be adored Afterwards God saith Polidore hauing taken flesh and being become visible to mortall eyes men flocked to him and did without doubt behold and reuerence his face shining with the brightnes of Diuine light and euen then they began to paint or carue his image already imprinted in their mindes And these Images they receiued with great worship and veneration as was reason the honour of the Image redounding to the original as Basill writes which custome of adoring Images the Fathers were so farre from reprouing as they did not onely admit therof but also decreed and commanded the same by Generall Councells in the time of Constantine the fourth and Iustinian the second his sonne And therfore what man is there so dissolute audacious as can dreame of the contrary and doubt of the Lawfulnes of this Worship established so long ago by decree of most holy Fathers Thus writeth Polidore and much more to the same purpose in the very place where the Minister Citeth him to the contrary which shewes how notoriously his credulous readers are abused in matters of most moment Hence appeareth the third falshood that in Gregoryes dayes images began to be set vp in Churches which to haue bene in the Churches longe before the Testimonyes of S. Basill Paulinus Lactantius and Tertullian do sufficiently witnes Neither can our Aduersary bringe any cleere testimony of antiquity against this custome For the decree of the Councell (l) The Minister sayth that some Pontificians grant that this Councel forbad the making of images so cleer is their decree agaynst them I Answere such Authors had no reason in the world to be so persuaded of this CouÌ„cell but only the wordes of the decree Now the wordes of the decree be not cleere yea they cannot admit that sense being compared with the wordes that immediatly follow as the Iesuit doth demonstrate In so much as the Minister to frame an argument out of this decree is forced ridiculously to curtall the text take some few wordes leauing the rest Such is his obstinacy agaynst the light of truth of Eliberis that no Picture should be made in the Church least that which is worshipped or adored be painted on walls which the Minister way pag. 345. much vrgeth cleerly signifyeth the contrary For may not Images painted on tables be in Churches and yet neither made in the Church nor painted on walls which kind of Images the Councell doth not forbid And why doth the Councel forbid Images to be made in the Church as pertinent to the fabricke therof or to be painted on Walls but out of reuerence vnto Images for they being holy things and so to be honoured for their prototypes sake the Councel thought it vnworthy of their dignity that they should be made on walls where they may easily be defaced and deformed and by Persecutours for that Councell was held in time of persecution abused He doth also Way pag. 345. much insist vpon Epiphanius epist. ad Ioan. Hicrosol but relates according to his fashion both his fact words vnsincerely Epiphanius sayth he finding an Image painted on a cloath hanging in a Church rent it downe and said it was against the authority of the Scripturs that any Image should be in the Church Thus he vnsincerely as I said not expressinge what kind of Image that was that Epiphanius rent in peeces For Epiphanius saith Cùm inuenissem imaginem hominis pendentem in Eâ—cl sit tanquam Christi aut alicuius Sancti nâ—scio enim cuius erat when I had found an Image of a man hanging in the Church as Christs or some Saints for I know not of whom the Image was Epiphanius (m) Here the Minister rayleth most intolerably crying that the testimonyes are cleere but not so much as endeauours to answer the Iesuits arguments that are demonstratiue as much as any can be in this kind of matter The Ministers arguments on the other side haue no force at all being two proposed in a double interrogation If sayth he pag. 254. lin 2. Epiphanius himselfe did not remember whose Image it was whether of Christ or of a Saint or of some prophane man how knowes this Iesuite that it was the Image of a prophane person I Answere That Epiphanius did know that it was not Christs image nor any Saints but some prophan persoÌ„s thogh he knew not determinately what prophane persons the same was For Epiphanius would not haue vrged the vnlawfulnes of hanging that image in the Church in regard it was a mans Image had he not vnderstood a prophane mans Hence his second interrogation is answered why was Epiphanius silent and did not say it was some prophane mans Answere Epiphanius was not silent that the image he tore in peeces was the image of a prophane man seeing he tearmeth it the Image of a man hanging in the Church as Christs or some Saints And this the complayners knew well inough for if this picture had been Christs or some
Saynts vsed by way of deuout remembrance they would haue accused Epiphanius of impiety towards Christ and his Saints and not onely of iniustice in renting in peeces the Cloth without paying the price therof saying si scindere voluerat iustū erat vt aliud daret velum mutaret doth by this relation more then insinuate that this was the Image of some prophane man hanging in the Church as if it had been a sacred Image of Christ or of some Saint which is gathered by his reason When I saw saith he against the authority of the Scriptures the Image of a man hanging in the Church not absolutely any Image as M. White citeth him for euen by Gods expresse command Images were placed in the Temple but the Image of a man Why doth Epiphanius so much vrge the impiety of the fact in regard that it was the Image of a man but that he vnderstood by the word Man a meere ordinary prophane man not a blessed Saint For certainly it might seeme more against the authority of Scriptures to make and set vp in churches the image of God then the image of holy men the image of Christ according to his godhead thē as he is a mā so that there was no cause why (n) The Minister here setteth downe other answers giuen by Catholicks vnto this place of Epiphanius some of which he would haue thought better then this of the Iesuit and that the Iesuits is sleighted by Bellarmine which discourse is to litle purpose This is certayne that if other solutions he better then this yet this is so good as the Minister hath not been able to speake a wise word agaynst it as is more largely shewed in the Censure Sect. 1. §. 1. And whereas some authors thinke that Epiphanius in regard of the errour of the Anthropomorphilae whereof he was a great Ennemy did reproue this Image of the Anablathans as being of God in the forme of man although this conceyte doth not help the Ministers fancy nor make against vs yet is it not so conforme to the text as is the Iesuits Which any man may perceaue that will peruse attentiuely the text of Epiphanius and compare these two solutions therewith Epiphanius should put so much Emphasis in the word man had he not vnderstood a prophane man For some Christians in those Dayes being newly conuerted from Paganisme and so retaining some Reliques therof did out of their affection to their deceased friends and parents vse to paint their images and offer vnto them oblations of Frankincēse other the like Heathenish honour especially in their Anniuersaryes Dayes vpon their sepulchers These men S. Augustine de mor. Eccl. c. 36. reprehends and not the worshippers of Saints Images vnder the title of Sepulchrorum picturarum adoratores who to the ghosts of their parents defunct did though Christians offer that Heathenish worship which the Poet exhorteth vnto Non pigeat tumulis animas excire paternas Paucaque in extructos mittere thura rogos Parua petunt manes Wherfore seing this Minister so much esteemed in the Church of England in proofe of the Roman Churches change brings nothing but manifest falshoods so many in so few lines any indifferent man may cōclude that worship of Images hath continued without change euer since the Apostles For if any change in such a matter as this had bene made it would haue bene most euident when and by whom so great a Nouelty was introduced The places of Exodus Deut. with no probability vrged against the worship of Images by Protestants that make them §. 3. AGAINST Image-worshippe Protestants bring the places of Exodus Chap. 20. v. 4. and 5. and of Deuteronomy Chap. 5. v. 6. and the 7. Thou shalt not haue false gods before me Thou shalt not make to thy selfe a grauen Image or any likenes either in heauen aboue or on earth below or of things that are vnder waters or vnder ground thou shalt not adore nor worshippe them Which place I wonder they can thinke stronge inough to ouerthrow a custome in which the rules of Nature the Principles of Christianity the perpetuall Tradition of gods Church doth settle Christians For this place makes against (i) Note that the question between vs and Protestants is not whether the Image of an adored persō may lawfully be made for this they grant but whether the image of an adored person lawfully made may be adored We affirme and they deny but for their deniall haue not one sillable of Scripture The Minister pag. 259. lin 3. brings the brasen Serpent and golden Cherubims that were made yet could not be adored but these examples are impertinēt as hath been shewed because they were not proper images of adored persōs wherof wee speake though S. Hierome Epistola 70. also say that the Golden Cherubims were adored The Iconomachi the Turks and Iewes who thinke that to make any image of an adored person is vnlawfull consequently forbid adoratiō haue for them a little shew of Scripture which sayth thou shalt no make any image nor adore it But Protestants that grant that the proper images of adored persons may be lawfully made but deny they may be lawfully adored haue against them the light and instinct of nature and for them neither any example of Scripture nor any text that may make so much as a little shew them or not against vs which I proue thus The images we are forbidden to worship we are forbidden to make Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image thou shalt not adore them nor worshippe them Contrariwise the images we may lawfully make we may also lawfully adore or worshippe if they be images of venerable and adorable persons as before hath bene shewed But the images we worship of Christ Protestants make yea some to wit Lutherans set them vp in their Churches and they are images of an adorable Person Ergo they cannot condemne our adoration of images except likewise they condemne their making them as against Gods law If they answere we are not forbidden to make thē but only not to make thē with purpose intention to adore them they discouer much partiality and not so much reuerence to Gods expresse 〈◊〉 as they pretend for the words of Gods law are as cleere and expresse against making of Images as against worshippinge of them Thou shalt not make them Thou shalt not adore them If then Protestants to excuse their custome of making of images may to Gods expresse word Thou shalt not make them adde by way of explication with purpose and intention to adore them why may not (k) The Minister pag. 259. obiects that this precept Thou shalt not make to thy selfe a grauen image is expounded by the greatest number of Papists to wit with purpose to adore I answere Some Catholike Interpreters expound Thou shalt not make any image to wit with purpose to worship the same as God or with diuine worshippe referred vnto it or
fled for feare of punishmēt vnto the Protestants of France there professed what he was Polidore Viues Gerson are noted as full of mistaking in their complaints and rash in Iudginge and censuring Durandus speaks against indiscreet excessiue vse of images that the same may be dangerous which no man denyes Gabriell Biel derides the simplicitye of some people that rather worshippe fayre imags and such as are trimmed thē other Which simplicity is no more Idolatry then it is to heare the sermon of a Minister trimmed in his Ruff◠and Cuffs more willingly then of another more simply attyred to this purpose bringinge some testimonyes of S Augustine epist. 19. and in Psal. 113. To this I answere first that this may seeme a great wrong not onely to the Christiā Church but also to Christ himselfe to thinke that men indued with his knowledge fayth and made partakers of the light wherby they belieue most high diuine and incomprehensible mysteries which he reuealed to the world should so easily be carried away into such blockish Errours as to thinke a stocke or a stone to be God a blindnes scarce incident vnto men except they be wholy destitute of all heauenly conceipts and nuzzelled vp from their cradles in that persuasion as Paynims were of whō onely S. Augustine speaks for they did not onely want this light of Christian instructiō but also were taught by their Auncestors that in their Idolls a kind of Diuine vertue or Godhead was lodged and affixed vnto them wheras Catholik Doctrine teacheth the contrary that our Images are bare resemblances of holy persons no Diuinity no Vertue no Dignity no Sanctity that makes them venerable being in them but in the Prototype Secondly such Idolls as the Paynims adored many of them did by Diuels meanes ordinarily speake giue answeres moue and exercise other actions of life so that their speaking was not accounted miraculous and extraordinary but rather their silence which speakings were very potente to perswade men to belieue what their Auncestours told them that those very stocks and stones were Gods or had a Godhead affixed vnto them Now these kind of things seldome happen in our images scarce once in a age and when they happē they are takē as Miracles wrought not by the images or any vertue residing in them but by Gods infinite power nor are they brought to proue any excellency affixed vnto the image but onely that God liketh that we should honour our Sauiour and his Saints in their images Finally I dare say vulgar ordinary Protestants in England by reading (p) The Minister sayth pag. 272. that the Creed is as dangerous in this respect as the Scripture because it names the right hand of God Answer The Creed cā import dāger neither vnto Catholicks nor vnto Protestants Not vnto Catholicks because with the text of the Creed they receaue the Churches explication therof which still preuents mistaking of that word Not vnto Protestants because they must belieue the Creed no further then they see the same conforme vnto Scripture and so the Scripture attributing Humane shape vnto God is only dangerous vnto them For the Scripture perpetually attributes humane shape vnto God and their common people reade it by themselues without any guide whom they be bound to belieue further then by their skill in Scripture they shall find reason the Bible in their mother tongue are in greater danger to belieue that God is a body and hath all the parts therof euen as hath a man then any the simplest Catholike is to thinke an image to be God This is proued to be likely because it is impossible to conceiue God otherwise then in the forme of a corporall thinge and as the Oratour sayth We easily flatter our selues to thinke our shape the fayrest and so the fittest for God Wherfore it is easy for men to assent to this errour vnto which the best and greatest wits that euer were Tertullian apud August heres 86. and S. Augustine himselfe whilest he was a Manichee did assent l. 3. Confess c. 7. Much more easily therfore may ignorant (q) The Minister sayth pag. 272. lin vlt. That the reading of Scripture by the vulgar is lawfull and holy but the worship of images is alwaies condemned and censured by holy writ Answer This is easily said but can neuer be proued For Protestāts cānot bring one text of Scripture that approues Scripture to be read by the vulgar as Protestants pretend to wit with authority to Censure out of their skill in Scripture the most Catholick best Church in the world Nor will he or any of his progeny be able to bringe one example or one texte that shewes that images of adored persons lawfully made may not lawfully be adored which is the Controuersy betwixt them and vs. people be deceiued therin through weaknes of conceipt and inclination of nature when they read the Scripture describinge God as hauing the forme and shape of man with head face eyes eares hands and feet On the contrary side neuer any Christian did teach that the image of Christ is truly Christ or a liuing thinge nor euer did any man or woman except some few and those very simple and senseles if such historyes be true fall into such foolish imagination Moreouer children and ignorant people are in the Catholicke Church often and plentifully instructed against such errours as by our Catechismes appeare and particularly by Iesuits who make a solemne vow to keepe their Institute especially about teaching the Rudimēts of fayth vnto common and ignorant people Hence it is that in Townes where they dwell and Villages about on Sundayes holy dayes besides their sermons for people more intelligent they teach without fayle vnto children and men of ruder sort the forme of Christian doctrine and vse all industry by giuing rewards vnto children and by bestowing almes on poore people to make them willing diligent in this learning In the English Church what is done for the instruction of ignorant in their rudiments of fayth by Ministers and Pastours as I know not much so will I say nothing but only that tyme they spēd in the praises of sole Fayth (*) The Minister here sayth that the Iesuit doth depresse the English Church accusing their Pastours of negligence For which cause he tearmeth him One Cui verbosa lingua cor verò obtenebratum speaking much in praise of his Church and of the liuely sole Fayth they preach All which is idle and ridiculous And as for their sole Fayth if it be the same Luther preached it is so liuely and liue-like as it maks a man to liue and not to dye though he commit the deadest workes that may be Whoredome and Murther a thousand tymes aday Luther Tom. 1. Epist. Latin fol. 334. and about the secrets of Predestinatiō in long bitter Inuectiues agaynst our doctrines misunderstood if not purposely misrelated might in my opinion more profitably be spent in declaring
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
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
prooue that of necessity they are seen and so the Minister might haue spared the paper in citing the opinions of SchoolemeÌ„ coÌ„cerning the doctrin of the VoluÌ„tary glasse glasse of diamant so cleere and excellent that whatsoeuer is done in London in secretest corners should therein particularly and distinctly appeare surely he that hath eyes to see that glasse may likewise discerne what is done ouer the Citty Now most certayne it is that in God all creatures all actions done in the world and all the most secret thoughts of harts so perspicuously and distinctly shine as they are in themselues So that the Saints hauing light to see the diuine Essence may in him cleerly discerne whatsoeuer is done in the world beloÌ„ging to their state though neuer so secret according to the saying of S. (t) Basil. lib. de Virgin Basil There is not any Saint which doth not see all thinges that are done any where in the world And of S. (u) Greg. hom 40. Qui creatoris sui claritatem vident nihil in creatura agitur quod videre non possint Gregory Nothing is done about any creature which they cannot see who see the clarity of their Creatour And agayne (x) Lib. 12. Moral c. 13. We must belieue that they who see the clarity of the omnipotent God within themselues are not ignorant of any thing that is done without Which doctrine of the Fathers that Protestants may the lesse dislike I proue to be grounded on the Scriptures First if Saints by reason of their blissefull state do so participate of the diuine nature and wisdome About the first Argument as they communicate with him in the power of gouerning the nations of the world This argument is strong and you by strugling make the strength thereof more appeare You haue deuised 3. solutions First you say pag. 311. lin 10. That the Iesuits exposition is nouell and neuer heard of in the ancient Church Answer It is ridiculous when you are pressed with the cleere text of Scripture to call vpon the ancieÌ„t Church you I say who still specially in this question appeale from the ancient Fathers vnto the Scripture as pag. 302. and 298. you say that it is not iust to make ancient custome a law rule of right doctrine And if you will stand to the rule of antiquity I can produce more then fifty ancient Fathers that in expresse tearmes teach the doctrine the Iesuit doth establish by the literall sense of Gods word to wit that saints deceased are rulers and gouernours of mens actions liues Secondly you say pag. 309. that the text of the Apocalyps To him that shall haue conquered I will giue him power c. is not vnderstood of Saints deceased but of liuing Saints Answere This to be false is apparent by the very words which are these Apoc. 226. He that shall haue conquered kept my words VNTIL THE END to him I will giue power ouer nations c. But it is cleer that liuing Saints caÌ„not be said to haue conquered much lesse to haue kept the word of God vntil â—he end Therfore these words are violently wrested vnto liuing Saints Thirdly you say pag. 320. lin 3. That the promise I will giue them power ouer â—ations is vnderstood only of iudiciary power in the day of iudgement Answer This â—o be false is proued by the rule of interpretation of Scriptures which â—rotestants commend and praise aboue all other to wit when a text is â—oubtfull the same must be expounded by another which speakes of the â—â—me matter specially when the darke text doth expressely allude vnto â—he cleerer This place of the Apocalips about Saints I will giue them power â—uer nations and they shall rule them in a rod of iron they shall be broken in peeces â—â—ke pots of clay seemeth darke vnto Protestants and the question is wheâ—her this be spoken of Saints power in the militant Church or onely of â—he day of Iudgment To cleer this doubt there is another text of Scripture vttered in the same words to wit the second Psalme which saith of Christ That his father shall giue him nations to be his inheritance and he shall 〈◊〉 them in a rod of iron and shall breake them as pots of clay To this text of the Psalme the place of the Apocalips doth allude For our Lord in the Apocalips promiseth that he will giue to Saints power to gouerne in a rod of iron nations countryes as his father promised gaue the same power vnto him to wit in the aforesaid Psalme But that place of the Psalme is without doubt to be vnderstood of Christs power of gouernement in this world and of his ruling in the militant Church as Protestants grant it appeareth by the wordes precedent I will giue thee nations to be thine inheritance and thou shalt rule them in a rod of yron Ergo the power of gouerning iâ— a rod of yron promised to Saints must be vnderstood of gouernement in this world and in the militant Church then Saints haue knowledge of things that are done in this world else how could they be able to gouerne and rule it But Scripture in playne and expresse tearmes make Saints participate with Christ in the rule and gouernement of the world according to his promise (y) Because the Minister doth so much insult that the Iesuit hath not proued any thinge by Scripture I will that his folly may appeare examine particularly his answere vnto these texts Apocalip 2.26 To him that conquereth I will giue power ouer nations and he shall rule them with a rod of iron that is with power of inflexible equity And Apocal. 3. v. 12. I will make him a pillar in the TeÌ„ple of my God And the blessed say of themselues Apoc. 5.10 that they were chosen out of countreys and nations to be Priests of God that they should rule with him vpon the earth Therfore they know what is done vpon earth so far forth at least as the affayres of earth doe specially appertaine vnto them and such without doubt are our deuotions towardes them Secondly S. Paul Cor. 14.26 sayth Now we know but in part we prophesy but in part but when that of perfection shall come that of part shall be euacuated I know now but in part theÌ„ I shall know as I am known By which words the Apostle signifyes that all knowledge both humane diuine particularly the gift of Prophesy is contayned eminently in the beatificall â—ight so that the blessed Saints haue the gift of Prophesy in a more excellent degree theÌ„ had the Prophets in this world But by the light of Prophesy holy men vnited with God could see the secrets of harts as S. Paul sayth 1. Cor. 14.15 By the gift of Prophesy the secrets of harts are manyfested and also see things absent being present by light of vnderstaÌ„ding froÌ„ whence they were absent according to their substance (z) The Minister seketh two wayes
to euade First by denying that blessed Saints haue the knowledge of prophesy in a more excellent and permanent manner then haue the Prophets in this life This is plaine against the words of the Apostle cited by the Answerer For the Apostle affirmâ— that the gift of Prophesy in this life is but ex parte imperfect in respect of thâ— Prophesy and knowledge of the next which the blessed enioy Ex parte propheâ—â—mus tunc cognoscam sicut cognitus sum Secondly he sayth though the blesed haue the gift of Prophesy eminently it doth not follow that theâ— haue the exercise thereof according to euery materiall obiect it had in thâ—â— life I Answere that the Saynts of God hauing the gift of Prophesy peâ—manently eminently as knowledge pertinent vnto their Blisseful state must thereby know any secret they desire to know which beloÌ„geth to their state such are the prayers of the liuing made vnto them The Prophet Elizaeus 4. Reg. 5.16 saw in absence what passed betwixt his seruant Giezi About the 2. Argument and Naman to whome he sayd My hart was there present with thee With farre greate reason sayth Saint (*) Videbunt sancti omnia clausis oculis etiaÌ„ vnde sunt corpore absenâ—â—â— Augustine l. 22. de ciuit c. 29. The Saints of God euen with eies of body closed vp shall see all things not onely present but also from which they are corporally absent for then shall be that perfection where the Apostle saith we now prophesy but in paâ—â— â—ut then the imperfect shall be euacuated (a) To Answere the Ministers Cauill that the place of S. Augustine is vnderstood onely of Saints after their resurrection Note that although the Father name the Saints in their glorified bodyes yet his reason conuinceth the same of soules that be blessed before the resurrection For his reason why the Saints after the resurrection shal see the secrets of harts and things froÌ„ which they are substaÌ„tially distant is because theÌ„ they shall Prophesy not in parte but fully euacuabitur quod ex parte est all imperfection of knowledge shall be euacuated but the deceased soules of Saints now before the resurrection do Prophesy not in part but know as they are kowne all imperfection of knowledge being euacuated from them Ergo they see things absent and secrets of harts now no lesse then they shall do then This is that which S. Hierome doth defend To earnestly against Vigilantius that the soules of the Martyrs are present where their shrines and reliques are neuer absent but still ready to heare the prayers of their suppliaÌ„ts not thinking that they are present in so many places substantially according to their soules but that they are preseÌ„t as Elizaeus was present vnto Giezi in Spirit beholding what passed as cleerly as if they were corporally present Thirdly it is cleerely to be proued by Scripture that holy Angels see the prayers and actions and affections of men In the Apocalip c. 8.4 An Angell offered vnto God the prayers of men which he could not haue done had he not knowne them (b) The Minister pag. 314. lin 12. saith this place is vnderstood not of an Angell by nature but of an Angell by type Answer We must vnderstand the word of God in the literall sense except we can cleerly demonstrate by Scripture the literal sense to be absurd And this obligation doth more specially lye vpon Protestants who from perpetuall Tradition appeale vnto Scripture vnderstood by exact conference of places as vnto the last and supreme Iudge But you bring not one word of Scripture to proue that in this place an Angell by nature cannot be vnderstood therfore you runne to types and tropicall senses without warrant of Scripture by which yet you pretend you will be finally tryed Are you not then a ridiculous and vaine Appellant Our Sauiour witnesseth Luc. 15.10 That the Angells reioyce at the conuersion of a sinner So they must needs know it nor can they know it without knowing the sinners harte (c) The Minister pag. 315. lin 15. obiects against this argument that holy men on earth reioyce at the conuersion of sinners yet they know not secrets of harts therfore this argumeÌ„t is not good Angells reioice in the conuersion of sinners Ergo they know the secret pious affections of meÌ„s harts Answer The ioy of iust men in this life is imperfect and mingled with feare nor do they reioyce in re in the thing but in spe in the hope that mens coÌ„uersions are sincere and in the outward signes therof But the blessed Angells ioy is perfect deuoid of feare they reioyce not in the hope but in the thing conuersion it selfe Therfore they must know the inward piety and deuotion of the soule Conuersion not being true noâ— worthy of ioy except it proceed from the hart (d) Although the places speake directly of the Blessed that they shal be like vnto Angells in incorruption of body yet it proueth the same of beatitude of soules For seeing the glory of body floweth from the glory of the soule Blessed Saints should not be like to the Angells in glory of body were they not like and their equalls in the blessed sight and vision their soules haue of God and of things contained in him S. Paul sayth we are made a spectacle vnto God and Angells he adiureth Timothy by God and his Angells which sheweth that we liue in the sight of Angels that they behold what we doe and heare what we say euen in our harts But as the same Scripture Luc. 20.36 Math. 22.30 auerreth the Saints are like vnto the Angells and equall vnto the Angells And in heaueÌ„ the same is the measure of a man of an Angell Apocal. 21.17 Aug. ep 112. Ergo knowledge of our prayers is not to be denyed to glorious Saints the fellowes of Angells Neither could Saints without knowledge of humane affaires be perfectly blessed Blessednes being a state wherin all iust and reasonable desires of nature are satisfyed with vttermost content according to that of the Psalme 16.15 Satiabor cùm apparuerit gloria tua And who can thinke that Saints full of glory and charity do not earnestly desire (e) The Minister against this replyes pag. 319. saying That the Saints desire to know no more then it is Gods will they should know But it cannot be proued by Scripture that it is Gods will they should know the things done on earth Answere We must still suppose that the courses and wills of God be sutable to the nature of things except the contrary be cleerly proued The nature of charity is to desire to know the state of our freinds and their proceedings and affections towards vs. Ergo the Saints beâ—ng full of charity are to be supposed to desire to know the state of their â—reinds they left behind them vpon earth and for whose saluation they â—e sollicitous except our Minister
can cleerly demonstrate the conâ—â—ary And if they desire to know then they know the particulars â—or what our Minister sayth pag. 319. lin 20. That a father in Lonâ—â—n may be solicitous about his sonnes safety that is at Constantinople and yet not â—â—ow the particulars is friuolous for this London Father is not blessed 〈◊〉 he may be desirous to know particulars and not know them and so be â—erplexed for want of his knowledge The Saints in heauen are blessed â—nd so desire not to know any thing but they know it Therfore seing â—ccording to the instinct and inclination of solicitous Charity they cannot â—ut desire the knowledge of their friends affaires they must if they are â—erfectly blessed be satisfied in this their charitable desire to know such things as may concerne their honour done vpon earth the state of their freinds â—ouers liuing in danger to succour them by their intercessions of whose saluation they be still sollicitous though secure of their own as S. Cyprian writes Wherefore our doctrine that Saints see our prayers being deliuered so constantly by the Ancient Fathers so conformable vnto the principles of Christian beliefe about the blessednes of Saints so consonaÌ„t vnto expresse passages of Scripture we may iustly expect that vnto Protestants it would not be displeasing did they looke on it with vnpartiall eyes Specially they hauing no Text of Scripture that may make so much as a shew of direct opposition agaynst it The place continually obiected out of the Prophet Esay 63.16 Abraham knew vs not (f) This place is impertinent also in regard that Abraham and Iacob were not theÌ„ Blessed nor saw God from which Blessed vision the knowlege of things done in this world floweth as a sequell in the triumphant Saints It is vnderstood by S. Hierome in c. 63. Isa. de scientia approbationis that Abraham Iacob did not know that is esteeme and approoue the proceeding of their children the Iewes Israel was ignorant of vs thou O Lord art our Father thou our Redeemer hath this sense Abraham and Iacob when they liued vpon earth and carnally begot children did not know particularly their posterities and so could not beare them such particular affection whereas God can doth distinctly see and know their necessityes aforehand yea before men are borne and prouides agaynst them deliuering his children out of theÌ„ And therfore he is the only Father the only Redeemer Abraham and Iacob not deseruing the name of Father in comparison with God Makes this against the Saints hearing our prayers (g) I desire the Reader to note on the one side how Protestants boast of Scriptures on the other how vnable they are to bring one probable text agaynst Inuocation of Saints Whereas contrarywise the places for the Catholicke doctrine that Saints 〈◊〉 our prayers are so cleere as ProtestaÌ„ts fly to their types and tropes leauing the literall sense without warrant from the sayd Scripture and so by casting a figure euade froÌ„ Gods cleere word Wherfore the cause they appeale vnto Scriptur is not because they thinke the Scripture is cleere for them not much cleerer for vs But because by Scripture they cannot be so cleerly confounded as by Tradition For about Scripture Heretiks euer wrangle pretending that by deductions and inferences they prooue their doctrine being destitute of formall Scripture wherof ignoraÌ„t people caÌ„not iudge For what know they when deductions are good But when they were vrged by Tradition to shew the Pedegree of their Professours they were as dumbe as ours now are that the Fathers said vnto them Confingant tale aliquod let theÌ„ if they can feigne and deuise a pedegree of professours agreeing in the same forme of Faith wherof the first was an Apostle and the last a Protestant The worship in Spirit and Truth with outward prostration of the body due vnto Saints §. 3. THE third cause of their dislike is that we giue the honour of the Creatour vnto the Creature honoring Saints with Religious worship in spirit truth euen to the prostrating of our bodyes before them whereby we giue them honour due to God only and bring in many Gods as the Heathens did To this Obiection made long agoe by Faustus the Manichee S. Augustine lib. 20. cont Faust. c. 22. answereth in these words The Christian people doth celebrate with Religious solemnity the memoryes of Martyrs to the end to stirre vp themselues to their imitatioÌ„ that they may be assisted with their prayers and associated vnto their merits c. But with the worship tearmed in Greeke Latria and which the Latine language cannot expresse in one word being a certayne subiection seruitude due properly to the Deity only we do not honour any but only God nor thinke that this honour ought to be giuen but only to him These words of S. Augustine shew that worship of Saints to be on the one side more then Ciuil and on the other side lesse then diuine more then ciuill as proceeding out of acknowledgement of the excellency Saints haue superiour vnto all naturall by which they be partakers of diuine perfection in that high degree as no substance can by nature participate thereof and therefore S. Augustine with good reason tearmes it religious (h) The Minister pag. 312. contrary to his custome proposeth this argument truly To euery kind of excelleÌ„cy there is a worship due proportionall to that excellency but the blessed Saints and Angells haue a speciall kind of excellency which is supernatural superhumane more then ciuill Therefore speciall honour proportionall to the excellency and superior vnto humane and ciuill is due vnto them To this argument he answereth That in Saints there is dignity of grace and glory and honour is due in respect of the same but not religious worship Thus he what is this but to trifle talke in the ayre who doubts M. White but there is the dignity of grace and glory in Saints and honour due vnto it Speake plainly and mutter not betwixt the teeth Is the honour due to Saints proportionall to their excellency that is more then ciuill Is it superhumane supernaturall as their excellency is Is it superiour vnto that kind of honour which is due vnto ciuill magistrates and other human honourable personages in regard of meere naturall perfectioÌ„ If you grant that worship superhumane and more then ciuill is due vnto Saints you grant as much as we desire to proue The tearme of Religious worship is ambiguous Sometimes religious worship is taken for that which is an elicitiue formall act of Religion of diuine worship due vnto the increated excellency of the Creatour In this sense the worship of Saints is not religious At other tymes it is taken for worship which is an imperatiue act of Religion that is worship done to Saints out of inward Religion and deuotion towards God whose seruants and friends they are In this sense the worship of Saints is Religious
because it doth still proceed and must needes flow froÌ„ inward reuerence towards God For how can one worship Saints purely and only as they are the friends seruants and temples of God but out of the instinct of Religion vnto God Hence S. Augustine tearmes the honor of Saints Religious solemnity And S. Chrysostome sayth Serm. de Martyr 69. That we admire their merits with Religious charity Lesse then diuine as proceeding from persuasion of excellency though super-human yet infinitly inferiour vnto the increate immense excellency of God yea depending essentially therof So that honour that is giuen to theÌ„ dependeth of God as being superexcellent participants of his perfection his singular friends Now that men may worship Angells and Saints in this sort with true affection of spirit euen to the prostration of their bodyes may be proued out of holy Scriptures supposing what is already shewed that they see our actions For if Saints see our actions we may as lawfully and as profitably bow kneele and prostrate our bodyes vnto them as vnto Saints liuing on earth But it is lawfull to honour liuing Saints with bowing kneeling and prostration of body as may be proued by many examples 3. Reg. 18. Abdias an holy man (i) Timebat Dominum valde adored Elias (k) Cecidit super faciem suam prostrate on the ground not for any humane excellency or respect but because he was a Prophet a singular Saint of God The Children of the Prophets (l) 4. Reg 2.15 Adorauerunt proni in terraÌ„ seeing signes of supernaturall and diuine power in Elizaeus coÌ„ming vnto him adored him prostrate on the ground The Sunamite woman her Sonne being dead went presently vnto Elizaeus fell downe at his feete suing not so much with words as with teares and mournefull complaints for the resuscitatioÌ„ of her dead sonne (m) 4. Reg. 4. Corâ—uit ad pedes eius adorauit super terram We read also that holy men haue adored with kneeling and prostration of their bodyes holy Angels appearing vnto them as Abraham (n) Gen. 18.3 Adorauit in terram Loth (o) Gen. 19.19 4. Adorauit pronus in terram Balaam (p) Num. 22. Iosue (q) Iosue 5.15 Cecidit pronus in terram adorans so that this Adoration of Saints and Angells (r) The Minister saith pag. 325. That Elias Elizaeus and the Angels were present visibly and sensibly but the Saints are not sensibly present so we must not bow vnto Saints deceased as Children kneele not to their parents when they are absent Answer We haue proued by the word of God that to be true which the Fathers teach with full consent namely S. Basill de Virgin c. 16. Euery Angell holy Spirit of Saints see what is done euery where And if this be true that they are present vnto vs and we a spectacle vnto them why should we not worship theÌ„ as much as if they were sensibly present Not sense but faith is the ground of our deuotion towards Saints May we worship Saints that are present to vs according to the iudgemeÌ„t of flesh and not worship them that are present according to the Iudgement of fayth and the truth of Gods word with more then human naturall respect and with acknowledgement of more then humane and naturall perfections in them is cleerly deduceable from holy Scripture Neither haue Protestants reason to stand agaynst so many pregnant examples of Scriptures vpon the one example in the Apocalyps of the Angell refusing to be adored of S. Iohn saying See thou do it not I am one of thy fellow seruants adore God specially this place being explicated long agoe by the Fathers as not against the custome of ChristiaÌ„ Saint-worship for eyther the Angell so appeared as Saint Iohn tooke him to be God would haue adored him as God whereof the adorer was to be warned as S. Augustine (s) S. August q. 61. in Genes Corrigendus erat adorator expoundeth or rather the Angell for bad that worship not as iniurious vnto God but only as coumbersome to himselfe being loath as S. Gregory noteth after the incarnation of the Sonne of God to see a man lye prostrate vnto him specially so holy a man and so speciall a friend of Iesus And the words Do it not adore God import no more which I declare Suppose that one prayse a Preacher to his face for an excellent sermon he hath made the Preacher out of modesty say Prayse not me I am an vnworthy instrument of diuine wisdome prayse the authour of all This his speach doth not import that he thinkes to commend a Preachers sermon to be Idolatry giuing away the glory of God to a creature but only that modesty makes him wish that men would not prayse him but rather turne all the prayse glory of that sermon vpon God In this sort the Angell seing the great and glorious friend of Iesus prostrated at his feeâ—e requested him to rise vp not condemning that adoration as Idolatrous but refusing it as an actioÌ„ though in regard of the offerer pious godly yet to him the receauer cuÌ„bersome which he could not without some vnwillingnes behold in regard of the dignity of the person he saw prostrated before him (t) The Minister in this place is large in bitternes against vs because he knowes not what to say or how to frame an argument against vs out of this text of the Apocalips For if S. Iohn did giue diuine and religious worship to the Angel due to God onely the example is not to the purpose For we say Saints are not to be honoured as Gods If he did onely offer honour more then ciuill vnto the Angell in respect of his supernaturall dignity with prostration of body then the same was not vnlawfull For the Minister pag. 336. lin 30. forced by the Iesuits arguments doth acknowledge such obeâ—sances and reuerent comportments may and must be done to Saints and Angels when they are corporally visibly present as his Angell was visibly and corporally present to S. Iohn Now that this great Apostle of Christ was more ignorant then any Triuiall Minister that he knew not what was due vnto Angels better then they who will belieue It is euident that he offered no more then he might without iniury vnto God else being warned he would not haue offered it the second tyme. Therfore it was honour that might piously be giuen vnto an Angell though that Angel did in modesty forbid him to shew the respect he bare to that great Apostle and friend of Iesus as the Iesuit argueth to which the Minister replyes not a word but only rayleth This is euidently gathered out of the sacred text seing S. Iohn after this prohibition did the second tyme offer the like honour to the same Angell which he would neuer haue done had he not knowne adoration of Angells by mortall men to be pious religious on their
taken out of the Hymnes and Verses thereof If they that by begging obtayne of the king the life of one condemned to death may be are commonly (s) Our Aduersary in this place playeth the right Minister according to the new order very hansomely telleth a lye saying to the Iesuit You labour to qualifye your blasphemous words by ā honorable expositiō pretending you SAY one thinge and MEANE another What boldnes is this doth not the Iesuit say that they not only meane well but also speake well and according to the rigour of speach the phrase of Scripture holy Fathers How then doth he pretend that we say one thing and meane another sayd to saue his life though they saued him by intercession not by their proper authority why may not Saints be sayd to giue vs the things which by their prayers they obtayne for vs Why may not the Church speake in Hymnes in Verse as the learnedst Fathers spake euen in Prose neuer imagining that any would mistake their meaning Saint Gregory Nazianzen for his excellēt learning tearmed by the Grecians The Deuine thus prayeth vnto Saint Cyprian Looke downe on vs from heauen with a propitious eye guide our works and wayes feed this holy flocke gouerne it with vs dispose some of them as farre as is possible to a better state Cast out importune and troublesome wolues that cauill catch at sillables vouchsafe vs the perfect and cleere splendour of the B. Trinity with whome thou art already present (t) The Minister heere sayth the Iesuit cānot proue that Gregory Naziāzen did Inuocate S. Cyprian but only made an Oratoriall Apostrophe vnto him As Papists say in their hymne al hayle o Crosse yet they do not pray to the wodden Crosse. This is vanity For that S. Gregory Nazianzen did properly inuocate S. Cyprian I proue by this demonstratiō For one to call vpon some person for ayde thinking him that he doth heare him is able to helpe is to Inuocate him S. Gregory Nazianzē did call vpon S. Cyprian for helpe thinking he heard him was able to helpe him for he sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know well that Blessed Saints heare me and are ready to reach out their hand to such as need their helpe Ergo he did properly Inuocate him pray vnto him And not only Fathers but also Scriptures speake of Saints in the same sort our Sauiour saying Make to your selues friendes of the riches of Iniquity that when you dye they may receaue you into the eternall tabernacles If then the Saints of God by the mouth of Verity it selfe be said to receaue their friends when they dye into the eternall Tabernacles because God mooued by their prayers admits them into the Blissefull vision of his essence why may not the Church and her children craue the Blessed Virgins intercessions in these wordes Mother of Mercy receaue vs in the houre of death And seing God in Scripture is tearmed Mercy why should not she be stiled mother of mercy that is vndoubtedly mother of God especially seeing that in and of her the Authour of mercy grace was conceaued and borne and she filled with grace and charity aboue all other Creatures (u) The seely Minister not knowing which way to turne himselfe to find some seeming ground of carping at the formes of the Catholicke Missals Roman Liturgy he goeth catching at the phrases of priuate writers To what purpose If the Authours cannot iustifye their phrases Metaphores let him dislike them in Gods name What is this to the Catholike Church Some writer did not apply his Metaphore fitly Ergo the Roman Church is Idolatrous That other phrase much disliked by your Maiesty that God reseruing Iustice to himselfe hath giuen away mercy to his mother is not vsed by the Church in any of her prayers nor allowed of by Catholike Deuines nor will we iustify it being an harsh and vnfitting Metaphore though thereby the Authours thereof expresse a truth to wit that the Blessed Virgin is exceeding gracious with her Sonne and her intercession very potēt alluding to a phrase of Scripture vsed Hester cap. 5.3.6 cap. 7.2 Marke 6.23 whereby such as are gracious with a prince are sayd that they may haue any thing though halfe of his Kingdome so deuiding Gods Kingdome into Iustice and Mercy to shew how gracious the Blessed Virgin is with her Sonne they say God hath giuen her one halfe of his Kingdome to wit his Mercy which is a Metaphore far fetcht not to be vsed howsoeuer in charity it may be excused THE FOVRTH POINT The Liturgy priuate prayers for the Ignorant in an vnknovvne tongue THE custome of the Romane Church in this point is agreable to the custome of the Church in all Ages and also of (*) The Minister pag. 356. lin 22. It is false according to the Tenet of Bellarmine himselfe that all other Churches which differ from Protestāts haue their publike seruice in Hebrew Greeke or Latine Answer This is your fashion whē you haue not what to reply you impose your sayings vpon your Aduersary and then vrge they are false The Answerer neuer said that al Churches which differ from Protestants haue their seruice in Hebrew Greeke or Latine for this he knew to be false in the Maronits Armenians Aegyptians Aethiopians Russians But he said they all agree with the Roman in that they haue their diuine seruice in a language not vulgar nor commonly knowne of the people this is true for the fore-named Christians haue their Lyturgies in a speciall language which is not their vulgar all Churches now in the world bearing the name of Christian though opposite vnto the Romane only those of the pretended Reformation excepted which constant concurrence is a great signe that the same is very conforme vnto reason and not any where forbidden in Gods word which wil easily appeare if we looke particulerly into the same For we may imagine a triple state of Liturgy in an vnkowne tongue The first in a language altogeather (x) The Minister pag. 369. saith This is a Chimera Non Ens because there was neuer such a Liturgy in the Church Answere In the beginning of the Church there was not any set Forme of publike prayer but the sacred Minister did extemporally make prayers at meetings And that some then did vse to make extemporall prayers in languages altogether vnknowne euen to themselues appeares by the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. Nor is it inough for a Minister to say that this is a Non Ens and a Chimera because it neuer was For first though it neuer were yet it might haue been and things that be possible and might haue been be not Chimera's Secondly that in meetings some did vse a language altogether vnknowne at prayer S. Paul doth witnes who I trow is to be belieued before a Minister He forbids the speaking in the Church with an vnknowne tongue when there is none present that
the Apostle prefer prayer that doth edify the vnderstanding yet doth he not prohibite prayer of meere affection without new instruction of the vnderstanding but saith that in such prayers men pray with their spirit and affection though not with their vnderstanding Now that S. Paul did cōmād that seruice should be in such a language as euery womā in the Church might be able to vnderstād it word by word (b) The Minister sayth pag. 374. that Ignorance of the distinct notion of euery word hindreth not sufficient edification when the ordinary necessary and common passages of the publicke seruice are intelligible Thus he Now I subsume But people who vnderstand not latin distinctly may by instruction through bookes Sermons and Cathechismes vnderstand the ordinary necessary and common passages of the publicke seruice specially by the helpe of vse and custome as experience sheweth Ergo publicke prayers in latin may yield sufficient edification and so are lawfull is incredible nor are our Aduersaryes able to proue it neyther can they shew by any Records of antiquity that such a custome was in the Primitiue Church yea the cōtrary may more then probably be shewed because the drift of the Church in appointing Lyturgies or set formes of publike Prayer at the oblation of the Eucharisticall sacrifice was not for the (C) The Minister sayth that indeed the end of publicke seruice is not to instruct People yet the prayers must be said in a language vnderstood of all because they which come to God with sound of wordes without vnderstanding offer the sacrifice of fooles Answere He that offereth vnto God vocall prayers full of deuout pious affection knowing only in generall that they be pious deuout expressing such affections offers a gratefull sacrifice vnto God though he doe not distinctly vnderstand the words and parts of the Prayer For exāple if one that vnderstands not Latin belieue the Psalme Miserere to be full of penitent affections and say the same with many teares of inward sorow contritiō for his sinnes whosoeuer will say that this man offers vnto God the sacrifice of fooles is himselfe an Infidell or Foole. For what greater folly then to think that prayers of pious affection please not God except the affection correspond mathematically to the words peoples instruction but for other reasons First that by this publike Seruice a continuall dayly tribute or homage of prayer thankesgiuing might be publikely offered and payed vnto God Secondly that christians by their personall assistāce at this publike seruice might protest exercise exteriourly acts of Religion common with the whole Church represented by the Synaxis or Ecclesiasticall meeting of euery Christian parish Finally to the end that euery Christian by his presence yielding consent vnto the publike prayers prayses and thankesgiuings of the Church and as it were subscribing setting his seale vnto them by this assisting at them might ordinarily participate of the graces benefits fruits which the Church doth obtaine by her Liturgyes and publike oblations Now for this end there is no need that euery one shold vnderstād word by word the prayers that are sayd in the publike Liturgy but it sufficeth that the Church in generall and in particular Pastours and Ecclesiasticall persons dedicated vnto the Ministeryes of the Church and who watch being bound to giue an account of soules committed to their charge haue particular notice of all the prayers that are sayd and that all who will may be taught instructed in particular if they will vse diligence desire it Moreouer the Churches anciently euen in the purest tymes of Christianity had Chancels vnto which Laymen might not enter so could not particularly and distinctly vnderstand (c) It had bene folly for the Church intending her Liturgy for the instruction of lay-men to haue excluded them out of the Chancells and though our Aduersary say that the Preist read seruice in so audible a voice as he might be heard from the highest of the Chācell where the Aultar was placed vnto the body of Church yet this he might better haue spokē vnto fooles then vnto men of vnderstāding that know how great the Chancells of many Churches are and how farre distinctly audible a mans voice ordinarily is the prayers said by the publike Minister of the Church Within the sayd Chancells they did also vse to say a good part of the Liturgy (d) Vide Liturgias impressas anno Domini 1568. Basil. in Liturg fol. 34. secretly so that their voyce was not audible vnto any Yea the Greeke Church did anciently vse a Veyle (e) Basil. ibidem fol. 34.38.41.43.46 Chrysostom Liturg. fol. 55. hom 61. ad Pop. wherewith the Priest was for the tymes of the sacred Oblation compassed which are manifest signes that the Church did neuer thinke it necessary that all the publike Liturgy should be heard much lesse word by word vnderstood by the whole vulgar multitude present therat Besides it is certayne that the Scripture was not read in any language but Greeke ouer al the Churches of the East as S. Hierome (f) Hieron praefat in Paralip witnesseth Also the Greeke Liturgy of Saint Basill was vsed in all the Church of the East and the Grecian was not the vulgar language of all the Countreyes of the East as is apparent by manifest testimonyes particularly of the (g) Basil. de Spiritu sancto c. 19. Cappadocians (h.i) Hieron in Prooem 2. lib. com ad Galat. Act. Apost c. 1. v. 10. 11. Mesopotamians (h.i) Hieron in Prooem 2. lib. com ad Galat. Act. Apost c. 1. v. 10. 11. Galathians (k) Theodoret. in histor SS Patrum hist. 13. Lycaonians (l) Hieron de script Eccles. in Anton. Aegyptians Syrians yea that all these Countreys and most of the Orient had their proper language distinct from the Greeke is manifest out of the Acts of the Apostles No lesse manifest is it that the Latin Liturgy was cōmon anciently for all the Churches of the Westerne parts euen in Africke as appeareth by testimonyes of S. (*) August Epist. 57. de doctrin Christian. l. 2. c. 13. August in Psalm 123. in exposit Ep. ad Rom. epist. 173. Augustine But it is manifest that the Latin was not the vulgar language for all nations of the West and though the better sort vnderstood it yet some of the (m) Although the Fathers say that the Greek Liturgy translation did serue all Asia and the East Although likewise they affirme the same of the Latin for all Africa and the Occident yet our Minister saith to the contrary pa. 379. and 380. that all people had their Liturgyes in their natiue tōgue which he proueth because the people did then praise God in all languages and did pray according to S. Iustine and Tertulliā togither with the Preist Ergo the publike Liturgy was read in the Church in all vulgar tongues As his denying what
so many Fathers affirme is impudent so his arguing is friuolous as euery man may see For Catholicks praise God in all languages and meet to pray with Preists as much as Protestants yet our publike seruice is not said in all vulgar tongues More impertinent are his allegatiōs of Fathers speaking against distraction of mind mēs not hearing thēselues in prayer As though men could not be recollected in prayer by attentiō vnto God vnto their owne needes and the substance of their prayers though they do not vnderstād thē distinctly word by word vulgar multitude only knew their owne mother tongue as may be cleerly gathered out of the same Saint Augustin who writes that he pleading in Latine agaynst Crispinus a Bishop of the Donatists for possession of a village in Africa wherunto the consent of the Villagers was required they did not vnderstand his speach till the same was interpreted vnto them in their vulgar African lāguage So that the Christian Church did neuer iudge it requisite that the publike Liturgy should be commonly turned into the mother language of euery nation nor necessary that the same should presently be vnderstood word by word by euery one of the vulgar assistants neyther doth the end of the publike Seruice require it As for the cōfort that some few want in that they do not so perfectly vnderstād the particulars of diuine Seruice it may by other means aboūdātly be supplied without turning the publik Liturgyes into innumerable vulgar lāguages which would bring a great cōfusion into the Christiā Church First The Church should not be able to iudge of the Liturgy of euery country whē differences arise about the Trāslation therof So diuers errors heresies might creep into particular countreyes and the whole Church neuer able to take notice of them Secondly particular countreyes could not be certayne that they haue the Scripture truly translated for therof they can haue no other assured proofe but only the Churches approbation nor can she approoue what she doth not vnderstand Thirdly were vulgar Translations so many as there be lāguages in the world it could not be otherwayes but some would be in many places ridiculous incōgruous full of mistaking to the great preiudice of soules specially in languages that haue no great extents nor many learned men that naturally speake them Fourthly the liturgy would be often changed togeather with the language which doth much alter in euery age Fiftly in the same Countrey by reason of different dialects some Prouinces vnderstand not one another And in the Island of Iaponia as some write there is one language for Noble men another for Rustikes another for men another for women Into what language shold then the Iaponian Liturgy be turned Finally by this vulgar vse of the Liturgy the study of the learned languages would be giuen ouer in short tyme come to be extinct as we see that no ancient language now remaynes in humane knowledge but such as haue been as it were incorporated in the Liturgyes of the Church the common vse of learned tongues being extinct there would follow want of meanes for Christians to meete in Generall Councells to communicate one with another in matters of fayth In a word extreme Barbarisme would be brought vpō the world Priuate prayers (n) The Minister hauing nothing to say rayleth boasteth that the opposition of Protestants forsooth hath brought vs to allow priuate vulgar prayers by force as we translate Scripture that were our kingdome as absolute as euer we would returne to our Center Thus he Prophesieth but so as he may easily be proued a false Prophet For to omit that diuers Councels many ages before Luther was borne command the knowing of the Pater Aue and Creed in the vulgar tongue where is the Popes kingdome more absolute or Protestācy lesse knowne then in Italy and in Spaine And yet no where are prayers in the vulgar tongue more vsed then in Italy and Spaine You shall hardly there find one woman one Layman which sayeth not their priuate deuotiōs in the vulgar Wheras thousands in Germany Low countryes Polony England both men and womē loue to say their prayers rather in Latine to shew their oppositiō against Protestants that fondly cōdemne such prayers be so void of iudgemēt as to thinke that pious thoughts and affections vpon the Pater noster please not God except we vnderstād the wordes and measure our pious thoughs and affections Geometrically vnto the same so that a woman saying with much deuotion Pater noster if perchāce she thinke that Pater signifyes our and Noster Father her prayer is marred Wherfore your Protestant imprudent opposition is the cause that many pray in Latin which otherwise perchance would not for ignorant people in their vulgar languages we practise we allow yea the Pater Noster and the Creed are to be knowne of all in their Mother tongues which two formes contayne the whole substance of prayer For the end of Prayer being threefold To prayse God for his infinite perfectiōs To giue him thanks for his benefits bestowed vpon vs To demand of him such necessaryes as we want aswell for the maintayning of this present as for the attayning vnto eternall life the Creed being a Summe of the perfections of God his benefits towardes man affoards sufficient knowledge to comply with the two former ends of prayer The Pater Noster being an abridgemēt of al those things which we need cōteines a full instruction for the third Other prayers doe but more plainly expresse thinges contayned in the Pater Noster the Creed and our many bookes do shew that these kind of prayers in vulgar languages are by vs writtē esteemed practised We add that ordinarily speaking common people doe more profit by saying prayers in their mother tongue then in the Latine because not only their affections are mooued to piety but also their vnderstanding edifyed with knowledge Notwithstanding some prayers though translated into English be so difficill to be vnderstood as they will rather distract ignorant especially curious people then instruct them of which kind are many Psalmes of Dauid these prayers as we thinke may more profitably be sayd in Latine So that I see no great difference eyther in practise or in doctrine betweene Protestants the Roman Church concering priuate Prayers in a language vnknowne THE FIFTH POINT Repetitions of Pater Nosters Aues and Creeds especially affixing a kind of merit to the number of them I AM perswaded that your Maiesty doth not intend to dislike Repetition of Prayers so the same be done with reuerent Deuotion and Affection For this repetition is iustifyed not only by the example of the blind man who still cryed vpon our Sauiour with repetition of the same prayer (p) Math. 20. Marc. 10. Luc. 18. Iesu Fili Dauid miserere mei by which repetition he obtayned his sight nor only of the princely Prophet who in his 135. Psalme repeates 27.
tymes Quoniam in aeternum misericordia eius nor only of the (q) Isa. 6.6 Seraphims who in praysing their Creator repeate three times ouer the same word holy holy holy but also by the example of our Blessed Sauiour himselfe who thrice at least in the garden repeated the same prayer (r) Matth. 26. v. 4. Marc. 14. v. 39. Eumdem sermonem dicens Luc. 22. v. 42. Pater si fieri potest trāseat à me Calix verumtamen non mea voluntas sed tua fiat Wherfore to repeate the same prayers is very good and pious so the same be done with new deuotion which new deuotion that it may not be wanting in our Repetitions there is appointed for euery Pater Aue Creed a speciall meditation that may stirre vp deuotion at euery repeated prayer And seing we cannot pray long but we must needes repeate ouer the Pater noster in sense for what can we demand of God that is not there contayned why may we not also repeate the same in words If any thinke to merit by reason of the number of his prayers he is ignorāt of the doctrine of the Catholike Church which attributes (s) The Minister pag. 385. writeth in this sort I grant repetitions in prayer and thankesgiuings which agree with the examples of Scripture to be pious and lawfull but the illation from these to the Roman Battalogy is inconsequent First their prayers are in part directed to Creatures Secōdly they are multiplyed to an excessiue and portentuous number Thirdly the Creed is no prayer or thāksgiuing formally or virtually Fourthly they thinke praying without vnderstanding the words without present actuall attention to be pious and effectuall Answer To auoyd the shame of not being able to reply something at least in shew you runne directly vpō his Maiesty disgrace his questiōs His Maiesty proceding most iudiciously knowing the Pater noster to be pious deuotion first questioned the Aue Maria or praying vnto Saints also praying in an vnknowne tongue then supposing by way of argument that the saying of Paters Aues Creeds is pious he doubts about repetition of them in certaine nūbers as iudging repetitiō euen of pious and Godly prayers in a fixed number to be questionable specially affixing merit vnto the number You conuinced by the Iesuit grant repetitiō of pious prayers in certaine numbers to be pious and so haue granted what his Maiesty questioned yet not to seeme to grant it you make his Maiestyes question to be whether repetition of vnlawful prayers in an excessiue number without attention be lawfull Which question is vnworthy of his Maiestyes Iudgement yea his Maiesty seing the impertinency of this question did first mooue doubt about the lawfulnes of Inuocation of Saints that the lawfulnes therof might be supposed in this questiō knowing the question without this supposition to be senselesse foolish Secondly according to your reply his Maiesty doth not dislike our saying 33. Pater nosters in memory of 33. yeares our Sauiour liued vpō earth affixing merit vnto that number For neither is the number excessiue nor the prayer vnlawfull nor is there any amongst vs that doth not vnderstand the sense therof And yet I thinke his Maiesty was not of this mind which sheweth that he questioned repetition of pious prayers in a fixed number and so your Reply grants what he questioned Thirdly the Aue Maria is not a prayer directed vnto any Creature as prayer signifyes petition of grace and fauour because in the Aue Maria we aske not grace nor any gift of the B. Virgin but only that she will pray for vs Holy mary pray for vs now and in the hower of death If petition made vnto Creatures that they will be comprecants with vs be prayer directed vnto Creatures then is crauing the comprecation of liuing Saints prayer finally directed vnto a Creature Fourthly your saying that the Creed is no prayer neither formally nor virtually is the bare word of a Minister against the perpetuall practise of the Christian Church which vsed the Creed as a prayer a thousand yeares agoe defining it in Concil Quinosexto Can. 7. Let euery Christian pray at the least twice a day saying the CREED or the Lords Prayer or Qui plasmasti me miserere mei or Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori Thus the Councell And who doth not see the Creed said vnto God with inward deuotion of faith about his diuine perfections and mercyes toward mankind there declared to be a prayer either of praise or thankesgiuing or obsecration according to the affection of him that prayeth Finally your Cauill that our prayers are said in a tongue vnknowne and so without present attention is in your supposition often false seing they that pray in these numbers most commonly either vnderstand Latin or else pray in the vulgar tongue in the illation ridiculous For they that vnderstand not the Pater Aue and Creed in Latin may by memory know the substance thereof and so be actually attent no merit to prayers in regard of their number further then the number awakes in vs deuout thoughts which is the only thing that by the number we ayme at We say Paters Aues Creeds to the number of three in memory of the Blessed Trinity seeking Gods fauour and grace by glorifying that incomprehensible mystery To the number of fiue in memory of the fiue speciall wounds our Sauiour receaued that pierced into throgh his sacred body To the number of 33. in remembrance of 33. yeares our Sauiour wrought our Saluation vpon earth giuing him thankes for all his labours desiring the application of his merits stirring vp our selues to the imitation of his vertues The like reason moueth vs to pray in the number of 63. Angelicall salutations to call to mind the yeares the Mother of God liued according to one probable opinion And because the opiniō that she liued 72. yeares now begins to be much followed many Catholikes particularly in Spayne haue thereupon increased the crowne of our B. Lady to 72. Aue Maria's A manifest signe that they neuer attributed merit vnto the number of 63. but only to the deuout memory of the B. Virgins vertues exercised in the yeares she conuersed in this world giuing God thankes for his graces bestowed vpon her The Psalter of our Lady the Iesus Psalter contayne one hundred fifty repetitions of prayers the one of Aue Maria's the other Iesu Iesu Iesu in imitation of the deuout Royal Prophet whose Psalter contaynes Psalmes in Gods prayse to the same number Neyther are we in this point of repeating prayers vpon Beades or little stones in a (t) The Minister sayth that his Maiesty in his dislike of our affixing merit to the Repetition of prayers in a certaine number meant to deny the merit of condignity not the merit of congruity or Impetration I Answere If you had studied of purpose to make his Maiesty ridiculous in his proposition of questions you
11.1 ad Cor. I heare saith he what the words of the supper import For Christ doth giue vs not only the benefit of his death and resurrection but also the very body wherin he died and arose againe from death Yea libro de Coena inter eius opuscula pag. 133. he saith that Negare veram corporis sanguinis substantiam to deny the true substance of the body and blood of Christ to be giuen in the supper is execrabilis blasphemia auditu indigna an execrable blasphemy against which we ought to stoppe our eares The Caluinian Doctrine that Christs body being only in heauen is Spiritually present not only by fayth not only according to the effects of his grace but also in his bodily substance yet only vnto the faythfull receauer not vnto the Sacramentall signe is both against Gods word and implicatory in reason First it is no lesse then the Zuinglian against the plaine expresse words of our Sauiour For our Sauiour by saying Take eate this is my body drinke yee all of this for this is my blood Matth. 26. doth auerre the Sacrament to be his body and blood in respect of that taking and eating vnto which by these words he doth inuite and exhorte But by this speach he doth inuite and exhorte vnto Sacramentall and corporall taking and eating This appeareth by the immediat practise of the Apostles who vpon these words of our Lord tooke the Sacrament with their corporall mouth This also our aduersaryes cannot deny seing they vrge by vertue of these wordes corporall receauing in both kinds Therfore the words of our Sauiour auerre the reall presence of his body in substance in respect of corporall taking and eating with the mouth of flesh which Doctrin Caluinists stiffely deny only holding the substantiall communication of Christs body in respect of spirituall receauing by the facultyes of the soule Secondly their Reall Presence is a fiction to no purpose For there is no reason to put the Reall Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament but only in respect of verifying the word of our Sauiour This is my body in a true and reall sense so making the thinge Christ had in his hand and which was demonstrated by the Pronowne This to be truly really his body But Caluinists put not a Presence which maketh the thinge Christ had in hand and demonstrated by the Pronowne This to be truly and really his body but only by figure This I proue That which is the body of Christ in figure and shew and not in substance is not truly really Christ his body Euen as what is a man in shew and figure not in essence and substance is not truly and really a man But Caluinists say that This or the thinge which Christ hath in his hands was Christs body in shew figure and not in substance Ergo they put not a Reall presence which makes that which Christ had in his hand did demonstrate by the particle This to be truly his body It is therefore a fiction deuised to satisfy the Caluinian fancy not the Christian fayth or the rigurous truth of Gods word Thirdly by this Doctrine they bind themselues and others to belieue an high and incomprehensible Mystery without any necessity or compulsion from Gods word For what can be more vnintelligible then that there should be true and reall vnion according to substance betwixt two distinct indiuiduall substances that be distant the one from the other as farre as heauen is from earth Hence Caluin saith libro de Coena that this is sublime arduum quod neque quidem cogitatione complecti possimus in Cap. 11.1 ad Cor. arcanum mirificum Spiritus sancti opus quod intelligentiae nostrae modulo metiri nefas sit But the word of God doth not inforce this Caluinian Mystery nor is there sufficient ground to affirme it This is proued because the mystery of their Reall Presence either hath no ground in Scripture or is grounded on these words of the Institution Take eate this is my body But Caluinists on these words cannot ground the incomprehensible mystery of their reall presence For they vnderstand these words of our Sauiour in a Figuratiue sense and say that they are not true properly and literally Now a mystery of Fayth cannot be grounded vpon the Figuratiue sense of a place of Scripture yea vpon meere Figuratiue construction of Scripture to obtrude vnto others an article of necessary beliefe is impudency as saith S. Augustine Epist. 68. Non nisi impudentiss mè nititur quis aliquid in Allegoria positum pro se interpretari nisi habeat manifesta testimonia quorum lumine illustrentur obscura Therfore the Caluinian Reall Presence is a mystery incomprehensible grounded on meere figuratiue construction of Gods word not backed by any literall text and consequently it is belieued without necessity or any Diuine and supernaturall warrant Hence I Inferre two things first that the belieuers of the Caluinian Reall Presence are vnwise For what greater folly then for men to deny their wits and breake their heads to belieue an hard and difficill matter in belieuing wherof ther is no merit of fayth In belieuing the Caluinian Reall Presence there is no merit of Fayth For the merit of Fayth is to captiuate our Vnderstanding vnto mysteryes cleerly deliuered by the word of God not vnto mans figuratiue expositions therof yea no figuratiue exposition aboue reason is to be belieued except it be proued by some literall text or be deliuered by the full Tradition as Gods word vnwritten Secondly I inferre that Caluinists beare more reuerence vnto Iohn Caluin then vnto Iesus Christ for Caluins mystery is belieued by Caluinists being confessedly a Doctrine most hard difficill incomprehensible and yet not the literall sense of Gods word but Caluins figuratiue comment ther-vpon On the other side Transubstantiation being acknowledged by them to be the litterall and proper sense of the word of Christ Iesus so that without Transubstantiation his word this is my body cannot be literally true as our Minister doth confesse pag. 397. yet because it is hard difficill incomprehensible Caluinists cannot be brought to belieue it What is this but to be more ready to belieue Caluin then Christ Specially seing the mystery of Christs literall sense is not so hard and vn-intelligible as Caluins figuratiue construction For one may more easily conceaue a body to be in two places at once which the litteral sense of Christs word doth inforce then a body to be truly and substantially giuen where truly and substantially it is not which is the article of fayth by Caluins figuratiue construction obtruded The Arguments agaynst the litterall sense of Christs Word vayne and idle §. 3. THE Minister to prooue that the words of the institution are to be figuratiuely vnderstood bringeth seauen Arguments pag. 391. one pag. 401. and three other pag. 418. but the first and third of these three are the same with the second
the body and bloud were giuen in the shape of â—read and wine as Venerable Bede in c. 22. Luc. out of whome you cite â—hese words substituting his body and bloud in the FIGVRE of bread and wine What is this but that the figure and shape of bread remaynes the body of our Lord being present in lieu of the substance therof Secondly your Minor assertion that the figure of a thing is not the â—ame with the thing figured is impious and directly opposite vnto Gods word First Christ Iesus is a figure of his Fathers substance Heb. 1.3 and yet is he the same substantially with the Father Iohn 10.30 Secondly S. Peter fishing in the sea and catching a great multitude of fish is a figure of himselfe preaching in the world and conuerting soules vnto Christ Luc. â— 10 and yet Peter fishing and Peter preaching is substantially the same person Thirdly Christ as found in the temple on the third day after his â—eesing was a figure of himselfe rising after the third day of his sepulture Ambros. in cap. 2. Lucae Also Christ as making a shew to goe further in his Iourney to Emmaus represented himselfe as mounting to heauen August cont mendac c. 13. and yet Christ found after three dayes and Christ rising after three dayes Christ making a shew to passe on and ascending to his Father is substantially one and the same person False then and impious is your assertion that the figure of a thing cannot be the same with the thing figured and consequently this your Argument The Eucharist is tearmed by the Fathers the figure of Christs naturall body Ergo it is not substantially properly his body is idle Hence the finall conclusion is that you haue no ground in Scripture not to take these words of our Lord This is my Body in the litterall sense and that the true reason you do not litterally vnderstand them is the difficulty of the matter and the Infidelity of your hart Now let vs returne vnto the Iesuits discourse That the Reall Presence of the whole Body of Christ vnder the formes of bread belonges to the substance of the Mystery §. 1. TO proue this I suppose as certayne that the body of Christ is truly and really in the Sacrament of his supper This I may iustly suppose seing your Maiesty doth professe to hold a presence (d) PraesentiaÌ„ credimus non minùs quà m vos veram haec fides Regis Regia Resp. ad Card. Peron in oper Regis pag. 399. 400. of the body of Christ in the Sacrament no lesse true then we hold and consequently you will not vnderstand the words of Christ figuratiuely as SacrameÌ„taryes do For they make the body of Christ present in the Eucharisticall bread but as in a figure holding not a true nor a reall presence but only a presence by Imagination conceypt (*) This was supposed by the Iesuit as cleere and hath been proued in the former addition agaynst the Ministers Cauills as is euident wherin as your Maiesty knowes they contradict the ancient Church which teacheth expressely that Christ (e) Euthym. panop pa. 2. tit 22. Theop. in Marc. c. 14. Damascen Orthod fidei l. 4. c. 14. did not say This is a figure of my body but this is my body and exhorts vs to belieue Christ vpon his word He said This is my body (f) Gaudent tract 2. in Exod. Chrysost. in c. 26. Matth. hom 83. Ambros. de ijs qui mysterijs iuitiant c. 9. Epiph. in anchorato Hilar. l. 8. de Trinit Cyrill Hieros Cateches 4. I pray you let vs belieue him whom we haue belieued Verity cannot vtter vntruth And herein they acknowledge with your Maiesty a most high and incomprehensible mystery which were no mystery at all the words being vnderstood in a meere figuratiue sense As for some places of Fathers brought to the contrary how they are to be vnderstood your Maiesty is not ignorant S. Augustine (g) August in Psal. 3. IdeÌ„ cont Adimant c. 11. saying that Christ gaue to his disciples a figure of his body and bloud spake not of a bare empty figure but of the figure of a thinge really present As likewise in another place when he sayth Christ affirmed it was his body when he gaue a signe of his body though here he may seeme to speake in the opinion of the Manichees who held that Christ had not true flesh but a meere figure shadow and shape of flesh Against whoÌ„ in that place he vndertakes to proue that the figure of a thing may be termed the thing it selfe alledging argumento ad hominem that Christ said This is my body when he gaue but a figure of his body to wit (*) Had not S. Augustine argued in the opinion of Manichees that hold the flesh of Christ was not true but only a figure of flesh the Manichees might haue denyed this his example seing both the Gospell and the Fathers say the Eucharist to be truly Christs body and not a meere figure as you thinke Tertullian (h) Tertul. li. 4. cont Marcion hath this speach Christ taking bread into his hands and distributing it to his disciples made the same his body saying Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis mei Where figura corporis mei is referred not vnto Corpus meum as an explicatioÌ„ therof but vnto hoc in this manner hoc id est figura Corporis mei est Corpus meum This to be Tertullian his meaning appeares by the drift of his discourse in that place For Tertullian is to shew that wheras in the old Testament bread was a figure of the body of Christ as appeares by the words of the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem eius id est crucem in corpus eius Christ in the new Testament made this figure to be truly and really (i) Tertullian in saying that Christ made bread his body doth therby declare the conuersion of bread into his body euen as the Euangelist doth signify the conuersion of water into wine in saying Our Sauiour made water wine Iohn 2.9 his body taking bread into his hands saying this that is the figure of my body in the old Testament is my body truly and really in the new which is asmuch as if he had said Bread which anciently was a figure of my body I do now make to be truly and really my body And this is vsuall in Tertullian who not to interrupt the words of Scripture addeth his explication of the subiect not presently but after the Attribute (k) Tertul. contr Praxeam c. 29. as when he said Christus mortuus est id est vnctus the sense wherof is Christus vnctus mortuus est This supposed I inferre that the body of Christ is present in the mystical supper not only to the faithfull that receaue the SacrameÌ„t nor only to the place or church where the holy Synaxis is celebrated but vnder the formes
mysterijs initiantur cap. â— Moyses his word changed the waters of Aegypt into bloud agayne turned them from bloud into water If so great was the benediction of man what may we thinke of diuine consecration where the very words of our Sauiour worke The word of Elias had power to bring downe fire from heauen shall not the words of Christ haue force to change the kinds of the elements Againe (i) Ambros. lib. 4. de Sâ—cram cap. 4. Thou seest how working efficacious is the word of Christ. If therfore such vertue is in his word that therby things that are not receaue being how much more hath it power that the things that are still remayne in the general latitude of being according to the sensible accidents and be conuerted into another substance VIII Fourthly the effect of this transmutatioÌ„ taught by the Fathers is the presence of the substance of Christs body the absence of the substance of bread binding vs to abnegate our senses and not to belieue what we seeme to see with our eyes IX Theophilact (k) Theophilact c. 4. 26. Matth. Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable operation although to vs it seeme bread because we are weake and haue horrour to eate raw flesh especially the flesh of man for this reason bread appeareth but in essence and substance it is not bread Saint Cyrill (l) Cyrill Hieros Catech. mystagog 4. Come not therfore as vnto simple bread and wine for it is the body and bloud of Christ according to the affirmation of our Lord for although sense suggest the contrary yet let fayth confirme thee Iudge not of the thing by tast but indubitably with full fayth belieue that thou art made partaker of the body bloud of Christ. And againe Know this with full certitude belieue that the bread seene is not bread though it so seeme to the tast but the body of Christ that wine seene is not wine though tast iudge it to be wine but the bloud of Christ. X. Finally that the Fathers held Transubstantiation is prooued by the continuancy which they taught of Christs body in the Sacrament so long as the accidents of bread last as appeareth by their reseruing of the same For reseruation to haue been the custome of the primitiue Church Protestants grant That (m) Habent veteris Ecclesiae exemplum fateor Caluin Instit. l. 9. c. 17. sect 39. the Sacrament was of some reserued in the elder dayes of the Church is not sayth (n) Fulke agaynst Heskins Saunders p. 77. M. Fulke so great a questioÌ„ as whether it ought to be reserued And Chemnitius (o) Chemnit in exam Con. Trid. p. 2. p. 102. granteth that in this point on our side stands Antiquitas consuetudinis latè patentis diu propagatae And whereas he addeth haec tamen veritati praescribere non debet he accuseth the Primitiue Church opposeth no lesse agaynst them then vs. And I am sure your Maiesty knowes that the primitiue Fathers did vse to send the Sacrament vnto them that were lawfully absent from Church as doth witnesse S. Iustine (p) Iustin. Apol. 2. fine vnto the sicke as (q) Dionys. Alexand ep ad Fab. apud Euseb. l. 6. cap. 36. Chrysost. Ep. 1. ad Innocent Dionysius Alexandrinus writes of Serapion That Christians carryed the same to their priuate houses to take in the morning before other meate as testifyeth Tertullian (r) Tertul. l. 2. ad vxorem Gregor Nazian orat de Gorgon That many tymes they did weare the same about them for protection as (s) Ambros. orat in obitâ—â— fratris Satyri Satyrus brother to Saint Ambrose going to sea carryed it in a stole by vertue whereof he was saued in shipwracke That Martyrs had the same frequently for their Viaticum as (t) SimeoÌ„ Metaphrast vitae S. Stephani Papae Martyris cap. 17. Vsuard in martyrolog Guitmund de corp sanguine l. 2. Tharsilius a most glorious Martyr who being taken with the Sacrament about him permitted himselfe rather to be bruized with stones to death then disclose it vnto the Persecutours whome when they had crowned thy searching curiously for the Sacrament in his clothes and about his dead body found nothing God by miracle keeping the same out of their impious hands Saint (u) Cyprian serm de Lapsis Cyprian records diuers miracles done in the confirmation of this our Sauiours permanent presence in the SacrameÌ„t namely of a woman vnworthily approaching to the chest where the same was kept that was frighted backe with fire that thence flashed out tanta est Domini potentia sayth Saint Cyprian taÌ„ta maiestas And so fully were they perswaded in this opinion that Christs body is permanently in the Sacrament that Cyrill (x) Cyrill Alex. ep ad Calosyr dareth say Insaniunt qui dicunt benedictionem à sanctificatione cessare siquae reliquiae remanserunt eius in sequentem diem Non enim mutabitur Sacrosanctum corpus Christi sed virtus benedictionis viuificatiua gratia iugis in eo est They be mad with hereticall folly who say that the blessed Sanctification of the Sacrament ceaseth if the same be reserued vntill the next day For thereby the sacred body of Christ is not changed but the grace of benediction viuification is perpetuall in it Now what reason could the Fathers haue thus constantly to defend this continuation of our Sauiour in the SacrameÌ„t but that they belieued bread to be changed into his body remayning demonstrable by the formes accidences thereof so long as they remayned entyre and were not changed into the accidences of some other substances XI A Refutation of the Ministers Shifts to elude the former Testimonies of the Fathers according to the reference of the precedent Numbers I. NO words of Scripture or Christian Antiquity can be so cleere euident which Hereticall obstinacy will not wrest against the truth yea racke till they rent them in peeces by violent interpretations as saith S. Ambrose Ep. 17. In which kind be the Ministers Replyes vnto these expresse pregnant testimonies of the Fathers for Transubstantiation as wil appeare by the confutation which heere ensueth II. Transelementing The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TranselemeÌ„tation saith the Minister pag. 421. proueth not Transubstantiation For in Transubstantiation the matter is destroyed the quantity and accidents remayne in Transelementation the matter remayneth the essentiall accidentall formes are altered Answere The falshood and inanity of this Shift is conuinced by these foure arguments which shew Transelementation to import the same as Transubstantiation The First is drawne from the notion of the word Elements Transelementation For Transelementation of bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord signifyes that there is a change betwixt them according to their elemeÌ„ts Elements import the primordiall simples the original principles the substantiall parts of which
thereof is abolished into the body of Christ. Secondly the example you bring about Regenerate persons is by you vsed impertinently and truly pondered applyed serueth our purpose For in Regeneration the substance of man is not abolished because by Regeneration man is changed to be participant of the Diuine Nature not from what he is originally by the constitution of nature but from what he is by the corruption of the Diuell and sinne Hence by vertue of Regeneration a man ceaseth to be not according to the substantiall Origen of his nature but only according to the superinduced peruersion thereof by the Diuell But in the Eucharist Saint Ambrose sayth that bread by consecration passeth into the sacred body of Christ from the thing it was by the framing constitution of nature Ergo bread according to S. Ambrose ceaseth to be according to the thing it is by the framing of nature to wit the essence of bread VI The Minister Replyes That to a mysticall change the omnipotency of God is required as appeareth in Baptisme Therefore although some Fathers require an omnipotent power to eleuate and change the creatures of bread and wine yet it followeth not that they maintayned Transubstantiation Answere The Fathers indeed require the omnipotency of God in Baptisme not to change the nature of water into the nature and verity of Christs bloud but to the end that water remayning water vnchanged in nature be eleuated to produce sanctifying grace in the soules of men Thus Saint Leo by you often cited serm 4. de natiuit sayth Virtus altissimi quae fecit vt virgo pareret Saluatorem eadem facit vt regeneret vnda credentem He doth not say as you would make fooles belieue the Fathers vse to speake that the Diuine omnipotency doth change the water into the nature and verity of his bloud but That the same power of the Highest makes water being water to bring forth regenerate persons which caused a virgin remayning a virgin to bring forth the Sauiour But about the holy Eucharist the Fathers speake in another manner They require the Omnipotency of God not to eleauate bread wine that remayning still in nature bread and wine they may sanctify mens soules but to change them into Christs body and bloud by which change they become in thēselues without further eleuation proportioned meanes to sanctify soules as cōtaining within themselues the fountaine of grace Yea the Fathers speeches about the water of baptisme be so different from their speeches about the bread and wine of the Eucharist as this alone might suffice to conuert the Minister were he not obstinate What Fathers say that Christ at the Mariage of soules with him in Baptisme can doth conuert water into his blood by his omnipotency as he could and did conuert water into Wine at the carnall Mariage of Cana as S. Cyrill S. Gaudentius cited by the Iesuit say of the wine of the Eucharist What Father doth say that water changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotency of the word made his flesh as is sayd of the Eucharisticall bread by the Authour of the booke De Coena Domini VII Though some question be made whether this Authour was S. Cyprian yet learned men both Catholicks and Protestants agree he was an holy ancient Father The Authour of the booke de Coena Domini sayth M. Fulke agaynst the Rhem. Testam in 1. Cor. 11. fol. 282. was not in tyme much inferiour to Cyprian Erasmus in his Annotatiōs vpon S. Cyprian printed at Basill Anno 1558. fol. 287. sayth The Authour was some learned man of S. Cyprian his age as Pamelius doth demonstrate by many euident reasons so that we haue Transubstātiation as ancient as S. Cyprian For what the Minister sayth that this Authour meaneth only a mysticall and Sacramental change to be made is idle as I thus demonstrate The change this holy Father teacheth is made not in the shape quantity accidēts of bread but only in the inward nature and essence thereof panis non effigie sed natura mutatus But the Ministers mysticall conuersion is made vpon the shape quantity accidents of bread as he sayth pag. 425. it passeth vpon the quantity and accidents of bread as well as vpon the substance Ergo the conuersion of bread into Christs flesh taught by this holy ancient Father is an inward substantiall conuersion and not the Ministers mysticall change VIII What the Minister sayth to this Argument that the Fathers affirme the water of Baptisme to be changed into Christs blood by the vertue of his word is false nor hath he cited any Father that doth so affirme Yea such speaking of the water of Baptisme were ridiculous or rather impious as affirming thinges about the mysteryes of Religiō which may make them seeme senselesse and ridiculous without any ground so to affirme in Gods word For Christ neuer sayth of the water of Baptisme Be washed herewith for this is my blood as he sayth often in Scripture of the wine of the Eucharist drinke yee of this for this is my bloud IX To the fourth argument the Minister replyes that the Fathers exhort People to abnegate their senses in Baptisme wherein they mantayne no Transubstantiation I Answere The Minister still singes the same songe that the fathers speake in the same manner of the conuersiō of water into Christs blood in Baptisme as they speake about the conuersion of wine in the Eucharist which is most false and the Minister hath not cited the wordes any Father so affirming The Fathers about Baptisme exhort men to belieue that God can by water wash and purify the soule and this to be a supernaturall worke aboue the naturall force of water which one may belieue without contradicting the euidence of any of his senses yea without any great difficulty in reason For what great matter is it to belieue that God being omnipotent at the presence of water washing the body can inwardly by grace wash the soule But about the Eucharist they say that we must firmely and indubitately belieue that that which seemeth bread and wine is not bread wine but the body bloud of Christ so that vnder the forme of bread and wine is giuen vs the bloud of our Lord and though sense suggest the contrary that it is wine we must abnegate and not belieue our senses herein Shew one Father I say that doth thus affirme of the water of Baptisme that we must firmely and indubitately belieue the same not to be water in truth though it be water in shew and because our sight feeling and tast suggest that it is water that we must with full Fayth abnegate and deny this iudgment framed by sense X. The Minister heere pag. 429. bringeth three triuiall argumēts to prooue the Fathers held the substance of bread to remayne after consecration which are not worth the answering yet I will say a word to each of them not to omit any thing that
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
his fourth argumēt wherein he would proue that the Apostles were not made Priests by the wordes Doe this For suppose they were not made Priests by that speach how will he thence conclude that the words Drinke yee all of this were not spoken personally vnto the twelue cōmanding them to drinke all of the same indiuidual Cupp Besides in the two arguments to proue the Apostles were not made Priests by the word Do this he shews intolerable ignorance The first is what force is there in these wordes Do this to conclude Priestly ordination Answere Are you a Doctour and do not know that the word of the Almighty hath force to giue men power commission authority to do what he doth command them to doe Christ by the word Do this commanded the Apostles to do what he had done that is to consecrate bread and wine into his body and blood to receaue and consume the same to giue them to the faythfull Ergo by saying Do this he gaue them power commission authority not only to receaue themselues but also to consecrate and giue vnto others his holy body and blood which is the power and office of Priesthood Secondly If say you Do this proueth Priesthood then lay men are Priests when the wordes Doe this be spoken to them in part or respectiuely Answere Doe not you feele how you bewray the weakenes and vanity of your argument in your very proposition thereof You say the wordes Do this be spoken vnto lay men but in part that is they command them to receaue but not to consecrate and giue the Sacrament vnto others But the power or commission only to receaue the Sacrament is not Priesthood but the commission to consecrate administer the same vnto others Therefore the wordes Doe this do not make them Priests to whome in part respectiuely but to whom they are spoken absolutely in the full sense Another text of the Scripture some vrge to proue that Communion vnder one kinde is commāded to wit the famous place out of S. Iohn (a) Ioan. 6.59 Except yee eate the flesh drinke the bloud of the Sonne of Man you shall not haue life in you Where our Sauiour vnder the penalty of loosing eternall life commaūds not only eating but also drinking Perchance your Maiesty doth not stand much vpon this as not belieuing that Chapter of Saint Iohn to concerne the Sacramentall sumption of our Sauiours flesh as also some learned Catholiks hold Notwithstanding though we grant that Chapter to concerne the eating and drinking in the Sacrament as most of the Fathers teach yet this obiection may be easily satisfyed by the former Principles For as we distinguish in the Sacrament the substance the manner the substance being to receaue the body of Christ the manner in both kindes by formall eating and drinking So the same distinction is to be made in our Sauiours precept about this Sacrament For howsoeuer his words may sound of the manner of receauing in both kinds yet his intention is to commaund no more then the substance to wit that we really receaue his body and bloud which may be done vnder one kind This may be made cleere by the Precept our Sauior hath giuē about another Sacrament to wit Baptisme where though his words seeme to define the manner yet his mind was but to determine the substance He sayth (b) Matt. 28.18 to his Apostles Baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost To Baptize signifyes the same that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not to wet or sprinckle with water but to put and plunge into water by immersiō bathing them in water in which respect Baptisme is tearmed by the Apostle (c) Tit. 3.4 the Lauer or bath of the renouation of the holy Ghost And yet because the Church teacheth Baptisme by aspersion or sprinckling to be sufficient substantiall Baptisme no lesse then Baptisme by immersion christiās must do interpret the words of Christ Baptize that is plūge into the water all Nations to command only cleansing washing in substance not the manner thereof by immersion as his words may seeme to import and the Primitiue Church did the first 600. yeares practise In like sort the wordes Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you be preceptiue no further then they signify reall receauing of his body and bloud not the manner of both kindes as may appeare by the intention of the commandement For as Christ gaue this precept of eating and drinking only to the end that we might haue life in vs so likewise he meant to cōmaund the same no further then it was necessary to this end But eating formally the body of Christ vnder the forme of bread and (d) What the Minister saith that the receauing the blood of Christ Virtually as being by Concomitācy ioyned with the body is spirituall receauing and not Sacramentall is false For only iust and holy men receaue the body of Christ spiritually But wicked mē receaue the blood of Christ together with his body by Concomitancy Therefore this virtuall receauing of Christs blood is corporall and Sacramentall and not only spirituall virtually and implicitely his bloud as conteined within his sacred body sufficeth that we may haue life in vs as he promiseth in the same place v. 59. He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer what necessity then is there to vnderstand this precept of formall receauing in both kinds But further I add the coniunctiue particle Et and frequently signifyes disiunctiuely the same that vel or as Argentum aurum non est mihi (e) Act. 3.6 and particularly of this Sacrament (f) 1. Cor. 11.20 He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh damnation the sense is disiunctiue Eateth or drinketh vnworthily In this sort Except you eate and drinke is to be vnderstood disiunctiuely Except you eate the flesh or drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in you Which disiunctiue sense to be the sense intended in this place may be proued because else Christ should be contrary to himselfe For seeing in the verse 59. of this Chapter he promiseth life eternall to eating only Qui māducat hunc panē viuit in aeternum If in the 94. verse of the same Chapter he require vnto life euerlasting eating and drinking both he should in the space of a few lines speake contraryes And because this is impossible THIs last answer is truest may be inuincibly proued by Scripture First it cānot be denyed that in Scripture the particle Et and is takē disiunctiuely as the Iesuit proueth in the text the Minister granteth Secondly whensoeuer two thinges are required to one the same end for which ech a part is sufficient then the particle Et and must needs be vnderstood disiunctiuely to
of his Children Rom. 8.14 Another is from God the holy Ghost dwelling in vs by whome good workes are honoured as by the principall authour of thē So that he rather then we doth the works who therefore is sayd to pray for vs with vnspeakable grones The last dignity is frō God the Sonne Christ Iesus whose members we are made by grace so that the works we do be reputed not so much ours as his as the worke of the particular member is attributed principally vnto the head The fourth is grace Preuenient wherby God stirreth vp in vs thoughts and affections to good pious workes grace adiuuant to help vs in the performance of these desires making our Freewill produce workes that are supernaturall in their very substance aboue the capacity of man The fifth is the grace of of mercifull Indulgence in not vsing with vs the rigour of his iustice For God might wholly require the good works we doe as his own by many tytles as by the tytle of iustice being workes of his seruants by tytle of Religion being workes of his Creatures by tytle of gratitude as being workes of persons infinitely obliged vnto him By which tytles if God did exact vpon workes with vttermost rigour no goodnes would be left in them to be offered for the meriting of heauen But his infinite benignity remitting this rigour moued thereunto through the merits of Christ is content that we make vse of our good workes for the gayning of glory doth not exact them wholly and totally as otherwise due The sixt is the grace of liberal promise by which he obligeth himselfe to reward the good workes of his Children according to the desert of their goodnesse Did not God bind himselfe by his word in this manner no worke of Saints though neuer so perfect and excellent were able to bind him to reward it as all Deuines teach though some disputatiō be whether Gods liberall premission supposed the goodnes of the work concurre partially with his promise to oblige him which is a disputation of no great moment Finally that Merit attayne reward is required the grace of Perseuerance without which no man is crowned And though good workes strengthened with so many supernaturall excellencyes be good stayes of conficence in themselues considered yet because we are not sure of our perseuerāce no nor altogeather certayne that we haue good works adorned with the former perfections THE Minister pa. 511. Can any thing be more arrogant foolish then for miserable beggars sinners to mintayne that God should be vniust if he rendred not heauen to mans good workes And yet this proud Doctrine is deliuered by the Rhemists Annotat. Heb. 6.4 Answere In your hoat-spur-zeale you wound the Blessed Apostle with the tytle of arrogant Foole. It is he who doth suppose as certaine who taught the Rhemysts to say that God should be vniust did he not reward the good workes of his Children for to assure the Hebrews their chatyes should not be vnrewarded of God he sayth Hebr. 6.10 God is not vniust to forget your workes and loue which you shewed in his name in ministring vnto the Saints As if he had said God should be vniust did he forget your workes not reward them But God cannot be vniust Therfore be sure he will not forget your works Euen as whē the Scripture to assure men of Gods word sayth Num. 23.19 God is not as man that he should lye the same doth tacitely argue in this sort If God should not keepe his word he should be a liar as men are God cānot be a lyar as mē are Therefore you may be sure he will not forget to keep his word You should be more considerate and not thus rudely runne tilting with bul-rush-inuectimes agaynst the holy Ghost himselfe in your splene agaynst the Pope For this sentēce God shold be vniust did he forget to reward good workes is the Scriptures though about the quality of the Iustice that is in God whether the same be proper or improper a question is made by Deuines neyther did the Rhemists say God should be properly vniust but only vsed the very words of S. Paul The Minister pag. 512. If the Iesuit should maintayne that Good workes meret iustification or perseuerance not by their Nature but by Grace this distinction would not free his Tenet from errour so likwise it is erroneous to mayntayne that Good workes merit by grace Answere If Good works should merit iustification they must do it by the force of the goodnes inherent in their nature and not as eleuated by the grace of adoption seing before iustification they be not Gods Children But to say that men merit with God by the sole naturall goodnes of their workes not eleuated by the grace of adoption is erroneous The workes of Gods Children cannot merit the grace of perseuerance because they be not eleuated vnto that end by the grace of diuine preordination and Gods liberall promise Besides the workes of the iust be condignely rewarded with the Crowne of Glory and so nothing of their value can be spared to merit any thinge Condignely but only glory If the workes of Gods Children were not otherwise Condignely rewarded they might merit the grace of perseuerance should God promise the same vnto Good workes done in a certayne number and quality so your instance bewrayes your ignorance The Minister pag. 512. S. Paul sayth Rom. 8.18 I thinke the Passions of this tyme be not Condigne to the glory to come that shall be reuealed in vs. The Passions here expressed were Martyrdomes iustifyed by grace Philip 1.29 spirituall Sacrifices of a sweet smelling odour 2. Tim. 46. and Condignity or worthines equall in desert or value is denyed vnto them Answere The Apostle sayth that the Passions of time be not Condigne of their owne Temporall and fleeting nature vnto infinit eternall glory Therfore to the end they may be cōdigne they must be eleuated by the grace of diuine adoption For thus goeth the whole discourse The spirit himselfe giueth testimony to our spirit that we are the Children of God If his Children then his heyres the heyres of God fellow-heyres with Christ if so be that we suffer with him that we may be glorifyed with him For I thinke the Passions of this time not to be condigne vnto the future glory By this it is cleere S. Paul meaneth that the Passions of tyme be not proportionable in their nature which is temporall fleeting vnto the eternity of glory therfore they must be aduanced made deare and pretious to God by the grace of adoption which is a grace proportionable vnto glory for if we be the Children of God we be the heyres of his glory And if the Ministers Argument were good it would otherthow the merit of inward inherent congruity which he doth acknowledge For Saynt Paul might truly haue sayd Passions of tyme or which are of transitory and fleeting nature are not
sinne euery way What is hence consequent That except you recall your Censure you must censure the Fathers as Gracelesse Dānable lyars Franticke fooles so great is your passion and so small your iudgment in rayling at the Iesuit Secondly you are to be pittyed in regard your passion is so extreme as you cannot ioyne togeather the parts of your discourse in any sensible manner You say that the Iesuit holding the Blessed Virgin was immaculate and pure from actuall sinne is like to Acesius the Nouatian who thought himselfe pure and innocent and denyed possibility of saluation vnto men that sinned after baptisme so leauing no ladder to Climbe vp to heauen but only that of Innocency What can be more inept then to lay this censure on the Iesuite in that respect If the Iesuite hold the Blessed Virgin to haue been euer free from actuall sinne doth it follow that he must also so esteeme of himselfe as did the Nouatian May he not iudge her to be an Immaculate Virgin and yet himselfe a sinfull man crauing pardon of his sinnes by her prayers And if he should be so fond also as to thinke himselfe vnspotted pure from sinne doth it follow that he must needes with Acesius exclude from saluation all penitent sinners allow no ladder vnto heauen but only that of purity taking away the other of pennance Surely you cannot but see this your Inuectiue to be not only wrongfull but also witlesse The same distemper of passion causeth you not to marke the want of coherence betwixt your Textuall assertions and Marginall proofes In your text you say The Iesuit by saying the Blessed Virgin was pure from sinne hath lost his witts by the feauer of pride In proofe hereof you cite in your margent this sentēce of S. Cyprian Quisquis se inculpatum dixerit aut superbus aut stultus est who so doth say that himselfe is without sinne is eyther proud or a foole Do you not yet perceaue the wonderfull impertinency of this proofe Let the same be put into forme then you will perchance presently feele it Whosoeuer sayth that himselfe is without sin is a proud foole The Iesuit sayth that the mother of God was without sinne Ergo The Iesuit is a proud foole Verily the Iesuit is not so great a foole as he who doth not perceaue the folly of this arguing which is iust as good as this Who so thinketh himselfe the holyest learnedst Deuine of this age is a very foole But Francis White thinketh Iohn Caluin the holyest and learnedst Deuine of this age Ergo Francis White is a very foole Suppose you were thus conceyted of Caluin and some Catholike Deuine should thus come vpon you for the same would not his folly seeme prodigious vnto all learned men Other falsifications I might yet further discouer as pag. 5. lin 8. where to shew that the Church shall not be alwayes visible Aug. de vnit Eccles. c. 16. you bring the Donatists obiection The Scriptures fortell a large reuolt from heauenly truth 2. Thessal 2.2 these words from heauēly truth are added to the Text for the Text only sayth first there shall come the defection or reuolt which most Expositours vnderstand from the Roman Empire And pag. 519. citing 1. Iohn 5.18 He that is begotten of God SINNETH NOT for the Diuine generation keepeth him and the wicked One toucheth him not you omit sinneth not that the Scripture might not seeme to auouch what you so bitterly rayle agaynst that the Saints of God by speciall grace may liue without sinne Likewise to reproue the Iesuites doctrine that Saints though they sinne venially yet doe not sinne agaynst the Diuine Law For this Law doth exact thinges of men no further then they are necessary vnto eternall life but Veniall sinne destroyeth or opposeth nothing that is necessary to eternall life Agaynst this doctrine you argue pag. 522. lin 20. If iust men haue any sinne they performe not all the Diuine law requireth for euery sinne is a transgression of the Diuine law 1. Iohn 3.4 Heere to the Text of your English Bible you adde Diuine the Text being Euery sin is a transgression of the Law or of a Law And this sentence is true for though Veniall sinns be not against the Diuine speciall law because they are not against Charity and Saluation yet they are against the law of reason which bindeth mē as much as may be not to be forgetfull inconsiderate euen in small matters And though some sentences of Scripture recōmend these small thinges vnto vs it is only to put vs in mind of what we are bound vnto by the law of reason not to lay new diuine obligations vpon vs Many such other tricks of your falshood I omit to discouer for breuityes sake Ignorance Fraud and Falshood in alleadging Fathers and all manner of Authours SECT V. IN this subiect I might be large you being copious in your quotations whereof scarce one is to be found which being examined to the originall is not eyther impertinent or wrested agaynst the Authours mind or falsifyed by mis-translation in the very text Which to discouer fully and particulerly were an hugh worke and hardly worth the labour and no wayes necessary For euen as to the end that one may know the Sea to be salt it is not needfull that he drinke vp the whole mayne two or three tasts taken heere and there may sufficiently resolue him of this truth so foure or fiue examples in euery kind may more then abundantly serue to make this your want of conscience knowne vnto your vnwary Credents that they may see whome they trust in a busines that doth so highly import These your falsifications are of two kinds some crafty and subtill some grosse and impudent Crafty falsification is when to draw Authours to your purpose in your translation of their text you eyther adde to it or detract frō it some words or particles thereby changing the sense or else cite their words truly but contrary to their meaning Grosse falsification is when you lay doctrines to the charge of Authours which they reiect euen in the places by you cyted Both these kinds of falshood S. Paul doth signify to be practised by Heretikes Ephes. 4 8. where he sayth That Christ hath left Pastours and Doctours to his Church to the end that we be not carryed away with the blasts of euery doctrine by the wylinesse of men to circumuent weakelings in errour What be the blasts of hereticall doctrine but their violent and audacious falsifyings of Scriptures and Fathers What their wylinesse to circumuent in errour but crafty corruption by stealing away or cogging in words in their producing of the monuments of Chistian Antiquity The Greeke word vsed by S. Paul is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies properly cogging of the dyce or helping the dyce craftily to cast what chāce they please Euen so Heretikes by helping the yee by cogging wordes in out of the Text make