conceyt that Species in the singular doth signify the kind of the nature and not the shape of outward accidents yet I thinke you are not so deuoyd of all 〈◊〉 as you will affirme that effigies in the singular may signify nature and kind nor will you be so senseleâ—â—â— as to translate panis non effigie sed natura mutatus bread changed not according to the kind but according to the nature And if effigies signify shape not kind then we see this most auncient Father supposeth as a thing most certayne that the sacred Eucharist is bread in shape and shew not in the nature oâ— inuisible essence A mystery seemingly absurd to flesh bloud yet you might more wisely vpon the litterall sense of Gods word belieue it with simplicity of Fayth agaynst your carnall sense then seeke to maintayne this was not the Fayth of the auncient Church with so much Childish simplicity agaynst Grammer A fifth Example of Ignorance ioyned with extreme Insolency §. 5. HAVING made manifest your simplicity in Latin I adde another conuiction of your Grammaticall Ignorance euen about the Construction of an English senteÌ„ce whereby most calumniously you 〈◊〉 vpon your Aduersary false and impious doctrine I would not haue noted your grossenes in this point were not the same ioyned with serious disputation against the supposed errour most bitter Insultation against the Iesuit not only reuiling him but also his whole Order yea through their sides the most Holy AuncieÌ„t Fathers Thus you write pag. 236. The latter branch of the Iesuits assumption to wit The Crosse Nayles Lance were offered by Christ to his heauenly Father at his passion is impiously false For nothing was offered by Christ to his heauenly Father 〈◊〉 his passion but himselfe part of himselfe Hebr. 7.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he offered vp himselfe Hebr. 9.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through the eternal Spirit he offered vp himselfe without spot to God c. Hebr. 10.10 We are sanctifyed through the offering of the body of Iesus Christ once for all Hebr. 9.12 By his owne bloud he entred once into the holy place And if the Crosse Nayles and Lance were offered by Chrict to his Father then we were redeemed with corruptible things which is a Iesuiticall or rather Anti-Iesuiâ— doctrine that is a doctrine ascribing to dead Creatures Iron wood steele nayles c. that which is most proper to the precious bloud of Iesus This Doctrine mayntayned by Loyolists is most sacrilegious and more to be abhorreâ— then Iudas his lyps But it is fulfilled in these men which Clement Alexandrinus sayth of Heathen Idolaters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Are they not prodigious monsters that adore stocks and stones Thus seriously doe you dispute agaynst Iesuites whom you name Loyolists for holding doctrine they neuer dreamt of They (a) Crux ara fuit summi Sacrificij Bellar. de Imag c. 17. teach with the (b) Crux Christi non Templi fuit ara sed Mundi Leo serm 10. de pass Fathers that the Crosse was the Altar whereon Christ offered vp himselfe but that he offered vp to his Father the wood of the Crosse or the Steele Iron of the Lance Nayles for our Redemption certaine I am this neuer passed through their thoughts And ye◠〈◊〉 his supposed Errourâ— you are so waspish as 〈◊〉 haue (*) Not without cause she hauing giuen out disgracefull words against M. Fisher suspected that as Omphale 〈…〉 the â—lub of Hercules so your Xantippe in your 〈…〉 tooke your pen into her hand and thence powred down vpon our heads this shameful shower 〈◊〉 â—â—proach I might I say haue intertayned this suâ—â—â—tion were it not for the so frequent aspersion of so many Greeke words according to the (c) Si duo aut tria verba graeca sonuerit sapere sibi videtur fashion of â—eretikes agaynst which I may fitly in this place apply the words of the Satyre Omnia Graecè Cùm sit turpe magis nostris nescire Latinè Greeke words flow from their mouth wheras in men of 〈◊〉 it is more shamefull to be ignorant of their own language to want wit iudgment to construe the same Vpon which IgnoraÌ„ce this your imputation of 〈◊〉 vnto Iesuits is grounded except you will acknowlege that herein you slaunder them malitiously as I will now cleerly demonstrate First those wordes The Crosse Nayles and Lance were offered by Christ to his heauenly Father at his passion how are they set downe by you As the very text of the Iesuite in so many wordes Shew these formall wordes in his booke he I know will giue you leaue to rayle at him wherin you take so great pleasâ—re till you haue eased your stomacke of all your 〈◊〉 As your owne words wherein you thinke to 〈◊〉 downe not the text but the sense of the Iesuites 〈◊〉 why then are they put in a distinct letter as 〈◊〉 from yours and as the Iesuites formall 〈◊〉 If the Iesuites wordes were ambiguous 〈◊〉 to that impious sense you set vpoÌ„ them 〈◊〉 â—hey are not yet as it had been Charity to haue coâ—â—rued them to the better sense so is your falshood intollerable to substitute in lieu of his ambiguoâ—â— speach another that contaynes impiety without 〈◊〉 ambiguity and doubt Another I say of your owâ— making set in a distinct letter as if it were formallâ— and verbally his Secondly if the true wordes of the Iesuit 〈◊〉 downe it will presently appeare that his propositiâ—â— is not That the Crosse and Nayles were offered to the 〈◊〉 at Christs passion but that they were instrumenâ— of his passion not as the same proceeded from 〈◊〉 harts of the wicked but as by him intertayned in 〈◊〉 owne hart and offered to his Father this so cleâ—â—â—ly as it may seeme prodigious that you could ignoâ—rantly or that you would wittingly mistake his seâ—â—tence For the Iesuit answering a Protestant vulgâ—â— obiection the Kings maiesty vrged in the ConfereÌ„â—â— If the Crosse Nayles be worshipped because they touch the body of our Lord why not also the lypps of Iudas 〈◊〉 touched our Sauiours lypps when he gaue him that trayâ—â—â—rous kisse The Iesuit I say deliuers a threefold mâ—â—nifest disparity between the lyps of Iudas and the hâ—â—ly Crosse and about the third disparity he thus 〈◊〉 The Passion may be considered two wayes First as pâ—â—â—ceeding from the will of wicked men that tormented hiâ— in which consideration it is not gratefull vnto God 〈◊〉 detestableâ—action in the doers therof Secondly as it was â—â—â—ceaued in the body of Christ admitted into his heart 〈◊〉 OFFERED to his Father and by this consideration is sacred and venerable The lips of Iudas betraying 〈◊〉 were instruments of his Passion as it proceeded from 〈◊〉 hart and consequently as it was a detestable action but 〈◊〉 Crosse the Nayles the Lance that stayed in and was 〈…〉 to the body of Christ were instruments of his passion 〈◊〉 in his sacred person and
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
be so adorned with the markes of the true as the true become indiscernable from it But if the Roman be not the true Catholicke Tradition the true Catholicke Church and Tradition is hidden yea a false Church hath so cleerly the markes of Catholicke that no other can with any colour pretend to be rather Catholicke then it that is to haue doctrin deliuered from the Apostles by whole worlds of Christian Fathers vnto whole worlds of Christian Children Hence eyther there is no meanes left to know assuredly the sauing truth or else the meanes is immediat reuelatiō that is inward teaching of the spirit without any externall infallible meanes or else Scripture knowne to be the word of God and truly sensed by the light lustre and euidēce of the things which wayes of teaching it is certayne God doth not vse towards his militant Church succeeding the Apostles For teaching of diuine and supernaturall truth by the light lustre and shining of the thing or doctrin is proper vnto the Church triumphant Inward assurance without any externall infallible ground to assure men of truth is proper vnto the Prophets and the first publishers of Christian Religion Hence I conclude that if God be the Prime Verity teaching Christian Religion darkely without making men see the light and lustre of thinges belieued and mediatly by some externall infallible meanes vpon which inward assurance must rely then he must euer conserue the Catholicke tradition and Church visible and conspicuous that the same may without immediat reuelation and otherwise thē by the lustre of doctrin be discerned to wit by sensible markes If any obiect that the senses of mē in this search may be deceaued through naturall inuincible fallibility of their organs and so no ground of fayth that is altogether infallible I Answere that euidence had by sense being but the priuate of one man is naturally and physically infallible but when the same is also publicke and Catholicke that is when a whole world of men concurre with him then his euidence is altogether infallible Besides seing God hath resolued not to teach men immediatly but will haue them to cleaue vnto an externall infallible meanes to find out this meanes by the sensible euidence of the thinge he is bound by the perfection of his Veracity to assist mens senses with his prouidence that therein they be not deceaued when they vse such diligence as men ordinarily vse that they be not deceaued by their senses Now what greater euidence cā one haue that he is not deceaued in this matter of sense that the Romā Doctrine is the Catholicke that is Doctrine deliuered from the Apostles by worlds of Christian Ancestors spread ouer the world vnanimous amongst themselues in all matters they belieue as Fayth what greater assurance I say can one haue that herein he seeth aright then a whole world of men professing to see the same that he doth Some may agayne obiect I belieue the Catholicke Church is an Article of Fayth set downe in the Creed but Fayth is resolution about thinges that are not seene I Answere An article of Fayth may be visible according to the substāce of the thing yet inuisible according to the manner it is belieued in the Creed The third article He suffered vnder Pontius Pilate was crucifyed dead and buried according to the substance of the thinge was euident vnto sense and seen euen of the Iewes and is now belieued of their posterity But according to the manner as it is belieued in the Creed to wit that herein the Word of God by his auncient Prophets was fulfilled that this was done in charity for the saluation of Man in this manner I say that visible Article is inuisible and belieued in the Creed In like māner that there is in the world a Catholicke Church and that the Roman is the Catholicke Church Pagans Iewes Heretikes if they shut not their eyes agaynst the light do cleerly behold But that herein the word of God about the perpetuall amplitude of his Church is accomplished that this is an effect of Gods Veracity to the end that the meanes to learne sauing truth may not be hidden this is a thing inuisible according to this notiō the Catholicke Church is proposed in the Creed Secondly propositiōs of fayth must be inuisible according to the Predicate or thinge belieued but not euer according to the subiect or thing wherof we belieue The thinges the Apostles belieued of Christ to wit that he was the Sauiour of the world the Son of God were thinges inuisible but the subiect and person of whome they did belieue was to them visible seen yea God did of purpose by his Prophets fortell certayne tokens whereby that subiect might by sense be seen and discerned from all other that might pretend the name of Christ or els his coming into the world to teach the truth had been to no purpose In this sort the Predicate or thing belieued in this article the holy Catholicke Church to wit Holy is inuisible but the Subiect to wit the Catholicke Church which we affirme and belieue to be holy in her doctrine is visible and conspicuous vnto all Yea God hath of purpose foretold signes and tokens whereby the same by sense may be cleerly discernable from all other that may pretend the title of Catholicke For were not this subiect the Catholicke Church we belieue to be holy and infallible in her teaching visible and discernable from all other that pretend the name of what vse were it to belieue that there is such an infallible teaching Church in the world hidden we know not where as a needle in a bottle of hay The End of the Resolution of Fayth THESE thinges supposed the Reader will haue no difficulty to discerne how friuolous the Ministers exceptions are agaynst the resolutiō of fayth in respect of belieuing doctrines to be the Apostles into Perpetuall Tradition and how solide the Iesuits discourse was which here ensueth THE FIRST GROVND That a Christian resolution of Fayth is builded vpon perpetuall Tradition deriued by succession from the Apostles §. 1. BEFORE I come to the proofe of this principle some things are to be presupposed which I thinke Protestants will not deny First that no man can be saued or attayne to the blissefull vision of God without firme and assured apprehension of diuine supernaturall truth concerning his last end and the meanes to arriue thereunto Secondly that this assured apprehension is not had by a (e) The Minister heere graunteth that Fayth is not had by cleere euident sight but afterward he sayth the same is resolued by the resplendent verity of the doctrine cleare and euident sight nor gotten by demonstration or humane discourse by the principles of reason nor can be sufficiently had by credit giuen to meerly humane authority but only by Fayth grounded on the word of God reuealing vnto men things that otherwise are knowne only to his Infinite wisdome Thirdly that God
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
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
vnderstand the naturall qualityes that flow form the nature and essence of bread and wine (a) By substance also they vnderstand not the inward substance but outward corpulency massines of bread and wine for ordinarily and in common speach the naturall accidents and proprietyes of a thing are tearmed the nature of a thing Thus we say to be heauy and fall downeward is the nature of the stone to be hoat and to burne the nature of the fire which are but naturall qualityes of stone and fire By this or rather by a more strange manner of speach S. Theodoret Bishop of Ancyra (b) Hom. de natiuit Saluatoris in corr Epiph. p. 3. c. 9. to explicate agaynst Nestorius and Eutiches the coniunction of two Natures in one Person by the example of the water that Moyses conuerted into bloud sayth That the water was not changed in nature nor did cease to be water which in rigour of speach taking the nature of water for the inward substance thereof as cōdistinct from the naturall qualityes is not true But because water chāged into bloud remaynes according to some naturall qualityes and propertyes which it hath common with bread as moisture liquidnes the like he the better to fit accomodate the similitude sayth The water remayned according to the nature that is according to some naturall qualityes therof For these Fathers (c) These Fathers vnderstood not the inward Nature of bread and wine to remaine nor the inward substāce because they say that the mysticall signes passe by the working of the holy Ghost into another substane yet remaine in the propriety of their nature So saith Gelasius which cannot be vnderstood otherwise then that according to their outward nature and substance they remaine though in their inward nature and substance they be changed and passed into the substance of Christs body and blood bring those similitudes to declare the mystery of the Incarnatiō against the Heresy of Eutiches who denyed the naturall qualityes propertyes of the two Natures of God and Man to remayne distinct in the person of Christ. This errour they reiected by the example of the Eucharist where the naturall qualityes of bread remaine together with the body of Christ in the same Sacrament which naturall qualityes of bread they tearme the nature of bread as in some sense they may be tearmed to the end that the phrase of two distinct natures remaining might be common to the mysteries of the Incarnation and Eucharist and so the similitude seeme more fit and proper Yet the Fathers know well that the phrase did not agree to both mysteryes equally in the same sense And this obscure vttering of his mind is the lesse to be wōdered at in Theodoret because he doth professe in that place not to speake plainly as fearing that some Infidells or Gatechumens were present to whom the mistery of Transubstantiation was not to be reuealed Non oportet sayth he apertè dicere est enim verisimile adesse aliquos non initiatos Much lesse cause haue they to stand vpon the wordes of Saint Augustine (d) August serm ad Infant apud Bedam in cap. 10. Quod videtur panis est quod etiam oculi renūtiant quod autem fides postulat panis est corpus Christi For the sense is that consecrated bread is bread in outward appearance and the naturall accidences of bread truly remayne as the eye doth witnesse but in wardly and according to the substance it is not bread but the body of Christ as fayth requireth we belieue And it is to be noted that these wordes are not extant in the workes of S. Augustine but alleadged by Venerable Bede a follower of Saint Augustines doctrine and so it is not likely they are to be vnderstood but as Bede vnderstood thē who sets downe his mind in these words (e) Beda de mysterio missae apud Thom. Waldens Tom. 2. c. 8. 2. The forme of bread is seene but the substance of bread is not there nor any other bread but only that bread which came downe from heauen (*) The Minister pag. 435. to make a shew of many Fathers addeth vnto Theodoret and Gelasius the testimony of Bertram S. Chrysostome in epist. ad Caesarium Monachum S. Irenaeus S. Damascen Answere The booke of Bertram is of no credit being set forth with many Protestant additions as themselues confesse and you may see proued in a Treatise tearmed The Plea for the Reall Presence agaynst Syr Hūfrey Lynd his Bertrā The Epistle ad Caesariū Monachum is not S. Chrysostomes S. Irenaeus his testimony hath been already shewed to be impertinently alleadged S. Damascen is by you grossely abused as being brought quite contrary to his mind For when he sayth l. 4. de fide c. 14. As a fiery coale is wood and fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not only bread but bread vnited to the Diuinity he meaneth by the bread of the holy Cōmunion not bread remayning bread but bread changed into Christ his flesh To say that bread remayning bread in substance is vnited personally vnto the Deity is impious S. Damascen in that place doth most cleerly shew that he speaketh of bread changed into flesh For thus he writeth Christ did conioyne his diuinity with bread and wine that so by thinges that are common and to which we are vsed we may attayne to thinges diuine and aboue nature for verily the body borne of the Virgin is a body vnited vnto the Deity not that his body assumpted into heauen doth agayne descend in the Eucharist from heauen but that bread it selfe and wine are conuerted into the flesh and bloud of God And a little after A coale is not only wood but wood ioyned to fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not simple bread but bread vnited vnto the Deity But the body vnited to the Deity is not any single nature but the nature of flesh and the nature of the Deity be conioyned together in it Thus he most cleerly shewing not that the bread of the holy Communion remaining bread in nature is vnited to the Deity to make togither with it a personall compound of two natures it were blasphemy so to thinke but that bread chāged into Christs flesh is vnited to the Deity because the flesh into which it is changed is not meere and only flesh but also flesh vnited with the Deity How intolerably is S. Damascen falsifyed by you Being truly and fully cited how fully doth he teach Transubstantiation But such is your Religion you must make a shew of the Fathers to be on your side though you know in conscience they make agaynst you you must patch togither some of their mangled sentences to make a gay fooles-coate for your seely Credents least they seeme naked The seeming repugnances this mistery hath with sense should incline Christians the sooner to belieue it §. 4. THE former proofe of Transubstantiation might satisfy were
this mystery not accompanyed with many seeming absurdityes repugnances agaynst sense particularly these foure First that a body as big as our Sauiours remayning stil truly corpulent in it selfe should be contayned within the cōpasse of a round Hoast scarce an inch long and broad Secondly that a body so glorious should be combined vnto corruptible elements and so made subiect vnto the indignityes and obscenityes that may befall vnto them Thirdly that the body may be in heauen and on earth in innumerable places at once Fourthly that the substance of bread being cōuerted into Christs body the sole accidēts remaine by themselues performing the whole office of substance no lesse then if it were present euen to the nutrition of mans body These difficultyes so scandalize Protestants that some condemne Trāsubstantiation as impossible yea as (f) Field of the Church lib. 3. absurd ridiculous barbarous Others professe they cannot subdue their vnderstandings to belieue it as a matter of Fayth To giue full satisfaction in this point I set downe this proposition that these seeming absurdityes should not auert but rather incline a true Christian mind to belieue this mystery In proofe whereof I present vnto your Maiesty these three Considerations (g) The Minister here sayth that this longe tract about Gods omnipotency is impertinent because Protestants deny not Gods omnipotency But this Cauill is refuted in the Censure Sect. 3. §. 3. where it is shewed that to deny the litteral sense of Gods word about the mysteryes of our fayth to be possible vnto God is Infidelity Now Protestants grant the holy Eucharist to be a chiefe mystery of fayth Transubstantiation to be the literall sense of Gods word about the same wherefore this tract about the Diuine omnipotēcy is pertinently brought agaynst them The first Consideration The first is grounded vpon the supposall of two thinges most certayne First that the Primitiue Church preaching vnto Pagans Iewes and other Infidells the rest of Christian mysteryes as the Trinity the Incarnation the Resurrection of the body did most carefully keepe as much as might be from their knowledge the mystery of the Eucharist yea Catechumens and Nouices were not before Baptisme fully taught or instructed therein Secondly the reason moouing the primitiue Church to be carefull in this point was least Catechumens Infidells being fully acquainted with the whole mystery the one shold be scandalized the other mocke therat Hence it was accounted such an heynous offence that Christians should discouer vnto Infidels or dispute about the difficultyes thereof in their presence The Councell (g) Concil Alexand. apud Athanas. Apolog. 2. of Alexandria relating the crimes of Arrians number this as one of the greatest They were not ashamed in publike and as it were vpon a scaffold to treate of the mysteryes before Catechumens and which is worse before Pagans And a little after It (h) Epist. Iulij apud Athanas Apol. 2. is not lawfull to publish the mysteryes before them that are not initiated for feare Pagans out of ignorance mocke and Catechumens entring into curiosityes be scandalized And agayne Before Catechumens which is more before Iewes Pagans blaspheming Christianity they handled a question about the body and bloud of our Sauiour And to the same purpose Saint Ambrose (i) Ambros. de myster initian c. 1. saith To declare the Mysteryes vnto them that be Catechumens is no tradition but prodition seing by such declarations danger is incurred least they be diuulged vnto Infidells that will scoffe at them This supposed I inferre that the seeming absurdities of the Catholike reall presence should encourage a true Christian mind to belieue it For a true Christian desires to belieue and firmely cleaue vnto the reall Presence that was belieued by the primitiue Church But this was a reall Presence accompanyed with many seeming grosse absurdities that the Church had no hope to satisfy Infidells therein or to keep them from blaspheming but by concealing the mystery from them and consequently they held the Catholicke not the Protestant doctrine in this point The Protestāts (k) The Minister pag. 442. lin 12. saith that Protestāts hold the elements of bread wine to remaine to be instruments of our coniunction by grace vnto God and that this is a mystery incomprehensible Answere First Protestants do not hold the elements of bread and wine to be proper instrumēts infusing grace into mans soule but that men are iustifyed by their faith onely that this Sacrament is a meere signe and seale therof Secōdly though Sacramental influence of grace into the soule be a thinge supernaturall yet no mystery of extraordinary difficulty to be belieued nor absurd vnto sense For this is no more thē that vpon our eating and drinking of bread and wine in remēbrance of Christs body broken of his blood shed on the Crosse God infuse soule-nourishing grace into the worthy receauer Now what difficulty to belieue this or what seeming absurdity therin This is no greater mystery then that vpon the washing of the body with the element of water God inwardly wash the soule with grace Wherfore seing Protestāts cā find in their Eucharist no mystery more hard seemingly absurd thē in Baptisme doubtlesse it is not the mystery of the Primitiue Church concealed frō Infidells in regard of the seeming absurdity and immanity therof vnto carnall imaginatiō whereas Baptisme was not conceaued to be of that seeming absurdity nor concealed doctrine that makes Christs body present spiritually by fayth vnto the deuout receauer that communicating thinkes sweetly of Christs passion and death contaynes no mystery to be cōcealed in respect of the seeming absurdityes yea the Fathers did not feare to declare to Catechumens this Sacrament so farre as it was commemoratiue of Christ and his passion as appeares by the treatises of Saint Augustine vpon S. Iohn made before Catechumens out of which Treatises Protestants for their meere commemoratiue Presence alleadge many sentēces to little purpose For he there explicates spirituall manducation by fayth and he excludes the grosse imagination of eating Christs body in his proper shape tearing it in pieces with the teeth but denyes not yea rather insinuates another kind of spirituall manducation not only by fayth but by reall sumption though to conceale the mystery from Catechumens he speaks not so cleerly thereof Wherfore as the Palm-tree the heauier the weight is that is layd vpon it the more it riseth vpward as it were ioying in difficultyes So a true Catholike Christian feeling in the doctrine of Transubstātiation many seeming absurdityes that presse carnall imagination to the ground groweth thereby more strong to belieue it imbracing these difficultyes as manyfest signes that this doctrine was belieued by the Primitiue Apostolicall Church On the other side the Protestants finding the Presence of Christs body by faith to be deuoyd of such difficulties may by the very lightnes thereof suspect it is not the doctrine which the Fathers concealed from
there may be great merit and excellent Fayth if it be a truth and on the other side though which is impossible it should be false yet in belieuing it we shall not fall into any damnable errour For although we suppose this vnpossible case yet what can be layd to our charge which we may not defend and iustify by all the rules of equity and reason If we be accused that we tooke bread to be the body of Christ adoring the same as God so committing Idolatry we may defend that both for soule and body we are innocent heerin For seing the body is not made guilty but by a guilty mind euen our body may plead not guilty seing our mind our thoughts our deuotiō were totally referred vnto Christ whom we truly apprehend by faith as veyled with the accidents of bread and so may repell the reproach of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread-worshippers with saying Quae vouit mens est pani nil vouimus illâ Neyther did we belieue that the bread was changed into Christs body vpō slight reasons or mooued by the fancyes of our own head but contrary to our fancyes out of reuerence to the (q) The Minister here contradicting himselfe sayth that Trāsubstantiation is not inuolued in the litterall sense of Gods word And further that the same was neuer defined in Generall Councells For as the Ariās would allow no Councell to be lawfull which condemned Arius so with these mē no Councell is lawfull vpon which Iohn Caluin will not bestow his Blessing Otherwise why should not the Lateran Councell vnder Innocent the third and the second Councell of Nice celebrated aboue eight hūdred years agoe where the substātiue reall presence is defined and the figuratiue condemned be lawful general in which both the Latin and Grecian Church did concurre to define expresse wordes of Christ This is my body A sense declared by most ancient Fathers defined by many Generall Councels deliuered by full consent of our Ancestours so practised in the Church for many ages without any knowne beginning Finally confirmed with the most credible cōstant report of innumerable (r) The Minister sayth that these Miracles be but the lyes of Fryars which he proues by a iest that was rife in the mouth of Wickliffifts Est Frater Ergo mendax Answer The miracles done in proofe of the Corporall and substantiall permanent presence of Christs body in the Eucharist are related by most auncient Fathers and writers of which many whole Townes Cittyes and Countreyes haue been eye witnesses as it were madnes to questiō thē These may be read in Ioannes Garetius who hath gathered them together as also in Iudocus Coccius The Prouerbe He is Fryar Ergo a lyar is true of such Fryars as Martin Luther Bucer Peter Martyr Fryar Barnes and the like founders and pillars of the fifth Gospell And if the matter be looked into without passiō this inference Est Minister Ergo mēdax will seeme more iustifiable euen in Caluins iudgement who sayth that most of them that shew most zeale are ful of falshod fraud lying Hierom Zanchius a famous Protestāt in the Preface of his booke contra Arianum Anonymū saith of Ministers That euen they who are tearmed Pillars of the Ghospell are for the most part impudēt lying companions that out-face the truth euery way thereupon exclayming O Tempora O Mores most euidēt miracles Can a Christian belieue any point of religion vpon surer grounds And if God at the day of Iudgement will condemne none but such as liuing in this world wronged him in his honour why should Catholikes feare any hard sentence in respect of their prōpt credulity of Transubstātiation that is of Gods word takē in the playne proper sense Is it any iniury to his verity that they deny their senses correct their imaginatiōs reforme their discourses abnegate their iudgments rather then not to belieue what to them seemeth his word Is it iniury to his power to be perswaded that he can doe things incomprehēsible without number put the same body in innumerable places at once make a body occupy no place yet remayne a quantitatiue substance in it selfe Is it iniury to his charity to thinke that loue vnto men makes him vnite himselfe really and substantially with them to be as it were incarnate anew in euery particular faythfull man entring really into their bodyes to signify efficaciously his inward cōiunction by spirit vnto their soules Finally is it any iniury to his wisdome to belieue that to satisfy on the one side the will of his Father that would haue him euer in heauen sitting at his right hād on the other side the ardency of his owne affection vnto men desiring to be perpetually with them he inuented a manner how still remaining glorious in heauē he might also be continually on earth with his Church secretly not to take from them the merit of Fayth yet to affoard full satisfaction to his owne loue really by continuall personall presence and most intime coniunction with them On the other side it imports them that thinke Transubstantiation impossible or that God cannot put the same body in different places at once to consider if they erre easy it is for men to erre that with the compasse of their vnderstanding measure the power of God how dangerous inexcusable their errour will prooue when they shal be called to giue vnto their omnipotent maker a finall account particularly of this doctrine so much derogating from him Let them thinke how they will answere if God lay to their charge the neglect of that most prudent reasonable aduise which S. Chrysostome Homil. 83. in Mat. giues Let vs belieue God sayth he let vs not resist his word though the same seeme absurd vnto our cogitation sense for his speach doth surpasse our reason and sense his words cannot deceaue vs but our senses be deceaued easily and often How will they reply if they be pressed with the interrogatory which S. Cyrill l. 12. in Ioan. makes vnto such vnbelieuers If thou couldst not comprehend the diuine operation of God why didest thou not accuse the imbecillity of mans wit rather then the omnipotency of God Or how disputing proposing so many Arguments agaynst Gods power reiecting or questioning the same because they could not vnderstand it neuer called they to mynd the saying (s) August lib. 12. de Ciuit c. 11. of Saint Augustine Ecce quibus argumentis Diuinae omnipotentiae humana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas THE SEAVENTH POINT Communion (*) Note that the holy Eucharist is both a Sacrifice and a Sacrament A Sacrifice as offered vnto God for thansgiuing and remission of sinnes A Sacrament as receaued by mē for the foode sanctification of their soules It is a Sacrifice because a liuely and expresse representation of Christs bloudy Sacrifice on the Crosse. It is a Sacramēt because representing exhibiting Christ Iesus as the full and all-sufficient
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
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
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
last of the seauen so that his arguments are Nine in all These being the summe and substance of all his disputation I will heere set them downe answere them one by one that the Reader may see vpon what friuolous reasons these men are mooued to reiect the literall sense of Gods word concerning the highest mysteryes of Fayth His first Argument pag. 397. If the substance of bread and wine do remayne Christs speach This is my body This is my bloud cannot be properly true because one indiuiduall substance cannot be predicated of another properly But it shall be afterward by Fathers and Scriptures proued that the substance of bread and wine remaynes ANSWERE You will prooue the substance of bread to remayne in the holy Eucharist ad Kalendas Graecas the meane while out of what you heere confesse I argue agaynst you You grant that except Transubstantiation be maintayned the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the literall sense But they must be vnderstood in the literall sense for on these words the Church of God doth ground a chiefe mystery or Sacrament of Fayth But as hath beene prooued no figuratiue text can be the ground of our beliefe concerning any Sacrament or mystery of Fayth The second Argument pag. 397. The words wherby the wine is consecrated Luc. 22.20 are Tropicall by the confession of our Aduersaryes ANSWERE First it is not absurd that our Sauiour deliuering some precept article or Sacrament should vse words that are figuratiue and exorbitant according to the rules of Grammer if they be not figuratiue nor vnusuall but ordinary playne manyfest perspicuous according to the common phrase and vulgar manner of speach This speach This is the cuppe of my bloud which is shed for you if it be figuratiue according to Grammer yet is it playne easy cleere according to common speach for no man hearing these words This is the cup of my bloud shed for you can thinke that the cuppe and not the bloud contayned therein was shed for vs. Secondly I deny that any word of this speach This is the cuppe of the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you is figuratiue This is the cup of my bloud is not figuratiue seing Christ had in his hand a true cup not the figure of a cup and the thing contayned therein was truly and properly bloud The bloud of Christ is also truly and properly sayd to be the new Testament for it is the thing required by the new Testament Couenant for the remission of sinnes but commonly and vulgarly men say of the thing required by Couenant this is our Couenant Finally the cup in his bloud is properly sayd to be shed seing the bloud was truly and properly shed so the cup properly shed in that respect as to say of a cup of wine this cup is spilt in the wine therof is not figuratiue but rather a speach vnnecessarily playne The third Argument pag. 397. If the words be taken properly then the body and bloud of Christ is deliuered and receaued without the soule and Deity of Christ for in propriety of speach the Body is a distinct and diuerse thing from the soule and likewise from Bloud ANSWERE Thousand instances might be brought that shew your grosse Ignorance in Theology who thus argue For example the Ghospell Iohn 1.10 sayth the Word was made flesh Is this Argument good Flesh in the propriety of speach is a distinct and diuerse thing from bloud and from soule Ergo eyther these words be figuratiue and do not prooue that the word tooke substantially Flesh or els we must say that he tooke dead flesh without bloud soule S. Peter sayth that Christ did beare our sinnes in his body vpon the wood were he not simple that would argue as you do Body in propriety of speach is a thing distinct from the soule and from the God-head Therefore eyther the wordes are figuratiue and do not proue that Christ did truly suffer in body or els we must say that his body without soule and without his Deity suffered on the Crosse. Not so For though the body be a thing distinct and diuerse from the soule yet it is a thing vnited and ioyned with the soule when the person liueth and so the body of a liuing person cānot be giuen except the soule be giuen consequently or by concomitancy therewith Ordinary Philosophy might haue taught you this where it is cōmonly sayd that though the Body be distinct from the Soule yet cānot the body be mooued or remooued deliuered and receaued without the soule the same going from place to place per accidens cum corpore by concomitancy togeather with the body The fourth Argument pag. 397. Seing Christ as Saint Hierome Saint Chrysostome and Euthimius affirme did himselfe Sacramentally eate and drinke what he gaue to his disciples if the words be literally vnderstood then he did eate his owne body and drinke his owne bloud ANSWERE You would haue vs belieue that it is ridiculous and foolish to say that Christ did eate his owne body which yet you durst not vtter in playne words For if Christ as you affirme did eate what he gaue to his disciples eyther he did eate his owne body or else his word in rigour is false wherby he sayd of what he gaue to his disciples Take eate This is my body Hence the Fathers who affirme that Christ did eate what he gaue affirme that Christ did eate what he gaue his Apostles consequently inforced by the euidence of Gods word expressely auerre that he did eate his owne body as Saint Hierome ad Hedib q. 2. Christ in his supper was the eater the meate that was eaten Saint Chrysostome homil 83. in Matth. That the Apostles might not feare to do the same Christ himselfe first dranke his own bloud Yea S. Augustine Concion 1. in Psalm 33. sayth that Christ in his last supper carryed himselfe in his owne hands secundum literam according to the letter which Dauid neyther did nor possibly could doe The fifth Argument pag. 398. If the wordes be vnderstood literally then Christ gaue his Disciples his passible and mortall body But I trow no Iesuit will maintayne that a body mortall and passible can be in many hoasts or mouths at once nor can the same be corporally eaten without sensible touching ANSWERE You might truly haue sayd I trow no Caluinist will belieue that a mortall and passible body can be in two hoasts or mouths at once let the word of God say it neuer so expressely and euen as expressely as these words import Take eate this is my Body which shall be deliuered for many vnto death which shall be broken for you on the Crosse. If Christ gaue his body that was to suffer and dye he gaue his body that was then passible mortal in many hoasts at once vnto the mouths of the twelue Now this being the playne expresse and litterall truth of the word of
to imbrace the body without the spirit which is in that body insensible and as good as if it were not there So they that receaue vnworthily are sometymes sayd by the Fathers (m) August tract 26. in Ioan. 25. Caeteri Apostoli manducauerunt panem Dominū Iudas autē panem Domini to receyue the Sacrament without the body of Christ because though the body of Christ be really in the Sacrament they receaue yet he is there in a dead manner in regard of them as if he were not there at all because he stirres not vp heauenly affections in them nor makes them feele the workings of his grace loue Thirdly we cānot imagine the same body can be in many places togeather at the same tyme it is true but as hardly can we imagine the soule to be in the head and in the feet of a man one the same without diuision in it selfe or an Angell to be in two Townes of the Countrey wherof he is President as farre distant one from the other as Yorke from London Also who can conceaue God who is infinitely one indiuisible to be both in heauen and on earth at once Of which incomprehensible manner of presence Saint Augustine sayth (n) August ep 3. ad Volusian Miratur hoc meus humana quia non capit fortasse non credit What meruayle that imagination fayles vs to apprehend the multiplyed Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament which is spirituall Angelicall and supernaturall comparable with the diuine that S. Gregory Nissen (o) Greg. Nissen in orat de Pasch. stickes not to say Sicut Diuinitas replet mundum tamen vna est ita innumerabilibus locis offertur tamen vnum corpus est The body of Christ being glorious is for operation as swift and agill as any thought but a mans thought is so quicke that one may be by thought in two disioyned places at once for example in London at Rome Some Deuines (p) Caiet 1. p. q 52. art 2. Ferrar. 3. contra Gent. ca. 65. Marsil in 2. q. 2. ar 2. Dionys. Cister in 2. dist 6. q. 1. art 1. conclus 6. giue such agility to Angells that they can place themselues substātially where they please by a thought thinke that as their thoughts so likwise their substances are so independent of corporall state that they can be naturally in two distinct places without being in the spaces interiacent But the agility of Christs glorious body is more excellent and perfect as being supernaturall then the naturall agility of Angells yea then of thoughts why then should we make any doubt but he may be in disioyned different places at once Fourthly we find difficulty to conceaue that accidents existing separated from any substance can performe the office of substance euen to the nourishment of mans body but we should perchance find as much difficulty to belieue that of a little Kernell of an apple a great Tree may be made and nourished by the force and vigour proceeding from the same did we not see by dayly experience the same to be true That ashes may be made glasse that stones in the stomake of a Doue yron in the belly of an Ostridge be turned into flesh that of a rotten barke of a tree falling into the water should be bred produced a perfect bird to me seemes more incredible then that God should make the accidents of bread separated from their substāce to nourish mans body (*) The Minister heere laboureth to shew a difference betwixt the wonders of Nature the Miracles of the holy Eucharist which is impertinent For the Answerer doth not intend that there is the same kind of strāgenes in both but argueth That seing in Nature such incomprehensible thinges be found we ought not to deny the litterall sense of Gods Word for any difficultyes that may occurre For the dead barke of a tree may seeme to haue no more efficacy of it selfe to produce a liuing creature specially so perfect a bird as a Barnacle then haue the accidents of bread to feed breed the flesh of a liuing man yea many Philosophers teach in my iudgement conuince that in substantiall generations where no cause coequall in perfection to the effect produced is present God by the secret operation of his power supplyes the deficiency of naturall causes Why then should any man so much mislike our doctrine that in this mystery where the substance of bread is wanting God by the secret operation of his power supplyes the defect thereof seing by the opinion of many learned Philosophers his Prouidence by the like secret special working doth ordinarily dayly and hourely supply the manifold defects of substantiall secondary agents Neyther is the manner how God can doe this difficill to explicate For he may enable the quātity of bread to receaue and sustayne the working of mans nutritiue power when in that quantity there is the last accidentall disposition to the forme of flesh he can secretly produce againe materiā primā that was of the bread and combine the same with the prepared quantity the substantiall forme of flesh what reason is there why God may not do this yea do it sooner then we speake it Wherefore the seeming absurdityes of this mystery being as I haue shewed meerly imaginary and not like those agaynst the Trinity and the Incarnation wherein not so much imagination as reason findes difficulty it is the part not only of sincere Christian Fayth but also of a cleere excellent wit to contemne them not to permit wandering vnruly fancy destitute of reason to controule our beliefe about the (*) The Minister here pag. 454. rayles lustily saying That the Romists presūptuously forming Chimera's and Idols in the forge of their own deceaued brest deserue to be fed only with accidents as the birds that pecked at paynted grapes All which is both blasphemous simple for what more impious then to tearme the litterall sense of Gods word concerning the misteries of faith such as our doctrine about the same is cōfessed to be a Chimera and Idol framed in the forge of a deceaued brest What more seely then to thinke the Protestants Sacrament being a figure of Christs body in substance but bread a more substātiall food of the soule then the Catholickes which is in shape shew bread in essence substance the pretious flesh of the Sauiour Be not Protestants rather the birds that peck at the picture figure shape of their soules food Is not the soule better fed with the litterall playne substantiue sense of Gods word thē by the figuratiue comments of men literal sense of Christs words so many wayes by the grauest testimonyes of Antiquity recommended vnto vs. The third Consideration Thirdly to make Christians incline to belieue this mystery so difficill to carnall Imagination this Consideration may be very potent to wit that in belieuing the same on the one side
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
2. That this Worshippe was euer since the Apostles in the Church without beginning pag. 142.143 c. § 3. The places of Exodus Deut. with no probability vrged agaynst the Worship of Images by Protestants that make them pag. 154.155 c. § 4. Inconueniences which may come by occasion of Images easily preuented and their vtilities very great pag. 158.159 THE SECOND AND THIRD POINT II. Praying offering Oblations to the B. Virgin Mary III. VVorshipping Inuocation of Saints Angells pag. 172. § 1. An Eleauen Demonstrations that the Ancient Christian Church did euer hould Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Fayth Religion pag. 173.174 c. § 2. Inuocation of Saints not to be disliked because not expressed in Scripture pag. 194. § 3. Knowledge of Prayers made to them communicable communicated vnto Saints pag. 196.197 c. § 4. The Worship in spirit Truth with outward prostration of body due vnto Saints pag. 206.207 c. § 5. Praying to Saints not iniurious to Gods mercy but rather a commendation thereof pag. 211.212 c. § 6. Inuocation of Saints not an iniury but an honor to Christ the only Mediatour pag. 215.216 c. § 7. How it is lawfull to appropriate the obtayning of Graces and Cures vnto Saints pag. 219.220 c. § 8. Cōcerning Oblatiōs made to Saints p. 223.224 c. § 9. The Roman Churches set-formes of Prayer without cause misliked pag. 226.227 THE FOVRTH POINT IIII. The Liturgy priuate Prayers for the Ignorant in an vnknovvne Tongue pag. 130.131 THE FIFTH POINT V. Repetitions of Pater Nosters Aues Creeds especially affixing a kind of merit to the nūber of thē p. 241.242 c. THE SIXT POINT VI. The doctrine of Transubstantiatiō ¶ An Addition prouing the Catholike Reall Presence according to the litterall Truth of Gods word agaynst Ministeriall Metaphors Figures shifts pag. 248. ¶ § 1. The Zwinglian and Caluinian Religion about the Sacrament pag. 248. ¶ § 2. The Zwinglian Caluinian Presence confuted pag. 250. ¶ § 3. The Ministers Arguments agaynst the litterall sense of Christs word vayne idle pag. 253.254 c. § 1. That the Reall Presence of the whole body of Christ vnder the formes of bread belongs to the substance of the Mystery pag. 260.261 c. § 2. Transubstantiation belonges to the substance of Reall Presence pag. 266.267 c. § 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers pag. 271.272 c. ¶ A Refutation of the Ministers shifts to elude the former Testimonyes of the Fathers pag. 276.277 c. § 4. The seeming repugnances this Mystery hath with Sense should inclyne Christians the sooner to belieue it pag. 290.291 THE SEAVENTH POINT VII Communion vnder one kind abetting of it by Cōcomitancy pag. 305. § 1. The Doctrine of Concomitancy proued pag. 306.307 c. § 2. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Institution of Christ. pag. 311.312 c. § 3. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Sacrament pag. 315.316 c. § 4. Communion vnder one kinde not agaynst Christ his Precept pag. 319.320 c. ¶ The place of S. Iohn Qui manducat hunc panem c. explicated with an Answere to the Testimonies of the Fathers pag. 330.331 § 5. Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the practice of the Primitiue Church pag. 332.333 c. THE EIGHT POINT VIII VVorkes of Supererogation specially vvith reference to the treasure of the Church pag. 334. § 1. The Doctrine of Merit declared pag. ibid. 335.336 c. ¶ The Ministers Arguments or rather Inuectiues against this Doctrine of Merit answered pa. 347.348 c. § 2. Merit of works of Supererogation p. 348.349 c. § 3. The Fathers taught works of Supererogation and proued them by Scripture pag. 352.353 c. § 4. The Doctrine of Satisfaction pag. 358.359 c. § 5. Workes with reference vnto the Treasure of the Church pag. 362.363 c. ¶ The Ministers rayling Argumēts agaynst the former doctrine censured pag. 372.373 c. THE NINTH POINT IX The opiniō of deposing Kings giuing avvay their Kingdoms by Papall povver vvhether directly or indirectly pag. 382. ¶ The Ministers fond Cauill That Iesuits honour not the King as Soueraygne pag. 383.384 c. ¶ His fond proofs of his Slaunder that Iesuits hold singular Opinions to the preiudice of Kings pa. 385.386 c. ¶ His Fondnes in Cauilling at the Iesuits words about the Temporall Soueraignity of Popes pag. 389.390 c. ¶ His miserable Apology for Protestāts p. 391.392 c. ¶ His Cauill agaynst the Iesuits speciall Vow of Obedience to the Pope pag. 393. c. THE CONCLVSION Faultes escaped in the printing In the Picture and Censure Pag. 10. lin 14. Christ read Christs Pag. 12. lin 17. in marg Ministery read Minister Pag. 13. l. 2. in marg conferunt read conferant Pag. 16. l. 20. place translated read place truly translated Pag. 25. l. 19. pleasore read pleasure Pag. 37. l. 7. are read were Pag. 86. l. 19. now read new Pag. 44. l. 3. this read his Pag. 104. l. 16. of read in Pag. 121. lin 32. an read be Pag. 132. l. vlt. diriue read driue In the Answere and Reioynder Pag. 4. l. 10. in marg if read it Pag. 19. line penult in marg seipsum read sensum Pag. 24. l. 1. God Though read God though Ibid. l. 16. could not read could not Pag. 56. lin 30. in marg this read thus Pag. 71. lin 32. in marg but must read but they must Pag· 74. l. 16. in marg do to proue read do proue Pag. 80. l. 30. in marg Votaies read Votaries Pag. 81. lin 32. Philip in dele Ibid. l. 34. in innumerable dele in Pag. 100. l. 1. 3. suppositious read supposititious Pag. 115. l. 16. in coll read in loc Pag. 119. l. 12. opinions read opinion Pag. 129. lin 1. Axione read Axiome Pag. 32. l. 34. in marg a positiue read a positiue precept Pag. 141. l. 11. in marg Sect. 3. read Sect. 1. Pag. 142. l. 26. in marg the argues read he argues Pag. 144. lin 21. viz. read verò Pag. 145. l. 10. reliueth read relieueth Pag. 152. l. 33. in marg Anthropomorphilae read Anthropomorphitae 177. l. 9. in marg praebitur read praebebitur Pag. 180. l. 22. wash awayt read washt away Pag. 227. l. 5. if they dele if Pag. 229. lin 23. in marg him that dele him Pag. 141. lin 9. reuerent read renewed Pag. 378. l. 22. satisfaction read satisfaction Pag. 396. l. 4. Roall read Royall Pag. 399. l. 2. fallable read fallible THE TRVE PICTVRE OF D· VVHITE MINISTER Or the Censure of his Reply vnto M. Fisher. The Reason of this Title THIS Short Censure is prefixed vnder the Name of your Picture that the Reioynder may correspōd in proportion vnto your Reply the beginning whereof is consecrated by an Image of your (a) For he teacheth
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
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
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
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.
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
so contemptible in the eye of men that verily the worke of the worlds creation doth not more cleerly discouer God the Authour of Nature then this of the worlds Conuersion doth shew it selfe to proceed from the Authour of grace Fourthly the miraculous coÌ„tinuance of a Christian Catholike Church spread ouer the world foretold by our Sauiour notwithstanding so many persecusecutions by the Iewes Heathens Heretikes Polititians and dissolute Christians Against this Principle of ResolutioÌ„ Ministers (d) Chalenour in his Credo Ecclesiam Catholicam p. 1. c. 6. Field l. 3. cap. 15. and our Minister (e) Reply pag. â—16 citing in particular obiect that miracles are only probable not sufficient testimonies of diuine doctrine yea (f) Bellarm. l. 4. de Eccl. cap. 14. Bellarmine sayth we cannot know euideÌ„tly that miracles are true for if we did we should know euidently that our fayth is true so it should not be faith I Answer that such euideÌ„ce as doth exclude the necessity of pious reuerence affection vnto Gods word euidence I say enforcing men to belieue cannot stand with true fayth If we knew by Mathematicall or Metaphysicall euidence that the miracles of Christ and his Apostles were true perchance this euidence would compell men to belieue and ouercome the naturall obscurity and seeming impossibility of the Christian doctrine And therefore as Bellarmine sayth we cannot be mathematically and altogeather infallibly sure by the light of nature that miracles are true Notwithstanding we must not deny what Scriptures affirme (g) Ioan. 5â— 36. that miracles are a sufficient testimony binding men to belieue and consequently that we may know them to be true (h) Suarez de fide disput 4. sect 3. n. 9. Videntibus coÌ„stare poterat euideÌ„tia naturali vera esse quae agebantur by Physicall euidence as we are sure of things we see with our eyes or of such as being once euident to the world are by the worlds full report declared vnto vs. Neyther doth this Physicall euidence of miracles take away the merit of Fayth The reason is because this euidence not being altogeather and in the highest deâ—ree infallible by it selfe for our senses may sometymes be deceaued is not sufficient to ouercome the naturall obscurity darknes seeming falshood of things to be belieued vpon the testimony of those miracles For the mystery of the Trinity of the Incarnation of the Reall Presence and the like seeme to reason as impossible as any miracle can seeme euident vnto sense Hence when fayth is proposed by miracles ariseth a conflict betwixt the seeming euidence of the miracles and the seeming darkenes and falshood of the Christian doctrine Agaynst which obscurity a man cannot get the victory by the sole eâ—idence of miracles except he be inwardly holpen by the light of Gods spirit mouing him by pious affection to cleaue to the doctrine which is by so cleere testimonyes proued his word As a man shut vp in â— chamber with two lights wherof the one maketh â—he wall seeme white the other blew caÌ„not be firmly â—esolued what to think till day light enter obscuring both those lights discouer the truth Euen so a man looking vpon Christian doctrines by the light of Christian miracles done to proue them will be mooued to iudge them to be truth but looking vpon â—hem through the euidence of their seeming impossibilities vnto reason they will seeme false nor will he be able firmely to resolue for the side of faith vntill the light of diuine grace enter into his hart making him to preferre through pious reuerence towards God the so proposed authority of his word before the seeming impossibility of mans reason The third Principle demonstrated §. 3. BEING resolued that the doctrine of God is sauing truth the Apostles doctrine the doctrine of God we meete with a third Enemy who labours to driue vs out of the beateÌ„ high way to know what doctrine is the Apostles This Enemy is the Heretike a domestike Enemy and therfore more dangerous These men graunt the doctrine of Saluation to be supernaturall and reuealed the reuealed to be the Apostolicall and no other but they will haue the rule of knowing what doctrine the Apostles taught to be speciall illumination of the spirit not Catholike Tradition For there is a double kind of Tradition from the Apostles that may be pretended The one publicke by the vniforme perpetuall teaching of Pastours The other secret by the teaching of some priuate men pretending to haue been taught more singularly and highly then other men by the Apostles The second kind of Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles by the secret teaching of an inuisible Church Heretikes haue pretended but neuer the first of publike and Catholike Tradition The cause why Heretikes prescribe the course to resolue by illuminations is because an Heretike will not admit doctrines deliuered vnto him by the consent of his Christian Ancestors but with choyce receaue some and reiect others as he findeth good Whence he hath the (d) Tertull. de praescript cap. 6. Haereses dictae Graeca voce exinterpretatione Electionis Name Heretike that is one who is his owne caruer and chooser in matters of Religion still (e) Augustin l. 7. de Gen. ad lit c. 9. Neque enim non omnes Haeretici Scripturas Catholicas legunt pretending for all his fancyes Scripture vnderstood by the light of the spirit If Catholike Tradition were by him admitted as a rule infallible to know what doctrine the Apostles preached he could not haue liberty to choose according to his best liking but would be bound (f) Nobis nostro arbitrio non licet indulgere sed ê— Apostoli fideliter consignarunt accipere to receaue the forme of Religion made vnto him by Tradition of Ancestours Hence agaynst this way of Catholike Tradition he bandeth with might and mayne charging the same to be fallible that errours may secretly creep into it teaching men to retyre vnto the inward teaching of the spirit as the only secure meanes to know which be the Apostolicall Scripturs which the Apostolicall interpretation of them Agaynst this Enemy is the third principle of true Christian Religion The Apostolicall doctrine is the Catholike to wit the doctrine that is deliuered from the Apostles by the Tradition of whole ChristiaÌ„ worlds of Fathers vnto whole ChristiaÌ„ worlds of ChildreÌ„ that in matters of ChristiaÌ„ Religion Heresy that is priuate election and choyce may haue no place About this principle faith is resolued and assured by a third perfection belonging to God as he is Prime Verity This is that he cannot so much as conniue vnto falshood whereby he become any way accessory of deceauing then that simply readily religiously belieue what they haue iust reason to thinke to be his word But there is iust and sufficient reason to belieue that doctrine deliuered by ful and perpetuall Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles is verily their doctrine and therefore
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
teach it as Christ commanded deliuered the same Thirdly if this Promise were conditionall not absolute then by this place the Church could not be proued to last absolutly for euer but only so long as she Christeneth aright teacheth the truth wherin according to this ProtestaÌ„t exposition she may fayle But the Fathers from this text gather agaynst the Donatists that the Church shal neuer fayle to be in all Nations of the world vntill the end therof as S. Aug. in Psalm 101. conc 2. Leo Epist. 3. ad Pulcheriam and others hence proue Therfore the sense is absolute his Church shal be still in the world he still assisting his Church by his spirit to teach and baptize aright promise of wonderfull comfort vnto them that pawne their soules saluation vpon Gods word deliuered by perpetuall Tradition for in this sentence appeares the six thinges I before set downe First that there is still A ChristiaÌ„ Church all dayes not wanting in the world so much as one day till the consummation of the world SecoÌ„dly this Church is euer visible and conspicuous For the Church that alwayes teacheth Christeneth all Nations must needs be visible But this Church alwaies teacheth and Christeneth all Nations I am alwayes with you not with you sitting in Corners or hidden vnder ground but with you exercising the office enioyned you in the words precedent Docete omnes gentes baptizantes Thirdly this Church is euer Apostolicall for to his Apostles Christ said I am alwaies with you to the coÌ„summation of the world not with you in your owne persons but with you in your successours in whome you shal continue vntill the worlds end Ergo a lawfull company of Bishops Pastours Doctors succeeding the Apostles must be perpetually in the world Forthly this Church is Vniuersal Ite in muÌ„dum vniuersum where I will be alwayes with you Fifthly this Church is One not diuided into parts because it teacheth and belieueth vniformely all that Christ deliuered and commanded without Factions Sects or Parts about matters of fayth Sixtly this Church is alwayes holy for doctrine neuer deliuering or teaching any falshood I who am the Truth am alwayes with you teaching all nations Holy also for life Christ the holy of holyes assisting and making her able to conuert Infidels which she could not well doe (s) The Minister p. 85. 86.102 alleadgeth diuers Fathers scholmeÌ„ to proue that now miracles are ceased not necessary Answere The Minister shold distinguish as the fathers doe who make two manner of beings of Miracles to wit ordinary extraordinary and affirme three things First that in the primitiue Church miracles were absolutly necessary for the plaÌ„ting of the Ghospell in the world Ioan. 5.24 Act. 4.29.30 and then the gift of miracles was ordinarily annexed vnto the Ministery of Preaching yea so that euery Christian coÌ„monly had that gift in some kind or other 1. Cor. 12.28 Act. 8.17 10. 4.6 Secondly that since the planting of the Gospell by twelue Fishermen this being the miracle of miracles no further miracle is absolutly necessary for meÌ„ vnto whoÌ„ this is known and therfore the gift of miracles is ceased to be ordinarily annexed to the office of preaching or common to al Christians as before it was Aug. de Ciuit. l. 22. c. 8. Gregor 27. moral c. 1. Thirdly notwithstaÌ„ding in all ages there were are and shal euer be some speciall places and persons extraordinarily indued with the gift of miracles for the comfort of Christians Conuersion of some remote Nations that know not the first miraculous planting of our Religion by certayne celebrious fame of miracles in this kind the writings of the Fathers all ChristiaÌ„ histories are full See S. Aug. l. 22. de Ciuit. c. 8. Gregory in his Dialogues THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH not before Luther without miracles and tokens of wonderfull sanctity at the least in her more eminent Preachers That the Romane is the One Holy Catholike Apostolical Church from by which we are to receyue the Tradition of Christian Doctrine §. 5. THIS Ground being laid it is apparent that the Romane Church that is the multitude of Christians spread ouer the world cleauing to the doctrine and Tradition of the Church of Rome is the only holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church The first Argument THERE must alwayes be in the world one holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church That is a Church deliuering doctrines vniformely thereby making them credible vniuersally thereby making them famously knowne to mankind holyly so making them certayne such as on them we may securely rely Apostolically so making theÌ„ perpetually flow without change vnto the present Christianity in the channell of a neuer-interrupted Succession of Bishopps from the Apostles And this Church (t) Vnto this Argument the Minister pag. 104. makes answere that his Protestant Church was before Luther in essence kind though it began in Luther touching the Name and some things accidental In proofe whereof he thus wryteth In all ages before Luther some persons held the substantiall articles of our Religion both in the Roman Grecian Church And by name the Grecians maintained with vs that the Roman Church hath no primacy of Iurisdiction aboue or ouer all other Churches neyther is the same infallible in fayth They deny Purgatory Priuate Masses Sacrifice for the dead and they propugne the Marriage of Priests In this Westerne part of the world the Waldenses Thaborites of Bohemia Wickliffiâ—ts maÌ„tayned the same doctrine in substance as appeareth by their confession of fayth and by the testimony of some learned Pontificians This being the substance of all the Minister hath sayd or can say for his Church before Luther the same is insufficient false more for Anabaptists then Protestants This I proue In generall this pedegree is insufficient for two reasons First because it is not for all ages The Grecians were vnited with the Romane Church vntill the yeare 1060. the Waldensians began about the yeare 1160. Now there remaynes six or seauen ages since the pretended Apostacy of the Roman Church for which the Minister doth not name any professours that were Protestants for essence and kind Secondly because Protestants teach that the most substantiall article of their Religion is Iustification by speciall fayth only and not by workes and merits of grace as all know But these pretended professours namely the Waldenses Wickliffists held rigorously the merit of works In so much as Wickliffe sayd Let euery man confide in his merits for which saying he is refuted by the Catholike authour Thomas Waldensis Tom. 3. c. 7.8.9 Graecians no Protestants in Essence In particular the Pedigree is notoriously false in respect of the Graecians who cannot without impudency be named as Protestants according to essence and kind First they hold damnable heresyes and substantiall errours in the Iudgement of Protestants so wit Inuocation of Saints Adoration of Images as they professe in their Censure
firmely any Minister of the Catholicke CHVRCH affirming a booke to be Scripture vntill we see cleerly that he deliuers therein the consent of the Catholike Church which then is euident vnto vs when we see him preach it freely and openly and no Pastour to contradict him therein may deceyue And if it may deceiue how can they be certaine that they are not deceiued seeing they thēselues liued not in the Apostles dayes nor saw with their owne eyes what coppyes the Apostles deliuered But Protestants as they pretend be certaine that they haue the true incorrupt Apostolicall text of Scripture Ergo they haue it vpon the authority of the holy Catholike Apostolicall Church Now the Minor that they haue the Scripture from the Romane is apparant for what other Church did deliuer vnto Luther the text of the Bible assuring him that they had it by Tradition from Auncestors tyme out of mind as giuen originally by the Apostles Which is accordingly acknowledged by (*) Whitaker l. 3. de Ecclesia p. 369. M. Whitaker (d) M. Doue in his persuasion others but particularly by (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word Luther himselfe Ergo the Roman Church is the one holy Catholik Apostolical Church whose Tradition doth deliuer infallibly vnto vs the text of Scripture And if the true Apostolicall Text then also (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word the true Apostolicell sense This I prooue if the Apostles did not deliuer the bare Text but togeather with the Text the true (f) We doe not say that the Apostles did deliuer the true sense of all their Scriptures making a large and entire commentary of all difficil texts as the Minister cauilleth pa. 121. but only that togeather with the text they deliuered the sense about the mayne and most principall points this sense thus deliuered by Traditiō with the text is to be admitted as religiously and reuerently as the text sense of Scripture to be deliuered perpetually vnto posterity then they who by Tradition rereiue from the Apostles the true Text must togeather receiue the true sense But as (g) Chemnit in exam Cōcil Trid. part 1. fol. 74. D. Bancroft in the Suruay pag. 379. principall Protestants affirme No mā doubteth but the Primitiue Church receyued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not only the text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sēse Which is agreable to the doctrin of (h) Vincentius Lyrinen cap 2. the Fathers that from the Apostles togeather with the text descends the line of Apostolicall interpretation squared according to the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense Whereupō S (i) Aug. de vtilit Creden c. 14. Augustine argueth that they that deliuer the text of Christs Ghospell must also deliuer the exposition affirming that he would sooner refuse to belieue Christ then admit any interpretation contrary to them by whome he was brought to belieue in Christ. For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense why may they not also deliuer a false text as receyued frō the Apostles An argument conuincing and (k) Though the Minister pag. 123. storme at this confidence of his Aduersary in tearming it vnanswerable yet by deeds he confirmes the saying to be true in not answering but chāging the force thereof quite another way saying It is this The text of the Scripture may be as easily corrupted as the sense Ergo All they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense may also deliuer a false text In this argument he denyeth the antecedent or assumption I answere First as I sayd the argument is peruerted and the medium or meanes of proofe changed for there is great difference betwixt Being as easy Being as possible seing a thing may be as possible as another and yet not so easy That ten men should conspire to deceaue me is not so easy as that three should so conspire as is euident Yet it is as possible as the other because no reason can be brought to proue that three may so conspire that proues not that also ten may do the like In the same manner though we should grant the sense may be more easily mistaken by the Church then the text yet it is as possible that the Church be mistaken in the sense Because no reason proues that vniforme Tradition can be mistaken in the sense that proues not that it is possible that the Church may be mistaken in the text though perchance not so easily Now if the Church in her vniforme Tradition may be mistaken about the text then is not Traditiō a sufficient ground of infallible perswasion that the text is the Apostles and so fayth is ouerthrowne which hath no other ground to know assuredly the incorrupt Scriptures deliuered by the Apostles but Traditiō as hath been prooued Secondly it is false that the sense and doctrine of Scripture concerning mayne and substantiall articles of fayth may be sooner corrupted and a false sense persuaded to the Church then a false text The reason is manifest because millions of Christians know by Tradition the doctrine of Scripture about mayne points that know not all the texts by which the same is proued yea perchance truly certainly not so much as one For example the doctrine that there are Three Diuine Persons and One God is so ingrauen in the harts of all euen simple Christians as you may sooner pull out their harts then make them belieue that this is not the Christian fayth whence no man can deny the Trinity but he is presently noted by al. On the other side this text 1. Ioan. 5.7 wherby the Trinity is proued There be three that giue testimony in heauen the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one millions do not know and so it is more easy to take from Christians this text then the doctrine therof And the same reason is of any other text the texts being stil commonly farre more vnknowne then the doctrine of the Creed such substantiall points vnanswerable The fourth Argument MY fourth proofe I grōnd vpō a Principle most certayne and set downe by (*) In the summe of the Conference before his Maiesty p. 75. your Gracious Maiesty That the Romane Church was once the mother Church and consequently the one holy Catholike Apostolicall Church all other Churches being her daughters and that she is not to be forsaken further then it can
yet his doctrine is agaynst the whole Consent of Deuines expresly agaynst S. Augustine who sayth that a man holding with Photinus whose Errors were fundamentall agaynst the Trinity God head of Christ thinking he holdes Catholike doctrine is not yet an (*) The Minister sayth pa. 196. that the IESVITE cites not Augustine truly for he ōly saith I would not affirme of such a person that he is an Heretique Answere This is vntruth S. Austine saith Istum nondum haereticū dico I do affirme this mā not to be yet an Heretique though he hold fundamentall errour till he knowe he dothe it agaynst the Catholike CHVRCH What he addeth that S. Austine meanes that ignorance is not heresy in foro Ecclesiae but is heresy in foro caeli is ridiculous for the contrary is true because whosoeuer denyes though ignorātly the knowne articles of the Creed is an heretike in foro Ecclesiae because he is presumed to erre out of contempt not out of ignorance But if he be truly ignorant he is no heretike in foro caeli because verily he is not willfull Heretike till warned that he holds agaynst the Catholike Church he chooseth to perseuer in his errour Hence I inferre that Protestants erre fundamentally according to the second kind of erring to wit in the manner in all points they hold agaynst the Roman Church which I haued proued to be the true Catholike Church For he that holds any priuate opinions so stifly as rather thē forsake it he denies abandons the Catholike Church a mayne article of his Creed erreth fundamētally as is cleere But Protestants hold their priuate opinions so stiffely as therupon they haue denyed and abandoned the Catholike Church to wit the Roman Neyther doth it import that they retayne the word hauing reiected the sense seeing not the letter of the Creed pronounced but the matter belieued makes men Christians Neyther is it inough to say that they belieue the Church of the Elect seeing the Church of the Creed is not the Church of the only Elect a meere Fancy but the visible and conspicuous Church continuing from the Apostles by succession of Bishops which thus I prooue The Church whereof Christ sayd I am alwayes with you to the consummation of the world is the Church of the Creed or the Church which to forsake is damnable For the Church wherewith Christ still abideth not according to corporall visible presence but by his spirit is the body of Christ whereof he is head into which he infuseth the life of grace consequently he that forsaketh this Church forsaketh the body of Christ and the head thereof and cannot liue by his spirit but is in a dead and damnable state as a member cut off and separated from a liuing body as S. Augustine epist. 50. de vnit Eccles. c. 16. long agoe noted The Catholike Church is the body of Christ whereof he is head out of this body the Holy Ghost quickeneth no man Now the Church wherof Christ sayd I am alwayes with you to the consummation of the world is not the Church inuisible of only the Elect but a visible Church deriued by succession from the Apostles Therfore he that forsakes the Church deriued by succession from the Apostles forsakes the Church of the Creed the Catholike Church the body of Christ puts himselfe into a dead damnable state may haue all things besides saluation and eternall life as Fathers affirme whose testimonies in this behalf are notable and famously knowne whereunto D. Field yieldeth acknowleging one holy Catholike Church in which only the light of heauenly Truth is to be sought where only grace mercy remission of sinnes and hope of eternall happynes are found AN ANSVVERE TO THE Nyne Points proposed by your most Excellent Maiesty I Haue bene large in my former proofes that the Roman is the one holy true catholike church whose Traditions comming downe by perpetuall succession from Christ and his holy Apostles are so constantly and strongly to be belieued that no proofes out of Scripture by priuate interpretatiō vnderstood though seeming most euident may stand to contest (a) The Minister here spends a whole leafe of Paper in bitternes gall against vs as if we did professe to preferre Old Custome before knowne Verity It is not so but thus the case standeth between Protestants and vs. First as for Verity neither they nor we know our Religion to be verity by manifest sight nor by the light lustre euidence of the thinge or doctrine as both of vs must acknowledge if we be sober Secondly there be records which by Tradition we know to haue bene giuen by the Apostles which vpon good warrant are belieued to deliuer nothing but Gods holy word Thirdly when Controuersies arise about this word of the Apostles and there be different opinions about the sense therof seeming arguments be brought on both sides we thinke that side ought to preuaile as the truly Christian for which perpetuall Christian Tradition Custome stand Fourtly we Iudge that that side ought to be reiected as not truly Christian where Christian Tradition is so notoriosly defectiue as they cānot ascend from this age vpward towards Christ by naming professours of their Religion higher then one hundred yeares or if they presume to passe further they are presently conuinced to feigne as it happeneth vnto Protestants This is the summe of all that hath been hitherto sayd and the forme of the Catholicke proceeding about their resolution of fayth against thē And this I haue not done without purpose assuring my selfe that if your Maiestie were throughly perswaded in this point you would without any mans help most easily and fully satisfy your selfe in particular controuersyes out of your owne wisdome and learning For as some that haue bene present at your Maiesties discourses casually incident about Religion report few of our Deuines though trained vp continually in Academies and Exercises of Theology are able to say more thē your Maiesty in defence of the catholicke cause for particular controuersyes when you please to vndertake the patronage thereof which I can easily belieue out of my owne Experience who could not but admire seing your Maiesty so well acquainted with our doctrines and so ready and prompt in Scholasticall subtilities Wherfore most humbly I beseech your most Excellent Maiesty to honour these my poore labours with a gratious perusall of them accepting of mine Answers whē they may seeme reasonable being in defence of doctrines receiued from Auncestors which deserue approbation when there is no euidency against them and of your abundant clemency pardon my prolixity seeing the questions by your Maiesty proposed were so difficill and obscure as I could hardly haue made any shorter full explication of them THE FIRST POINT The (b) The Minister in this question knowes not well what to stand vnto He graunts the question and then he denyes it agayne contradicting himselfe yea censuring his owne whole
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
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
to some Godhead affixed vnto it not absolutely not to worship it which exposition is true for matter though not so conforme to the letter Now that these Authours do not vnderstaÌ„d that all honouring of Images is here forbiden but only adoratioÌ„ of images as Gods or as if some Godhead or diuine intellectuall vertue were affixed vnto them is euident by their wordes For the Authors are Gerson Caietan Castro Oleaster Stella Turrecremata Ferus Aquinas but nothing more notorious then that some of these held worship of Images the same might be demonstrated of euery one Let the first to wit Gerson speake for the rest in his exposition of the ten Commandments fol. 173. We must sayth he worship the Images of Christ his Blessed mother Saynts not for themselues but by seing theÌ„ to giue honour vnto the Holy Person represented by them Catholiks to defend froÌ„ note of impiety a coÌ„tinued Christian custome to Gods word Thou shalt not adore any image add by way of explication as God or with diuine worship resting in it How can they truly boast they bringe Gods cleere word for themselues and against vs which is no lesse cleer and expresse against their image-making then against our image-worship If the place be difficill why build they their fayth vpon it against vs If it be cleere why be they forced in their defence to depart from the expresse text Secondly their exposition is not onely violent against the text but also incongruous against the sense For Gods prohibition of a thing doth also forbid the intention therof In the precept Thou shalt not kill the intention of murther is sufficiently forbidden so that he who makes a sword with purpose to murther his enemy sinnes against the precept thou shalt not kill Wherfore if Gods precept had bene this Thoâ—â—â— all not weare about thee any weapon Thou shalt not kill the prohibition of wearing weapons should haue bene absolute and not onely with purpose of murther In like manner Gods precept Thou shalt not adore Images doth sufficiently forbid intention to adore them and consequenly forbids the making of Images with such an intention so that if the precept not to make Images be nothing else then not to haue purpose to adore them a whole longe sentence in the Decalogue is superfluous without any speciall sense Besides as to make an Image to adore it is Idolatry so likewise to take it in hand or looke on it to that purpose why then was not such looking or touching with purpose of adoration expressely forbidden aswell as making Or if looking on them with intention to adore be so included in the precept Thou shalt not adore as there needes not that expression what need was there that making of images with purpose of adoration should be so largely and particularly expressed Wherfore whosoeuer is a religious follower of Gods pure word must either without explication condemne the makinge of images together with their worshippe or els allow the worship of Images if the Prototypes be adorable the making wherof he approues Hence I gather that the most naturall and truest exposition of that precept is that it forbids not onely the worshippe but also the making of any Grauen image But how to wit of false Gods or to represent God accordinge to his Diuine Substance (l) This exposition is shewed to be good by the two rules of exposition which ProtestaÌ„ts theÌ„selues appoynt The first is that wheÌ„ a word is ambiguous and difficill we are to looke to the antecedent and declare the same with reference to them This text thou shalt not make any image is difficil as sounding ouer vniuersally euen in Protestants iudgements By lookinge vnto the words immediatly precedent this vniuersality is restrained to a true sense For the words immediatly precedent are Thou shalt not haue false Gods before me Now if we expound what followeth thou shalt not make any Image by refereÌ„ce vnto this to wit Thou shalt not make any image of false Gods the sense is cleer truth The second rule is when a place is difficil we must expound the same by another speaking of the same matter that is cleere but the Scripture treating of this precept doth in the same Chapter Exod. 10.13 cleerly declare these forbiddeÌ„ images to be the images of false Gods saying Non facietis Deos argenteos nec Deos aureos facietis vobis you shall not make to your selues Gods of gold or of siluer Behold what is meant by grauen Images This sense is gathered out of the words precedent Thou shalt not haue strange Gods before me which is explicated in the consequent verse Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image to wit of false Gods for he that makes to himselfe the image of any thinge as apt to represent God according to his Diuine substance and to conuey our Imaginations directly to him doth make and hath false Gods because the true God is not imaginable nor is truely apprehended by imagination conformable vnto any Image Wherfore the pictures of the Holy Ghost in forme of a Doue and of God the Father in forme of an Old Man be not proper direct Images of the two diuine persons but onely of the Doue that desceÌ„ded on Christ and of the Old Man seene by Daniel in a vision in which the perfections of these persons are not liuely represented but a farre off and imperfectly shadowed Nor do Catholiks vse them as proper images standinge for their prototypes conueyinge our actions by imagination vnto them for no Catholike doth kisse the feete of the Doue or lye prostrate at them referring by imagination that outward subiection to the feete of the holy Ghost who hath no feet but metaphoricall not imaginable nor such as can be represented by Image Wherfore seing this text is thus cleerly explicable and not being explicated at all doth make no lesse against Protestants then against vs I see no reason why they should be so much out of loue with the worshippe of the Image of Christ Iesus their Lord to which Nature Christianity binds them Inconueniences which may come by occasion of images easily preuented and their vtilityes very great §. 4. ANOTHER argument against images Protestants much vrge That they be stumbling-blockes for simple People who easily take an image to be the very God euen as the PagaÌ„s did in former time (o) The Minister sayth pag. 268. that Papists themselues complaine that People did comnit Idolatry in the worship of imags to which purpose he cites Viues Gerson Cornelius Agrippa DuraÌ„dus Mimatensis Gabriel Biel. Cassander Polidore Answere First the Minister hath by some tricke or other abused the words of almost euery one of these seauen which were ouer long here to discouer SecoÌ„dly the witnesses are of no credit or speake not to the purpose Cassander is no Papist but a Protestant put by the Romane Church amongst heretikes of the first ranke Cornelius Agrippa a Necromant
allow theÌ„ce drawing an argument to prooue the Galathians were senselesse and sottish that keeping in their sight the picture of Christ Crucifyed they would thinke to be saued by the Law and not by the merits of his Crosse. For it was madnes and folly to paynt Christ honour him as Crucifyed not to thinke that by his death vpon the Crosse he redeemed the world I know that some Catholikes expound this place that Christ was paynted and pictured out vnto the GalathiaÌ„s metaphorically by preaching Which I do not deny but this doth not repugne with the other sense that he was also materially paynted as Crucifyed nor must we exclude it this sense being imported by the natiue and proper signification of the words and hauing more connexion with the drift of the Apostles discourse which is to prooue the Galathians senselesse in their forsaking Christ whome they had pictured Crucifyed before their eyes For to forsake Christ crucifyed pictured by preaching as the Sauiour of the world though it be impious yet not senseles yea rather saluation by the crosse of Christ did seeme folly vnto the Gentils But for men to haue Christ painted as crucifyed before their eyes honouring him by Christian deuotion in regard of his crucifixion and death and not to expect saluation by his Crosse and death is sottish and (s) The Minister is much vexed with the euidence of this Text not finding which way to euade as you may see pag. 280. First he sayth lin 21. If this were true it proues only that Images may be made but not that they may be adored Answer First the Answerer in this place intends only to proue that the Apostles did allow the making of Crucifixes to represent our Sauiours Crucified person vnto ChristiaÌ„ deuotion Secondly this making doth inferre worship for the proper Image of an adored person if it be made it may be adored agaynst which principle euideÌ„t in reason you cannot bring one word of Scripture Secondly you say Ibid lin 3. That according to learned Bannes The worship of Images is neyther expressely nor infoldedly taught in Scripture Answere BaÌ„nes meaneth that Image-worship is not formally inuolued in Scripture nor matter of fayth by vertue of sole Scripture But he doth not deny but it is virtually contained in Scripture so that it may Theologically be coÌ„cluded by texts of Scripture Thirdly you cry pag. 282. lin 24. One Father that expounds this place literally according to your sense I answere first no Father nor Catholicke denyes this litterall sense and Athanasius is brought by Turrianus l. 4. de Dogmat. Charact. thus expounding Secondly Protestants who appeale vnto the Scripture as vnto the last iudge to giue definitiue sentence are bound to take the words of Scripture in the litterall sense except they can cleerly demonstrate by Scripture the litterall sense to be absurd Otherwise if without euident proofe by Scripture they metaphorize the Scripture they appeale not vnto Scripture but vnto their owne fancies But by Scripture you cannot proue that the litterall painting of our Sauiours Image as Crucifyed is absurd more then the painting of Luther and Caluin and such other of your pretended Prophets is absurd Therfore you must stand to this litterall sense or els confesse that you will not be ruled by the word of God but depart from the litterall sense thereof when you please without shewing warrant so to doe Finally the Minister sayth ibid. lin 27. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyeth to be written before not to be painted before This is his last yet a desperate shift First all LexicoÌ„s eueÌ„ those of ProtestaÌ„ts say that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyes before so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyes to paint or make figures because writing is a kind of painting or making of Characters hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifyes writing For is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a painter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a peÌ„sill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 painting to the quicke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 painting in waxe innumerable other words aswell single as compound that testify how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to paint Secondly not only Beza and Erasmus so translate and the French Geneuian Pourtrayé deuant les yeux Christ Iesus pictured before the eyes but also Caluin in his comment vpon this place sayth expressely depictus meo iudicio optimè quadrat the best translation in my Iudgenent is depainted adding the Apostle doth heere signify that there was amongst the Galathians non nuda doctrina sed viua expressa Christi crucifixi Imago nor the meere preaching but also liuely and expresse picturing of Christ crucifyed Finally the Minister who heere sayth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify is depainted elswhere pag. 213. lin 26. sayth the contrary to wit that S. Paul doth testify Galat 3.1 That by the Ghospell Christ Iesus IS DEPAINTED before the eyes of the soule Now how can this be true except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signify is depainted and be thence transferred by metaphore vnto preaching senselesse And of this materiall picturing of Christ crucifyed Athanasius expoundeth this place whome Turrianus citeth De Dogmat. charact l. 4. Wherefore I may iustly say that we haue more cleere expresse Scripture for the vse of images then haue protestaÌ„ts for their Translations And therefore the danger of ignorant people erring by images is without reason so much insisted vpon by Protestants their English translations being as I haue shewed a more dangerous blocke for fooles to stumble at and so fall into damnable errours If they presume that by diligent instruction they may and would haue vs thinke that they doe preserue their people from that errour why should they not thinke that the Roman Church being so potent with her children can keep them from the foolish errour of attributing life and diuinity vnto dead dumbe images and that she will so do being so strictly coÌ„manded by the (t) Sess. 2. Diligenter doceant Episcopi Councell of Trent to vse her greatest diligence in this point that ignorant people fall not into errour by any image which otherwise haue many profits and vtilities About which I will not enlarge my selfe but only mention some of them The first is an easy and compendions way of instruction in which respect they are tearmed by S. Gregory (u) Lib. 7. Ep. 109. the books of the vnlearned and as another Gregory (x) Nissen â—rat in Theodorum sayth the silent picture speakes on the wall and profiteth very much The second is to increase in men that keep honour them the loue of God and of his Saints which effect S (y) Orat. Quod veteris noui Testamenti vnius sit mediator Chrysostome experienced as he testifieth saying I loued a picture of melted wax full of piety And S. (z) Lib. 7. epist. 53. Gregory the Great sayth they inflame men that behold them in the loue
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
of benefits receaued as pictures of Lymms by Saints prayers miraculously cured That therin they doe not deflect from ancient Christian deuotion and that the Christian Church in her best tymes vsed vniuersally to make such oblations Theodoret (o) Theodoret. de curandis Graecorum affect l. 8. is a sufficient witnes who writing agaynst the Gentills alleadgeth as a manifest signe of Christs Godhead and Omnipotency that Idols being excluded he brought in Martyrs to be honoured in their roome not superstitiously as Gods but religiously as diuine men and Gods speciall friends Christian people sayth he present themselues vnto Martyrs not as vnto Gods but as vnto the Martyrs of God and diuine men inuocating beseeching them to be intercessours for them vnto God And those that piously and with Fayth pray obtayne what they desire as testify the oblations which they being therunto bound by their vowes present in the Chappell 's of Saints as tokens of health recouered For some hang vp Images of eyes others of eares others of hands some made of gold some made of siluer (p) The Minister also here denyeth that these ancient Christians did offer these oblations at the shrines of Martyrs in token of gratitude for benefits receued Wheras Theodoret saith expressely that they were vowes which they had made and were bound to pay vnto the Martyrs that is vnto their shrines as monuments of their power in curing them Thus he so generall and notorious euen vnto Infidels was this Christian deuition The Roman Church set formes of Prayer without cause misliked §. 8. FINALLY Protestants dislike the circumstance of praying in a set forme vnto Saints and that we appoint a particular office vnto the Blessed Virgin Mary which cannot be proued to haue been vsed in the Primitiue Church (q) The Minister pag. 353. brings prayers vsed in the Romane Missalls as though they were absurd Call vpon the sweet name of Mary Saints interceding we may deserue to be deliuered from all necessityes The Saints merits interceding Lord absolue vs from all sinnes I Answere all these speaches are the very words vsed by the full consent of ancient Fathers as yow may find in the fifth Demonstration Doth the Minister expect that for feare at his rayling we should leaue all antiquity We must not do so nor do we nor may we feare the bitternes of mans tongue in so high degree I answere that the Primer or Office so tearmed of our Lady is not an office properly and principally directed vnto her but an Office contayning prayses of God taken out of holy Scripture wherein commemoration of her is made So as I dare say that the prayers of that office of our Lady that are directed vnto her make not the hundred part thereof And seing it is most certayne that the Christian Church in her best times did frequently pray vnto Saints what reason haue we to thinke that in her set forme of prayers she did not vse to craue their intercession If it be lawfull pious and profitable when we pray vnto God to pray also to Saints by their mediatiō offering our prayers to him why should any mislike the doing of this in a set forme that is allowed by the Church why should this displease rather then an extemporall forme But further we cā proue that the Church in her best (r) The Minister here questioneth our meaning by the word primitiue I answere that we hold that true Christian Religion planted by the Apostles was not a meere shaddow that vanished away in a trice but that the beliefe and practise therof cōtinued in the world after their decease This Religion in respect of being in the world was primitiue in the dayes of the Apostles and of them that saw the Apostles and were conuerted by them But in respect of free publike profession the same was neuer Primitiue till the fourth Age that is vnder Constantine Now the monuments of the first and second Age after the Apostles in regard of persecutiō are few many Christian Historyes monuments yea in a manner al were made away by Dioclesian So that the best way to know what Religiō was professed immediately vpō the death of the Apostles is to examine what forme of Religiō in the dayes of Constantine came frō vnder groūd secret meetings into the free view of the world For no doubt but that Religion was freely professed vnder Constantine that was cruelly persecuted and the monuments therof abolished by Dioclesiā Constantine his Predecessour and the other Pagan Emperours before him But the Christian profession of Constantines age is so cleerly Catholike as our Ministers feare triall thereby and would rather haue all reduced vnto those ages wherof the monuments are scarse for therin they hope to find best patronage for their negatiue religion and for their Inuisible Perpetuall Namelesse Notorious Professours times did pray vnto Saints in set formes as Catholikes now do euen with a forme of prayer acknowledged cōfessed by the Magdeburgiās Cent. 4. c. 4. to haue byn in vse euē in the fourth age after Christ in which the foure first generall Councels were held But if they will perchance say that they do not so much dislike set formes vnto Saints as some Phrases or speaches in our Prayer-bookes that seeme to giue too much vnto Creatures as our calling the Blessed Virgin Mother of Grace Mother of mercy saying to her Lady protect vs from the Diuell receaue vs in the houre of death giue light to the blind pardon to the guilty remooue from vs all euill c. I answere these speaches cannot iustly be disliked because they are vnderstood in a pious sense knowne to Catholikes a sense obuious playne according to the phrase of Scripture and which the words may well beare euen according to the custome of speach The nature of thinges being various and the answerable conceipts of men copious but words to expresse such conceyts scant and in great paucity necessity doth inforce vs to vse words applyable to diuers senses For example one man may deliuer another from death either by authority pardoning him as do Kings or by Iustice defending him as do Aduocates by force taking him out of his enemyes hands as do Souldiers or paying his ransome to them that keep him captiue as Almoners finally by begging his life of them that haue power to take it away as intercessours These be very different wayes of reliefe yet haue we but one word to expresse them all to wit to saue a mans life which therefore is to be vnderstood according to the subiect it is applyed And if men want vnderstanding or will not take our words according to the matter they are applyed vnto there can neuer want Cauils vnles we eyther speake not at all or when we speake still vse long circumlocutions which were ridiculous in verse impossible the metre not permitting it And yet the aforesayd misliked phrases in the office of the Blessed Virgin are
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
Sauiour vnder the Sacramentall signes and that the words of our Sauiour This is my body be true in their proper and litteral sense This was the reason that the Answerer omitted to proue largely this Catholicke Doctrine Now the Minister finding himselfe vnable vpon this supposition of his Maiesty to answere the Iesuits argumēts for Transubstantiation yea Pag. 397. affirmeth that vnlesse Transubstantiation be granted the wordes of our Sauiour cannot be true in their proper and litterall sense Hence he denyes the presence of the body of Christ Substantially within the sacred signe laboureth to proue that the words of the Supper are figuratiuely and not properly to be vnderstood He grants a Reall and True Presence of Christs body in words but so obscurely as no man is able to vnderstand his meaning Wherfore to cleere this matter wherein Ministers desire to be darke that men may not see the grosse infidelity of their hart agaynst Gods expresse word I shall shew 3. things First what Zuinglians and Caluinists hold in this point Secondly how the Doctrine both of Zuinglius Caluin is against Gods word Thirdly that their reasons not to admit of the literall truth of Christs word be vaine and idle The Zuinglian and Caluinian Religion about the Sacrament §. 1. A Three-fold presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is confessed on all sides The first Figuratiue or in a Sacramentall signe bread signifying his body and wine his bloud The second Imaginatiue or by the pious apprehension of the faithfull receauer who for more deuotions sake doth or may imagine as if he saw the body of our Lord in the Eucharist truly really and bleedingly present vnder the signes of bread and wine The third Effectuall or according to the Spirituall effects of grace purchased by the Body and Bloud of our Sauiour and giuen by vertue of this Sacrament vnto the soule to nourish the ghostly life therof As all proceed thus farre so Zuinglians will proceed no further They grant the body and bloud of Christ to be present in the Sacrament figuratiuely in a signe imaginatiuely by fayth effectually by grace but deny them to be present according to their corporall substance or further then in the outward signe to the mouth and in the inward effect to the soule So that they grant the Sacramentall signe to be bare and empty in respect of contayning the body of Christ though full and effectuall in respect of affoarding soule-nourishing grace Caluinists seeme in their words to maintaine a more reall presence For though they maintayne the substance of the body of Christ in respect of place to be in heauen only and not in the Sacrament yet they teach that the same body without being present vpon earth is giuen vs on earth not only by the apprehension of fayth Non solùm dum fide amplectimur Iesum Christum pro nobis crucifixum à mortuis excitatum Not only in the inward spirituall effects of soule-nourishing grace purchased by the death of his body Non solùm dum bonis eius omnibus quae nobis acquisiuit corpore suo efficaciter communicamus but realiter really truly Dum habitat in nobis dum vnum fit nobiscum dum eius membra sumus de carne eius dum in vnam vt ita loquar cum ipso substantiam coalescimus Caluin in cap. 11.1 ad Cor. Hence we may discouer the Caluinian iugling and playing fast loose about this Mystery when they so often say that the body of Christ is really present but Spiritually for the word Spirituall may be vsed in this Mystery for two ends First to expresse the substance of the thing present to signify the reall Presence not of the corporall substance of our Lords body but only of the spiritual effect therof to wit of soule-feeding grace This sense is false as shall be proued and the very same which Caluin doth condemne in the Zwinglians as execrable blasphemy opusculo de Coena Domini Secondly to expresse the manner of the Presence and to signify that the corporall substance of our Lord is present truly yet in a spirituall that is secret inuisible indiuisible manner this doctrine is true and herein not differing from the Catholike In like manner their Phrase of Presence by Fayth is equiuocall and may haue a threefold sense First Presence by Fayth may signify Presence by pious imagination of Fayth the Receauer conceauing the body of our Lord as if he saw the same corporally and bleedingly present If by Presence by fayth Caluinists meane no more then this then they doe not differ from the Zwinglians nor do they put any more reall presence then imaginatiue that is presence of things according to pious representation and apprehension though not really in truth Secondly Presence by Fayth may signify that Fayth doth dispose and prepare the soule and that then vnto the soule prepared by Fayth our Sauiour is vnited really and truly not according to the corporall substance of his body but only according to the spirituall effect of his grace This sense is also Zuinglian and condemned by Caluin as hath been shewed Thirdly Presence by Fayth may signify presence according to the iudgment of Fayth or a presence which only Fayth can find out feele behold This sense is true and Catholike and doth suppose the body of Christ to be present absolutely and independently of Fayth For were not the body of Christ afore hand present Fayth should not be true that iudgeth his body to be present Whether our Minister be Zuinglian or Caluinist in this point God only knowes he speakes obscurely of purpose He neuer sayth as Caluin doth li. 4. Institut c. 17. n. 7. That by substantiall communication the body and blood of Christ are vnder the signes of the supper deliuered vnto the fayth full yet he sayth and often repeates that the body of Christ is truly really effectually communicated These words sauour more of the Caluinian then of the Zuinglian phrase Notwithstanding his adding effectually after truly and really may draw the speach to be Zuinglian in sense to wit that the body of Christ is giuen truly really effectually that is really accordinge to the truth and reality of the Spirituall effect not really according to the truth and reality of the corporall substance The Zuinglian and Caluinian Presence confuted §. 2. THE Zuinglian doctrine that the body of Christ is present only in an effectuall signe of grace not in substance is against the plaine expresse words of our Sauiour For he did not say this is the signe or figure of my body nor this is the benefit or effect of my body but this is my body and consequently it is his body in substance and essence if the substantiall Verbe Est do signify substance and essence Hence Luther Epist. ad Argent sayth that the words are nimis clara toto cleer and much more cleere then he could haue wished Caluin also in cap.
Iesus what reason could you haue to trow as you doe that no Iesuit will maintayne it What Iesuit can you name of so many that haue written of this matter that doth not expresly maintayne that Christ in his supper gaue his mortall and passible body though after an immortall and impassible manner Hence though in the hoast his body could neyther be sensibly felt nor suffer yet otherwise the same might then suffer in the place where it did exist according to the naturall and proper manner of bodyes See Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 12. Suarez Vasquez Valentia and innurable others The sixt Argument pag. 398. If our Sauiours words be litterally expounded then Infidells dogges and swine may eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man But all that eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man haue euerlasting life Iohn 6.49.50.51 ANSWERE I wonder you dare with such toyes oppose the literall truth of Gods word You may see the idlenes of this your argument in the like S. Paul sayth 1. Cor. 12.3 None can say Lord Iesus but in the Holy Ghost Should one argue that these words are not properly to be vnderstood because Parrats may be taught to say Lord Iesus so if these words None can say Lord Iesus but in the holy Ghost be properly expounded then Parrats should be inspired with the holy Ghost Were not this disputant to be laught at Are you a Doctour and do not vnderstand that externall actions vnto which diuine promises are made must be not only humane proceeding from man as he is man that is from reason and freewill which cannot be â—n dogs and swine but also Christian that is proceding from deuotion â—ayth in Christ Iesus which is wanting in Infidells The seauenth Argument pag. 398. If our Sauiours words were literall playne and regular then Papists could not be diâ—â—racted about the sense thereof but they are notoriously deuided For some say the Proâ—owne this signifyeth nothing others say it signifyeth bread some say it signifyeth â—â—e accidents of bread others it signifyeth the body of Christ c. Touching the body â—â—me say it is materia prima c. ANSWERE This argument proues nothing but your Ignorance who know not â—ow to distinguish diuision about the sense of a speach from diuision aâ—out the Logicall resolution of the single wordes of a speach All know â—hat haue any learning that learned men are deuided about the Logicall â—esolution of many propositions vulgar and plaine about the sense wherâ—f there neyther is nor can be doubt This speach Peter is a man A man â—unneth The wall is white are most playne nor are men deuided about their sense And yet he deserues not the name of a Scholler that doth not â—now there be solemne dissensions in Logicke amongst learned men aâ—out the resolution of these speaches that is about the precise and punctuâ—â—l signification of euery single word All Deuines agree in the sense of Christs speach This is my body that it imports the thing he held in his hands was in the end of the prolation of his speach essentially substantially his body as the substantiue verbe Esâ— doth import But they dispute about the Logicall and precise signification of the single words what is designed punctually by the demonstratiue Pronowne this what by Body which are meere Logicall and Philosophicall subtilties common to all propositions where the same words are vsed So that to mentioÌ„ these differeÌ„ces as matters of moment is a manifest signe that Hereticall Ignorance being out of loue with the literall sense of Gods word resolued not to belieue it seekes the vayle of euery idle pretence to hide the Infidelity of his hart The eight Argument pag. 413. If the sayd words be vnderstood literally then the body of Christ is properly brokeâ— and his blood properly shed in the Eucharist for Saint Paul sayth This is my body which is broken for you 1. Cor. 11.24 Saint Luke sayth This is the Cup the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you But the body of Christ is not properly broken nor his bloud properly shed in the holy Eucharist ANSWERE The word of God doth not say that the body of Christ is broken his bloud shed in the Eucharist but onely that the Eucharist is his body which is broken his bloud which is shed for vs for many for the remission of sinnes Caluin c. 11.1 ad Cor. doth expound broken and shed for vs on the Crosse where Christs pretious blood was properly shed his sacred body broken in the flesh and veynes therof which were there rent into peeces Besides to be broken for vs and shed for the remission of sinnes in this place signifyes to be sacrificed for vs vnto God as Caluin saith in the former place frangi interpretor immolari In which sense the body of Christ is broken properly not onely on the Crosse but also in the Sacrament this being a true Propitiatory Sacrifice as Catholicks teach Now take what part you will let the Sacrament be the body bloud of CHRIST broken and shed for vs that is sacrifyced for vs on the Crosse or broken and shed that is sacrifyced for vs in the Eucharist still it followes that the Eucharist is the true body and bloud of our Lord not bread and wine seeing Christ neyther in his Supper nor on his Crosse did sacrifice bread and wine for the remission of sinnes but his body and bloud only The ninth Argument pag. 401. Many Fathers treating of the Sacramentall signes call them figures representations memorialls antitypes of the body and bloud of Christ. But that which is a figure similitude representation of a thing is not properly the same ANSWERE First the Maior proposition of your Argument is false For not one Father of the many you cite doth say that the Eucharist is the figure of the naturall body and bloud of Christ but all they say is First that the Eucharist is a figure memoriall and antytype of Christs passion and death So S. Aug l. 3. de doctrin Christ. c. 16. Secondly that it is a figure of his mysticall body and of the vnity thereof Origen in c. 15. Matth. Aug. in Psal 3. Thirdly the bread and wine before consecration be figures of his body bloud as S. Ambros. l 4. de Sacram. c. 5. Druthmarus in c. 26. Matth. Fourthly that Christ did in the Eucharist represent his body where they take representation for the Reall exhibition of the thing promised as we commonly say that the debtour on such a day is to represent the money that is realâ—y deliuer as Tertul. cont Marci l. 1. c. 14. glossa de Consecrat d. 2. Fiftly they â—ay that the sacred vessells in the old law contayned only a figure of the body and bloud of Christ as the Authour of the Imperfect vpon S. Matâ—hew Finally for want of better testimonyes you bring some that proâ—esse agaynst you that
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
of bread in the very same place therwith This manner of presence is cleerly consequent vpon the precedent and that graunted this cannot be denyed For the reason vpō which Christians hold the body of Christ to be really and truly present in the Sacrament is because they cannot otherwise in proper plaine sense verify the word of Christ who sayd of bread This is my body Wherefore we must eyther put no Reall Presence at all or else put such a Reall Presence as is able to verify the foresayd speach in proper and rigorous sense But if the body of Christ be not in the same place with the consecrated bread contained vnder the formes therof it cannot be said to be verily and really the body of Christ. For though we should suppose the body of Christ to leaue heauen to be substantially present in the Church where the Sacrament is giuen yet this supposed Presence would no wayes further the verifying of the words of Christ This is my body except his body be veyled couered with the sensible accidents of bread so that it be demōstrated by them pointing vnto them one may truly say This is the body of Christ. For why should consecrated bread be tearmed truly and substantially the body of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with (*) The Ministers folly who doth in this place affirme that thinges distant may be truly really vnited is refuted in the Censure Sect. 3. §. 5. it Wherefore the Fathers affirme that Christ is so in this Sacrament as he is veiled with the semblances of bread As Saint Cyrill of Hierusalem in his booke highly commended by D. Whitaker (l) Whitakerus de sacrae Scriptura q. 6. c. 11. Cyrill Cathec 4. sayth Vnder the forme of bread is giuen thee his body Yea Mayster (m) Caluin in ep ad Cor. c. 11. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. §. 32. Caluin sayth In the supper CHRIST IESVS to wit his Body and Bloud is truly giuen vnder the signes of bread wine Whence it is also consequent that the whole body of Christ is contained vnder a consecrated hoast be the same neuer so little For in this mystery the body of Christ is demonstrable by the sensible accidences so that consecrated bread may be tearmed truly really and substantially the body of Christ not a parcell or part therof only But were not the body of Christ wholy and entyrely vnder the formes of bread consecrated bread could not truly properly be tearmed the body of Christ but a sole part and parcell therof Agayne we haue no reason to belieue that the body of CHRIST is truly and really in the Sacrament but only to the end that it may in the Supper be truly and really (n) Augustin cont aduersus Legis Prophet c. 9. Fidele corde ore suscipimus Cyprian de lapsis Tertullian lib. de resur Caro corpore Christi vescitur Iren. l. 5. c. 2. Nissen orat Cathec Chrysost homil 83. in 1. ad Cor. Leo serm 6. de ieiunio 7. mensis eaten to nourish and feed mens soules And if it be eaten only mentally by fayth we haue no ground to thinke that it is present more then mentally by fayth this presence being ordayned vnto the māducation thereof for else why did Christ institute this Sacrament vnder the elemēts of bread wine But if Christ be not present wholy and totally vnder the forme of bread he cannot be truly and really eaten why then is his body brought from heauen to be there really present Or how can the body of Christ being coextended in place according to the naturall dimensions therof enter into the mouth of the worthy receauer yea in at the mouth of the (o) When some Fathers seeme to say that the wicked eate not Christs body they meane they do not eate it fruitfully or thriue in soule by the eating therof As we commonly say of mē that thriue not by eating that they do not eate their meat as Beda super Exod. Infidelis carne Christi non vescitur S. Cyrill Hilary Chrysostome Origen and others quoted by the Minister p. 407. speake not of meere corporal eating but of eating by Fayth and thus Infidells and wicked persons do not eate the body of Christ. S. Augustin in Ioan. tract 27. saying that the wicked receaue not rem Sacramenti the thing of the Sacramēt by the thing of the Sacramēt meaneth grace not the body of Christ. And tract 59. saying that Iudas did eate panem Domini the bread of the Lord non panem Dominum not bread that was the Lord he meaneth that Iudas in his owne persuasion and fayth did not eate the bread that was the Lord yet he did eate the bread that was the Lord according to truth in the fayth of the Church Iudas sayth he Ep. 162. tooke that which the FAITHFVLL know to be the price of their Redemption wicked and vnworthy receauer as Fathers teach Wherefore seing we must of necessity graunt as I haue proued that some part of the body of Christ is vnder consecrated bread penetrating the same occupying the same place with it why shold we doubt to belieue the whole body of Christ to be wholy and totally in euery consecrated hoast For if we can belieue that two bodyes be in the same place at once we may as easily belieue the same of twenty And if we graunt that one part of Christs body doth penetrate that is doth occupy the same roome with the quantity of bread why should we not thinke that the rest of his parts may also do the like Our Sauiour sayth Matth. 19. That it is more easy for a Camell to passe through a needles eye then for a rich man to enter into the Kingdome of heauen adding though these things be impossible vnto men yet all is possible vnto God If then God can put a whole Camell into the eye of a needle is not he able to put the whole body of Christ within the bignes of a consecrated hoast The body of Christ which being mortall passible could penetrate the body of his mother come out of her wombe through the same still remayning entyre as we professe in the Creed to belieue Natum de Maria Virgine why 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 small compasse therof Christ that made heauy things not to weigh as the body of Peter walking on the water Matth. 14.16 coloured thinges not to be seene as his owne person which he so oft made inuisible to the Iewes bright thinges not to shine as his body after his Resurrection more bright then the Sunne did not shine in so many apparitions to his disciples finally a flaming furnace not to burne the bodyes of the three children cast into the midst thereof why may not he keep
a body from occupying a place or from extruding another body frō the place where it is (p) Read S. Augustine de Agone Christiano c. 24. serm 160. who by these examples proueth that a body may penetrate with another where he saith Shew me the weightines of flesh in the body that walked vpon the waues and I will shew the true massines and solidity of flesh in the body that came in the doores being shut and was borne into the world without vndoing his mothers integrity in his byrth For to occupy a place or to extrude thence another body is but an effect consequent flowing from the nature of a quantitiue substance as to weigh to be seene to shine to burne be the naturall and necessary effects of heauy coloured bright fiery things Transubstantiation belonges to the substance of Reall Presence §. 2. THIS I proue That belonges to the substance of this Mystery which being denyed and taken away the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true taken in the literal sense in which sense they are to be taken as hath been shewed But without granting Transubstātiation the words of Christ cannot be true taken in the literall sense Ergo transubstantiation belongs to the substance of this mystery of the Reall presence The minor is proued because the speach This is my body doth signify that the thing the Priest holds in his hands is truly really and substantially the body of Christ. For in the proposition This is my body the verbe Est signifyes a coniunction betweene This in the Priests hands the body of Christ and being a Verbe substantiue in his proper signification signifyes a substantiall Identity betweene This in the Priests hands and the body of Christ. But This in the Priests hands being before consecration bread a thing substantially distinct from the body of Christ cannot by consecration be made substantially the body of Christ as the Fathers teach it is without some substantiall alteration or change And what other substantiall chāge can make bread to become truly the body of Christ besides substantial conuersion of the same into his body (q) The Minister flyes vnto the figuratiue sense choosing rather to deny the truth of Gods word according to the letter thē admit Transubstantiation Against which he hath three arguments scattered in his Reply which I wil here ioyne togither and answere The first is pa. 434. the consecrated bread is tearmed very bread 1. Cor. 10.16 11.26.28 Answere This is a very vntruth For it is still in those places tearmed bread cum addito with such an addition as signifies that it is not properly bread but our Sauiours body 1. Cor. 10.16 The bread we breake that is Sacrifice vnto God is the communication of the body of our Lord. And 1. Cor. 11.26 as often as you eate THIS bread 27. Whosoeuer shall eate THIS bread vnworthily 28. So let him eate of THAT bread to wit wherof he had said before that Christ by the verity of his word doth make it his body Now he that eateth bread turned into Christs body or made his body doth not truly eate bread As the Maister of the Marriage-feast in Cana who tasted water made wine Iohn 2.9 did not tast water truly For as water made wine is not water euen so bread consecrated and made our Lords body is not bread The second is pag. 447. which he setteth out magnificently in a distinct letter and ech proposition in a seuerall line The substance is this If the words of our Sauiour This is my body chāge the substance of bread into his body then also they change the quantity accidents For our Sauiour tooke the whole bread into his handes and sayd this is my body as wel vpon the accidents as vpon the substance of bread But they proue not the conuersion of accidents For Popish Trāsubstantiatiō is only a conuersion of substance not of accidents Therefore they proue not the conuersion of the substance Answere The wordes of our Sauiour this is my body change not euery thing into his body ouer which they be spoken by way of breathing for then they should chāge the ayre into his body but only that ouer which they are so spoken by way of signification that their signification can not be true in the litteral sense except that be hi◠body Now the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the litterall sense except the substance of bread be changed into his body as the Minister doth confesse pag. 397. lin 17. But they may be true according to the letter the substāce being chāged though the accidēts remayne For if the Sacrament outwardly cloathed with the formes and accidents of bread be inwardly in nature and substance Christs body then is it truly and substantially his body and may be sayd to be his body taking the word to be in the proper sense for substantiue being euen as Iacob cloathed with the garments of Esau was truly and substantially Iacob and not Esau though in outward shew and shape he seemed Esau. Therfore the litterall truth of Christs words this is my body inforceth vs to say that the substance of bread is chāged into his body but not that the quātity of bread is so changed And thus the magnificence of your argument is marred proued to be but an empty shew The third argument is pag. 422.423 In all miraculous substantiall conuersions a new substance is produced but the body of Christ doth preexist so cannot be produced Answer The maior is false as appeareth by millions of miraculous cōuersions which partly haue beene partly shall be For in the resuscitation of the dead when carcasses are conuerted into men no new thing is produced but old things and substances which formerly had been are reproduced It is true the power of nature being limited according to time place cannot reproduce but onely produce at one time and in one place But the power of God being infinite eternall immense and independent of time and place can reproduce things that preexist according to different times and places as often and in as many places as he is pleased Hence he can and doth reproduce vpon earth the body of our Sauiour preexisting in heauen as the Fathers auerre S. Ambros. l. 4. de Sacra c. 4. When consecration is done the body of Christ is MADE of bread And S. Cyprian serm de coena Vsque hodie Diuinissimum Sanctissimum corpus CREAT S. Gauden homil tract 2. in Exod. Quia potest promisit de pane corpus suum EFFICIT S. Hierom. ep ad Heliod Sacerdotes corpus Christi proprio ore CONFICIVNT But some may obiect that as a man shewing a Leather-purse full of gold may truly say this is gold or a paper wrapped vp full of siluer may say this is siluer so the body of Christ being vnder cōsecrated bread we may truly say this is the body of Christ
though the substance of bread remayne I answer that when substances are apt of their nature and ordayned by vse to contayne other substances then shewing the substance which containes we may signify the substance contained as in the former examples The reason is because their naturall aptitude to contayne other things being vulgarly knowne mans vnderstanding straight passeth from the consideration of the substances contayning to thinke of the thing contayned therein But when substances are not by nature and custome ordayned to contayne others we cannot by shewing them demonstrate another because their outward forme signifyes immediatly the substance contained in them For exāple one puts a piece of Gold in an apple shewing it cryes this is Gold in rigour of speach he sayth not true because the sense of his words is that the thing demonstrated immediatly by the formes and accidēts of that apple is Gold yea put case that one should say this is gold shewing a peece of paper vnfolded in a manner not apt to contayne any thing in it he should not say true though by some deuise he had put secretly into it a peece of gold Because when the paper is shewed displayed and not as contayning something in it and yet is tearmed Gold the proper sense of that speach is that the substance immediatly contayned vnder the accidents of paper is gold although it be couered with other accidents then those that vsually accompany the nature of gold Wherefore the proposition of Christ This is my body being spoken of a thing that naturally is not apt nor by custome ordained to contayne an humane body it cannot be vnderstood literally but of the subiect immediatly contayned vnder and demonstrated by the accidents and outward semblance of bread Now the thing that lyes hidden immediatly vnder the accidents of bread which was once substantially bread cannot become substantially the body of Christ except it be substātially cōuerted into his body or personally assumed by the same body And seeing this second manner of vnion between bread Christs body is impossible and reiected by Protestants aswell as by Catholiks we may conclude that the mystery of Christs Real presence cannot be belieued in truth by them that deny Transubstantiation Specially seing our Sauiour did not say Heere is my body which speach may be verifyed by the Presence of his body locally within the bread but This is my body which imports that not only his body is truly and substantially present but also that it is the substance contayned immediatly vnder the accidents of bread If any man say that by this argument it appeares that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture but from the wordes of the Institution subtilly deduced and so may perchance be numbred inter scita Scholae not inter dogmata Fidei I answere that the cōsequēce of this argument is not good as is euident in the example of the Incarnation The doctrine that the vnion of natures in Christ is proper not metaphoricall substantiall not accidentall personall not essentiall is no where expressely set downe in the Scripture but by subtill deduction inferred from the mystery which Scripture and Tradition deliuer Notwithstanding because these subtill deductions are proposed by the Church as pertinent vnto the substance of the aforesayd mystery they cannot be denyed without preiudice of fayth In this sort the doctrine of Transubstantiation though not in tearmes deliuered by the Scripture but deduced by subtile and speculatiue inference may not be denyed by them that wil be perfect Belieuers because the Church hath declared the same to pertayne to the proper sense of Christ his wordes and substance of the mystery Concil Romanum sub Nicolao 1. Lateranense sub Innocentio 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers §. 3. IT is certayne the Fathers acknowledge a transmutation of bread into the body of Christ that they meant Transubstantiation that is not only a mysticall significatiue but also a Reall and substantiall change appeares by these 5. circumstances of their doctrine in this point First [I.] ¶ The Marginall Annotations corresponding to these ensuing Numbers follow afterwards togeather by the expressenesse of their words for there can be no words more significant and expressiue of a substantiall change betweene bread our Sauiours body then those the Fathers vse Saint (s) Orat. Cathechis c. 34. Nissen That the word made flesh is inserted within euery faythful mā by his flesh taking his consistance of bread and wine Consecration II. transelementing the nature of things appearing into the same flesh S. Cyrill (t) Cyrill Ep. ad Calosyrium Influit oblatis vim vitae conuertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis sayth That we might not feele horrour seing flesh and bloud on the sacred Altars the Sonne of God condescending to our infirmityes doth penetrate with the power of life into the things offered to wit bread and wine III. Conuerting them into the verity of his owne flesh that the body of life as it were a certaine seede of viuification might be found in vs. Saint (u) Chrysost. hom de Euchar in Encoen Nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit Chrysostome When wax is put into the fire nothing of the substance therof is left nothing remaynes vnconsumed IIII. so likewise do thou thinke that the mysteryes are consumed by the substance of the body of Christ (x) Ambros. de initian myster c. 9. Non hoc quod natura formauit sed quod benedictio cōsecrauit Benedictione enim ipsa natura mutatur S. Ambrose What arguments shall we bring to prooue that in the Sacrament is not the thing which nature hath framed but that thing which benediction hath consecrated and that greater is the force of benediction then of nature seing by the benediction euen Nature is changed V. Secondly they require that the Authour that changeth bread into Christ his body be VI. Omnipotent consequently the change not meerely significatiue but substantiall VII Saint Cyprian (z) Cyprian de coena Domini Panis non effigie non natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro This bread changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh S. Cyrill (f) Cyrill orat 4. mystagog He that in the marriage of Cana changed water into wine by his only will is not he worthy that we belieue him that he hath changed wine into his bloud S. (g) Gaudent tract 2. in Exod. Gaudent The Lord Creatour of natures that of earth made bread agayne because he can do it and hath promised to do it makes of bread his owne body and he that of water made wine now of wine hath made his bloud Thirdly the instrument by which God workes this Transubstantiatiō is by them acknowledged the most efficacious that may be to wit the word not of man but of God S. Ambrose (h) Ambros. de ijs qui
a thing is fundamentally composed Hence Fire Ayre Water Earth as also the Letters of the Alphabet be tearmed Elements because both are primordiall simples and substantial parts the one of mixed substances the other of wordes and sentences Now the body and bloud of Christ as also bread wine being corporall substances the primordiall simples and substantiall principles wherof their nature is originally composed be substantiall matter forme as euery Philosopher knowes Ergo Transelementation of bread wine into Christs body and bloud doth import that bread and wine be changed into Christs body bloud according to their Elements that is matter forme Is not this Transubstantiation The second reason is because in Transelementation matter doth no more remayne then in Transubstantiation so your deuised difference betwixt them is false For as when Transelementation is partiall that is according to forme only the matter remaynes so likewise in Transubstantiation For example when wood is turned into fyre the forme being destroyed the matter remayneth As wood by this change may be sayd to be Transelemented into fire because it is changed into fire according to the forme which is one element of wood so likewise it may be sayd to be Transubstantiated into fire because it is changed into fire according to the forme which is one part of the substance of wood Though Christians do not vse so to speake because aswel the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Grecian Church as the word Transubstantiation by the latin be consecrated to signify the substantiall change in the Eucharist which is totall according to both elements substantiall parts Thirdly I thus argue The Minister grants that Transelementation doth import an essētial change or a chāge according to the essentiall forme of bread into Christs body but this cannot be according to the essentiall forme only not also according to the essentiall matter of bread else the body of Christ should be made bigger by the matter of bread changed into it as we see the fire to be made bigger by the matter of wood remayning after the conuersion therof into fire Ergo seing the Minister grants that Trāselementation imports an essentiall chāge he must if he will not be ridiculously absurd consequently grant that this change is to tall else the body of Christ shal be augmēted by the material additiō of bread vnto it Fourthly this is proued by the Fathers appropriation of this word vnto the mystery of the holy Eucharist For did not Transelementation of bread wine into Christs body blood import a substantiall change but only an accidental mystical significatiue conuersion of them I aske First why do the Fathers neuer say that the water of Baptisme is Transelemēted into Christs bloud as wel as they say that wine is Trāselemented into his bloud For thus they might haue spoken of Baptisme as well as of the Eucharist had they been of the Protestants Religion which is that water is mystically and significatiuely made Christs bloud in Baptisme as much as wine in the Eucharist Secōdly why do the Fathers neuer say that our bodyes in the day of iudgment are Transelemēted into Christs body but only as the Minister cites S. Nissen orat Catechist c. 34. transmutantur they be transmuted why this but because transmutation being a Generall tearme signifyes any mutation whether substantial or accidental whereas Transelementation cannot import but a substantial change Finally why do the Fathers neuer say that mans soule is by grace charity Transelemented into Christ into whome the same is mystically changed Theophilact indeed cited by the Minister in Ioan. c. 6. v. 56. saith that a man is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a manner Transelemented into Christ as he might no lesse truly haue sayd in a manner Transubstantiated into Christ but that men are by grace Transelemented into Christ they neuer say Which be manifest signes that the Fathers vnderstood by Transelementation according to the proper naturall signification of the word a substantiall conuersion not only an accidental much lesse a meere mysticall change III. S. Cyrill sayth the Minister by the words Conuerting bread and wine into the verity of his owne flesh vnderstandeth not Popish Transubstantiation but mysticall Sacramentall Conuersion to wit Conuersion of signification vse operation For he speaketh of bread wine according to their whole nature contayning substance accidents but the accidents are only mystically conuerted into Christ his body Answere This myst which the Minister would cast vpon this matter by the tearme of mystical cōuersion serues only to catch Woodcocks for euery man of iudgment may presently see that this sense cannot stand with the words of S. Cyrill For S. Cyrill sayth that did men see and feele what is inwardly done in consecrated bread wine men should find horrour to feed theron because they should see and feele that they eate and drinke flesh bloud Hence that this may not be perceaued he sayth the conuersion of bread wine is done inwardly by Christs penetratiue power conuerting them into the verity of his flesh and bloud But did men see what is inwardly done in bread wine by the Protestant significatiue conuersion they would feele no horrour for in their Tenet no change at all is made inwardly in bread but the whole outward substance is assumed as an Instrument to sanctify the soule If a Christian should see this conuersion of vse operation should he see I say that bread is eleuated to produce sanctifying grace in his soule why should he feele horrour to feed thereon So that it is not only willfulnes against the light of truth but also folly to expound this place of S. Cyrill of meere mysticall significatiue change IIII. Vnto this Testimony of S. Chrysostome the Minister replyeth in these words The Father sayth not that nothing of the substance is left but the cleane the cōtrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing of the substance goeth away the words which follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are falsely translated for they are not Is consumed by the substance but Is coabsumed with the substance Also the substance of bread is not consumed by the body of Christ according to the Tenet of many Scholemen The substance of the externall elements passeth into the body of the receauer is consumed or vnited to the flesh of the receauer Answere This your Reply toucheth two points first the Translation secondly the sense of this place I will discouer your vanity about both As concerning the first you shew your selfe to be a wrangler and giuen vnto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by S. Paul labouring to make those sayings to be dissonant and contrary betwixt which there is not any difference in respect of sense What disagreement in respect of sense is there between these two sentences which you say be contrary When wax is put into the fire nothing of the substance thereof is
foode of the soule HeÌ„ce the Eucharist as a Sacrifice 〈…〉 entyre in the 〈◊〉 oblatioÌ„ vnder the forme of bread without oblation in the forme of wine because the oblation in the forme of bread without wine doth not expressely distinctly represent Christs Sacriâ—â—ce on the Crosse by the effusion of his bloud But the Eucharist as a SacrameÌ„t is entyre in one only kind to wit vnder the forme of bread because the forme of bread only doth represent contayne and exhibite the true body of our Lord which is a full â—nd all-sufficient food to nourish the soule vnto eternall life as sayth our Sauiour He that eateth this bread liueth for euer Ioan. 6.59 By this the Ministers Cauilling pag. 460. 461. and throughout this whole Controuersy is answered for he only proues at the most that the Eucharist as a Sacrifice is not entyre in one kind vnder one kind the abetting of it by Concomitancie YOVR most Excellent Maiesty in the proposition of this Controuersy shews your deep insight into Theologicall difficultyes perceauing the mayne ground whereon the Catholike opinion of the lawfulnes of coÌ„munion vnder one kind standeth to wit Concomitancy which being graunted Communion vnder one kind is iustified The doctrine of Concomitancy proued §. 1. THE doctrine of Concomitancy is that vnder the forme of bread not only the body of Christ but also his pretious bloud and blessed soule are truly and really conteyned the body directly and by vertue of the wordes of consecration the bloud and the soule consequently For being conteined within the body of Christ they must needs concomitate that is follow the body in what place soeuer the same be (t) The Minister pag. 460. sayth The bloud of Christ cannot properly he sayd to be in his body by Concomitancy for then it were accideÌ„tally therein but as a part in the whole Answere We do not say bloud is accidentally in the body of Christ or by concomitaÌ„cy but that it is by concomitancy in the same place with the body As the soule is not by concomitancy in the body of a liuing man but as a part in the whole yet as Philosophy teacheth Mouetur per accidens cum corpore it is moued and remoued accidentally and by concomitancy with the body You must then distinguish To be in the body froÌ„ To be in the same place with the body The soule is in the body by direct substaÌ„tiall vnion therwith but in the place of the body the soule is not directly but by concomitancy in regard of her coniunction with the body which is directly in place In this maner the soule and bloud of Christs be directly and substantially in his body yet only by concomitancy in the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread where the body only is directly by vertue of the words In this sense also the Deity is in the SacrameÌ„t by Concomitancy For the Deity is not expressely signifyed to be in the Sacrament by vertue of the words which only affirme Christ his body to be present yet is the Deity present vnto and vnited with the body present by the vertue of the word HeÌ„ce the Deity is present by CoÌ„comitancy so that though otherwise it were not present yet should it be heere present by Concomitancy because inseparably ioyned with a thing that is present Neyther can any that acknowledgeth the Reall presence deny this Concomitancy without falling into many absurdities as I proue by three Arguments First he that acknowledgeth the Reall presence of Christs sacred Body vnder the forme of bread and denyes Concomitancy doth in his beliefe separate the bloud soule of Christ from his body But to separate eyther Christs Diuinity from his Humanity or soule froÌ„ his body or his bloud from his flesh is vnlawfull For such a belieuer doth dissolue and destroy Christ Iesus and so is one of the number of them that Saint Iohn condemneth Omnis spiritus qui soluit Iesum non est ex Deo hic est Antichristus (u) 1. Ioan. 4.3 And this Argument hath greatest force in their opinion who shall think that Christ leaues heauen for the tyme comes downe really according to his body and bloud for how can the body of Christ come downe from heauen without bloud and soule vnles he come down dead And so Christ should be not only mystically figuratiuely but truly really massacred in the Sacrament and the Eucharist be a bloudy sacrifice and not incruent as the Fathers tearme it Secondly the Priest in the person of Christ who is glorious in heauen or rather Christ being glorious in heauen by the mouth of the Priest sayth This is my body but a body deuoyd of bloud without soule and consequently dead and senselesse is not the body of Christ as he is now glorious in heauen which hath bloud in the veines and is informed and glorifyed by a most excellent soule Therfore Christ glorious in heauen cannot say truly that a body voyd of bloud sense and soule is his body but soule life and bloud must needes follow and concomitate his body wheresoeuer it be Thirdly if vnder the forme of bread were only the body of Christ and his soule and bloud were not by Concomitancy there the Communicants should receaue the body of Christ but not truly Christ as our Aduersaryes graunt Caluin specially saying (x) Caluin l. 4. Instit. c. 7. n. 35. Quis sanus sobrius Christi Corpus Christum esse sibi persuade at And againe (y) Ibidem n. 74. Ne fando quidem auditum est corpus Christi aut sanguinem Deum hominem appellari But (z) Ambros. l. de ijs qui iâ—it In illo Sacramento Christus est Fathers affirme most coÌ„stantly that not only the body of Christ but also Christ (a) Hilarius l. 8. de Trinit Nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus himselfe is in the Sacrament That we take in the Dominicall refection the Word made flesh That (b) Cyrill Alexand. l. 4. in Ioan. c. 15. Per hanc benedictioneÌ„ mysterij ipsum filium Dei suscipimus by the consecration of the mysteryes we receaue the very Son of God That (c) Cyrill Hieros Catech. 5. mystag vnder the forme of bread we lodge within vs the soueraygne King that (d) Chrysost. homil 83. in cap. 26. Matth. hom 24. in 1. ad Cor. we see Christ feele Christ eate Christ non regium puerum sed ipsum vnigenitum Dei Filium An hundred other places might be brought where the Fathers call the consecrated bread Christ consequently they did not thinke there was the meere body without bloud and soule seing as Caluin doth confesse It is an absurd manner of speach to tearme Christ the meere body of Christ And such a forme of speach was neuer heard of hitherto in the world Ergo Concomitancy that is Christs reall entyre body soule flesh bloud to be vnder the forme
no Sacrament can subsist tearmed by Deuines Materia Sacramenti This substantiall part is not wanting in the Sacrament giuen in one kind in which there is consecrated bread visible and sensible in the accidents thereof and manducation an action also visible and apparent to sense The second thing required to the substāce of the Sacramēt is Verbum the word that is a forme of speach shewing the diuine and supernatuall purpose vnto which the element is consecrated Neyther is that part wanting in the Sacrament giuen vnder one kind which is consecrated by the wordes of Christ This is my body and the Theologicall principle taken out of Saint Augustin verifyed accedit verbum ad elemētum fit Sacramentum The third thing is Signification euery Sacrament signifying some diuine effect of grace which God worketh by the application therof and the sensible signe euen by nature hath as Saint Augustine Epist. 23. noteth some proportion analogy to signify that diuine effect which to produce it is assumed by Gods omnipotency as an instrument This sacred signification which the holy Eucharist hath is of three kinds and all three are found in the Sacrament giuen vnder one kind First this Sacramēt is a signe of spirituall food for the nourishment and refection of the Soule which signification is manifestly found in Communiō vnder one (n) The Minister very often though out of place as pag. 470. li. 20. pa. 442. obiects If Communion in both kindes be not of the substance of the Sacrament why should Cōmunion in bread or wine be of the substance of the Sacrament Why may not Communion in Cheese be truly a Sacrament as well as Communion in one kind Answere First diuers Protestāts namely Beza and Caluin see Beza epist. 2. epist. 25. teach that though Christ did institute the Sacrament in bread and wine yet in case that bread and wine be wanting one may vse some other proportionable Element as Cheese and Beere Might you not imploy your talent in rayling vpon these men better then on the Councell of Constance Secondly The Protestants allowing of Cheese in lieu of Bread and beere in lieu of wine is to change the substance of the Element wherin Christ did institute the Sacrament and consequently to change the substance of the Institution and Sacrament bringing in an Institution and Sacrament of another substance But to receaue the Sacrament in the kind of bread without wine is not to change the substance of the Element but only whereas the Sacrament for more complete signification was instituted in two elemtēs as for the same reason it was instituted after supper to vse the one element without the other the whole nature of the Sacrament sufficient for all the functions thereof being found in one kind as the Iesuit doth heere demonstrate kind For the Eucharist doth signify this effect of spirituall nutrition because it is a signe of Christ the bread of life the food of Angells the fountayne of grace but by the sole forme of bread Christ is signifyed as present according to his most Sacred body and consequently as most sufficient to feed and refresh the soule Another signification of this Sacrament is vnion and coniunction betweene the faythful as being members of the same body wherof Christ is head fellow-mēbers one with another as S. Paul declares Rom. 12.4 which coniunction the Sacramēt in the forme of bread doth signify For bread being a compound of many graynes of wheate massed togeather in one loafe also made of floure and water mingled one with another signifyes the perfect vnion both of the Church with Christ of the faythfull that are in the Church one with another as Saint Paul 1. Cor. 10. testifyes vnum corpus sumus quotquot de vno pane participamus where he makes no mention of Wine the Sacrament in the forme of bread being alone able to shew worke this signification This Sacrament doth also signify the passion and death of our Sauiour which death and passion is shewed and represented by Communion vnder one kind (o) The Minister sayth pag. 479. That both kinds do more liuely represent Christs Passion then one only Answere What is this to the purpose to proue the Sacrament in one kind substantially imperfect Baptisme by plunging the Childe into water represents Christs death and resurrection more liuely thē Baptisme by sprinkling yet is Baptisme by aspersion a full and entyre Sacrament For receauing the Sacrament in the forme of wine only we haue a sufficient ground to remember the bloud of Christ that was in his passion shed and separated from his body Likewise by participating of the cōsecrated bread we may liuely conceaue the body of Christ as it was depriued of the most precious bloud by the effusion therof on the Crosse wherupon Christ as Saint Paul (p) 1. Cor. 11. v. 14.15 testifyes did after the consecration of ech kind particularly recommend the memory of his passion as knowing that in ech of them alone was a sufficient monument and memoriall thereof The fourth thing required to the substāce of a Sacrament is Causality to wit to worke in the soule the spirituall effects it signifyes This Causality cannot be wanting to the Sacrament vnder one kind wherein is conteyned the fountayne of spirituall life For the cause why the Sacrament in both kindes giueth grace and refresheth the soule is that Christ is assistant vnto them bound by his promise at the presence of sensible signes to worke proportionably spirituall effects in disposed soules But Christ is in the Sacramēt vnder the forme of bread he is able through infinite power and bound by inuiolable promise to worke the effect of grace preseruing vnto life eternall the worthy participant of this Sacrament (q) Hence is refuted what the Minister saith pag. 478. without any proofe That the promise of grace is not made to one kind only vnder the forme of bread Qui manducat hunc panem viuit in aeternum Ioan. 6.55 Not any doubt then may be made but the Sacrament in one kind is full entyre complete in substance by participation thereof prepared consciences do receaue the benefit of celestiall fauour that conserueth the life of the soule with dayly increase in perfection (*) The Minister very often obiecteth as pag. 479. 502. and elsewhere That according to the Tenet of some Scholemen greater benefit of grace it reaped by communion in both kinds Answere First Catholicke Deuines of greater number learning hold the contrary Secondly This is impertinent for the questiō is not whether Communion in both kinds be of greater perfection but whether it be necessary vnto Saluation Thirdly if Cōmunion in both kindes giue more grace yet this excesse may be easily equalled by other diligences as by often receauing in one kind and by obedience to the Church c. The Minister 472. proueth Communion in both kinds to be of greater profit because it is
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
locus c teach gathering their opinion of this his sanctiiy from the Scripture and yet extremely penitentiall was he in his continuall praying fasting lying on the ground enduring cold wind weather his wearing continually a rough hayre-cloath whereof Saint Paulinus writes (n) Paulin. ep 11. ad Seuerum Vestis erat curui setis compacta Cameli Contra Luxuriam molles duraret vt artus Arceretque graues compuncto corpore somnos What a mighty masse of superabounding (o) That Saints can make superaboundant satisfaction is also proued by the sayings of the Minister in the Cēsure Sect. 4. §. 5. Satisfactions were gathered from the life of this Saint alone The Prophets of the old Testamēt what afflictions did they endure Which Saint Paul (p) Ad Heb. 11.36 gathers togeather in the eleauenth Chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews being neuertheles men of most holy life innocent and without any grieuous sinnes (q) 1. Cor. 4.2 Cor. 11 That the world was vnworthy of them As also the Apostles whose labours were intollerable specially such as Saint Paul records endured by himselfe who yet after Baptisme in which his sinnes were fully and certainly remitted neuer did grieuously offend God The labours (r) Cypr. l. 4. epist. 2. and torments of Martyrs were extreme and yet any the least Martyrdome is sufficient to satisfy for any great multitude of offences (s) Aug. tract 64. in Ioan quoad reatum culpae poenae Of whose merits the Church in the primitiue times did make most account to whom afterwards succeeded another kind of Martyrdome (t) Ber. serm 41. in Cantica Terrore quidem mitius sed diuturnitate molestius of holy Confessours specially of many most holy Eremites These manifold afflictions endured by Saints far aboue measure of the temporall penalty which after the eternal was graciously remitted did remayne due to their offences did not perish nor were forgottē but were layd vp in the memory of God The third Proposition The treasure of the Church consisteth principally of the superabundāt satisfactions of Christ who did endure much more then was necessary for the Redemption of man wherewith are ioyned the satisfactions of Saints We ioyne the satisfactions of Saints with the satisfactiō of Christ in the Churches treasure not because we belieue the bloud of Christ to be insufficient alone to satisfy for sinnes nisi velut arescentis exhausti defectus aliunde suppleatur sufficiatur as mistakingly not to say calumniously Caluin lib. 4. Instit. cap. 9. n. 39. reporteth of vs. For Pope Clement the 6. whome Protestants accuse as the first Authour of this Treasure affirmes euen in his Cōstitution about this matter that the bloud of Christ is of an infinite price and euery drop therof sufficient to ctncell the sinnes of the whole world The reasons of this coniunction are these three First That penall workes of Saints as they are satisfactory be not without fruit for being satisfactory and not hauing the effect of satisfaction in their owne innocent vndefiled persons they wil be without this fruit and effect except they be applyed vnto others that are poore and needy in whome satisfaction is scant and the debt of temporall payne abounds The second is The glory of Christ whose meritts were so powerfull as to purchase to the church of God such excellent admirable Saints so pure of life so feruent in pennance as their satisfactions might suffice to pay the debt of temporall payne due vnto others The third reason is to make men loue the Church and society of Saints wherby they come to be partakers of the aboundācy of her treasures to pay their grieuous debts This is that comfortable Article of the Apostles put downe in the Creed to be knowne of euery one The Communiō of Saints This is that which made King Dauid exult saying (a) Psal. 118. vers 63. I am partaker with all them that feare thee keepe thy Cōmaundments And in this respect the Apostle exhorteth vs (b) Coloss. 1. v. 12. Gratias agamus Deo Patri qui dignos nos fecit in partem sortis Sanctorum in lumine This is that which the same Apostle writes to the Corinthians 1.8.14 exhorting them to be liberall towards Titus and Luke For the present let your aboundance in temporall goods supply their want that also their aboundance in pious works may be a supplement vnto your want This hope to supply in this kind the spirituall need of Christians by the aboundance of his sufferings made Saint Paul so much reioyce in them (c) Coloss. 1. 24. I ioye sayth he in my sufferings for you and I make full the things that want of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh for his body which is the Church And agayne (d) 2. Cor. 12.15 Cupio impendi superimpendi pro vobis Out of which words (e) Origen hom 10. in Num. Origen gathers that S. Paul as a kind of victime or sacrifice did expiate the sinns of others not satisfying for the Iniury agaynst God nor for the eternall punishment due but for one outward and transitory effect of sinne to wit the debt of temporall payne In this sense also Saint Augustine interpreteth the former words of the Apostle of suffering in his body the things wanting of the sufferings of Christ (f) Aug. in ep 61. Patitur Christus in membris suis id est in nobis ipsis ad communem hanc quasi Republicam Nam quisque pro modulo nostro exoluimus quod debemus pro posse virium nostrarum quasi canonem passionum inferimus paratoriâ plenariâ Christ suffereth in his members that is euen in vs as for a Cōmonwealth for euery one of vs payeth his owne debt according to his meane power according to his forces puts into the plenary Storehouse a certayne measure of sufferings This was the practise of the Primitiue Church which at the petition of constant Confessours in prison did relieue the penaltyes that sinners were enioyned to performe to satisfy not only the discipline of the Church but also the wrath of God after the remission of sinne still continuing vnto the infliction of temporall payne as appeareth by the testimonyes of (g) Cypr. l. 3. ep 15. Saint Cyprian And that this relaxation of temporall payne was done by applying the aboūdant satisfaction of holy Confessours and designed Martyrs vnto the Penitents that receaued Indulgence at their intercessions appeares by Tertullian For he falling from the Church into the errours of Montanus whereof one was That for Christians sinning after Baptisme there was no remission of sinne refutes the Catholike custome of remitting penaltyes vnto sinners for the merits of Martyrs speaking thus (h) Tertul. lib. de pudicit cap. 22. Let it suffice the Martyrs they haue cancelled satisfied for their own sins It is ingratitude or pride for one prodigally to cast abroad vpō others that which as a great