did the former Ioh. 16.13 Certainly the Spirit that leadeth into all truth is yet and euer shall bee amongst vs vnto the end of the world And as before the writings of the Fathers were hee directed his Church vnto the true sence of Scripture so now I doubt not but if all whatsoeuer they haue written were vtterly lost he would still guide vs therein as hee did them And verily vnlesse wee will bee too vnthankfull wee cannot but confesse that as age through Gods bounty hath had more meanes then those heretofore so through his blessing it hath made further proceedings also in the knowledge of Scripture For besides that wee haue whatsoeuer helps they had we haue ouer and aboue the benefit of all their works together with much skilfulnes in the Originall of the old Testament which most of them wanted and of the new also wherewith some were but little acquainted In regard whereof whosoeuer shall duly compare the ancient Commentaries with those of latter times must needs bee either weake in iudgement or obstinate in preiudice if hee preferre not these Your owne men ingenuously acknowledge so much Art 18. cont Luther It cannot bee vnknowne to any saith Fisher B. of Rochester that there are many things as well in other Scriptures as the Gospels now more cleerely discussed and throughly vnderstood then in ancient times namely because the Ancients had not the yce broken vnto them or because their age sufficed not exactly to sound the whole sea of Scripture In Rom. 5. disp 51. And Salmeron God hath not giuen to all men all that euery age might enioy some truths which the former knew not Euery age hath euer ascribed much to antiquity yet this wee auouch the yonger the Doctors the cleerer sighted And Dominicus Bannes Jt is not necessary that the more remote the Church is from the Apostles times the lesse perfect knowledge of the mysterie of Faith should bee therein because after the Apostles time there were not the most learned in the Church which had dexterity in vnderstanding the matters of Faith Wee are not therefore enwrapped in the more darknesse for that in respect of time wee are more distant from Christ but rather the Doctors of these latter times being godly and treading in the steps of the ancient Fathers haue attained more expresse vnderstanding in some things then they had For they are like children standing on the shoulders of Giants who being lifted by the talnesse of Giants no maruell if they see further then they themselues In Luc. 10. This similitude Stella also vseth to the same purpose God forbid saith he that I should condemne what such and so many wise men haue with one accord affirmed yet wee know well that Pigmies set on the shoulders of Giants see further then the Giants themselues doe Thus they Whereby you see the Fathers haue no prerogatiue aboue vs because they were before vs but wee rather haue the aduantage because wee come after them In a word bee they whatsoeuer you will their seruants wee are not but their fellow seruants sent from God with the same commission to the same end and with the same promises that they were Neither doth their authority more bind vs in that they are our predecessors then our authority shall bind them who many ages hereafter may be our successors But draw we a little closer The ancient Fathers say you are the ground of your Faith What seuerally and single by themselues 〈◊〉 12. I suppose no for there is not one of them as your owne side confesseth but hath his error and I presume you would bee loth to follow them therein The Fathers therefore either all iointly or the more part of them agreeing in one So Canus Loc. lib. 7. c. 3. What the greater part of the Fathers iudgeth that wee professe to bee of the Catholicke Faith So Salmeron also In 1. Ioh. 3. disp 25. When all or almost all Fathers agree in one it is an ineuitable argumeÌ„t And Gregory of Valentia It is infallibly true which they deliuer with one consent Anal. l. 8. c. 8. â—ea an infallible rule iudging And Onuphrius Prim. Pap. p. 1. c. 6. It is rash and foolish and terrible rashnesse to goe against a sense giuen by the Fathers for the vnderstanding of the Scriptures And finally the Councell of Trent which peremptorily chargeth that no man dare to interprete the Scriptures against the vnanimous consent of the Fathers This then vndoubtedly being your assertion as euery way according with the Tenet of the Church of Rome let vs in Gods name trie the strength thereof and see with what security and safety a man may aduenture his Faith and consequently his eternall saluation vpon this ground And first whosoeuer will stedfastly repose his Faith vpon consent of Fathers had need be right well assured which are the authenticall writings of the Fathers For if these bee doubtfull and vncertaine the whole frame raised vpon them must of necessity shake and totter Now that there are bookes more then a good many which in their forefronts are inscribed and entitled vnto the Fathers yet in truth are meerely suppositious and apocryphall I know you cannot bee ignorant Nor Origen nor Athanasius nor Basil nor Chrysostome nor Cyril nor Tertullian nor Cyprian nor Ambrose nor Hierâ—me nor Augustin nor any one almost of all the Fathers but hath suffered notorious wrong in this kind hauing base brats and misbegotten bastards fathered vpon him Which also is so cleere and manifest that Posseuin and Salmeron and Maldonat and Baronius and Bellarmine and all the rest of that side though too frequently they make vse of such refuse stuffe yet euery where in their writings are constrained to acknowledge so much Biblioth l. 4. But amongst the rest Sixtus Senensis especially who purposely recording the works of all the Fathers taketh vpon him to demonstrate as much in euery one of them as in his Catalogue hee passeth from one Father to another So that indeed it would bee but an idle wasting both of oile and time if I should spend many words in proofe of that which is denied of none and therefore I forbeare further to trouble you with particularity Only because in our Conference you so confidently affirmed that Dionysius the Areopagite euen he who was Saint Pauls conuert and Scholler was the right Author of all those books that are now extant vnder his name I must entreat you to haue a little patience while I maintaine against you the negatiue which I then held and for which I stand still engaged vnto you That this Denise is but a counterfait but Diuines proue by sundry vnanswerable arguments I will not vrge them all but cull out the choicest Omitting therefore the Stile sauouring more of three hundred yeeres after then those Apostolicall times and his curious speculations in the secrets of heauen as if hee had beene surueyer thereof or had taken a muster
his goodnesse eftsoones to reduce you Two grounds you say there are whereon you haue built your Separation the first whereof you lay downe in these tearmes That the Hierarchie and Ministrie of Arch-bishops Lord Bishops c. and Priests may not bee set ouer the Church of Christ nor retained therein From whence as I vnderstand it you would argue and conclude thus Where are such Church Officers as may not bee set ouer nor retained in the Church there is no true visible Church and consequently Separation must bee made from it But here in England are such Church Officers as Arch-bishops Bishops c. and Priests Ergo here in England is no true visible Church and consequently Separation must bee made from it To this argument thus formed I answer first by denying the Maior Proposition which in that you goe not about to proue you commit that fault in reasoning which Logicians call Petitionem Principij taking that for granted which is most questioned For suppose that Archbishops Bishops and Priests were superfluous officers yet it is not euery superfluity in a Church that takes away the nature and essence thereof and euen they who mislike the present Church gouernement doe not all of them as you Separatists doe inferre thereupon a nullity but onely a corruption or aberration in the Church It would haue beene much more to the purpose if you could haue demonstrated that the Church of England is defectiue in such officers as are essentiall and without which a Church cannot be Here therefore I must entreat you either to acknowledge your rashnesse or else to bestow a little more paines in the proofe of that which without euidence of reason will neuer be yeelded you Againe I deny the Minor Proposition affirming contrarily that Archbishops Bishops and Priests are lawfull Church-Officers and may bee both set ouer and retained in the Church For I hope you vnderstand these tearmes not cauillingly and equiuocally but according to the meaning and definition of the Church of England Otherwise you shall but iangle about words and bewray that you haue more desire to picke quarels then ability to iustify your Separation But you endeauour to fortify your Minor by twelue reasons supplying in the tale if ought bee wanting in the weight Let vs examine them seuerally The first is this 1 No Antichristian ministrie may bee set ouer the Church of Christ nor retained therein 2. Thes 2.3.4.11.12 Ro. 14.9 10. with Ex. 4.5 Deut. 7.26 Ps 119.21.128 But the Ministrie of Arch-bishops Lord-Bishops Priests is Antichristian because the Churches of Antichrist cannot bee compleate if they haue not this Prelacy as appeareth by the Popes Canons and Pontificall and by their Church-Constitution Therefore they are not to bee set ouer the Church of Christ nor retained therein What meane you by the word Antichristian For although I know well what properly it signifies yet I doubt much what you vnderstand thereby it being your manner either through negligence or ignorance too often to speake improperly If you vnderstand it properly and as you ought for that which is against Christ and his ordinance or as your men sometimes expresse themselues which is a speciall part of Antichrists apostasie then I yeeld you your Maior and confesse that no such Ministrie may bee set ouer the Church nor retained therein But if you meane thereby either that which was first instituted and deuized by Antichrist or that which being formerly instituted is vsed and approued in the Church of Antichrist then I deny the Maior For first euery thing by Antichrist ordained is not presently vnlawfull and Antichristian no more then euery act of a tyrant is vniust and tyrannous How many good and wholesome lawes were enacted vnder the raigne of Richard the third who yet was a most bloody and cruell tyrant Neither were they afterward repealed by succeeding Kings but stand still in force notwithstanding his tyranny for they proceeded from him non quà tyrannus not as hee was a tyrant but as hee was a wise and politicke gouernour In like manner not euery thing ordained by Antichrist is foorthwith to bee reiected but onely that which hee doth quà Antichristus as hee is Antichrist and is meerely Antichristian It is a great folly to refuse good counsell because it is giuen by an euill man Wise men will consider non quis sed quid not so much who doth a thing as what is done For as truth is Gods in whose mouth soeuer it bee found so is good also whosoeuer bee the Author thereof Againe if those things whereof Antichrist is the first founder bee not therefore by and by vnlawfull much lesse are those things so which being of a former institution are onely vsed and obserued by him Were it otherwise how many ordinances of God himselfe and wholesome constitutions of the primitiue Church would proue vnlawfull being still retained in Popery This Maior you endeauour to fortify with sundry passages of Scripture But as Cassius of old was wont to say Cui bono to what end For if you would proue it in the sense granted you they are alledged needlesly if in the sense denied friuolously and to speake the truth euery way vainely and impertinently as the very reading of them will manifest to any one that will but take the paines to peruse them But this is the manner of your men to paint your margents with multitude of quotations nothing to the purpose whereas one allegation directly concluding is more then a hundred demonstrations as being the words of the first and infallible verity What you intend hereby I wot not whether to amuse the Reader and ouerwhelme him with your numbers or to win you credit and estimation with the vulgar as if you were the onely skilfull Text-men But sure I am that such sleighting of Scripture is no lesse then the taking of Gods Name in vaine which whosoeuer doth the Lord professeth he will not hold him guiltlesse Scripture is not made nor appointed for pompe and shew but for conquest and victory To the Minor Proposition I answer negatiuely The ministrie of Arch-bishops Lord-Bishops and Priests is not Antichristian whether you vnderstand it as first inuented by Antichrist or against Christ That it is not of Antichrists inuention is as cleere as the Sunne For first Priests are of diuine institution being no other then those Presbyters or Pastors to whom the administration of the Word and Sacraments is committed and who are ordained by Christ for the building vp of his Church vnto the end of the world The Priests of the Church of Rome indeed are of Antichrists founding whose office is to sacrifice and offer vp Christ himselfe in the Masse vnto his Father both for the quicke and the dead But our Priests haue nothing common with them saue the name onely their idolatry wee detest and abhorre although wee retaine the name Theirs are Masse-Priests ours are Preaching or Ministring Priests Neither let the name offend you for
therefore are not one 3. That which in nature comes after Iustification cannot be Iustifying faith This appeares because Faith is the Efficient instrumentall cause of Iustification and euery Efficient by the rule of Logick is in nature before the Effect But this knowledge or Assurance is in nature after iustificatiō This I proue thus the truth of a proposition is alwayes in nature before the knowledge of the truth for Propositions are not therefore true because knowne so but they are first true and then knowne so Therefore this Proposition I know I am iustified spoken by on that is iustified must needs presuppose the partie before to be iustified Therefore this knowledge of Iustification in nature following Iustification it cannot be Iustifying faith 4. In conditionall promises there can be no Assurance of the thing promised before the performance of the condition V. G. This is a conditionall promise in the couenant of workes doe this and thou shalt liue life is promised but on condition of doing and therefore vntill we haue performed the condition we cannot nor may not looke that God should be reciprocall and giue vs life So in the couenant of grace iustification is promised but vpon condition of faith so sayth the Scripture beleeue and thy sinnes shall be forgiuen thee And therefore the condition of beleeuing must first be performed before we can assure our selues our sins are forgiuen If so then faith going before and Assurance following after Assurance cannot be justifying faith 5 That from whence followeth a blasphemous absurdity cannot be a truth for from truth nought but truth can be concluded But from this that faith is an Assurance such an absurdity doth follow What is that That God commands a man to know an vntruth to assure himselfe of that which neuer shall be For God being truth cannot command falshood to be taken for truth Nether tell me here for who art thou that disputest with God for this is a ruled case in diuinity God cānot doe things which imply contradiction and therefore not make vntruth to be truth or knowledge error Now that this absurdity followes from hence thus I demonstrate it God commands the Reprobate to beleeue For Ioh. 18.8.9 for vnbeleefe the world shall bee condemned but no condemnation but for breach of a commandement 1 Ioh. 3.4 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sinne is the transgression of the law and therefore they are commanded to beleeue I aske you then what it is to beleeue you will say to know to assure Therefore God commands the Reprobates to know and bee assured But this is a blasphemous absurdity therefore is your opinion absurd which infers it 6. That which the wicked may haue cannot be iustifying faith for it is Fides Electorum the faith of the Elect. But the wicked may haue this perswasion yea and many haue beene most confidently perswaded that they are in the fauour of God You will say it is no true perswasion but I say if forme make truth they are as formally and therefore as truly perswaded of it as the godly And therefore if the godly are therefore and for this cause iustified because cause they are strongly perswaded that they are iustified then why should not the wicked likewise be iustified by his strong perswasion But in truth these kind of speeches are vnreasonable and senselesse and so the opinion cannot be reasonable These sixe reasons shall suffice for the present although many more might be added only from hence I gather this Corollary that if iustifying Faith be not a Knowledge or Assurance much lesse is it a full knowledge or full Assurance Nay though we should graunt it to be a knowledge yet is it against Logick to define it by the perfection of knowledg For as there is a strong tree so there is a brused reed as there is a burning lamp so there is smoking flaxe as there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Faith come to full age and maturity so there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Faith in the nonage and minority So therefore to define it were to exclude the weake Faith and to make the Definition narrower and of lesse latitude then the definite Besides it is a most discomfortable doctrine vnto a troubled mind and leads the directest way to desperation for so the palsie hand of Faith should not receiue Christ And were not this to quench fire with oile and to adde Aloes to wormwood and might not hee that thus comforteth be counted one of Iobs miserable comforters Ob. The godly are said to know and to be perswaded yea the Prophet saith Io. 3.14 Ioh. 17.3 Esa 53.11 Heb. 11.1 By his knowledge shall my righteous seruant iustifie many and Faith is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Subsistence and Euidence Ans First I graunt the godly may and ought to know but the question is not of their duty but what it is which iustifies them 2 Secondly to know and so likewise the Verbs of Sence in the Hebrew tongue vsually signifieth not onely an act of the Minde or outward Sence but of the Will and affection also So in the Psalme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 1.6 Mat. 7.13 The Lord knoweth the way of the Righteous and in the Gospell Depart I know you not and elsewhere I will not heare see c. that is God will not so know heare see c. as in fauour to loue or approue And so doe I interprete that of the Prophet Christ being so knowne as to bee embraced and rested vpon by the Will shall iustify many 3 Thirdly that Definition in the eleuenth to the Hebrewes I deny with Peter Martyr and the rest of our Diuines to bee perfect but rather by the Effects to describe it And as for that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subsistence whereon you seeme to stand take this first that the writers of the new Testament vse words in the same sence that the Seuentie Translators doe Secondly that that which in Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expectation that the Septuagint turne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in Ruth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ruth 1.12 so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrewes shall not be Subsistence but expectation or desire of things that are hoped for But of this umpliandum censeo I pronounce nothing only I conclude his second Faith not to be Iustifying Faith And because you shall not count me singular or alone in this point read M. Foxe in his booke de Christo gratis iustificante and you shall find him earnest against this opinion The third faith is Fides Persone or Personalis meriti Faith of Person or of Personall merit and of this I make the Obiect to be Christ the Mediator meriting the Act of it Fiducia a Rest or Deuolution the Subiect of it the facultie of the Will and not the Vnderstanding the next End of it Iustification the remote End eternall Saluation And thus I
reasons for Other writers saith hee I so read that how much soeuer they excell in holinesse and learning Ep. 19. ad Hieron I doe not therfore thinke any thing to be true because they iudge so but because they perswade me either by those Canonicall Authors or by probable reason not abhorring from truth Bellarmine vpbraiding Illyricus for his Coniectures is thus answered by learned Iunius Contrà Bell. de transl impl 1. c. 11. Bee not so hot I pray you against humane coniectures In a word whether wee would modestly shew our owne opinion or refell anothers wee deale humanely saying it is a coniecture but to vpbraid humane coniectures is meere inhumanity Dan. Cham. de oecum Pont. Nay Daniel Chamier a very learned late writer in his booke de oecumenico Pontifice doth professedly distinguish his arguments into Scripture Coniecture and Testimony and will you therefore say of him as you doe vnto mee that hee doubted of the truth of his cause determined to ensnare poore silly Readers and walked not recto pectore with an vpright conscience Reioinder to Brist reply But so it is I vse the very words of D. Fulk being almost in the same tearmes cauilled withall by blundering Bristow When you can say nothing against my assertion your selfe you would make mee vncertaine of it and say that it is but a light suspicion of mine because in one place before I come to the sound proofe of it I say it is a probable coniecture And doth it follow therefore that I doubt of it because I offer a probable coniecture vnto other mens vnderstanding before by order of discourse I am brought to the manifest probation of it Well yet if Probable like you not those that follow are Necessary and I feare mee you will bee able to say little to them that leaue this without answer and the weaker the argument the more disgrace to bee graueld by it But my purpose in vsing both was for the more strength and perswasion for as Pindar saith It is the surest and safest way in a tempestuous night to cast out of the ship two ankers Olymp. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6. Treatise 2. Arg. That which is in time after iustifying Faith cannot bee that Faith This is vndeniable But this Particular knowledge is in time after that Faith This I proue out of 1 Ioh. 5.13 These things haue I written vnto you that belieue in the name of the Sonne of God that yee may know that yee haue Eternall life Behold Belieuing goes before and Knowledge comes after As for that which followeth in the same verse and that yee may belieue I interprete it of Perseuerance and growth in Faith Howsoeuer Belieuing and Knowing are here distinguished and therefore are not all one N. B. I deny your Minor neither doth that place of S. Iohn helpe you ought as wee shall see anon I tell you that iustifying Faith is a Particular Knowledge though in other tearmes by vs vsed and by the Scripture set downe So that where you say a man first belieueth and then knoweth wee say hee beleeueth that is hee particularly knoweth apprehendeth and applieth Christ to himselfe perpetually and liuely to his saluation So that Belieuing and particular knowing himselfe to bee elected are one and that it is this knowledge thus I argue I. D. Before you come to bestow a word or two vpon the Minor which you deny you thinke it good like a cunning and subtle disputer flatly to deny the Conclusion and peremptorily to auouch the Contradictory vnto it then very prodigally to wast a multitude of words in the proofe thereof A maruelous policy I promise you vtterly disabling me from farther replying for as much as Logicke it selfe giues no precept how a man may reply vpon him who denies the Conclusion and taking the Contradictory thereof as granted goes about thereby to disproue the Premises For so doe you when you say Faith is a knowledge and therefore goes not afore knowledge my reason being contrarily framed thus Faith goes before knowledge therefore is not knowledge Doubtles had you not had the heart of Zenodotus Martial and the liuer of Crates as the Poet saith you could neuer haue stumbled vpon so politicke a deuise But let vs heare your reasons N. B. What soeuer iustifieth a man is Faith Darij Esa 53.11 But particular knowledge iustifieth a man Therfore particular knowledge is Faith I proue the Minor out of the Scripture By the knowledge of himselfe saith the Lord shall my righteous seruant justify many Lo M. Downe here the knowledge of Christ iustifieth a man and is the same in effect and working that Faith is and therefore are they both one which you make to bee twaine by distinction and originall Your speech helpeth Bellarmine that saith Faith may bee rather in ignorantiá implicitâ in an ignorance couched then in explicitâ cognitione a discouered knowledge Tom. 3. de iustif l. 5. c. 7. I. D. Iud. 14.18 Seeing here you plow with my heifer as Samson sometime said vnto the Philistines how is it that you read not my riddle also I meane hauing borrowed this Obiection from my Treatise why take you not from thence the answer also Surely that you vrge the one so eagerly and so diligently suppresse the other I know no cause but this you knew not how to reply vnto it and therefore I will by your fauor repeate the same againe vntil you find out some forcible reason to driue me from it The verbs of vnder standing and sence in the Hebrew tongue signifie not onely the acts of them but of the will and affections also So Psal 1.6 the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous And Depart I know you not And I will not heare see c. that is God will not so know heare see as to loue and approue And so may I interpret that of the Prophet Christ being so knowne as to bee embraced and rested on by the will shall iustifie many Adde now that it is neither necessary nor likely your Particular knowledge should bee here ment for the Obiect of the Prophets knowledge is no other then Christ but the Obiect of your knowledge is your owne selfe or your present state in grace and future Saluation And what a senselesse speech doe you put into the mouth of the Prophet for by your glosse it is as if hee should say My righteous seruant by making many to know that they are already iustified shall bring many vnto that which already they haue namely iustification But Esay had in him both the Spirit of Wisdome and the Tongue of Eloquence and therefore pardon me if I cannot thinke he vsed to speake non-sense like you Where you say my speech helpeth Bellarmine who saith Faith may bee rather in ignorantiâ implicitâ in an ignorance couched then in explicitâ cognitione a discouered knowledge First Bellarmine hath no such words neither I thinke did hee euer dreame
fo◠〈◊〉 second question I thinke you will confesse pardon â—ee if I thinke amisse that you haue not skill enough with vnderstanding to read the Greeke Fathers in their Original but are faine to trust vnto Translations But I beseech you doe not Translators many times what through ignorance or neglicence or wilfulnesse mistake and peruert the meaning of their Author L. 2. c. 1. Ruffinus translated the Ecclesiasticall history of Eusebius and in it this passage of Clemens that Peter Iames and Iohn although Christ preferred them almost before all yet they tooke not the honour of Primacy to themselues but ordained Iames who was surnamed Iust Bishop of the Apostles A shrewd testimony for the Primacy of Iames against that of Peter but the error is in the translation the Greeke Eusebius hauing not Bishop of the Apostles but Bishop of Hierusalem Yet Marianus Scotus citeth the same out of Methodius iust according to Ruffins translation from whence perhaps it was taken Hist l. 2. c. 23. Eusebius himselfe in expresse tearmes affirmeth the Epistle of S. Iames to be Spurious but your Chrystopherson renders it so as if he had meant that not himselfe but some others in the Church had so esteemed it in former times And lastly not to stand longer vpon this point that very translation of Cyrillus Alexandrinus which you haue made by Trapezuntius you haue little reason much to trust vnto For as Bonauentura Vulcanius sheweth Praef. Ann. it is a very disorderly one wherein many things are omitted much is added of his owne and much peruersly translated To conclude therefore seeing the writings of the Fathers haue so many wayes and so notoriously beene abused by addition by subtraction by alteration by misquotation by mistranslation it followeth that infallible certainty from them you can haue none and so consequently that you cannot safely build your Faith vpon them To proceed the Scriptures you say are obscure and ambiguous and therefore you may not rest vpon them saue onely as they are expounded of the Fathers If so then if the Fathers also bee obscure and ambiguous neither may you rest your Faith vpon them Now certainly the Fathers are as darke and doubtfull as the Scripture If you thinke otherwise doe but read the works of Tertullian and Arnobius and let me afterward know your minde For my part I see no reason why the Scripture should bee more subiect to diuersity of interpretations according to the difference of times as Cardinall Cusan impiously affirmeth Ep. 2. 7. Cont. Whit. l. 2. p. 45. and Duraeus the Iesuit impudently defendeth then the writings of the Fathers What doe wee not vouch the Fathers on both sides are we not as confident vpon them as you whence commeth this I beseech you if they bee so cleere that no doubt can bee made of them And why doe you professe in your Flemish Expurgatorie Index that in ancient Catholike Writers yee tolerate many errors yee extenuate and excuse them and often deny them by deuising some shift and faining a sence vnto them when they are opposed against you What need I say all these tricks and fetches if there bee no obscurity in them If literall and Grammaticall construction may cary it the Fathers are directly ours and wee suppose they ment as they wrote neither can you make any shew of answer vnlesse you fall to expound the meaning of them And so as you remoue your Faith from the letter of the Scripture vnto the exposition of the Fathers so must you of force remoue the same againe from the letter of the Fathers vnto some other tribunall to determine the sence and meaning thereof Giue mee leaue to declare this by some few examples That Faith only iustifies Origen Cyprian Eusebius Caesariensis Hilary Basil Chrysostome Ambrose Augustin Cyril Primasius Hesychius Gennadius Oecumenius in expresse tearmes affirme agreeing therein with vs whose words I will not fayle to produce whensoeuer you shall require Against hauing of Images in Churches and the Adoration of them wee haue the precise words not onely of Lactantius and Epiphanius and other Fathers seuerally Epist ad Ioh. Hicrosol but nineteene Bishops together in the Councell of Eliberis and of the whole Councell of Frankford vnder Charles the Great Against the Bishop of Romes supremacy wee haue the plaine resolution of Pope Gregory Lib. 6. ep 30. that he is the forerunner of Antichrist whosoeuer desires to bee called Vniuersall Bishop And of the Generall Councell of Chalcedon Act. 16. giuing to the Bishop of Constantinople equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome And of two hundred seuenteene Bishops in the sixt Councell of Carthage among whom were Saint Augustin Prosper Gresians and many other worthy Fathers all decreeing that the Pope of Rome thenceforward should haue no authority ouer the African Churches Finally against Transubstantiation thus writeth Gelasius himselfe a Bishop of Rome De dâ—ab nat con Euâ—ych The Sacraments of the Body and Bloud of CHRIST which we receiue is a diuine thing wherefore by them wee are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet the substance of bread and wine ceaseth not to bee Thus also Theodoret Dial. 1. Hee who hath called meat and drinke that which naturally is his body and after cals himselfe a Vine he himselfe hath honoured the visible signes with the name of his Body and Bloud hauing not changed their nature but hauing added grace vnto nature And againe Dial. 10. The signes mysticall change not their nature after consecration for they remaine in their first substance figure and forme Hom. 11. Chysostom likewise if hee bee the Authour of the imperfect worke on Math. In the sacred vessels there is not the true Body of CHRIST but the mystery of his Body And Saint Augustin The Lord doubted not to say This is my Body Con. Adimant c. 12. when he gaue the signe of his Body Thus the Fathers in these few points neither is it hard to shew the like consent in the rest What Will you now subscribe vnto their words yea being taken in the right sense But who shall iudge of the 〈◊〉 on vnderstand them one way we another Shall 〈◊〉 learned Rabbies of your side Fic that were too partiall and they so enterfere in their answers that they cut and hew one the other miserably Reuerend Bishop Morton hath demonstrated this at large Preambleâ—ng Mitigator Take one of his examples The Councell of Bâ—â—beris forbiddeth the hauing of Images in Churches Do Imagin l. 2. c. 9. and Adoration of them Of Images representing Gods nature faith Andradâ—â—s No saith Bellarmine for such were not then in vse For feare test Gentiles should thinke Christians warshipped them idolatrously saith Sanders But the reason of the Canon agreeth not much with this exposition saith Bellarmine Because Christians seemed to worship those Images as Gods Ibid. saith Alen Cope But this exposition is not agreeable to the Canon saith
Againe may not I with as good reason as you argue thus The state and Kingdome of Antichrist cannot be compleate without the authority of Ciuill Magistrates Ergo Ciuill Magistrates are Antichristian If this kinde of reasoning bee not good neither is yours for they are both of one mould Lastly Antichristianity being a Mysterie and not an Heathnish or Turkish opposition vnto Christ it cannot be compleate except it retaine many of Christs ordinances which therefore I trust you will not say to bee Antichristian A lie cannot subsist but vpon truth nor euill but in good nor Antichrists hypocrisie but vpon the Religion and discipline of Christ And thus haue I fully answered your first argument whereon I haue been the longer because it is the Basis and ground as it were of all the rest and the answer thereunto will in a manner serue them all or the most part of them Your second argument is this 2 Because it cannot be approued by the testament of Christ as the Ministrie had in his Church may and ought to bee * Eph. 4.11.12 1. Cor. 12.4.5.6.28.29 Ro. 12.7.8 1. Tim. 3. 5.3.9.17 6.13.14 And if such as could not proue by their genealogie that they were of Aaron were deposed from their Ministrie under Moses Law * Ezr. 2.62.63 Heb. 3.2.3 2.1.2.3 12.25 much more should such bee now deposed as haue not their offices warranted by Christs Testament If wee reduce your argument into forme it is this That Ministrie which cannot bee approued by the Testament of Christ is not to bee allowed in the Church But the Ministrie of the Church of England cannot bee approued by the Testament of Christ Ergo it is not to bee allowed in the Church The Minor which you might be sure we would deny you haue left naked to the wide world without proofe the Maior which you saw wee could not well deny you endeauour to fortifie with a double reason Let it be supposed then that it is denied how proue you it First The Ministerie had in the Church may and ought to bee so approued How doth this appeare By the places quoted in the margent Nothing lesse They approue indeed certaine officers in the Church but affirme not that euery officer ought to bee so approued Secondly if say you such as could not deriue their genealogy from Aaron were deposed much more are they to be deposed who cannot warrant their offices by Christs Testament A poore argument God wot For in the law there was an expresse commandment that none might execute the Priests office but hee that was of the linage of Aaron but that no office might bee admitted nor retained in the Church vnlesse it were so commanded I find no where in Scripture Wherefore to argue thus Nothing that is against Gods Word may bee allowed Ergo nor any thing that is not commanded is a plaine Non sequitur and it followes not Thus you see if a man were so disposed how easie it is to quarell with your Maior which yet simply I deny not Briefly therefore to cleare all I distinguish of these tearmes Approued and Warranted by the Word A thing may bee said to bee warranted or approued by the Word two wayes both when it is commanded and when it is not forbidden for things neither commanded nor forbidden are indifferent and subiect vnto the Churches power Hereupon thus I answer if you meane it in the former sence only then proue your Maior that what is not by commandment approued is vnlawfull if in the latter then I grant you the Maior that whatsoeuer is forbidden is vnlawfull But withall I deny the Minor that Archbishops Bishops Priests are forbidden requiring you to proue it which I know you can neuer doe For as touching so much of their dutie as is common to them all to wit the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments they are all Pastors and Teachers and so warranted in the Texts by you quoted but in regard of preeminence and superiority one aboue another Bishops are no other then were the Angels of the seuen Churches as wee haue aboue demonstrated Howsoeuer if Bishops bee not commanded yet are they not forbidden and their office making not against edification but for it rather it cannot being ordained by the Church but be lawfull Your third argument 3 Because the Church is the Spouse Kingdome and Body of Christ and therefore may not haue Antichrists Hierarchie and ministrie set ouer it or retained in it For what concord hath Christ with Beliall Antichrists Hierarchie and Ministrie may not beset ouer the Church nor retained in it Archbishops Bishops Priests are Antichrists Hierarchie and Ministrie Ergo Archbishops Bishops Priests may not bee set ouer the Church nor retained in it The Maior of this Syllogisme you are very carefull to maintaine because the Church is the Spouse the Kingdome the Body of Christ as also because there can bee no concord betwixt Christ and Belial But to what end all this and with such a stirre to proue that which no man gainsayes for wee confesse Christs Kingdome may not be gouerned by Antichrists policie You should rather haue laboured to strengthen the Minor that Archbishops Bishops and Priests are Antichrists Hierarchie and Ministrie for you might be well assured wee would neuer yeeld you that vnlesse by strength of reason you constrained vs. Here therefore against the rule of Logicke againe you beg the principall matter in question taking for granted that those offices are meerely Antichristian But you must proue it and not looke that whatsoeuer you fancie to be true others vpon your bare word must presently belieue and take to bee true See the answer to the first argument I proceed to the fourth 4 If when a King substituteth Iudges Iustices c. no subiects may either refuse to bee gouerned by these or set ouer themselues officers of other Kingdomes as the Roman tribunes c. how can it be lawfull for any Christians c. It is an old saying that Symbolical diuinitie is no argumēt of proofe and that Similitudes serue rather to illustrate and cleare a mans meaning then to proue and conuince the vnderstanding In regard whereof if I had so pleased I might well haue sleighted this fourth reason and not haue vouchsafed it any answere at all For what is it other then a bare and naked Similitude neuertheles for further satisfaction let vs trie the strength thereof Two things you auouch first that Christians may not refuse to bee gouerned by those officers which Christ hath set ouer them secondly that Christians may not set ouer themselues officers of Antichrists kingdome The former I confesse is true but nothing to the purpose For we reiect not the officers ordained by Christ nor refuse to be gouerned by them If we doe so haue all Churches also done downe from S. Iohns time vnto this present age within which compasse you cānot name any one Church at any time moulded after
Entire Faith by which the whole sauing truth is belieued and professed And this againe either in Vnity or in Schisme in Vnity with other Churches of God or in Schisme with Separation from them Now all these and eueryone of them are of the Christian Church for they are neither Gentiles nor Iewes nor Turks being by the calling of grace brought to the profession of the Christian Religion But yet among them there is exceeding great difference for they that hold the entire truth of Christ are of that Christian Church which is called Oxthodoxall they that hold it in part onely are of that Christian Church which is Hereticall They that entirely hold the truth in Vnity with other Churches of God are of that Christian Orthodoxall Church which is Catholicke they that hold the same whole truth in Separation from them are of that Christian Orthodoxall Church which is Schismaticall And such is the Church of Brownists to which you haue adioyned your selfe But they who hold the whole truth of Christ not onely in Vnity but also in Sincerity being truly iustified by Faith and Sanctified in the lauour of Regeneration they I say are of that Christian Orthodoxall Catholicke Church which is Inuisible and knowne only vnto God For although both the persons and profession of those that are thus called be visible and may by outward sense bee discerned whereby in the eye of Charity they are to bee counted Gods elect people yet the inward truth and sincerity of the heart is to vs inuisible and seene of none but onely him who trieth the heart and raines and so alone knoweth who are his These distinctions thus promised I come at length to answer your Syllogisme and demand of you which of these Callings it is that you meane If the last whereby wee haue receiued entirely to belieue the whole truth of Christ and that not onely in Vnity but also in Sincerity and with a sanctified heart then I deny the Maior for it is not the Visible but the Inuisible Church alone that cōsists of such members Neither can such a Visible Church bee found vpon the face of the earth for here corne and cockle chaffe and wheat Saints and hypochrits are mingled together neither can you affirme other of that Church whereunto now you associate your selfe If you meane any other of the Callings aboue mentioned or all of them besides this last then I deny your Minor For here in England wee are a company of people to whom not onely grace hath beene offered but who also haue receiued grace to belieue the truth of Christ and therefore are not Infidels but of the Church of Christ Againe we haue receiued to belieue the whole truth and therefore are an Oxthodoxall not an Hereticall Church Lastly wee hold the whole truth of God in Unity with other Churches and amongst vs there are thousands also who professe the same with sincere and sanctified hearts and therefore wee are not a Schismaticall as you are but a true Catholicke Church This Minor thus denied you goe not about to strengthen with so much as one argument and yet hither should you haue bent all your forces About the Maior you bestow a little more paines endeuouring to fortify it with sixe reasons which although they bee to little purpose yet to giue you the more satisfaction let vs briefly examine them And first that which is in order first 1. Cor. 12.27 Exod. 19.5.6 1. Cor. 14.33 1. Tim. 3.15 Mat. 13.24.31 Psal 46.4.5.80.1 1. Pet. 2.5.9 Rev. 1.11.12.13.20 1. Because a true visible Church is the body of Christ a Kingdome of Priests a Church of Saints the houshold of God the Kingdome of heauen the Citie of God the sheep of the Lord a chosen generation a golden Candlestick c. These titles properly belong vnto the inuisible Church consisting of those who are effectually called by sauing grace And when they are said affirmed of any visible Church you must vnderstand that the denomination is in regard of the better part thereof namely those Saints who haue receiued the spirit of adoption the earnest penny of their euerlasting inheritance not that no euill men are mixed with them In Corinth and Galatia as there were many holy and faithfull seruants of God so were there many lewd and vngodly men also for it is well knowen that they were much pestered both with error in doctrine and corruption in manners And yet the Apostle S. Paul neuer sticketh at it to acknowledge them visible Churches which I am sure he would not haue done had he thought that the mixture of bad and good in the same society did nullify a Church Nay rather if he had beene of your humour he would haue aduized a separation 1. How should it els haue Christ for the Prophet Priest Heb. 3.1.2.3 5 6.9 12.28 Mat. 28.18.19.20 Ps 110.1.4.1 Pet. 2.4.5.25 Act. 2.41.47 Eph. 1.22.23.2.19.22 King thereof or how should men know where to ioine and become members of the body of Christ with assurance to haue him their head c. It is the Inuisible Church the Church of the first borne as S. Paul calleth it whose names are enrolled in heauen Heb. 12.23 vnto which Christ properly and vniuocally is a Prophet Priest and King For he is a Head in such manner vnto those only who are knit together with him in the same mysticall body by the vnity of the same spirit and to whom hee communicateth from himselfe the sweet influence of life sense motion euen grace for grace Ioh. 1.16 as S. Iohn speaketh Is he not then a Head also of the visible Church yes as it is a Church it is a Church equiuocally and so is Christ the Head thereof For hypocrits and wicked men mingled with the good are not members of Christ as Ambrose saith but of the diuell and therefore Christ properly is not their Head Head and Body being Correlatiues Who are Elected and by true Iustifying Faith are ingrafted into Christs body you may charitably iudge but cannot certenly know for God only knoweth who are his Neuertheles where you see a Society of men professing entirely and in vnity the truth of Christ ioine your selfe vnto them knowing that they are a Christian orthodoxall Catholick Church And assure your selfe that there are among them sundry who are the deare Saints of God and professe the truth in sincerity and vprightnes of heart also which if you shall do together with them you need not doubt but you shall haue Christ to be your head Mat. 28.18.19.20 2. Cor. 6.17.18 Lev. 26.11.12 Ps 46.4.5 Es 59.20.21 Ez. 37.27.28 48.35 3. How should it els haue assurance of the promises seales of Gods Couenant presence and blessing to belong and appertaine vnto them The promises of Christ are proclaimed in such mixed companies vnto all on condition of faith repentance though actually performed vnto those only who actually haue performed the condition by repenting and